GOC members reject big business advisers

A proposal to adopt more big business representation within the General Optical Council's policy-making groups led to intense debate at last week's GOC summer assembly. One member said the idea, which would allow for more influence from retail corporates, could have enormous advantages to optics. However, the proposal drew comments that it would go against the wishes of the profession. Aside from the debate, members adopted key items on a professional code of conduct, therapeutic prescribing and the essence of its legislative change programme. But the aim to ensure the GOC 'is better able to draw upon the experience of the corporate sector' was sent back and will again be internally discussed before it stands a chance of being approved. If adopted, the proposal would add two 'advisers' with 'current experience of the provision of optical services by a body corporate' to the council, and another adviser from big business to the Council's education committee. Chairman Rosie Varley explained the argument was based on the findings of a working group which concluded that there would be benefits from the formal inclusion of optometrists and dispensing opticians from a corporate background. It was pointed out that although the proposal would make input from larger business increase, the GOC already had corporate guidance from its companies committee. Varley said of the proposal: 'The intention is to improve the quality of debate and the exchange of information through having individuals from the corporate sector advising Council and its various committees.' Speaking for the proposal, Council member Professor Mike Salmon said the corporate sector had much expertise in large scale training, and called the idea of increasing corporate involvement an 'enormous advantage for the GOC's education committee, in that it could share larger businesses expertise.' Brian Carroll, who also spoke in favour, told the meeting that the paper's objective Ð which included the aim to 'achieve better informed debate' and 'realistic and deliverable decisions' Ð was the key area to look at. 'It clearly sets out what one is trying to achieveÉto gain the expertise and resources that companies can offer.' However, the proposal drew criticism, not least from Professor Nathan Efron, who claimed it went against the feeling of the profession, 'as expressed in recent [professional] elections'. 'Candidates from the corporate sector canvassed as such,' he said, 'and none of them were elected.' Professor Efron said 'nobody would disagree that companies have a valuable in-put into the Council's work' but he claimed the proposal would 'distort the balance' of the GOC. Bob Chappell questioned the need for the proposal's adoption, and said an optometrist or dispensing optician retained their professional role, irrespective of whether they worked in the corporate sector or elsewhere. Varley was grateful for a 'valuable discussion' and the Council sent the proposal into its committee debates for more discussion.