Registrant fees will remain the same this year, but may be reviewed (Council meeting March 2018). They state in the agenda bundle that with the drop in registrants there is a potential risk to income and so may have to review the fee in view of this. Would it not be better to look at why the registrants are leaving the profession and have an honest and open discussion as to their reasons, particularly if they leave following investigations? Whilst I understand it is a business like any other - it is a unique business in so far as it's funders are given no alternative option thank to have to pay in to it in order to work. Registrants have little say over how their fees are used and whilst I am sure would understand that there is no benefit to anyone if the NMC was no longer financially viable, it does beg the question why it is necessary to have £81,347 sitting in various accounts when we have registrants living on the breadline? No easy answer but perhaps time for some tricky questions to be asked? They state that 97% of income is from registrant fees and gives a “healthy financial position”. There is a business case to replace the Kemble Street offices at a cost of £1million next year, £3 million to replace IT systems next year with a further £2million in 2018-2020. Would perhaps tendering for slightly more cost efficient renovations be more appropriate? Perhaps relocating out of expensive London may assist? Cash holdings are reported as being £81.3 million (between £15 - £16k sitting in each account) One Council member did say that if invested correctly this excess could assist in reducing fees - which gives hope. Anyone got the skill or time to investigate further?