Summary
A draft UK order would preserve the General Medical Council’s power to appeal decisions made by the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service. A BMJ letter says prolonged proceedings can impose a substantial financial burden on doctors.
A draft UK order would preserve the General Medical Council’s (GMC) power to appeal decisions made by the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (MPTS), according to a letter published in The BMJ on 17 September 2026. The letter argues that prolonged proceedings can place a substantial financial burden on doctors.
The proposal appears in the draft General Medical Council Order 2026, which is undergoing consultation. The GMC regulates doctors in the United Kingdom, while the MPTS handles medical-practitioner tribunal proceedings, including decisions about a doctor’s fitness to practise.
A reversal in policy direction
The BMJ letter says the current consultation follows the Mann review, which recommended retaining the GMC’s right to appeal MPTS decisions. That position reverses the policy direction associated with the Williams review of 2018, after which the power was expected to be removed, although the change was subject to considerable delay.
The issue has also drawn calls for the appeal power to be removed. The letter refers to Singh’s call for its removal, while noting that the draft order would instead continue to allow the GMC to challenge tribunal decisions through an appeal.
An appeal can extend a regulatory case beyond the original tribunal decision. Thomas J Murphy, a consultant anaesthetist at Aintree University Hospital in Liverpool, focuses on the effect that prolonged proceedings can have on doctors’ finances. The letter presents this as a concern about the design and consequences of the regulatory process rather than as the result of a quantified cost study.
What the consultation will decide
The immediate question is whether the GMC’s existing appeal power should remain in the final version of the General Medical Council Order 2026. The source describes the measure as a draft order under consultation; it does not report a final decision or give details of any revised wording.
The debate therefore concerns both regulatory oversight and the duration of proceedings faced by doctors. Retaining the power would allow the GMC to continue pursuing appeals against MPTS decisions, while removing it would alter the route by which the regulator could challenge those outcomes. The BMJ letter argues that the financial consequences of lengthy cases should be considered alongside that institutional question.