GMC neutral on retaining FtP appeals right but warns against regulatory ‘overlap’

The GMC has said it is neutral on proposals to retain its right to appeal GP fitness-to-practise decisions – but warned against an ‘overlap’ of new powers with other regulators. 

This is contained in the regulator’s own response to the Government’s consultation on reforming it.

The consultation recommended that the GMC retains its right to appeal fitness-to-practise final decisions. It also recommended granting both the GMC and Professional Standards Authority (PSA) new powers to challenge interim MPTS decisions.   

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 – leading to the threat of a legal challenge from the BMA.  

On retaining its appeal decisions, the GMC said its position was ‘neither agree nor disagree’, but indicated the validity of the previous Government’s plans to remove the right to appeal, and the current Government’s proposal to retain these powers. 

It said: ‘The Williams review into gross negligence manslaughter in healthcare had previously recommended that the GMC right of appeal against medical practitioner tribunal decisions should be removed, a recommendation which the Government accepted.  

‘The proposal to retain the GMC right of appeal for registration measure decisions by tribunals, and the introduction of a new appeal right for interim registration measures, is therefore a government decision, which we understand to have arisen from the Mann review recommendations. We note the rationale provided for this proposal in the report of the Review.  

‘In the meantime, we will continue to exercise any appeal powers carefully and proportionately to protect the public.’ 

However, the GMC also warned in its response against the ‘overlap’ of sharing new powers to appeal interim decisions with the PSA. 

It said: ‘While we do recognise the additional safeguards that this new power will provide, the effectiveness of this measure will depend on the extent to which the legislation deals with the potential overlap between the PSA and GMC right of appeals.  

‘We would suggest that the GMC Order includes wording similar to s40B of the Medical Act (1983), which deals with the existing overlap for final measure appeals.’ 

The Medical Act ensures that if the GMC appeals a decision, the PSA cannot make its own separate appeal – although the PSA can become a ‘party to the appeal’.

Elsewhere in the consultation response, the regulator said some of the proposals treated doctors harsher than the other two professions it regulates – physician associates and anaesthesia associates.

It welcomed the proposal to introduce a complete restriction on practice but noted that it only applied to doctors. 

It said: We think that it is important for this to be extended to all of the three professions we regulate to ensure a clear, consistent approach and to avoid inequity in how different registrant groups who share protected characteristics are treated.’ 

And while the GMC said it neither agreed nor disagreed with a transition period to formally change the ‘associate’ role titles to ‘assistant’, it suggested the likely deadline of June 2027 could be moved forward. 

‘We note that the cumulative effect of the new provisions effectively push back the existing transition period that’s currently in place for physician associates and anaesthesia associates from the 13 December 2026 to the 13 June 2027. 

‘Minimising the length of the transition period will… provide greater clarity and certainty to patients and the public, recognising that some professionals may adopt the new titles in advance of the transition period expiring, while others may continue to use the existing titles during this period.’ 

The GMC’s response comes after the BMA announced it was preparing legal action against the Government over the appeals ‘U-turn’.  

The union claimed the Government ‘deliberately misled’ the public by stating that Lord Mann had recommended that the GMC should retain its right to appeal in his review into antisemitism in the NHS.  

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

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

The original deadline to respond to the consultation was 23 June but the Government has extended the deadline by four weeks – until 21 July – to give ‘more time to respond to questions related to the Mann Review’.