At the Professional Liaison Group for Psychotherapy and Counselling held on Thursday 4th December the central difficulty - resolving the tensions between imposing government policy from the top down and listening to bottom up, democratically expressed opposition - was raised and then avoided before calling the meeting to an unexpected early end: 2 hours before schedule.
Niall McDermott, Head of Policy & Standards from the Dept of Health, presented the legal frame of the group, explaining the role and process of Section 60 of the Health Act 1999. The work of the PLG will result in recommendations that go to the HPC Council, from where it goes to his team of lawyers to be turned into law. He also spoke of the links between the various governmental bodies, saying that he saw no reason why Skills for Health shouldn't inform HPC - the correct steps had been taken to make that 'read across' work.
Micheal Guthrie, Head of Policy and Standards at HPC said 'there's a clear policy direction from the Government, full stop' and ended his presentation by pointing to the not inconsiderable benefits to the professional bodies who join this process. He added that the PLG were faced with a very difficult and ambitious process, and that they would be 'asked to make pragmatic decisions' in order to 'move things forward'.
Jonathan Coe, CE of Witness supported this line and said 'opposition to the process is a misperception - our job is to move away from left field views' and implement the government's policy. This line was repeated by other HPC Council members on the group (notably Annie Turner representing Occupatonal Therapy and Eileen Thornton for the Physiotherapists) who made long and frequent interventions to reassure those representing the new profession of psychotherapy that there is always dissension to the process, but it would all get suppressed in the end: someone said 'we have a task to do, we have to manage the task'. This was more clearly stated later by another HPC representative, this one appointed as chair of this committee, arts therapist Diane Waller; she said: 'this is the HPC's task: the Government has made a decision, if we don't do it to ourselves, it will be done to us.'
Kathi Murphy (UKCP rep and psychotherapist with Metanoia) had to remind the group that she was not filibustering (a political point set up by the Skills For Health spokesman, and knocked home by the representative for Relate) but was in fact raising important arguments thoughtfully made by large groups she was there to represent. This was the most clear statement that the meeting actually had some work to do to take on board the different positions within the profession.
Sally Aldridge, Head of Regulatory Policy for the BACP, quietly asked how they would resolve the difficulties of dual registration. This deceptively simple question conceals not only the fight for status that might wreck the work of this committee, but also the unwelcome news that there is no way of stipulating when the work of this profession is simply one thing or the other. Brian Magee, representing counselling and psychotherapy for Scotland gave voice to another small question that cuts right across this one, but from a very different starting point. He asked whether the group was entitled to decide that regulation was not in service users’ interests. This question triggered the chair to stop the meeting for lunch. It was a little after 12 midday.
Friday, 5 December 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)


No comments:
Post a Comment