At the Fitness to Practise (FTP) Forum on Friday 24 April, Council members expressed surprise that one third of its budget is spent on ‘hearings’, despite FTP concerns affecting fewer than 0.5% of HPC registrants. They also asked why such an adversarial and expensive method was favoured over mediation, even where the latter might be more effective. The answer is that the law governing HPC regulation only allows mediation to be mentioned at the end of the process, by which time registrant and complainant (often a registrant’s NHS manager or colleague, by the way, seldom an ordinary member of the public) are well entrenched in conflict, and mediation is no longer viable.
Who writes the rules that constrain people in this way?
How can the Council move to make a change?
Monday, 27 April 2009
Thursday, 16 April 2009
2nd Letter to Marc Seale from IPN Women
A few weeks ago, four women from the Independent Practitioners Network went to see Marc Seale, Chief Exec of the HPC, to discuss their concerns about the process. They found the trip a deeply unsatisfying experience and wrote to him saying why (see blog entry for 10 February). Interestingly, their letter crossed in the post with one from him inviting them back for another bite at the cherry. Below is their response, which they have kindly agreed to allow me to post here:
Dear Marc
Thank you for inviting to us for a second meeting to discuss the idea of state regulation by the HPC.
We have decided not to take you up on this offer, however, we would like to take this opportunity to appraise you of our views.
They are as follows:
. Counselling and psychotherapy are not health professions. Regulation by the HPC is therefore inappropriate.
. There is no evidence of widespread abuse by practitioners.
. There is no evidence that state regulation will prevent abuse.
. State regulation, together with other developments (IAPT, Skills for Health, Proposed Change in Guidelines for Depression) will reduce availability and choice of therapy for people who need it. We are not convinced by your assertion that there is no relationship between these developments.
. We propose self regulation as an alternative, particularly if a non adversarial/mediation process is adopted for dealing with complaints in the first instance. Such a process is far less costly, both in terms of finances and of human misery.
Lastly - we read the report of your meeting with Darian Leader and others. It made us feel that you are unlikely to take on board anything we say.
If you have read this far we will feel that we have achieved something.
Thank you.
Irene Galant
Barbara Hacking
Jenny Nicholson
Els van Ooijen
--
Dr Els van Ooijen
Psychotherapist, supervisor and trainer
Nepenthe Consultancy
www.nepenthe.org.uk
Dear Marc
Thank you for inviting to us for a second meeting to discuss the idea of state regulation by the HPC.
We have decided not to take you up on this offer, however, we would like to take this opportunity to appraise you of our views.
They are as follows:
. Counselling and psychotherapy are not health professions. Regulation by the HPC is therefore inappropriate.
. There is no evidence of widespread abuse by practitioners.
. There is no evidence that state regulation will prevent abuse.
. State regulation, together with other developments (IAPT, Skills for Health, Proposed Change in Guidelines for Depression) will reduce availability and choice of therapy for people who need it. We are not convinced by your assertion that there is no relationship between these developments.
. We propose self regulation as an alternative, particularly if a non adversarial/mediation process is adopted for dealing with complaints in the first instance. Such a process is far less costly, both in terms of finances and of human misery.
Lastly - we read the report of your meeting with Darian Leader and others. It made us feel that you are unlikely to take on board anything we say.
If you have read this far we will feel that we have achieved something.
Thank you.
Irene Galant
Barbara Hacking
Jenny Nicholson
Els van Ooijen
--
Dr Els van Ooijen
Psychotherapist, supervisor and trainer
Nepenthe Consultancy
www.nepenthe.org.uk
Monday, 13 April 2009
A Professor's Perspective on the process
Thanks to Prof Ian Parker for allowing the publication of this letter to the President of the HPC:
Department of Psychology and Social Change
Manchester Metropolitan University Elizabeth Gaskell Campus
Hathersage Road Manchester M13 OJA UK
Ian Parker BA PhD AFBPsS CPsychol FRSA Professor of Psychology
13 April 2009
OPEN LETTER
Anna van der Gaag
President, Health Professions Council, UK
Park House
184 Kennington Park Road
London, SE11 4BU
Dear Anna van der Gaag,
I attended the HPC stakeholder consultation day in Manchester on 31 March 2009. There were three presentations in the morning. The first was by an art therapist, Diane Waller who I have heard before extolling in similar vein the virtues of the HPC, to the psychoanalytic section of the UKCP last year, a meeting where she reassured therapists that all they need to do is send in their registration payments and ‘nothing will change’ for them. The third presentation was by two speech therapists, and they spent much of their time telling of their delight in being consulted by the government on policy issues, so the message here seemed to be that therapists who are brought into the HPC will be recognised in some way.
The second presentation on that morning was the most disturbing, for three reasons. First, there was the content of Jonathan Coe’s presentation, which did indeed make the point that there is abuse of power in therapy. Some of us have long argued, and we did again make the point in our small groups in the afternoon, that resources should be directed to law centres, for example, to demystify the legal process and make it possible for clients who have been subjected to this kind of treatment to have recourse to the courts. Legal remedies are concerned with each separate infraction of the law and do not, as HPC appears to do, chain one crime to another into a moral system (as is the case, for example, in the hearings that view driving under the influence of alcohol or possession of A class drugs as evidence of bad character).
The Coe presentation was disturbing, second, because the patient whose case was described at the end of his talk was, we were told, present at the meeting. This meant (as Darian Leader from the College of Psychoanalysts – UK pointed out) that key elements of the patient’s relationship with her therapist were replicated as she was spoken about as an object of abuse. It is this aspect of the presentation that, whether or not the patient is enrolled to say that she is happy with this situation, already merits what we were treated to that morning being described as scandalous. Abuse in therapy often occurs precisely because the patient believes that it is for their own good.
There is a third reason the morning as a whole was disturbing, however, which is that the second presentation on ‘ethics’ was sandwiched between the two other presentations that were designed to reassure and flatter us as stakeholders. This is an indictment of the HPC approach to the world of psychotherapy. Perhaps the HPC knows, or perhaps the arguments that many of us have been making to it are simply not noticed, that our problem with the HPC regulation is precisely concerned with ethics. The particular psychoanalytic point that was made about the Coe presentation could be articulated in different ways by psychotherapists working in other orientations. Ethics grounds our work, and it means that for many of us the HPC would at least start to make sense if the whole morning had focussed on this question.
Ethical questions are now bringing therapists together who are shocked by assumptions made about good behaviour, and how it may be enforced, that underpin the work of the HPC. If the HPC cannot understand the difference between their conception of good behaviour and therapeutic practice, then surely the organisation could take a minute to reflect on the fact that there is at least a serious misunderstanding, a gulf between the organisation and those it seeks to regulate. Thousands of psychotherapists and counsellors have signed petitions and attended meetings organised by a myriad of groups that have sprung up against state regulation. The HPC should appreciate that regulation as it is presently conceived is anathema to good ethical therapeutic work, and draw the conclusion that it is time to step back, to abandon this process, and to look to other models (such as an open register of practitioners that has been adopted in other countries following consultation). Failure to acknowledge that problem, that gulf, is also, is it not, scandalous?
Ian Parker
Department of Psychology and Social Change
Manchester Metropolitan University Elizabeth Gaskell Campus
Hathersage Road Manchester M13 OJA UK
Ian Parker BA PhD AFBPsS CPsychol FRSA Professor of Psychology
13 April 2009
OPEN LETTER
Anna van der Gaag
President, Health Professions Council, UK
Park House
184 Kennington Park Road
London, SE11 4BU
Dear Anna van der Gaag,
I attended the HPC stakeholder consultation day in Manchester on 31 March 2009. There were three presentations in the morning. The first was by an art therapist, Diane Waller who I have heard before extolling in similar vein the virtues of the HPC, to the psychoanalytic section of the UKCP last year, a meeting where she reassured therapists that all they need to do is send in their registration payments and ‘nothing will change’ for them. The third presentation was by two speech therapists, and they spent much of their time telling of their delight in being consulted by the government on policy issues, so the message here seemed to be that therapists who are brought into the HPC will be recognised in some way.
The second presentation on that morning was the most disturbing, for three reasons. First, there was the content of Jonathan Coe’s presentation, which did indeed make the point that there is abuse of power in therapy. Some of us have long argued, and we did again make the point in our small groups in the afternoon, that resources should be directed to law centres, for example, to demystify the legal process and make it possible for clients who have been subjected to this kind of treatment to have recourse to the courts. Legal remedies are concerned with each separate infraction of the law and do not, as HPC appears to do, chain one crime to another into a moral system (as is the case, for example, in the hearings that view driving under the influence of alcohol or possession of A class drugs as evidence of bad character).
The Coe presentation was disturbing, second, because the patient whose case was described at the end of his talk was, we were told, present at the meeting. This meant (as Darian Leader from the College of Psychoanalysts – UK pointed out) that key elements of the patient’s relationship with her therapist were replicated as she was spoken about as an object of abuse. It is this aspect of the presentation that, whether or not the patient is enrolled to say that she is happy with this situation, already merits what we were treated to that morning being described as scandalous. Abuse in therapy often occurs precisely because the patient believes that it is for their own good.
There is a third reason the morning as a whole was disturbing, however, which is that the second presentation on ‘ethics’ was sandwiched between the two other presentations that were designed to reassure and flatter us as stakeholders. This is an indictment of the HPC approach to the world of psychotherapy. Perhaps the HPC knows, or perhaps the arguments that many of us have been making to it are simply not noticed, that our problem with the HPC regulation is precisely concerned with ethics. The particular psychoanalytic point that was made about the Coe presentation could be articulated in different ways by psychotherapists working in other orientations. Ethics grounds our work, and it means that for many of us the HPC would at least start to make sense if the whole morning had focussed on this question.
Ethical questions are now bringing therapists together who are shocked by assumptions made about good behaviour, and how it may be enforced, that underpin the work of the HPC. If the HPC cannot understand the difference between their conception of good behaviour and therapeutic practice, then surely the organisation could take a minute to reflect on the fact that there is at least a serious misunderstanding, a gulf between the organisation and those it seeks to regulate. Thousands of psychotherapists and counsellors have signed petitions and attended meetings organised by a myriad of groups that have sprung up against state regulation. The HPC should appreciate that regulation as it is presently conceived is anathema to good ethical therapeutic work, and draw the conclusion that it is time to step back, to abandon this process, and to look to other models (such as an open register of practitioners that has been adopted in other countries following consultation). Failure to acknowledge that problem, that gulf, is also, is it not, scandalous?
Ian Parker
Thursday, 2 April 2009
A user's perspective on the HPC process
Betty Bertrand-Godfrey very kindly agreed to my posting this here on the blog:
Report on the Manchester ‘Stakeholder’ Meeting organised by the Health Professions Council for UK stakeholders in Counselling and Psychotherapy. 31 March 2009.
By Betty Bertrand-Godfrey, a 'user' of psychoanalysis
As planned I went to the Manchester stakeholder meeting. Clearly the HPC's intention was to make us believe that statutory regulation is good for us - but they must be deluded and desperate.
Deluded first.
Prof Di Waller (HPC Council member, Chair of the Professional Liaison Group for Counselling Psychotherapy, and Arts Psychotherapist registrant of the HPC) opened the day with a very positive statement: " We have got a pretty good start on the work", she said.
I have observed two PLG meetings and I didn't think so. This was confirmed by the discussion we had at the end of the day when the PLG (at last) asked the floor's views on the matter. It was felt strongly that even the split between titles was a problem and suggested that everything was to be put on hold until the HPC finds a better way of dealing with this mammoth tasks. So not a "pretty" but an "ugly" start then!
One highlight of the day for me was Di Waller being genuinely surprised that the "fear of NOS keeps cropping up" (National Operating Standards). At the break I had a quiet word with an HPC representative and told him that having the Chair of NOS from Skills for Health on the PLG certainly does help this "cropping up". I also said that HPC wants to gain our "trust" but how can we do this when we think Prof Fonagy has been pushed in. I must say that the representative looked uneasy with this issue and I sensed almost agreed with me.
HPC denies categorically that it will refer to the NOS guidelines for setting their standards of proficiency and said that "it will actually be quite unhelpful" (Michael Guthrie, Acting Director of Policy and Standards). But in my little chat I also mentioned that if HPC registration goes through then we know it is an open door for further rules to be implemented that will damage the core of most therapeutic work.
Desperate now.
At 11:40, we had the most incredible power point presentation I have ever seen. Mary Smith (Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists, and HPC registrant) put together images and words destined to five-year-olds. She seemed to want to make us believe that registration is fantastic and that we should all go for it with all our hearts and souls. The way she operated was weird, very weird indeed, and clumsy. I felt she was trying to hypnotise the whole room but all she managed to do was irritate us by taking up precious space that could have been dedicated to proper grown-up debate.
In substance she said we should (I am quoting now) "abandon ourselves to the process and leave the professional bodies behind. You need to pass it all over to the HPC. There will be a moment of bereavement and we ourselves (SLT) felt that we were handing stuff away but we need to have that clear blue water (here was the soothing image of a lake on her power point presentation at the same time!) that can only allow the transition". Basically, she said: go to sleep - resistance to HPC is futile! A shame she had to go and could not reflect on Prof Parker's (Manchester Met University) beautiful intervention: he urged people to be cautious, but most of all to THINK.
At last in the afternoon we broke out into rooms. I happened to be with Sally Aldridge (BACP), Jonathan Coe (Witness) representing HPC but more interestingly the stakeholders Prof Darian Leader (College of Psychoanalysts, UK), Dennis Greenwood (Universities Psychotherapy and Counselling Association) and some serious opponents to this process. This is how it should have been right from the beginning. Darian reminded us that the White Paper (Trust Assurance and Safety) says "whether the HPC can accommodate the profession" not how. The "whether" has had no space to be discussed so far.
Then at 2:40pm (after only 40 min of intense discussions in small groups) we got back to the wider group where at last something more real was debated and animosity, fear and anxieties were emerging (which I think surprised the HPC-PLG people). I must say Janet Low (representing the Philadelphia Association), Ian Parker, and Nick Totton (from the Independent Practitioner’s Network) were brilliant and inspirational. The quality of their interventions allowed more people to join in to challenge HPC.
On departing I asked Michael Guthrie if he had the intention to feed back to this group by setting another meeting as people were anxious as to what was going to become of all that was said during the day. I emphasised the need for a real meeting and not some feedback on the HPC website because this is where it all happens.
He said he will have to think about it and thanked me.
Report on the Manchester ‘Stakeholder’ Meeting organised by the Health Professions Council for UK stakeholders in Counselling and Psychotherapy. 31 March 2009.
By Betty Bertrand-Godfrey, a 'user' of psychoanalysis
As planned I went to the Manchester stakeholder meeting. Clearly the HPC's intention was to make us believe that statutory regulation is good for us - but they must be deluded and desperate.
Deluded first.
Prof Di Waller (HPC Council member, Chair of the Professional Liaison Group for Counselling Psychotherapy, and Arts Psychotherapist registrant of the HPC) opened the day with a very positive statement: " We have got a pretty good start on the work", she said.
I have observed two PLG meetings and I didn't think so. This was confirmed by the discussion we had at the end of the day when the PLG (at last) asked the floor's views on the matter. It was felt strongly that even the split between titles was a problem and suggested that everything was to be put on hold until the HPC finds a better way of dealing with this mammoth tasks. So not a "pretty" but an "ugly" start then!
One highlight of the day for me was Di Waller being genuinely surprised that the "fear of NOS keeps cropping up" (National Operating Standards). At the break I had a quiet word with an HPC representative and told him that having the Chair of NOS from Skills for Health on the PLG certainly does help this "cropping up". I also said that HPC wants to gain our "trust" but how can we do this when we think Prof Fonagy has been pushed in. I must say that the representative looked uneasy with this issue and I sensed almost agreed with me.
HPC denies categorically that it will refer to the NOS guidelines for setting their standards of proficiency and said that "it will actually be quite unhelpful" (Michael Guthrie, Acting Director of Policy and Standards). But in my little chat I also mentioned that if HPC registration goes through then we know it is an open door for further rules to be implemented that will damage the core of most therapeutic work.
Desperate now.
At 11:40, we had the most incredible power point presentation I have ever seen. Mary Smith (Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists, and HPC registrant) put together images and words destined to five-year-olds. She seemed to want to make us believe that registration is fantastic and that we should all go for it with all our hearts and souls. The way she operated was weird, very weird indeed, and clumsy. I felt she was trying to hypnotise the whole room but all she managed to do was irritate us by taking up precious space that could have been dedicated to proper grown-up debate.
In substance she said we should (I am quoting now) "abandon ourselves to the process and leave the professional bodies behind. You need to pass it all over to the HPC. There will be a moment of bereavement and we ourselves (SLT) felt that we were handing stuff away but we need to have that clear blue water (here was the soothing image of a lake on her power point presentation at the same time!) that can only allow the transition". Basically, she said: go to sleep - resistance to HPC is futile! A shame she had to go and could not reflect on Prof Parker's (Manchester Met University) beautiful intervention: he urged people to be cautious, but most of all to THINK.
At last in the afternoon we broke out into rooms. I happened to be with Sally Aldridge (BACP), Jonathan Coe (Witness) representing HPC but more interestingly the stakeholders Prof Darian Leader (College of Psychoanalysts, UK), Dennis Greenwood (Universities Psychotherapy and Counselling Association) and some serious opponents to this process. This is how it should have been right from the beginning. Darian reminded us that the White Paper (Trust Assurance and Safety) says "whether the HPC can accommodate the profession" not how. The "whether" has had no space to be discussed so far.
Then at 2:40pm (after only 40 min of intense discussions in small groups) we got back to the wider group where at last something more real was debated and animosity, fear and anxieties were emerging (which I think surprised the HPC-PLG people). I must say Janet Low (representing the Philadelphia Association), Ian Parker, and Nick Totton (from the Independent Practitioner’s Network) were brilliant and inspirational. The quality of their interventions allowed more people to join in to challenge HPC.
On departing I asked Michael Guthrie if he had the intention to feed back to this group by setting another meeting as people were anxious as to what was going to become of all that was said during the day. I emphasised the need for a real meeting and not some feedback on the HPC website because this is where it all happens.
He said he will have to think about it and thanked me.
Wednesday, 1 April 2009
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
