GOC consultation on proposals to strengthen business regulation in optics

We submitted a response to the GOC’s recent consultation on business regulation in optics. We have summarised the details of this response below.

The primary aim of the GOC consultation on Business Regulations was to update its regulatory framework to create a more uniform approach for all optical businesses performing restricted functions. This was in part driven by registrant concerns about workforce planning, financial pressures, digital advances, student placements, and unclear ownership expectations, the consultation focused on four areas:

1. Should there be a requirement for mandatory GOC registration for all providers.
2. Should the GOC introduce a requirement for a Head of Optical Practice role, a senior person, responsible for the business’ wider compliance with regulation.
3. Should the GOC have expanded enforcement and inspection powers with uncapped fines for those who breach regulations.
4. Should the GOC reform the Optical Consumer Complaints Service (OCCS) and widen it’s role.

Following substantial engagement with the AOP Council, Policy Committee, and wider membership (via a survey), the AOP has submitted a considered and comprehensive response to the questions posed on the GOC proposals. The key points made were:

1: Mandatory GOC registration for all providers

In essence, we assert that if a business conducts activity of the type expected within primary ophthalmic services, it should fall under the requirement to register, but we strongly recommended that the GOC implements a tiered system where smaller businesses pay far less than the larger corporations. By utilising a tiered fee system the risk of additional financial burden on small practices can be mitigated. 

We have also highlighted to the GOC that while we support mandatory business registration, this move will not address the issues of online retailers or those that do not conduct restricted functions. While we accept this is difficult for the GOC, we urge them to find ways to address these businesses as well.

2: Introduction of a Head of Optical Practice

A large portion of the GOC proposals centred around the concept of the newly created Head of Optical Practice (HOP) role, which is intended to oversee compliance within businesses performing restricted functions. We feel that greater clarity is required on the HOP role’s scope of responsibility and lines of accountability, and that this proposal requires more detail.

• The GOC has not addressed how the HOP would interact with existing governance structures, particularly in corporate businesses where decision-making power often rests with boards of directors or senior management
• We don’t feel it is clear that any benefit will be delivered by having an HOP role in smaller optical practices. Normally accountability already rests on a single practitioner’s shoulders and we don’t think that these practices should be required to appoint an HOP
• Regulation must be proportionate, risk-based, and targeted to avoid imposing undue burden on businesses with limited capacity. A tiered regulatory model where larger, higher-risk businesses are required to appoint an HOP would offer a more balanced and effective solution
• Requiring the HOP to be a qualified GOC registrant is the most likely way to ensure that there is a balance between governance, professional expertise, and clinical oversight, thereby ensuring that the HOP’s contributions are effective.

3: Expanding enforcement with inspection powers and uncapped fines

The AOP cannot support the proposed GOC visiting powers without firm assurances about how they will be used. We have been clear in our reply that if the GOC does proceed with this change, it must only be used in very specific circumstances. It is our view that regulatory interventions must be proportionate to business size, risks, and specific non-compliance activity. These visits could be easily conflated with Fitness to Practise (FTP) investigations, leading to confusion. Existing tools such as audits and reviews are already available to address compliance concerns without resorting to invasive and potentially costly visits.

4: Reforming the Optical Consumer Complaints Service (OCCS)

The AOP does not support the implementation of a mandatory redress scheme due to a lack of clear justification and detail, we are concerned that this proposal may increase costs for our members. Any proposed changes must be grounded in clear evidence, provide demonstrable improvements, and avoid creating unnecessary complexity or conflicts. Without such justification, maintaining the existing OCCS model – with ongoing monitoring to ensure quality – is the most pragmatic and proportionate approach.