Disguising the truth

Mr Marc Seale is the Chief Executive of the HPC. The HPC is a QUANGO - a quasi autonomous non governmental agency. The Longman dictionary definition of this is as follows: set up by a government and having statutory powers in a specific field (eg the race relations board). In this case set up by the Health Professions Order 2001 - HPO2001 - and passed into law by Parliament in early 2002, responsible to, and administered by the Privy Council. Wikipedia adds 'the acronym can carry with it an implication of poor management and lack of accountability.'

At the BSHAA's congress, 18 April 08, Kenilworth, Mr Seale introduced the HPC as 'not a charity'. I wasn't there, but the powerpoint presentation is available on the web to download. One of the slides in his powerpoint show states: Not a charity. The HPC is not a charity. I wonder who might have thought that it was? Perhaps it was a joke, but I wonder why Mr Seale did not take the time given to him by the BSHAA to explain exactly what the HPC was? Perhaps he did in his talk, while his powerpoint projection continued to emit the empty information in large print on the screen that might have dominated the room.

Freud is famous for pointing out that when an analysand says 'it was not my mother' that we are indeed in the domain of the mother. So, is Marc Seale cunningly deploying a trick to subliminally implant the idea into the minds of this potential new source of income that the HPC is indeed a charity? I think we should be told.

The next bullet point on the show said 'the HPC is self financing'. Not a charity, but self financing. This rather suggests that it is competing in the free market and people are freely choosing to purchase its services because they think they are worthwhile. Not at all. Not only is it not a charity, but it is not a regular business, competing alongside a variety of others, either.

The HPC has the power to prosecute people for practising without paying their fee to the HPC. It is underwritten by law to compel money into its coffers through the use of statutory power. Without HPC registration, practitioners cannot use government 'protected' titles. The NHS and its contractors, are obliged to employ HPC-registrants thus creating a Government or Statutorily regulated market.

Why mask the truth in this way?

The right decision but the wrong reason

Mr W's panel agreed that the allegation against Mr R did not amount to a damnation of his fitness to practice. If you want to read their decision you will have to email the HPC because it won't be published on the website.

Why not? Because Mr R wants his name removed from any further damaging publicity. Fair enough.

I wonder, tho, whether the HPC would consider publishing an apology.

This seems only right. For it was they who thought that Ms B had uncovered a serious case of misconduct that amounted to a significant threat to the public's safety; and it was they who have made Mr R's life extremely unpleasant during the time it takes for the allegation to actually come to trial; and it was they who hired the legal counsel (Ms T) to attack Mr R on their behalf in public on January 5th, 2009. Yes, I would say she attacked and have asked for the full transcript so that I can describe it on a future blog where you may judge for yourself. From my seat in the public gallery it seemed almost obscene to allow her to hammer away for so long when the case was so obvious a non-starter. The law lost its position of objectivity and Ms T went out for her own satisfaction to get a positive result. Not professional, not competent. And Ms B? What might we think of her fitness to practise, judged on her actions in this case?

But the reason that the panel gave for coming to its conclusion continues to miss the point. To be charitable, I shall say that the HPC has been set up on a twisted logic which makes it very difficult for anyone to do a decent job there. The twist is of course difficult to reveal - it is concealed behind a facade which effectively corrupts the truth (hence my reference to George Smiley in the twitter bar) and it will be the subject of several more blog entries, I'm sure. But for now I need to focus on the point of the unfortunate Mr R's Kafkaesque experience.

If you remember, Mr R is a speech and language therapist. This work is not renowned for is life threatening qualities, unlike, say heart surgery, or administering morphine. Nor is it clear why only an NHS employee in office hours may administer a treatment. What is the evidence that giving extra sessions outside the jurisdiction of the NHS will present a danger to the public? Absolutely none in this case.

The taken for granted assumption behind the HPC's action against Mr R can be deduced: that professionals are greedy, money grabbing creatures who will deceive the public if they are not subject to close scrutiny by their colleagues and managers in the NHS together with the weight of authority of the HPC. Puerile.

Mr R is innocent even if he charges the going rate for extra sessions. In fact, by charging the going rate he enters into a relation where both he and his clients are protected. The financial arrangement between people is in itself a form of regulation. The HPC and the NHS here seem to think that money is a filthy contaminator which must be treated like excrement that only they have the expertise to manage. They have invented a new harm - money - against which the public must be protected. This idea is juvenile and has no place in an institution underwritten by the laws of this land.