Centralisation in action: The Manchester Stakeholder Meeting

Yesterday (31 March 2009), in Manchester’s Thistle Hotel, the HPC staged a meeting for those who are not quite engaged in the process to draw counsellors and psychotherapists into state regulation. It was a well organised meeting in a nice venue with a lovely lunch. The acting Director of Policy and Standards (Michael Guthrie), the Director of Fitness to Practise (Kelly Johnson), Director of Communications (Jacqueline Ladds), Policy Officers (Sam Mars and Charlotte Urwin), the Secretary, Education Manager (Osama Ammar), Events Manager (Susan Carini), and some other employees were present: young and charming people, all (about 8 or so people).

The HPC elders were represented by the practitioners (or their close associates): President Anna van der Gaag, Di Waller (chair of the PLG), and Annie Turner (Council Member representing Occupational Therapists), then there were the PLG professionals: Fiona Ballantine Dykes (CPCAB), Sally Aldridge (BACP), Peter Fonagy (Skills for Health), Malcolm Allen (BPC), Brian McGee (Counselling and Psychotherapy in Scotland), Kathi Murphy and Carmen Ablack (UKCP), Nick Turner (Relate) and Jonathan Coe representing Witness (formerly POPAN – a user complaints organisation), about 11 people. The other 30 or so in the room included representatives from NICE, IAPT, Universities, NHS, Umbrella organisations for counselling, psychotherapy and psychoanalysis. An analysis of who was there, and what kind of experience they represented and what their positions and questions were would itself be a work involving some considerable effort and time.

The process, however, will squash the difference and reduce the experience to a size that the HPC can manage. This is very small indeed, and is one of the most straightforward destructive effects of intense centralisation. A second effect will follow: in order to show that they have heard everyone, a document will be produced which captures a sentence here, a phrase there, enough to prove in an imaginary (though possible) future thoughtless court of law that consultation has taken place. The meaning of what has been said will have to be sacrificed – it is simply not possible to understand and take it all on, and it will not be possible to write this up in a way that dignifies truth. The process will force the HPC to manufacture a representation that shows that they have consulted, but that can barely hope to benefit directly from the experience.

However, given that human beings are involved it is at least possible that someone could change the course of this infernal machine. That person would have to be a hero, and an unlikely one at that: “the holistic planner overlooks the fact that it is easy to centralize power but impossible to centralize all knowledge which is distributed over many individual minds, and whose centralisation would be necessary for the wise wielding of centralised power. But this fact has far-reaching consequences. Unable to ascertain what is in the minds of many individuals, he must try to control and stereotype interests and beliefs by education and propaganda. But this attempt to exercise power over minds must destroy the last possibility of finding out what people really think, for it is clearly incompatible with the free expression of thought, especially of critical thought.” (THES editorial, quoting Popper’s Nightmare, 8 June 1984) emphasis added.

In the morning were three presentations, first from Di Waller who wants to paint a rosy picture and said ‘We have got a pretty good start on the work" [see previous blogs for another point of view]. She couldn’t understand, tho, why people ‘outside’ kept asking about the relationship of the HPC to the NOS of the SfH. It would be helpful if she, Anna Van der Gaag, and Michael Guthrie explained their reasons for inviting Peter Fonagy, chair of NOS at SfH, to sit on the PLG – that would aid the understanding.

Jonathan Coe was next up, and delivered a horror story of a relationship gone wrong between a therapist and a client. Jonathan, backed up by Peter Fonagy, has been circulating an unsubstantiated statistic that 5% of therapists represent a serious threat to the safety of the public. In the absence of serious research, Jonathan was reduced to ‘bigging it up’ with a story about a poor woman victimised by an evil greasy man and had to resort to bringing the actual woman with him in lieu of proper proof. Many people in the room found this un-ethical, and Darian Leader (President of the UK College of Psychoanalysts) pointed out that in using this story for his own aims, Jonathan was unwittingly repeating elements in the structure of abuse that the substance of the story represented. The presence of the woman in such a context made any discussion of the case impossible: another nail in the coffin of enlightenment, another point offered up to the bogey-man.

After Jonathan, there were two women representing the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists. They had evidently been briefed – consciously or not – to reassure the stakeholders in this new profession that everything would be alright. Mary Smith kicked off with a power-point presentation that many thought was pitched at the wrong level, and she went on to recount something akin to a fairy story: there had been a lot of worries expressed by members of the SLT profession when it had been their turn for hpc-ification, but in the end they gave in and left their professional concerns behind, passing control over to the HPC. She said there had been a moment of bereavement when they felt that they were giving important things away, and then she said something mysterious: ‘we need to have that clear blue water [here she had a lovely photo on a power point slide presenting the soothing image of a lake] that is necessary for the transition". What on earth does that mean? The message received by some at least was in the form of a bribe: if you shut up and go with the flow, you will get your hands on some power. For Mary this meant access to the corridors of Whitehall, and a chance to influence government. The kind of mind-numbing effect of the HPC process has left its mark on Mary who wondered why her predecessors hadn’t become arch lobbyists. When I suggested that this was because England had not always been a highly centralized system and that it hadn’t been necessary before, she could only respond vaguely about the devolution of Wales, NI, and Scotland, as if this somehow proved a point.

Her colleague Kamini Gadhok might have produced her talk out of a manual of politically-sanctioned phrases. She said: robust regulation, enhanced protection, raised standards, support for the profession, raised profiles, fit for practice, keeping our agenda on the government’s radar, influencing the commissioners, bringing added value, protecting our practice against pressures, enhancing CPD, in line with government policy, improving outcomes, getting up there with the GMC, being invited to the top table, building our capacity. Newspeak? Or a hidden attempt to hypnotise? Nevertheless her power-point slide showed that over the years the Royal College was losing members to the HPC. I asked Kamini what her organization was doing to protect its members from the HPC. This caused a ripple of laughter in the room, but if you check out the case study of Mr R [see side panel index] you will see a staggering example of how the thoughtless process of HPC FTP hearings ride rough shod over perfectly decent practitioners. Kamini said that this had been discussed in their recent AGM. I look forward to the HPC publishing the apology soon.

In the effort to establish a congenial relationship the professional bodies can easily forget that the HPC has in fact been set up on a prejudice against them. Read Ian Kennedy’s book The Unmasking of Medicine (1981), trace his influence in the Bristol Royal Infirmary Inquiry Report, read the HPO2001, and the Section 60 currently before parliament. Instead of the good old fashioned English presumption that people are innocent until proven guilty, we have the idea that professionals constitute a danger that only HPC can overcome. This is why the HPC is made up of administrators without any experience, and why the difficult questions that relate to reality get squeezed out onto the edge and beyond. Professions are made up of people who are forced by their work to face up to the impossibilities that arise in practise. In reality, administrators can only imagine this, or subordinate themselves to the practice. In fantasy, administrators emerge as the only true pure and innocent.

Some of the stakeholders present knew nothing at all about HPC-ification, and had come hoping to be enlightened. They will have to work a lot harder if they want proper, useful, practical information about what the process will mean to them. Others had clearly done some homework. Ian Parker (Manchester Metropolitan University), for example, has read the Government White Paper Trust, Assurance and Safety more carefully than the HPC. In the detail the documents asks "whether the HPC can accommodate the profession" not how it could. He also asked what evidence there was that the form of regulation proposed by the HPC would actually achieve increased protection of the public. These two sensible questions are incredibly difficult to maintain.

Why?

In the afternoon came the ‘breakout groups’ in which the voices of the visitors could be heard. The chair of each group had been briefed to take back three things to the final plenary session. To their credit, all of them took back more. The assumption behind the construction of this meeting was that simple messages and supportive comments wouldn’t take long to deal with. But for those interested in reality and who have the tenacity to tangle with the truth and the conflicts involved, something more is needed.

Throughout the PLG process, difficult issues have emerged only to be ‘parked’ until some mythical future date. Tricky issues are constantly postponed and left in the mist of imagination. In my break-out group I said I was alarmed that the PLG (who are 2/3 of the way through their predefined life) don’t even know whether it will be possible to legally protect the title of counsellor (Michael Guthrie is supposed to be checking this out with the solicitors). All of the discussion so far in those PLG’s presupposes that they can legally own this title. From my point of view this is another sign that the process is rushed and ill-thought through. The expression of my alarm caused alarm and provoked an effort of suppression. John Nightingale (Association of Christian Counsellors) rescued the situation, and returned to it later to get things said straight.

Adrian Rhodes from the European Association for Psychotherapy also expressed an alarm. He said a constant stream of people was hammering on his European door asking what on earth was happening in the UK. Unfortunately, this was condensed into the rather simplistic idea that Europeans felt that ‘standards were being lowered’ which was more or less translated by Di Waller to mean Europeans are ‘elitist’. This rhetorical move needs unpacking. Elite, etymologically, means simply ‘elected’ - those few who are elected to represent the majority who cannot be present themselves. The HPC group is an elite. However, the word has been totally submerged by a wholly pejorative meaning, which effectively brings all conversation to a halt. So, the letter written by European Psychoanalysts expressing their great concern that NOS and HPC will kill off psychoanalysis didn’t get mentioned at all.

Fiona Ballantine Dykes managed to distil 7 sensible points of concern from the discussion in our group, and the HPC admin staff pledged to write this up in a document. The next PLG meeting is due to debate it again, where several of us will be sitting in silence, waiting to hear what they make of it.

Ian Parker’s point from the morning needs to be brought back here – is the HPC process actually paying attention to the question “can it accommodate this profession?” If it has sped forward to “how shall we force it to fit?” (which is what is articulated time and again by those in strategic positions in the process), then the work and the words of the day will have been in vain and the stakeholders meeting will be reduced to a cosmetic event and questions will crumble away. In the plenary session at the end of the day I asked Michael Guthrie directly how the HPC manages dissension within its structures. He said that the professional partners and groups discuss these things outside the main structure, and this is where the difficult issues must ultimately be dealt with. Within the HPC they are confined to act in ways that Government can accommodate. I heard this as a confirmation of Popper’s Nightmare. Someone else said she heard the exact opposite. Two more people tended to agree with me. It will be proved in the future action: will the machinery simply grind on? Or will human beings gain some control over the action?

On Sunday 5th April a meeting will be held in the ULU building on Malet Street London W1, staged by the Alliance for Counselling and Psychotherapy against State Regulation. It will be an important occasion which might load the dice in favour of the human factor. Here is the link to the web-site - click here.