Our lawyers Leigh Day have written on our behalf to the GMC, regarding the Medical Training Appointments System (MTAS), Specialty Selection and Recruitment (SSR) and Modernising Medical Careers (MMC).

 
We have also requested that the matter should be referred to the Interim Orders Panel with a view to suspending them from managerial duties pending the outcome of the case, under s.41A of the 1983 Act.
 
We do not invite this action for punitive reasons. We consider such preventative action is an essential step in order to maintain the good reputation of the profession in the eyes of other doctors and the general public, to protect the public and the public purse against future equivalent mismanagement, and to rebuild the shattered trust between the NHS and junior doctors.
 
We have set out the basis of the complaint. The background facts have already been extensively investigated and are in the public domain, in particular in the Douglas report, the Tooke Inquiry, the findings of Mr Justice Goldring in the Remedy UK Judicial Review and the House of Commons Health Select Committee reports. The introduction of MMC was intended to improve and streamline the training of doctors. There is no educational evidence that it would be an improvement on the previous system; on the contrary, there is much writing lately that describes evidence critical of the programme.
 
Many of the problems were caused by the system used for selecting and recruiting doctors. Our specific complaints in relation to SSR/MTAS relate to: the unfitness for purpose of both the computer system and the shortlisting and interviewing system; the lack of piloting and the decision to proceed before it had been shown to be fit for purpose; and the failure to adequately heed or address the risks that were identified in advance. The consequential impact on individual doctors and their patients and on the medical community has been substantial.
 
We have written a detailed outline of the practical impact of the SSR/MTAS failings on the selection process, the consequences of the SSR/MTAS flaws on patient care, junior doctors, and NHS finances. We have also provided a series of public statements to demonstrate that these events have damaged public confidence in medicine in the eyes of the public and amongst other doctors, and have brought the profession into disrepute. And we have listed a series of specific breaches of the “Management for Doctors” guidance.
 
Many of those responsible for these events were registered medical practitioners.
 
Of those involved we believe that the doctors at whom this complaint is directed (“the Proposed Defendants”) were central to the design and decision to implement SSR/MTAS and bear the greatest share for responsibility for its failings. We note that ‘Management for Doctors’ states at paragraph 7 that: “The extent to which you will be held accountable will inevitably depend on the circumstances: your position, the resources available to you and the nature of the problem will all play a part in evaluating the extent and nature of your accountability.”
 
It is now well established that the conduct and performance of medical practitioners in their managerial functions falls within the jurisdiction of the GMC. This is made clear, for example, in ‘Management for Doctors,’ which states at paragraph 4 that: “You continue to have a duty of care for the safety and well-being of patients when you work as a manager. You remain accountable to the GMC for your decisions and actions even when a non-doctor could perform your management role”. The GMC has issued clear guidelines for doctors who take up management roles, and it has taken action in the past against doctors who have failed to maintain public confidence in the profession or to uphold standards in non-clinical roles.
 
The legal basis for this principle is set out most clearly in the case of Roylance v General Medical Council [2000] 1 AC 311, [1999] 3 WLR 541.
 
Dr Roylance was the chief executive of a hospital in which there had been excessive mortality rates of children who underwent cardiac surgery, and was charged with failing to take sufficient action to fully deal with the problem. The GMC convicted him since he could not divorce his duties as a medical practitioner from those as an administrator. Lord Clyde, delivering the judgment of the Court, said at 331F that:
 
“In the present case the critical issue is whether, if there was misconduct, the misconduct was "professional misconduct". As counsel for the respondent pointed out it is not simply clinical misconduct which is in issue. Professional misconduct extends further than that. So it is not simply misconduct in the carrying out of medical work which may qualify as professional misconduct. But there must be a link with the profession of medicine. Precisely what that link may be and how it may occur is a matter of circumstances.”
 
adding at 333G:
 
”in relation to the generality of the problem that the philosophy which seeks to divorce the administration from the medical care so as to leave the administrator free from any responsibility for deficiencies in the care of the sick cannot be sound.”
 
There is also the recent case of Meadow v General Medical Council [2006] EWCA 1390, [2007] QB 462. Professor Sir Roy Meadow was brought before the Fitness to Practice Panel following his work as an expert witness, a case involving no direct clinical care. However, Sir Anthony Clarke MR stated at §45 that:
 
“If the conduct or evidence of an expert witness at or in connection with a trial, whether civil or criminal, raises the question whether that expert is fit to practise in his particular field, the regulatory authorities or FPP should be entitled (and may be bound) to investigate the matter for the protection of the public.”
 
His Lordship also said, at §32, that:
 
“the purpose of FTP proceedings is not to punish the practitioner for past misdoings but to protect the public against the acts and omissions of those who are not fit to practise. The FPP thus looks forward not back. However, in order to form a view as to the fitness of a person to practise today, it is evident that it will have to take account of the way in which the person concerned has acted or failed to act in the past.”
 
These precedents clearly establish that managerial failings of the kind demonstrated by the Proposed Defendants in the adoption and implementation of MTAS may impair their fitness to practice.
 
There is a substantial weight of evidence supporting this case, with consistent evidence from three independent inquiries. There are clear questions to be answered, raising the issue of impaired fitness to practice and warranting full investigation under the FTP procedures.
 
It is clear that this case requires a full investigation. There is a considerable public interest in this affair, because of the high profile of the case and the large sums of public money lost, as well as the lasting damage caused to the staffing and reputation of the NHS in training (both domestically and abroad). Both the public and the affected doctors have a legitimate expectation that these complaints will be publicly investigated. Lastly, justice should be seen to be done. There is therefore no reason for this complaint to fall at any preliminary stage: see R v General Medical Council ex parte Toth [2000] 1 WLR 2209.
 
We are aware that there are significant potential conflicts of interest between individual members of the GMC and those involved in MMC and MTAS. We would ask that steps be taken to avoid such conflicts occurring, and to avoid any appearance or possibility of bias, when the GMC deals with this matter.
 
RemedyUK are joined in making this request for an investigation by 1638 signators, of whom 1520 are doctors. Many of them have added individual comments. If nothing else such comments demonstrate the depth of the continuing anger and injustice felt by many junior and senior doctors as a result of this debacle.

Further support for this call can be made  here