AOP responds to GOC consultation on business regulation

The AOP has raised concerns about expanded enforcement powers and introducing a mandatory consumer address scheme as part of its response to a General Optical Council (GOC) consultation.

The GOC consulted on a series of proposals that would update the regulatory framework for optical businesses between 23 October 2024 and 22 January 2025.

In preparing its response to the proposals, the AOP sought feedback from its Council, policy committee and wider membership through an online survey.

The key points made in the AOP submission related to mandatory GOC registration, the proposed head of optical practice role, expansion of GOC enforcement powers and introducing a mandatory consumer redress scheme.

While the AOP supports registration for all businesses that conduct primary ophthalmic services, the membership body is calling for a tiered system to be introduced where smaller businesses pay a lower registration fee than larger businesses.

The AOP has also urged the optical regulator to find additional ways of addressing online retailers and businesses that do not carry out restricted functions – which are not covered by the current proposals.

Regarding the proposed head of optical practice (HOP) role, the AOP has called for greater clarity around how this role will oversee compliance among businesses performing restricted functions.

The association has highlighted that more detail is needed on the HOP role’s scope of responsibility, lines of accountability and how this role will interact with existing corporate governance structures.

There is a need for a proportionate approach to be taken, the AOP highlighted, noting that there does not appear to be a clear benefit of smaller optical practices appointing a HOP.

Turning to the GOC’s proposal to expand its enforcement powers, the AOP’s position is that it cannot support GOC powers to visit optical practices without “firm assurances” about how these powers would be used.

The AOP is also opposed to the implementation of a mandatory consumer redress scheme (which is currently voluntary and overseen by the Optical Consumer Complaints Service) – citing a lack of clear justification and detail, as wells as concerns that this may increase costs.

You might also like

Six ways the regulation of optical businesses could change

Many more businesses would be regulated under GOC proposals with uncapped fines for breaches and mandatory consumer redress