“I am committed to leading the Association in the direction agreed by the members”

But of course, the AOP is not any old organisation: it is one that seeks to represent its members which, given that that includes over 80% of optometrists practising in the UK, means pretty much the whole of the profession. The challenge of running the AOP is, in truth, not managing the organisation itself (I have the great good fortune to have a first-rate team around me who make sure that is taken care of), but in ensuring that what we do is in the best interest of our members and, by extension, of the profession.

Over the years we have developed robust ways for making sure that what we are saying and doing is what our members agree needs to be said and done. This year’s member survey, for example, not only validated what we have been doing to support members, but gave us some important pointers about areas where we could further develop our services.

Over the years we have developed robust ways for making sure that what we are saying and doing is what our members agree needs to be said and done

Our regular Voice of Optometry survey with members provides invaluable insight into key issues and, at the same time, give us the stories and case studies that are invaluable to our communications and campaigning. And our one-off calls for feedback, such as on the General Optical Council’s (GOC) proposed updating of the Opticians Act or the Welsh Government’s proposals to reform GOS in Wales, mean that when we respond to those initiatives, we can evidence the fact that we are articulating the views of optometrists on the ground – vitally important when some of the voices in the Welsh Government sought to dismiss us as representing an English view rather than that of almost all of Welsh optometrists.

But such surveys are necessarily limited: a simple exchange of question and answer, particularly on complex subjects which demand a very nuanced response, does not always give us the guidance that we need. Equally important is the need for me and the AOP executive team to be able to test out our interim conclusions or the lines we propose to take with optometrists themselves. It is easy enough to get the views of people skilled in optometry policy, of academics and of business leaders; it is finding out what practising optometrists think and feel that is difficult.

That is where our Council is so valuable. Take the last meeting. Along with all the usual business of any standing committee – minutes, action logs, reports from subcommittees and all that – there were two critically important issues discussed in depth: the GOC’s review of individual practitioner standards, and remote refraction. Both are subjects that require careful thinking, balancing the needs of patients, individual optometrists, and the financial underpinnings of the sector. And both too are subjects where, to be frank, we are still waiting to see evidence of far-sighted policy thinking from the regulator, meaning that there is perhaps greater responsibility on practitioners to come up with our own answers.

Finding out what practising optometrists think and feel that is difficult. That is where the Council is so valuable

More significantly, these topics are harbingers for more fundamental debates yet to come. On regulation, while this government may have shelved any plans it had to look again at the way healthcare is regulated – the Deloitte’s review of the topic two years ago appears to have disappeared without trace – there is undoubted interest on the part of a Labour party currently riding high in the polls. And the GOC’s new interest in business regulation will undoubtedly throw up some issues which will need very careful thought.

Remote refraction is not a topic for the future but very much for the present: although Brillen, who had the use of such techniques at the heart of their offer, has now apparently withdrawn from the market, Councillors used our meeting to provide evidence that this method of examination has moved from theory into practice in more than a few businesses. But, with the GOC now committed to updating its guidance on whether refraction can be delegated, setting the rules around how such techniques are to be used is an urgent necessity.

More profoundly, as Council also heard a few months ago from ophthalmology artificial intelligence guru Professor Pearse Keane, remote technology is but the first of the many technological advances with which we will have to grapple in the coming years.

Much of the heavy policy lifting will be done by the AOP executive. That is what we are paid for and what members expect. But we are exquisitely aware that we do not have all the answers and some of the answers we do have will have flaws. And while – yes – it is my job to lead the AOP, I am committed to leading the Association in the direction agreed by its members. The regular sessions with Council are right at the heart of that.