GOC consultation on regulation of optical businesses

Executive summary 

In January 2025, the GOC launched their consultation on Business Regulations. Its primary purpose was to update its regulatory framework to create a more uniform approach for all optical businesses performing restricted optometric functions as mapped out in the Opticians Act 1989. Driven by registrant concerns about workforce planning, financial pressures, digital advances, student placements, and unclear ownership expectations, the original proposals covered the following four key 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 (HOP) 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 its role?

The GOC reported on the results of the consultation on 24 July 2025. The regulator received 99 responses from a range of stakeholders. These included: one optical patient; 36 optometrists; seven dispensing opticians; five contact lens opticians; three therapeutic prescribing optometrists; two student optometrists; 17 GOC business registrants; 11 optical businesses (not GOC business registrants); four education providers; seven optical professional/representative bodies; and two patient representative charities/organisations. The GOC report showed that there was broad agreement from respondents on many of the key proposals, only diverging on a few details over how the HOP role should operate, and on the mandatory consumer redress scheme.

To summarise, the outcome of the consultation exercise means that all business entities delivering the restricted functions from the Opticians Act are to register with the GOC, regardless of location or format. The GOC has decided to retain discretionary powers to exempt businesses, despite the majority of respondents urging them not to. It is looking to have the flexibility in legislation to enable a tiered fee structure if they decide to implement one in the future.

The newly created Head of Practice (HOP) role is to be obligatory for all optometric businesses, but they will continue to engage on the details of the roles and responsibilities. One key definitive for the HOP at this stage is that it will be necessary for the post-holder to be an individual registrant. The GOC has concluded that the consumer redress scheme (through OCCS) becomes mandatory for all registered businesses and that uncapped fines for regulatory breaches be implemented.

Our response

Following engagement with the AOP Council, Policy Committee, and wider membership (via a survey), the AOP submitted a response to the GOC proposals. Our submission highlighted how the proposed regulatory framework should operate to ensure maximum benefit for the profession and for the patient. The GOC’s stated plans for implementation are largely aligned to our wishes, with a handful of exceptions.

We welcomed the GOC listening to our suggestions for utilising a tiered fee structure for businesses who either have a smaller turnover or have a primary business function that is supported by commercial endeavours not led by them (for example, charities or educational institutes). However, it has not fully committed to implementing such a scheme, only noting that it will endeavour to ensure that flexibility in the legislation exists to enable this if the GOC chooses to implement in the future. This is an area where we will continue to argue for the need to protect smaller business and those with educational and charitable status.

We and many other sector respondents urged that the GOC should not have the ability to make discretionary exemptions to registration for businesses. A number of concerns were noted around such exemptions generating regulatory “loopholes” that could be exploited by business entities looking to avoid registration. Despite these concerns, the GOC are planning to implement this power but has said it will be as transparent as possible with the exemption criteria and decision-making. We hope to have opportunity to input into the details of the exemption protocols in due course.

The proposals for the HOP role made up a large portion of the consultation questions. In our response, we asked for greater clarity and detail on the scope of responsibility and lines of accountability, while also suggesting that the role must be held by a GOC registrant to ensure effective and trusted oversight of a business’ compliance. We also requested a degree of flexibility for smaller practices, where the owner will likely be performing all the suggested functions of the HOP already.

The GOC response is very much in line with our view, except that they are making it a mandatory requirement for all registered businesses to have a named HOP, regardless of size. The GOC listened to the need for more sector engagement on the scope and responsibility of the HOP role as well as the detail on how it should operate. This is very much welcomed, but we will continue to advocate for smaller practices to ensure they are not adversely burdened with unnecessary admin and/or over regulation.

The GOC also decided to remove the requirement for bodies corporate to have a majority of registrant directors. We had supported this change in principle and agreed with the rationale that is outdated and no longer justified due to being a barrier to entry to the market. We stressed in our submission that this requirement should not happen in isolation as registrant oversight of wider processes is imperative. If the HOP role is made mandatory for all optical businesses and the requirement for an individual registrant to occupy it satisfies our concerns, but we disagree with the GOC that the removal of the majority director rule shouldn’t be conditional on the HOP requirement.

We did not support their suggestion of wielding practice visiting powers. Further stating that if the GOC does proceed, these powers must only be used in very specific and prescribed circumstances. Existing tools such as audits and reviews are already available to address compliance concerns without resorting to invasive and potentially costly visits. To this point, the GOC has listened to stakeholder concerns and will not introduce these powers, keeping existing processes such as compelling a business to provide written information and visiting them with consent. This is a welcome positive step.

However, in terms of our opposition to uncapped financial penalties being perpetuated, the GOC has stated that: “Despite uncapped financial penalties not being favoured by stakeholders, we consider this approach would best reflect the diversity of business models and the need to future-proof our legislation”. The concessions made do include the production of sanctioning guidance to explain calculations in financial penalties and will further publish case decisions to show transparency in how the fine was calculated. The GOC has committed to ensuring that turnover will often be a key calculation criterion, but that “this may not be appropriate in all cases”.

While the GOC largely agreed with our suggestions not to make the OCCS decisions legally binding – keeping it a mediation scheme, rather than adopting the adjudication model and to maintain the current shared funding model – it was confirmed that it will recommend that the OCCS scheme is mandatory rather than the current voluntary model. Our concerns remain that making this mandatory could generate unnecessary costs, complexities or conflicts and could artificially inflate minor patient complaints.

Additionally, we conveyed caution in our response with regards to online retailers being outside of regulatory scope, increasing risk to patient safety and to high street business. These were addressed by the GOC stating that “under our new model of business regulation, online sellers based in the UK will be required to register with us if they are providing specified restricted functions. All businesses within the scope of the legislation will be subject to our standards whether they operate physically or online,” but has noted that international sellers will be difficult to control. However, the GOC “continue to be part of inter-regulatory groups led by government bodies and the PSA that discuss online sales and new technologies”. We do not feel that this goes far enough and will continue to press the GOC to do more in this regard.

Lastly, it is noteworthy that the GOC has mentioned actioning a series of “Thematic Reviews” to address some wider issues for registrants. While the detail is still to be announced, there will be a review of domiciliary practitioners, and a more imminent review of “commercial practices and patient safety”. Additionally they will commence a substantive review of their business standards later in 2025/26, and we will to monitor all phases, checking in with members while working with the GOC where possible.

To conclude, AOP members largely agree on the fundamental need for business regulations being implemented. The GOC state it will ensure a level playing field for all optical businesses who perform the restricted functions and provide an extra level of patient safety.

Next steps

Our next steps will include to:

• Continue lobbying the GOC to ensure a Tiered Fee Structure system for types and size of business and take the opportunity to input into the details of the exemption protocols in due course 
• Share our concerns that making the OCCS mandatory could generate unnecessary costs, complexities or conflicts and could artificially inflate minor patient complaints 
• Assert the need for full sector engagement on the scope and responsibility of the HOP role as well as the detail on how it should operate
• Work with the GOC on tackling the dangers of international online retailers.

If you have any questions about the consultation, please contact [email protected].