The BMA has called for an “independent body” to investigate and recommend a structure for a reformed General Medical Council if the current negotiations between the council and the profession's representatives fail to result in a satisfactory conclusion.
The BMA's annual meeting in Bournemouth last week passed the motion as a reference after the chairman of the council, Dr Ian Bogle, reported that further talks were due to take place this month. The BMA's council will discuss any new proposals on 18 July, and the GMC will hold a special meeting to finalise the proposals.
The meeting agreed that the GMC should remain a professionally led organisation but stopped short of calling for the immediate resignation of the president, Sir Donald Irvine, who has already announced that he will retire early next year (2 June, p 1323).
An amendment for the president's resignation to have immediate effect was thrown out. Dr Roger Chapman, a GP in Leighton Buzzard, called the proposal “ill conceived, divisive, and damaging.” And a GP in Birmingham and a GMC member, Dr Fay Wilson, said that it was “petty and spiteful.” The heated debate ended when representatives voted to move to next business.
Many doctors are unhappy about the GMC's proposed changes to its structure. The GMC wants to see the current council of about 100 members replaced by a two tier structure, consisting of a small executive body of about 25 people (40% lay and 60% medical), holding the council's statutory powers, and a larger conference, which would hold the executive to account. The BMA would prefer to see an executive of about 50 members, with the council's statutory powers invested in a larger council.
Proposing the idea of an independent body to recommend a new structure for the organisation, Dr Edwin Borman, a GMC member, said that many of his colleagues had no confidence in the GMC's ability to reform itself. “We are seeing the biggest crisis since the 1970s,” he said.
The proposed 25 strong executive would be responsible for setting policy and determining the direction of medical regulation. It would, Dr Borman said, be impossible to service all the committees with a majority of elected medical members.
Alexander Macara, a former chairman of the BMA council and also a GMC member, called the GMC's response to the government's intention to take action on the GMC as “craven.” It had come up with something that the government was likely to accept—that is, a much smaller organisation which would be less representative and easier to control. “I'm unhappy,” Dr Macara said, “that we have been driven to finding some sort of compromise. A compromise compromises us.”
Dr Peter Terry, a consultant obstetrician and gynaecologist in Aberdeen, who had proposed the motion of no confidence in the GMC at the 2000 meeting (BMJ 2000;321:69), opposed the motion that the GMC should remain a professionally led organisation.
The “arrogant and incompetent GMC” was said to be professionally led yet it ignored the united view of the profession. “This is not leadership; it is dictatorship,” he said. The motion, that the GMC should remain professionally led, was nevertheless passed.
Figure.
Donald Irvine