Features

Many thanks for the excellent report of some events at the recent BCLA conference. I enjoyed taking part in the round-table discussion and I hope delegates were amused and informed. Two important points in relation to plano lens supply seemed to have been drawn out, namely:

• There is now real evidence that it is in the interest of public safety that plano lenses are only supplied to a proper prescription
• It would seem that in the ‘supervison’ of sales of plano lenses that the supervisor and, presumably, purchaser must be on the premises, and the supervisor able to intervene at any stage. In other words, the legal interpretation of the level of such ‘supervision’ is of the same level that applies to pre-registered students.

I would welcome comments from the GOC and College of Optometrists.

Christopher Kerr, Croydon


I read Pat Hillman’s letter (Optician July 3) with some interest but I confess I was left rather perplexed.

Firstly, as my email address and phone number are widely advertised, any member who wants to lobby the AOP can do so directly rather than through either of the magazines. As it is, I hope I can reassure her on the substantive points she makes.

It is not our view that a practice is worth 50 per cent of turnover, and it would not make any sense to make that sweeping assumption. I don’t understand where this idea has arisen, because our advisers tell me that Mrs Hillman has not sought such advice from them or discussed it with the valuation company we recommend.

At our recent Best Practice Seminars, our advisers discussed this commonly held urban myth, but it was made clear that there is no connection between sales turnover and transfer values. Rather, the valuation depends on the adjusted and normalised trading profit, and it is a calculation which needs to be worked out by an experienced consultant. The actual transfer value will depend on what buyers are prepared to pay but most practices change hands close to the valuation amount.

The worth of record cards is equally dependent on a number of factors. It may be that the purchaser persuades a patient to transfer from a practice that is closing down to their practice but it is by no means certain. Therefore, £1 may or may not be an appropriate figure, but in some cases it may be too much. A list broker will sell names and addresses of local people with their dates of birth for about 45p each.

We are all too keen to listen to what members want, and go to great pains to try to do so, but like the Chancellor, we cannot overturn the economics of the market or, sadly, the NHS.

Bob Hughes Chief Executive, Association of Optometrists


Optician, July 4, reported on the BCLA panel discussions relating to legal aspects covering contact lens sales. It was disappointing to read that such a distinguished panel of experts demonstrated there is ‘still confusion about aspects of UK legislation’. I trust that this letter may help shed some light on why this is the case.

In 1998 the GOC took legal action against a mail-order company called Vision Direct. The case hinged on the intended meaning of the word ‘supervision’ which had not been defined in the Opticians Act of 1989. Expert opinion, in particular that given by Professor Nathan Efron, ‘carried the day’ for the GOC. ‘Supervised’ sale/supply, it was concluded, requires the optician, the patient and the contact lenses to be in the same place at the same time. So, an optician asking a third party (for example, manufacturer or wholesaler) to ship lenses to a patient would be breaking the law whether for the initial or repeated shipments.

Likewise, an optician asking their receptionist to hand over lenses or to post lenses to a patient would be breaking the law. In short, the legal definition which put Vision Direct ‘to the sword’ was, and still is, simply ignored because, if applied generally, the sale and supply of contact lenses in the UK would grind to a halt.

The GOC is clearly on the horns of a dilemma. It secured a conviction resulting in the closure of Vision Direct and the imposition of heavy fines on the directors, but did so by relying on a ruling which would have catastrophic impact on most, if not all, of the optical profession if enforced more widely.

Multiples, in particular, continued to outsource sale/supply to third-party companies, such as Specsavers to Sauflon, as Howard Griffiths of Sauflon and one of the BCLA panellists may be willing to confirm?

The unintended potential consequences of the 1998 legal ruling have kept the definition of ‘supervision’ a taboo subject, giving rise to the ‘confusion’ referred to at the BCLA. The fact is that most CLs sold by UK multiples before and since 1998 never see the inside of an optical practice and were/are not ‘supervised sales’. I have raised this point in writing with the GOC on several occasions but sadly to no effect. May I ask the GOC, through the letters pages of Optician, to confirm or deny my above assessment of the situation or in some other way remove the ‘confusion’ so significantly demonstrated by the BCLA panel?

Ron Hamilton, Daysoft limited

As an avid viewer of Working Lunch, Top Gear (and Optician magazine), I was disgruntled to see James (call me Jamie) Murray-Wells appearing on Working Lunch. Furthermore, I was disgruntled to hear him paraphrase Jeremy Clarkson’s witty comment from the Top Gear show a few days earlier:

Clarkson – ‘The Stig thinks the Credit Crunch is a breakfast cereal’.

Murray-Wells – ‘Our company eats Credit Crunch for breakfast’.

I hope his specs are as tacky as his soundbites, then hopefully my locum rate may start going up instead of down for a change!

Ian White, Cheshire

Providing exclusive eye care news, information and educational needs every week, including a FREE CET programme. Subscribe to Optician Print Edition.