This site is intended for health professionals only

At the heart of general practice since 1960

GPs to face 8% rise in GMC fees from April

GPs face paying GMC fees of £420 a year to renew their licence, after the regulator announced a 7.69% increase – the first rise in five years – at its board meeting today.

The rise in GMC fees comes as an Freedom of Information Act request revealed that six senior GMC staff members are paid more annually than Prime Minister David Cameron.

GPs currently have to foot £390 per year for registration with a licence and £140 for registration without a licence. However, that cost has been cut or frozen for the past five years as a result of the ‘challenging times’ being experienced by doctors.

But GP leaders have said that the move to raise the fees is ‘disappointing’, and that ‘every penny counts’ to balance practices’ books.

And the FOI response, obtained by Pulse, reveals that six GMC officials including director of resources and quality assurance Neil Roberts, director of fitness to practise Anthony Omo and director of registration and revalidation Una Lane, all earn more than Mr Cameron’s £142,500 salary.

Meanwhile, chief executive Niall Dickson tops the wage list, earning £225,000.

Other senior GMC figures earning more than the Mr Cameron include director of strategy and communication Paul Buckley, and interim director of education and standards Judith Hulf.

Mr Dickson said at the board meeting today: ‘For five years we have succeeded in cutting or freezing our fees – increased demand now means we need to restore it to the level it was in 2010, if we are to continue to meet our wide-ranging obligations. 

‘These responsibilities have increased substantially in recent years with, for example, the introduction of revalidation and the oversight of postgraduate education.’ 

GPC deputy chair Dr Richard Vautrey said before the increase was confirmed: ‘I think it is disappointing that they are now having to increase them again if that is actually the case. Practices are struggling and every penny counts as far as trying to balance expenses and competing bills that the practices are having to deal with.

‘So whilst in itself it might not seem that significant, all these things start to add up.’

Professor Sir Peter Rubin, chair of the GMC, said about its senior salaries: ‘Senior management team salaries are overseen by the remuneration committee on behalf of Council and published on the GMC website. The remuneration committee takes external specialist advice to ensure that we benchmark our salary levels against comparable organisations.

‘The salaries we offer reflect the fact that the GMC is a high performing organisation operating in a highly competitive environment. We also have to bear in mind that in the past 12 months, two longstanding members of the senior management team have left to work for other organisations as have a number of assistant directors. We need to offer the right salaries to ensure that we continue to recruit and retain high quality senior staff.’




Readers' comments (48)

  • It is a shame that we are all being asked to pay money to a shambolic organisation that has made lives very hard for many colleagues, and is (effectively) a branch of the Department of Health staffed by second-raters.

    Look at the number of suicides of colleagues who are under investigation. Does the GMC have anything to say about that?

    Their revalidation crap was the reason I retired at 60, and I now don't pay them a centime.

    (No longer a) Jobbing Doctor.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • 6.28
    The same appears to have happened to the BMA and RCGP.

    The GMC juggernaut roles on getting bigger and more and more bloated as it sucks in more and more resources from its 'members'. Despite there being no evidence base behind what it does it grows unabated and unchallenged. Meanwhile doctors retire early and surely are also emigrating due to the most excessive and punitive regulation of doctors in the world while public confidence in doctors is at an all time high.

    An alternative model:

    The state to do this role funded by the tax payer rather than doctors effectively funding the dept of health to do this which is effectively what is happening at present.
    GMC, BMA, MPS/MDU fees spent by doctors to be invested in their own comprehensive legal policies with barrister representation rather than 'advisors' as many have experienced at present. Doctors, hearkcare workers, teachers, policemen to be subject to proper fit for purpose judicial proceedings rather than 'trial by village elder' quangos.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Bit of perspective here guys....
    Inflation is say 3% ish. Five years of inflation equates to a 15.9% increase roughly.
    A 7.69% increase is less than half of inflation - so in essence a drop in fees.
    And it is £30 a year. <10p a day. Or a round of drinks.
    I know morale is bad but I think we can cover

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • And thats before tax.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • It's only a competitive market because the fat cats want to get fatter and so the "jobs for the boys" salary's continue to rise because the very people who make the decisions are the fat kittens who are the next generation of fat cats waiting to fill the very same positions.

    I think CQC (or some other similar Quango) should be checking GMC and other major "departments" recruiting policy's. They somehow don't seem fair to me. I have never seen the Chief Executive of the GMC's vacancy on the Job Centre Current Vacancies Board. Or in the situations vacant column of the Lancashire Evening Post!!!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • 10.45 Nick Taylor

    Agreed the fee rise doesn't look completely outrageous but I think what people are expressing here is that the GMC has outgrown its initial remit, has engaged in some terribly worrying behaviour and is in need of urgent reform.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • 10.45 Nick Taylor. I agree we can cover it, but do 6 of their officials really deserve to be paid more than the PM?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Mass non-payment campaign needed!!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • The GMC fee was £30 a year when I started in 1983

    It is now almost £400.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Come on folks - let's not get drawn into this "it's not fair, you're paid more than me" tabloid debate. The fact is that many bankers, lawyers, footballers and senior business executives are paid an order of magnitude more than the numbers we're debating in here - and the true rich put another zero or two on the end of that. It's like watching a rabble of second rate pirates fighting over the scraps while the boss walks off with the booty.

    What really matters here is the failure of the government to reverse a wasteful trend that will eventually bankrupt the nation, by which I mean, paying more and more bureaucrats to administer new systems that inhibit the activity of productive people.

    Specifically, I quote: "these responsibilities have increased substantially in recent years with, for example, the introduction of revalidation..." So, let me see ... I'm taking a pay cut in order to fund a system that wastes my time ... the country really is going mad.

    Come on David Cameron, you're supposed to be a Tory. I thought Tories favoured small government and business efficiency? Please, sort it out!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

View results 10 results per page20 results per page50 results per page

Have your say