The General Pharmaceutical Council (GPhC) announced yesterday evening (July 17) that it has agreed a 6% increase in the annual registration fees for pharmacists, pharmacy technicians and pharmacies from September.
However, it said that it will “reflect further before making any decisions about fee levels for 2026”.
This means that from September 2025:
- Pharmacist renewal fees will increase by £17 to £293
- Pharmacy technician renewal fees will increase by £8 to £138
- Pharmacy premises renewal fees will increase by £24 to £416
Read more: IN FULL: GPhC proposes two-year 6% fee hike amid ‘rising costs’
In January, the GPhC launched a consultation on two years of proposed hikes to annual registration fees – with a 6% rise in fees in 2025 and a “further 6% increase” on these fees from the following year.
The regulator said that it “carefully considered the concerns raised through the consultation” at its July council meeting that took place yesterday and “emphasised that it is committed to minimising fee increases as much as possible”.
Read more: ‘Out of touch’: Sector urges GPhC to reconsider fee hike plans
However, it said that “after reviewing the GPhC’s financial position, the council concluded it was necessary to raise the fees by 6% in 2025”.
The council “decided to postpone making a decision on the fees to be charged in September 2026” to enable it to “reflect further” in response to the consultation “feedback”, it added.
“We understand concerns”
The GPhC revealed that of the 3,166 responses it received to its consultation, which closed in April, almost all (96%) respondents said they felt the increase was “much too high” or a “bit too high”.
Some 84% either disagreed or strongly disagreed with “the reasoning provided…for increasing fees”, it admitted, while almost eight in ten (79%) either disagreed or strongly disagreed with raising fees by the same percentage across all registrant groups.
And it said that there was a “mixed reaction” to the proposal to set fees for the next two years, with 26% either agreeing or strongly agreeing with the proposal, 47% disagreeing or strongly disagreeing and 24% neither agreeing or disagreeing.
Read more: GPhC to be given power to decide FtP cases without hearing
“We understand people’s concerns about a fee increase in this challenging economic climate, with many people facing financial pressures,” GPhC chief executive Duncan Rudkin said.
He added that the regulator has tried to keep increases “as low as possible” by using its reserves and “making savings” – including a commitment to making a “further £1.5 million of savings” on its expected spending by 2027/28.
But he stressed that the GPhC is “also facing financial challenges”, citing rising operational costs due to larger utility bills, supplier costs and National Insurance contributions (NICs), as well as a “significant increase” in the number of fitness-to-practise (FtP) concerns raised.
Read more: GPhC admits ‘improvements needed’ in new strategy
“In addition, we will need to respond to significant changes in the roles of pharmacists and pharmacy technicians, and in how pharmacy services are delivered - this will bring changes in the way the GPhC will need to operate and regulate in the future,” Rudkin said.
He added that the regulator must ensure it has the funding to meet its “responsibility to protect the public and give assurances that they will receive safe and effective care when using pharmacy services”.
“Lack of transparency”
It comes after the Pharmacists’ Defence Association (PDA) last week (July 9) published its response to the GPhC fee rise consultation, following a member survey that garnered “nearly 1,100 responses”.
It raised concerns around a “lack of transparency” such as the GPhC “not explaining in detail where it has made savings as promised” and not publishing its equality impact assessment alongside the consultation.
It also highlighted the “significant increase in GPhC income in the past ten years” and the “continuing and significant disquiet” among members around the regulator’s premises in Canary Wharf.
Read more: ‘Spending spree’: PDA queries GPhC HQ costs ahead of fee hike decision
GPhC papers for yesterday’s council meeting acknowledged that it is “funded purely by registrant fees”, stressing that it needs “to be constantly mindful” of how it spends that money.
Despite this mindfulness about spending, the papers also said that it “is likely that the GPhC will remain in the lease agreement” of its Canary Wharf office “for the full 12 years of the agreement”, deciding “not to exit the agreement at year six”.
Just hours after the GPhC announced its fee rise consultation in January, the sector urged the regulator to reconsider the plans - describing them as “insensitive” and a “disgrace”.
PSNI pauses 20% fee rise
Meanwhile, the Pharmaceutical Society of Northern Ireland (PSNI) last month (June 30) announced that it will pause its own fee rise despite confirming in April that it would go ahead with proposals to hike annual retention fees by 20%.
It said that a legislative amendment was required for the changes to be implemented but that “unfortunately, this was not possible in time for the 2025 retention period”.
Read more: PSNI hikes fees 20% after flunking record number of standards
This means that the 2025 retention fee will remain £398 and it will be unable to collect this via instalments or direct debit as planned, while notification will remain via postal method only, it added.
“We will revisit these issues later in the year and keep colleagues informed of any developments or subsequent plans,” the PSNI said.
