BMA to begin legal action against Government over GMC regulation ‘U-turn’

The BMA is preparing legal action against the Government over its proposal for the GMC to retain the right to appeal fitness-to-practise decisions. 

In a letter before action, the union announced it will seek a judicial review against the health secretary as it claimed that the Government ‘deliberately misled’ the public in the ongoing consultation on the draft GMC Order 2026. 

The order includes recommendations for the GMC to gain new powers to challenge interim decisions made by the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (MPTS), as well as retaining its right to appeal MPTS decisions. 

Currently, the GMC appeals in cases where it feels an MPTS sanction of a doctor has not sufficiently protected the public. It had been expected that the proposed legislation would strip the GMC of this right, before the Government’s apparent U-turn on the issue earlier this year.    

The BMA said the Government ‘misrepresented’ Lord Mann’s review into antisemitism in the NHS by claiming the review had recommended the GMC should retain its right to appeal.  

According to the union, the Government consultation ‘misrepresented the Mann Review recommendation – which says that the Government should consult on whether [original emphasis] to retain the GMC’s right to appeal, rather than specifically recommending it be retained’.  

While the Government’s consultation, which was based on the Mann Review, was published on 24 March 2026, the review document itself was published on 4 June.  

The union has argued this meant many respondents to the consultation were responding based on the ‘misrepresentation’ rather than the review’s actual wording. 

The BMA said: ‘Many stakeholders will have already responded to the consultation based on incomplete and inaccurate information, and now only have a very short window to consider the actual Mann Review recommendations. 

‘We are clear that the proposal to retain the GMC’s right to appeal should be removed. Falling short of that, the Government needs to re-consult with accurate and comprehensive information. 

‘Respondents to the consultation could not be expected to respond meaningfully given that the full details of what Lord Mann was recommending were not available until two months into the consultation period – just two weeks before it ends on 23 June – rendering the consultation unlawful.’ 

The union has demanded that the health secretary should ‘at the very least agree to remove from the draft GMC Order 2026 the provisions relating to the GMC’s right of appeal and to re-consult on this issue’.  

While the health secretary would be the defendant in the case, the BMA said the GMC, Professional Standards Authority (PSA), and Scottish health ministers are also named as ‘interested parties’. 

BMA council deputy chair Dr Emma Runswick said: ‘The removal of the GMC’s right to appeal was recommended by the Williams Review in 2018 and backed by every government since.

‘Now this U-turn, which is based on an entirely false premise, will only further erode the trust and confidence that the medical profession has in its regulator and will do nothing to protect patient safety. 

‘The Professional Standards Authority, as the regulators’ regulator, already has the right to appeal decisions by the MPTS, so retaining and expanding the GMC’s rights is not only unfair, but also unnecessary. 

‘Having now seen the full Mann Review, we can only conclude that the Government deliberately intended to mislead people in its consultation on the changes. 

‘When trust and confidence in the GMC is so low, there is an opportunity for meaningful reform that will both support doctors and protect patients. However, the process so far indicates that this opportunity is being completely wasted.’ 

The BMA has asked the secretary of state to respond to its letter ‘within 14 days’. 

A Department of Health and Social Care spokesperson told Pulse: ‘The Mann Review recommends consulting on whether the GMC should retain its right to appeal against fitness to practise decisions – that is exactly what the government is now doing.

‘This proposal is intended to ensure oversight of decision-making at all key points in the fitness to practice process, and we welcome stakeholder views on this matter.’

A Scottish Government spokesperson told Pulse: ‘This is the subject of legal proceedings and we are therefore unable to comment.’

In its own response to the consultation, the BMA warned that the proposed reforms to the GMC fail to address ‘fundamental’ issues raised by doctors and risk giving the regulator ‘one-sided powers.

It said it supported the findings of the previous Government’s 2018 ‘rapid review’ which said the GMC should be stripped of the powers, in the aftermath of the Dr Hadiza Bawa-Garba case. 

The BMA has also signed a letter sent to health minister Karin Smyth this week, claiming the Government’s proposals to retain and expand the GMC’s appeal powers ‘risks prolonging proceedings and creating uncertainty’. 

Organised by the MPS, the letter argued that providing ‘the GMC and the PSA both with parallel rights of appeal creates unnecessary duplication, inconsistency, and complexity to the regulatory system, with the potential for the two bodies to undermine one another’.

It was signed by 13 organisations also including the MDDUS, MDU and DAUK.

Following on from this, the DAUK has now also (17 June) said they have instructed solicitors and is ‘considering’ its ‘position alongside the BMA’ on the case.

DAUK co-chair Dr Matt Kneale said: ‘Eight years ago, after the Williams Review, the government accepted that the GMC should lose its power to appeal tribunal decisions – the very power used against Dr Bawa-Garba, which did such lasting damage to doctors’ trust in the GMC.

‘For ministers now to quietly retain and even extend that power, through a consultation that doctors say misrepresents the evidence and gives them too little to respond to, breaks that promise.

‘We have taken legal advice and, alongside the BMA, we are actively considering our next steps.’