The General Pharmaceutical Council (GPhC) will push forward with a 6% increase in its annual registration fees this year despite strong opposition from the profession.
However, plans for an additional rise in 2026 have been put on hold to allow for further reflection on concerns raised by registrants.
The regulator was given the greenlight from its governing council to increase pharmacist renewal fees by £17 to £293 from September 2025.
For pharmacy technicians, renewal fees will go up by £8 to £138 and pharmacy premises renewal fees will increase by £24 to £416.
The GPhC said the move was necessary because of financial pressures, including rising operational costs and an increase in fitness to practise concerns.
The profession’s consultation response
A 12-week consultation earlier this year saw 84% of the more than 3,000 respondents suggest they disagreed or strongly disagreed with the GPhC’s reasoning for increasing fees.
A strong majority of respondents (96%) said they felt the increase was either ‘much too high’ or a ‘bit too high’ and 79% said they either disagreed or strongly disagreed with the approach of raising fees by the same percentage across all registrant groups.
When the uplift was first mooted by the GPhC in January, it also proposed to rise fees by a further 6% from September 2026 as part of a move to set fees for the next two years.
The consultation responses showed a mixed reaction around setting the fee cost for two years – with 26% in agreement, 47% disagreeing and 24% neither agreeing or disagreeing.
In its meeting this week, the GPhC said its council had ‘carefully considered’ the concerns raised through the consultation.
And in response to the feedback, it was decided that making a decision on the fees to be charged in September 2026 would be postponed to enable time to ‘reflect further’.
Chief executive, Duncan Rudkin, said: ‘We understand people’s concerns about a fee increase in this challenging economic climate, with many people facing financial pressures.
‘We have sought to keep proposed increases as low as possible, by using our reserves, and making savings.’
Increase in fitness to practise concerns
Mr Rudkin added that the regulator was committed to making a further £1.5m of savings on its expected spending by 2027/28.
‘While we are mindful of the increased cost-of-living for everyone, we are also facing financial challenges,’ he said.
‘Like all organisations, our operational costs have continued to increase due to larger utility bills, supplier costs and National Insurance contributions.
‘We are also continuing to see a significant increase in the number of fitness to practise concerns raised which has increased workload and costs.
‘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, as set out in our strategic plan.’
Mr Rudkin added: ‘We have a responsibility to protect the public and give assurances that they will receive safe and effective care when using pharmacy services.
‘To do this, we have to ensure we have the funding to carry out our role and our statutory duties.
‘Our council has carefully considered the concerns raised through the consultation and has decided to reflect further, before deciding on the fees to be charged from 2026.’
Efficiencies appropriately sought?
Jay Badenhorst, Pharmacists’ Defence Association director of pharmacy said it was ‘disappointing that the GPhC has found it necessary to increase the registrant fees again by 6%, which is above inflation’.
‘PDA members are concerned about the level of increase given the current economic climate and employment market,’ he said.
And he suggested there were concerns from members around the regulator’s ‘financial position and whether efficiencies are appropriately being sought ahead of placing the burden on individual registrants’.
‘We, however, do recognise that the proposed multi-year increase has not been agreed and call on the GPhC to consider the feedback in the PDA’s response to the consultation in their decision-making around future fees proposals,’ he added.
A version of this article was originally published by our sister publication The Pharmacist.
