General Optical Council

Retention fees FAQs

Site hierarchy

Retention fees 2010-11

Where does the money go?
Registration fees are our only source of income, and we do not receive any additional funding from Government. The Council’s proposed expenditure for 2010-11 is £5.7 million. A significant proportion of that increase is due to the costs of restructuring the organisation in response to the recommendations of the Government’s healthcare reform programme. This includes modernising our processes and systems.

Our outgoings are spent across the following areas:
 

2010-11 budgeted expenditure by department

Budget area  %
Council 7
Secretariat 4
Standards 4
Education 6
Registration 10
FTP 27
OCCS 2
CET 6
Communications 6
Support Services 20

For a detailed look at our expenditure read the Council's draft budget and business plan for 2010-11:

Draft Business Plan and Budget - Annex 1 Draft Business Plan and Budget - Annex 1

Why has spending increased so much for 2010/11?
Fitness to practise costs have gone up, partly as a result of an increase in the number of complaints: in 2009 the number of case files opened increased by approximately 15 per cent, compared with 2008. More cases are being referred for health and performance assessments, and more expert reports are being prepared. These changes benefit registrants as they allow alternative and supportive approaches to fitness to practise issues to be considered.

Legal costs will also increase as the Council’s existing contract is up for tender next year. In 2009-10, we benefited from specially-negotiated, reduced rates. But we are unlikely to be able to achieve such low rates again. We are also investing in an electronic case management system and additional resources to reduce the time taken to investigate complaints. Speeding up the investigation process will benefit both registrants and complainants, by bringing matters to a quicker resolution.
 
There has been increased expenditure in Registration due to the costs of introducing a new online retention system. This will provide improved customer service, and in the long term, should result in cost savings, particularly if we are able to phase out the existing paper system.

Additional costs in support services include recruiting new members of the Fitness to Practise panel; training for our Fitness to Practise and Education Visitor panels; and additional investment in IT.

Does the GOC have to do all this extra work?
Yes. We cannot afford to stand still. It is our duty to respond to the diverse needs of the public – and a changing regulatory environment – in order to be an effective and efficient regulator.

Is the GOC doing anything to try and make savings?
Yes. We are committed to keeping costs down wherever possible. For example, although the number of FTP hearings has stayed the same, costs of hearings have reduced. This is due to an office refurbishment last year, which has allowed us to bring the majority of hearings in-house, saving over £40,000 compared with 2008-9 costs.

Some of the things we are doing will lead to greater long-term savings, such as:
  • Developing online retention; and
  • Using more electronic communications to cut costs on printing and postage.

Wouldn’t it be cheaper if the GOC moved to a less expensive area? 
We only pay £325 a year to be based on Harley Street. This is because the Council was set up with a 999 year lease in 1958 at a peppercorn rent. The GOC part occupies its premises with a tenant. This generates a small income which helps to offset a minor part of registrants' fees.

How does the fee compare with other UK healthcare regulators?
The increased fee is still lower than that which is set by most other UK healthcare regulatory bodies. The only regulators with smaller fees than the GOC benefit from significant economies of scale.

Why can't I pay the retention fee in instalments?
We are aware that staged payments would offer registrants the flexibility to pay their renewal fee in smaller amounts. However, because the GOC is a statutory regulator, implementing a staged payments facility is not straightforward. We would need to amend current legislation, which is a slow process – probably around 18 months. There would also be costs to adapt our systems, and additional administrative and processing costs involved, particularly for following up missed instalments. There may be disadvantages to registrants who miss a payment and are removed from the Register as a consequence, particularly if they are experiencing financial difficulties.

A detailed assessment will be carried out next year to determine the full costs and potential risks and benefits of introducing staged payments, and the likely effect on registrants’ fees, before a final decision is taken.