As the costs of our legal case mount, fighting the GMC to ensure that safe and legal practice measures for Physician Associates and Anaesthesia Associates are in place, we have been wondering where the GMC are getting the money from to fund their defence.

But now we know.

Adrian Ramsey, Green Party MP, asked in a parliamentary question whether the legal costs associated with the case between the General Medical Council and Anaesthetists United regarding regulation of Physician and Anaesthesia Associates will be paid for by a public body.

And the blunt reply came back:

The Government is funding the General Medical Council (GMC) to undertake the work required to introduce regulations for Anaesthesia Associates (AAs) and Physician Associates (PAs), to avoid doctors paying for this through their registrant fees.

A longstanding principle underpinning the introduction of statutory regulation for new professions is that all related-costs, including legal challenges to that work, should be funded by the Government, to avoid other professions cross-subsidising the work involved.

So rather than striving to ensure safe practice for patients, the government is instead bankrolling the GMC, using taxpayers money, to ensure that the scope of practice for PAs and AAs is not set nationally and is determined instead by local employers. Why does the Government not wish to compel the GMC to ensure safe and lawful practice measures are in place? 

No wonder they have refused to mediate. They’ve got deep pockets and plenty of cash which they can use to ensure our voices are not heard.

Now, more than ever, we need to raise funds to keep our legal team going.

If every Consultant, SAS Doctor and GP were to give us £100, and every resident made a smaller contribution, we could quickly hit our targets. Please help us protect standards of care.

But what about the Leng review?

Yes, we are aware that Professor Leng has been asked to chair a review of Associates. We are delighted to see that this review is happening; we shall be giving evidence to it and encouraging patients and other doctors to do so. But it is just a review. Even though it might lead to some sort of change, hopefully for the better, it is unlikely to report before Easter.

In the meantime, GMC regulation is starting before Xmas and, we believe, it will be regulating unlawfully by not introducing the safe and lawful practice measures that we want. And the Court’s role is to look at things now, not how they might possibly be at some point in the future.

The GMC has not sought to place the proceedings on hold. Maybe they believe the review won’t change anything. Maybe they know that a ‘review’ cannot compel them to anyway. And, even if the government accepts the result of the review, then it might take a further year before they can amend the relevant legislation.

Therefore it is crucial that our case gets heard on an expedited basis.