After a decade of planning and discussion, it took just 32 minutes to rubberstamp the amendments to the Opticians Act in the Commons last week.
And it was fitting that the registrar of the GOC attended the House of Commons meeting which gave the green light to crucial amendments to the Opticians Act.
Peter Coe's predecessor, Richard Wilshin, presided over the start of the process towards changing fitness to practise regulations, disciplinary processes and the sale of contact lenses among other important matters back in the mid 1990s.
And when the GOC submitted its ideas for legislative change in June 2000, it was Lord Hunt of Kings Heath who was at that time responsible for ophthalmic matters at the Department of Health.
Fast forward almost five years, and the current health minister responsible for the profession, Rosie Winterton, signalled that the lengthy road to change was almost over in 'committee room 16' last week. 'These are long-awaited reforms that will make a real difference to patients,' she told MPs and professional representatives.
'The Council for Healthcare Regulatory Excellence gave its full support for these proposals, which are absolutely necessary to make the GOC more effective in protecting the public.
'Organisations as varied as the British Contact Lens Association, NHS bodies, the College of Optometrists and the Institute of Optometry have all expressed support. The changes are welcome and will pave the way for much more efficient and transparent processes in the GOC, as well as bringing processes into line with those of other healthcare professionals.'
She pointed out the importance of a number of changes the amendments would usher in, including the legal requirement of practitioners to have insurance, compulsory CET for the profession, and updating how the GOC deals with allegations of fitness to practise.
Before the changes were agreed, Conservative MP for Billericay John Baron welcomed the amendments, but questioned the minister on the disclosure of information for fitness to practise cases ... previously more commonly known as 'disciplinary' cases ... and the GOC's notification of employers and health departments that an allegation had been received.
'It is important that reputations are not damaged unnecessarily, so I would be grateful if the minister would explain the relationship between the provisions and the safeguards of the Data Protection Act 1998.'
Winterton countered that the provisions were the same as those that applied to nurses and doctors who go through the same procedure. 'The GOC will be bound by the Data Protection Act, but we do not feel that there will be any conflict with the Act,' she said, 'particularly because the order introduces provisions that already apply to doctors and nurses.'
And, responding to him on comments about professional reputations, she said: 'The provisions give greater flexibility as regards the fines and so on that the Council can impose.
'At the moment, it has few options; it can strike somebody off for misconduct, but there is almost nothing else. The order provides a greater range of options, such that somebody might feel that actions taken previously were more than an individual deserved.'
Baron pressed the minister further, on the new maximum fine that the GOC can impose, which will be raised from £1,600 to £50,000. 'Some respondents to the Government's consultation felt that such a fine would be excessive,' he told her at the meeting.
'Indeed, the maximum fine in a magistrates court for testing sight illegally - a serious example of malpractice - is currently only £5,000.
'I understand that one of the aims of the order is to create an intermediate penalty between doing nothing and suspending or removing a practitioner from the register. I sympathise with the overall aim of the fine, but a £50,000 fine is particularly onerous if imposed on an individual as the order allows.'
Winterton responded by pointing out £50,000 was the maximum fine that could be levied, and that the new fines could be applied to companies as well as to individuals.
'Therefore, if the GOC were dealing with a large company, it would not be unreasonable for it to have the ability to issue a fine at that level if it felt that the company's practice was in some way improper and required a fine to be levied. The fine would reflect the company's profits.'
Liberal Democrat member for Richmond Park Dr Jenny Tonge also welcomed the changes, especially alterations made to contact lens regulations, freeing up the market so a patient can buy lenses direct from the internet via a specification from the registered profession.
'As a contact lens wearer myself,' said Dr Tonge, 'I get intensely irritated that I almost have to face interrogation if I want to replace my lenses or if I have forgotten them when I go on holiday. People have to face a barrage of questions and suspicion, as if they were trying to buy illegal drugs rather than something with which to see. So, I am delighted that we will have much more freedom to buy contact lenses, and I approve of the safeguards that the minister has implemented.'
Baron asked again about contact lens regulations later in the session. 'May I also press the minister about the consumer and provider/seller relationship in the provision of contact lenses?' he said. 'The relationship seems to be an awful bureaucratic nonsense, when it is in fact in the consumer's best interest to provide the original and accurate specification. A simple relationship between the consumer and seller, without recourse to the provider about the original specification, would help to simplify provision, particularly for the individual concerned - the individual optometrist.'
Winterton said: 'We consulted on the requirement to verify the specification and we have not received any criticism about it. It is important for patient safety and the industry has recognised that, which is why it has not raised concerns.
'Obviously, we shall continue to review the way in which the provisions work in practice, but we must strike a balance between patient safety and the burden on industry and patients. People said in the consultation that they felt that that was necessary.'