Dear General Medical Council,

RE: GMC MPTS concealing GMC false accusations at FTP hearings

Please can you provide agreements or documents, including legal opinions, between the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (MPTS) and General Medical Council (GMC) in relation to the increasing practice of not publishing or formally documenting erroneous accusations by the GMC prosecution at Interim Order Tribunals and, Medical Practitioners Tribunals. To help with expected clarification request, for example but not restricted to; verbal GMC-false-accusations such as factitious arrests / convictions / experiences / events / regulations or breaking-conditions… when made by the General Medical Council. As this appears almost always removed from any written output of any case, including both private and public outcome documents where it is clear the GMC were at fault/deceptive and it has been a significant discussion / incident point during a (recorded!!!) hearing. Please can you provide agreements or documents, including legal opinions for this common occurrence, to selectively remove the related written text in determinations, findings or summary by the MPTS. This is in general and not specific to any case but you may judge some of the specific cases merit disclosures due to the way legal opinions are made.

REQUEST; Please can you provide agreements or documents, including legal opinions, between the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service and General Medical Council; in relation to general concealing / omitting / discounting / not publishing or formally documenting erroneous accusations by the GMC prosecution at Interim Order Tribunals and Medical Practitioners Tribunals.

I look forward to your response within 20 working days as outlined by the Freedom of Information Act 2000 statute.

Yours faithfully,

Dr Ali

Dear Mr Willis (0161 923 6310),

RE: MPTS concealing GMC false accusations at FTP hearings, IR1-3092755466

Thank you for considering the case and the information so far. The information provided is not relevant to my request but it is good to see there is some protection for patient/doctor’s health information but ironically supports publication of information that is embarrassing to a doctor due to reputation or strength of evidence. The latter, in relation to my request, can be argued includes embarrassing information to the GMC which is currently censored as it supports the strength of a doctors evidence, not just weak evidence from a doctor. The GMC publishes under the power to disclose information about doctors’ fitness to practise on the basis of public interest, this power is set out in section 35B(2) of the Medical Act 1983.

However, my request is about embarrassing information for the GMC and MPTS with the MPTS concealing GMC's false accusations at FTP hearings. Whom as joint publishers remove embarrassing information when transcripts/recording/notes would indicate this clearly should not have occurred. The information is clearly relevant to a FTP finding but is also very embarrassing for the GMC (regardless of how subtle), in GMC being found to be dishonest themselves during a hearing. It is double standards but when GMC deceit, lack of probity by the GMC has an impact on an outcome for a doctor FTP, when it is clearly in the Public interest for that information to be published. Further, often has an adverse impact on the health of practitioners in not publishing the information, this then has a negative impact upon the profession.

My request is: Please can you provide agreements or documents, including legal opinions (ultimately paid by doctors including me), between the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service and General Medical Council; in relation to general concealing / omitting / discounting / not publishing or formally documenting erroneous accusations by the GMC prosecution at Interim Order Tribunals and Medical Practitioners Tribunals.

I am not asking for change, but information to understand the current arrangement as I am not fully aware.

If you are refusing to provide the information then please say so. If the information/policy is not in a form that is publishable, due to being word of mouth or, aggregation of high court actions against the MPTS, or more subtle like not re-employing particular members of staff if the information is not removed then I can understand, but you should indicate so.

Please as expected, escalate to an internal review, I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours sincerely,

Dr Ali

Dear Lauren Barrowcliffe, GMC FOI assistant,

A request was made on the 13 June 2021 with a full reply expected before 9 July 2021. Although auto-acknowledgements were immediate, you acknowledged 15th June. You colleague Simon Willis attempted a tangential response on the 24th June about the publication and redaction policies which do not address this frequent action of Omission/Concealing (and apparent collusion by the GMC which ‘is’ a non-independent organisation to the MPTS, to any sensible person). I requested an internal review 24 June for which you acknowledge 28 June. I would appreciate a response by 26 July 2021 prior to expected need for escalation due to refusal. Please re-read the initial request and direct to your seniors as needed.

Yours sincerely,

Dr Ali

Dear Julian Graves (0161 923 6351),

RE: Complaint of MPTS concealing GMC false accusations at FTP hearings

Thank you for your email and attachment on behalf of the GMC and MPTS (one organisation). You highlight that the above information is not held by the GMC or the MPTS. It concludes the FOI background step. I request this is now treated as a complaint.

Information you have provided does raise the very serious concern, why is this apparent concealing behaviour being done by the MPTS on behalf of the GMC, if there has been no such agreement. The behaviour would not be reciprocated with the defendant/doctor (where there is documentation that such action cannot occur regardless of embarrassment). The prosecution and defence are not treated equally which makes MPTS Tribunals very much a farce. My personal opinion is that the MPTS functions should be expunged from the GMC and set in a separate independent cross-professional organisation but you cannot do anything about that and the GMC will not. It may be that the Professional Standards Authority or another body such as the Parliamentary and health Service Ombudsman would be the appropriate group to raise concerns to. However, due process needs to be followed before such steps are taken.

I would like to complain about the above process/actions, of the MPTS concealing information and, the MPT not treating the defence and prosecution equally. I understand the response is likely non-specific or their will be a refusal to the complaint. I thus seek advice as to whom / where post-complaint outcome should be directed, as the complaint is not about individual cases but institutional Fitness to Practice behaviour against all doctors (with an increase against those from Black and Asian communities from information available to me).

Yours sincerely,

Dr Ali

Dear Dawn Magill (0161 240 7101),

Thank you for your previous August 2021 email in response to me actually making a complaint. Full open and candid details of the complaint can be found on:
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/m...
and https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/r...

Please can you provide the final outcome document for the complaint, if possible also highlight any reflections and good practice your organisation has since implemented.

Yours sincerely,

Dr Ali

Dear Lucy Robinson,

Thank you for your email, there is only one theme in this complaint; The MPTS concealing GMC false accusations at FTP hearings. That is the complaint, the links provide further information and it is not a request for signposting.

The complaint is in relation to the generic MPTS Hearing output behaviour of selectively habitually concealing GMC prosecuting false accusations, factoids and plain lies. This is bad practice and the GMC are increasingly taking advantage of this, as part of their prosecution tactic. The complaint is about the MPTS concealing GMC false accusations at most FTP hearings, it is not in relation to any one hearing although you clearly have to look at the hearings individually to see the almost generic action.

This is whilst regarding the same type of issues, if it was to occur with the Defense then it has to be noted and published, where the GMC may then seek further investigation and sanction. Given the disproportionate approach, I realise the MPTS panel cannot act against its GMC employer but it still should correctly document, which increasingly appears not happening over several years. An apparent lack of commitment to transparency about processes and decisions appears present. The FOI request I had previously sent as links to you provide open and transparent related exploration.

I do not feel I need to tell you what Equality does and should mean, the prosecution and defense are not treated equally which as it is not happening. Having discussed such actions with other doctors, on behalf of all doctors past and present whom have been at the MPTS, I request the MPTS urgently take action and ideally document its action / instructions to MPT panels, openly and transparently for any doctor to see. If it pleases you, you can substitute this email as the complaint.

Yours sincerely,

Dr Ali