1. Home
  2. Parties and representatives
  3. Guidance for tribunals
  4. Tribunal guidance for doctors hearings
  5. Voluntary erasure applications
  6. Introduction
Voluntary erasure applications

Introduction

  1. A doctor who is registered with the General Medical Council (GMC) may apply to be removed from the register at any time. This is known as making an application for voluntary erasure (VE) from the register.

  2. Where an unresolved fitness to practise concern1 has led to an allegation being referred to be determined by a Medical Practitioners Tribunal (MPT) at a hearing and the hearing has commenced, the MPT will be required to make a decision on whether to grant the voluntary erasure application. Where a VE application is referred to the MPT, they must first decide what stage of the ongoing proceedings should be reached before it is appropriate for them to consider the VE application.  

  3. In all cases, a VE application cannot be considered until the hearing has commenced. Following this, it will usually be appropriate to consider a VE application once findings of fact have been made. However, where there are exceptional circumstances, an MPT may decide it is more proportionate to consider a VE application before making findings of fact. 

  4. When deciding whether to grant or refuse a VE application, the MPT will need to decide if erasure at this time is consistent with their role to protect the public.  

  5. Public protection means acting in a way that: 
    • protects, promotes and maintains the health, safety and wellbeing of the public (patient safety) 
    • promotes and maintains public confidence in the profession (public confidence), and 
    • promotes and maintains proper professional standards and conduct for members of the profession (professional standards). 
    This legal duty is explained in more detail in the section Protecting the public in the Guidance for MPTS tribunals (Doctors). 
  1. In all cases, granting an application for VE, even where there is an unresolved concern, will achieve patient safety because the doctor will no longer hold GMC registration and so will not be able to practise in the UK or in other jurisdictions that require them to hold GMC registration.  

  2. However, as public protection is wider than just patient safety considerations, in some cases the GMC and MPTS’ ability to maintain and promote public confidence and professional standards will be undermined if the fitness to practise process is not progressed.  

  3. A good decision about a doctor’s fitness to practise should protect the public, be proportionate, be transparent and be fair. In the context of making decisions on VE, to be proportionate, the MPT will need to weigh and balance the relevant considerations to inform their view on whether VE, at a specific stage of the hearing, will achieve public protection. The MPT also needs to satisfy themselves that any grant or refusal of a VE application is the most proportionate outcome. 

  4. The purpose of this guidance is to support fair and consistent decision making by MPTs when deciding what stage of the ongoing proceedings should be reached before it is appropriate for them to consider a VE application from a doctor, and whether to grant or refuse a VE application.
1 An unresolved concern is where a fitness to practise investigation is ongoing or where a case has been referred for an MPT hearing and there has been no outcome yet. Where a previous MPT has made a finding on impairment and/or imposed a sanction of conditions or suspension which is currently in effect on the doctor’s registration and there are no new concerns or allegations under consideration, there will not be an unresolved concern and so any application for VE will usually be decided by a GMC decision maker.