Martin Parsons, Sheffield:

This must be bad financial management on behalf of the GDC; feeling the need to increase fees to this level baffles me. I realise that at the moment this may be based on the cost of complaints for each of the groups; however, there are now DCPs with direct access and clinical roles who in my opinion should share that cost, as they currently have a much larger scope of practice.

Would it not be sensible for the GDC to consider having a sliding scale or (pro rata) for ARF based on income? Some GDPs may earn far more than a part-time clinical teacher doing one or two sessions per week in a dental hospital for example. For those dentists semi-retiring and/or wanting to go part-time supervising dental students or the odd sessional work, this may discourage them from doing so. Remember since 2008 dental nurses have had to be registered with the GDC, and pay the same fee as other DCPs, therefore income should have increased for the GDC since then. What's happening with the extra money?

In my opinion the GDC should base their ARF on 'risk' for dentists, for example a dentist not on the specialist register but who has a declared interest in 'implants' or 'endodontics' should pay more than those who only do general dentistry. It will be interesting to see the proportion of complaints from each sector.

The GDC should be far more transparent about who people should complain to; many complaints can be managed in-house by the NHS for example, negating the need for the GDC to be involved and therefore saving costs.

Robert Manual, Haywards Heath:

The hot potato which is the GDC's current plan to raise their annual ARF to £945 will undoubtedly raise masses of comment in the coming months. But here's a fact to remember and add to the debate. Our medical doctor colleagues only have to pay £390 for their annual subscription to the GMC. What is the GDC's take on that fact?

Sarah Ellison, by email:

Currently there are 39,447 registered dentists contributing over £30 million to the total operating income of the GDC. The announced increase will raise this figure by £18 million to a total of £48 million. So where does this money go?

According to the GDC's Annual Report 2012, their audited accounts show the vast majority is spent on staff costs (>£11 million) and legal and professional fees (>£10 million). So in reality, dentists are paying the salaries of the GDC members in order that they can help the public pursue claims against themselves.

Given the ever-increasing trend in litigation, it is unsurprising that claims against dentists rose by 31% in 2011-12 and by 100% in the past five years. Comparing this to our medical colleagues, who also have seen a 100% complaints rise in the same time period, how is it that the General Medical Council (GMC) has managed to keep their AFR at £390, with those earning less than a £31,000 threshold receiving a 50% reduction in their ARF? The GMC have even been able to freeze or reduce fees by finding more efficient ways to deliver their service including the cost saving ebilling.

Surely it would be fairest if the GDC took a leaf out of the book of the indemnity companies who base their fees on the number of days a dentist works, in which discipline and modify these when a dentist is on maternity or long-term sick leave. This proportions the cost of indemnity directly to the risk of complaints and subsequent financial loss to the indemnity company.