GOC releases four recommendations after consultation on regulation of optical businesses

The General Optical Council (GOC) has published the response to its 2024–2025 consultation on regulation of optical businesses.

The consultation looked towards an updated framework, which would see the GOC’s power expanded to include all businesses carrying out specified restricted functions, such as eye examinations.

Scope of regulation, models of regulatory assurance, enforcement approach and sanctions and consumer redress were the four areas consulted upon.

As a result of the consultation, the GOC is recommending that all businesses that provide specified restricted functions, such as eye examinations, should be regulated. This will include charities and university eye clinics for the first time. 

It is also recommending that an existing requirement for some corporate bodies to have a majority of GOC registrant directors should be removed.

The rule “is no longer justified” and is “anti-competitive, outdated and acts as a barrier to entry to the market,” the GOC said.

All optical businesses should have a head of optical practice who is a fully-qualified GOC registrant and an employee of the business, the regulator said.

The GOC will also now seek the power to hand out uncapped financial penalties for breaches of its business regulations. 

Participation in the Optical Consumer Complaints Service should be mandatory for optical businesses “to deliver public protection,” the GOC also said.

A “changing landscape of eye care services”

The regulator received 99 written responses to its consultation, including submissions from optometrists, dispensing opticians, students and representative bodies.

The AOP responded to the consultation, recommending that while there should be a mandatory requirement for all businesses who conduct the restricted functions of primary ophthalmic services to register, a tiered system where smaller businesses pay proportionately less than the larger corporations should be put in place.

As part of its response, the AOP also asked for greater clarity and detail on the scope of responsibility and lines of accountability for the proposed mandatory head of optical practice role. The association also recommended flexibility for smaller practices, noting that the practice owner would likely be performing all suggested functions of the head of optical practice role already.

Speaking about the GOC’s consultation, AOP policy and governance manager, Paul Alexander, said that the association’s submission did agree with a large proportion of the proposals – but asserted caution on ensuring proportionality of new fee structures for businesses, exemption criteria and certain protocols on delivery.

“Our caution was very much drawn from the need to protect smaller optical businesses as they could be unfairly disadvantaged from a financial and bureaucracy point of view as a result of the additional regulatory burden,” Alexander said.

He added: “In addition, we conveyed a strong resistance to some suggestions from the GOC around their level of enforcement powers and key changes to the consumer redress scheme.”

The AOP welcomes the GOC listening to its suggestions for utilising a tiered fee structure for businesses who have a smaller turnover or have a primary business function that is supported by commercial endeavours, not led by them, for example charities or universities, but noted that the regulator has not fully committed to implementing a scheme.

“This is an area where we will keep a watching brief to ensure that the fair playing field they are striving for truly extends to all corners of optometry,” Alexander said.

The AOP also hopes to have the opportunity to input into the further details of the discretionary exemption protocols for some businesses, a power that the GOC will be implementing, in due course, Alexander said.

With regards to the head ofoptical practicerole, the AOP emphasised the need for employer discretion and flexibility on who they employ, and suggested that some smaller practices could be exempt due to practice owners performing all of the required functions already.

The AOP also “strongly suggested” that the role must be a qualified GOC registrant, “in order to embed the inherent level of knowledge required to operate effectively and gain trust of the other practitioners,” Alexander said.

The GOC listened to the need for more sector engagement on the scope and responsibility of the role as well as on details of how it should operate, Alexander said.

One proposal that the regulator will not be taking forward is the power to visit practices to investigate compliance breaches.

This is considered a positive outcome, Alexander said, as “the proposal could have caused practices extra stress, increase the burden on the GOC itself, and cause confusion or overlap between Care Quality Commission and Fitness to Practise procedures”.

The proposal to allow uncapped fines will be taken forward despite opposition, the GOC said, as “we consider this approach would best reflect the diversity of business models and the need to future-proof our legislation.”

Sanctioning guidance will explain how penalties will be calculated, the regulator added.

The GOC is also proceeding with making membership of the OCCS mandatory for all business registrants, which the AOP has called a “potentially damaging decision.”

“Our concerns remain that making this mandatory could generate unnecessary costs, complexities or conflicts and could artificially inflate minor patient complaints,” Alexander said.

The public’s view

Along with the consultation outcomes, the GOC has published the results of a survey that it carried out with members of the public, which supports its recommendations.

The survey highlighted public support for all businesses providing specified restricted functions to be regulated, and for the right to access a redress scheme to resolve consumer disputes.

Of 2205 members of the UK public surveyed, 60% incorrectly thought that all optician businesses were already regulated. One third (32%) understood that only some are.

The majority (78%) of respondents said businesses carrying out eye examination should be regulated, whilst 69% said that they should have access to an independent organisation to help resolve their complaint should something go wrong during a visit to an optical practice.

The GOC’s director of regulatory strategy, Steve Brooker, thanked those who responded to the consultation.

“Thank you to all stakeholders who contributed to this important consultation, as we look to modernise our business regulation framework so that it is fit for purpose in the changing landscape of eye care services in all four nations of the UK,” Brooker said.

Brooker noted that as it stands, approximately half of all optical businesses are not required or are not able to register with the GOC, which “creates both a significant gap in public protection and an uneven playing field for businesses delivering eye care services.”

The current regulations are set by the Opticians Act, and any changes would need to be agreed through Parliament. Any timeline for change would be determined by the UK Government.

Brooker added: “While we wait for legislative changes to be enacted, we are committed to working in partnership with stakeholders to refine and further develop our proposals, for example, in relation to the head of optical practice role.

“We will confirm our plans for taking forward this work once the timetable for reform to the Optician’s Act is clearer.”

The full response to the consultation can be viewed online.