The Rt Hon Patricia Hewitt, MP, and then Secretary of State for Health, wrote in her Foreword to this White Paper "patients in the UK rightly have great confidence in their health professionals... the preservation of that trust has to be the starting point [of any regulation]... it is all too easy to focus on the incompetent or malicious practice of individuals and seek to build a system from that, [but]... professionalism is an unquantifiable asset to our society which rules, regulations, and systems must support, not inhibit." p1
This document is important in this process as it is where the words are written that produce the justification for the HPC-fication of counselling and psychotherapy - the field that is currently under consideration for state regulation.
Sunday, 25 January 2009
Preparing for the next PLG for C&P, 28/29 Jan 09: structure of register
The complexity of this is mind boggling. What is in a name? How can we pin it down? What relation does it have to the practise, to reality, to the real?
Part of this document attempts to summarise points from documents received by HPC in its 'Call for Ideas'. Leaving aside questions of method, science, and truth, it is sufficient to note that 31 named institutions are quoted in this text, including Skills for Health, 'The NHS', IAPT, and New Ways of Working for Psychological Therapists.
Some other institutions include The Tavistock Centre for Couple Relationships, The Association for Rational and Emotive Behaviour Therapy, The Cambridge Body Psychotherapy Centre, The Association of Counsellors and Psychotherapists in Primary Care, and the Stirling District Mental Health Association.
In the spirit of scientific endeavour it would be valid to note the huge variety of responders, including several people speaking in their own name. In fact, this might be the most important point to note. The practise that is currently in question (conjured up by the phrase 'counselling and psychotherapy) is enormously diverse. There are those who think this is the most valid characteristic of a dynamic, responsive field of work - it is close to the ground, answerable to the roots of its practise, known through its context and locality. There are others who think this is a horrible mess that does not convince The Public of its solid knowledge base. This latter group are the ones who work tirelessly to reduce the diversity to a singularity which will be more easily managed by faceless bureaucrats in a centralised institution. These would be the foot soldiers that knowingly or not form the army that populate Popper's Nightmare (see video link in the side panel).
Part of this document attempts to summarise points from documents received by HPC in its 'Call for Ideas'. Leaving aside questions of method, science, and truth, it is sufficient to note that 31 named institutions are quoted in this text, including Skills for Health, 'The NHS', IAPT, and New Ways of Working for Psychological Therapists.
Some other institutions include The Tavistock Centre for Couple Relationships, The Association for Rational and Emotive Behaviour Therapy, The Cambridge Body Psychotherapy Centre, The Association of Counsellors and Psychotherapists in Primary Care, and the Stirling District Mental Health Association.
In the spirit of scientific endeavour it would be valid to note the huge variety of responders, including several people speaking in their own name. In fact, this might be the most important point to note. The practise that is currently in question (conjured up by the phrase 'counselling and psychotherapy) is enormously diverse. There are those who think this is the most valid characteristic of a dynamic, responsive field of work - it is close to the ground, answerable to the roots of its practise, known through its context and locality. There are others who think this is a horrible mess that does not convince The Public of its solid knowledge base. This latter group are the ones who work tirelessly to reduce the diversity to a singularity which will be more easily managed by faceless bureaucrats in a centralised institution. These would be the foot soldiers that knowingly or not form the army that populate Popper's Nightmare (see video link in the side panel).
Preparing for the next PLG for C&P, 28/29 Jan 09: minutes of 4th Dec 08
The pack of papers are ready for reading, downloadable from the website (linked to the heading of this entry). The minutes of the last meeting, 4th December 08 are amongst that pack.
Some features of these minutes (as yet uncomfirmed) are noteworthy. First, the meeting is not formally constituted as a committee, tho it has a chair, and a set of minutes. It is a Group. Perhaps for this reason the minute taker has not taken the trouble to associate comments with individual group members, except to note those who are late or not attending. The only person that is named in the whole of these minutes is Professor Peter Fonagy, the spokesman for Skills for Health.
. Naming him in this way suggests that he is a particular kind of member of the group.
Otherwise it is The Group as a whole that acts, and it acts in a limited number of ways. I count them:
The Group was welcomed (2) by President and Chair
The Group introduced itself (1)
The Group noted (28)
The Group approved (1) (the agenda)
The Group received (4) reports from DoH, HPC, a summary of responses from CfI (Call for Ideas), the future workplan.
The Group would report (1) to the HPC in July 2009
The Group was asked (1) to identify areas requiring further work.
The Group felt (1) that some responses to CfI were uninformed
The Group agreed (5)
The Group asked (2) to be kept informed on SfH NOS, how to publicise its work
Most of these actions are posed in the passive, but some of them suggest an active agency, 5 of them consisted of agreeing. Lets look at those 5:
1. The group agreed that it would be be useful for a future meeting of the Group to hear about the experience of a profession which had previously become subject to statutory regulation. (Minute 6.5)
2. the Group agreed that it would be useful to ensure that its work addressed the areas indicated in the [HPC administrative] new profession process. (6.10)
3. The Group agreed that its work should focus on making recommendations on statutory regulation, whilst listening to dissenting and sceptical views. (6.11)
4. The Group agreed that its work should aim to ensure that statutory regulation would protect the public. (6.11)
5. The Group agreed that its discussions should focus on issues which related to protection of the public. (6.11)
Agreeing to comply with all the rules already written down.
Points to note.
1. how is agreement reached by the group? It is not clear.
2. what are the reasons given to support agreement number 1?
3. How will the other profession be chosen, and how will its experience be surveyed and reported? How is this more valuable than attending to the reality of the current practise?
4. How do the administrative procedures of the HPC shape, or impact on, the substantive work of the Group?
5. What is at stake in naming this process 'statutory' regulation, when state regulation is a more truthful description of this work.
6. In what way will dissenting or sceptical views be heard (note 3)? The image conjured up here could easily be understood as a kind of handicap, or distraction to the real work; it pre-supposes an unspecified agreement and prejudges a disposition - a splitting mechanism.
7. How is the public being conceived, and what is the harm, how will it protect?
The phrase 'statutory regulation' is used erroneously throughout this document. The correct term is state regulation - it proceeds directly from the act of the government which itself proceeds from the report of the Bristol Royal Infirmary Inquiry.
The limits placed on this group raise serious questions about the trustworthiness of the process. The group itself is constructed entirely within the domain of the HPC. The chair is already an HPC member, attached via another label. The PLG was selected by this chair in order to minimise the chance of actual debate. The substance of the meeting that did begin to touch the real concerns about the negative effects of this process on the practise has been entirely screened out. Brian Magee, for example (who is attached to COSCA - a group in Scotland), asked the very serious question: would the group be able to conclude that the process of HPC-ification was itself against the best interests of the client/user. Kathi Murphy (attached to Metanoia, an organisational member of the UKCP) had to forcefully remind Peter Fonagy (spokesman for Skills for Health) and Mr Bell (substitute for Rose Mary Owen, from the Relate Institute) that she was not fillibustering when she spoke of the real concerns that she was bound to represent that exist within the UKCP.
The minutes make no reference to the reasons the Chair had for closing the meeting 2 hours ahead of schedule. This remains a fact for conjecture.
Some features of these minutes (as yet uncomfirmed) are noteworthy. First, the meeting is not formally constituted as a committee, tho it has a chair, and a set of minutes. It is a Group. Perhaps for this reason the minute taker has not taken the trouble to associate comments with individual group members, except to note those who are late or not attending. The only person that is named in the whole of these minutes is Professor Peter Fonagy, the spokesman for Skills for Health.
. Naming him in this way suggests that he is a particular kind of member of the group.
Otherwise it is The Group as a whole that acts, and it acts in a limited number of ways. I count them:
The Group was welcomed (2) by President and Chair
The Group introduced itself (1)
The Group noted (28)
The Group approved (1) (the agenda)
The Group received (4) reports from DoH, HPC, a summary of responses from CfI (Call for Ideas), the future workplan.
The Group would report (1) to the HPC in July 2009
The Group was asked (1) to identify areas requiring further work.
The Group felt (1) that some responses to CfI were uninformed
The Group agreed (5)
The Group asked (2) to be kept informed on SfH NOS, how to publicise its work
Most of these actions are posed in the passive, but some of them suggest an active agency, 5 of them consisted of agreeing. Lets look at those 5:
1. The group agreed that it would be be useful for a future meeting of the Group to hear about the experience of a profession which had previously become subject to statutory regulation. (Minute 6.5)
2. the Group agreed that it would be useful to ensure that its work addressed the areas indicated in the [HPC administrative] new profession process. (6.10)
3. The Group agreed that its work should focus on making recommendations on statutory regulation, whilst listening to dissenting and sceptical views. (6.11)
4. The Group agreed that its work should aim to ensure that statutory regulation would protect the public. (6.11)
5. The Group agreed that its discussions should focus on issues which related to protection of the public. (6.11)
Agreeing to comply with all the rules already written down.
Points to note.
1. how is agreement reached by the group? It is not clear.
2. what are the reasons given to support agreement number 1?
3. How will the other profession be chosen, and how will its experience be surveyed and reported? How is this more valuable than attending to the reality of the current practise?
4. How do the administrative procedures of the HPC shape, or impact on, the substantive work of the Group?
5. What is at stake in naming this process 'statutory' regulation, when state regulation is a more truthful description of this work.
6. In what way will dissenting or sceptical views be heard (note 3)? The image conjured up here could easily be understood as a kind of handicap, or distraction to the real work; it pre-supposes an unspecified agreement and prejudges a disposition - a splitting mechanism.
7. How is the public being conceived, and what is the harm, how will it protect?
The phrase 'statutory regulation' is used erroneously throughout this document. The correct term is state regulation - it proceeds directly from the act of the government which itself proceeds from the report of the Bristol Royal Infirmary Inquiry.
The limits placed on this group raise serious questions about the trustworthiness of the process. The group itself is constructed entirely within the domain of the HPC. The chair is already an HPC member, attached via another label. The PLG was selected by this chair in order to minimise the chance of actual debate. The substance of the meeting that did begin to touch the real concerns about the negative effects of this process on the practise has been entirely screened out. Brian Magee, for example (who is attached to COSCA - a group in Scotland), asked the very serious question: would the group be able to conclude that the process of HPC-ification was itself against the best interests of the client/user. Kathi Murphy (attached to Metanoia, an organisational member of the UKCP) had to forcefully remind Peter Fonagy (spokesman for Skills for Health) and Mr Bell (substitute for Rose Mary Owen, from the Relate Institute) that she was not fillibustering when she spoke of the real concerns that she was bound to represent that exist within the UKCP.
The minutes make no reference to the reasons the Chair had for closing the meeting 2 hours ahead of schedule. This remains a fact for conjecture.
More on the meaning of a 'Public Gallery'
Dear Mr Seale
Thank you for your letter dated 21 January, which I received yesterday.
I am surprised and pleased to hear that I am the first to take the trouble to draw to your attention the strange seating arrangements of your rooms, and the first to spend time reflecting on the unintended or unexpected consequences of this. It is good to be of use and to bring something new to light. I wonder, though, why you decline to engage with me on the point. When I described the layout to a colleague, he was most surprised. He had thought that 'public gallery' meant what it said.
I had no idea you were also seated here during the course of that meeting, but am happy to hear you were not uncomfortable. However, I am surprised you are not aware that you and I are in different positions and that this has a bearing on my experience, also it seems necessary to say that though you weren't made uncomfortable this is not evidence that I was not uncomfortable. I do wonder why you are so quick to dismiss my point.
My suggestion that the coffee tables could easily give way to the comfort of the public remains true. It was a simple suggestion made in good will, which you have completely overlooked.
I have been unable to fathom the meaning of your third paragraph (that the public is not expected to participate in the actual meeting itself). In a court of law, a lecture room, or indeed an opera house the audience might not be expected to participate in the actual thing itself, but nevertheless has a role to play. Moreover, it must be rare for the audience to be confined to a corner, and obliged continually to look askance at the backs of many players’ heads.
My other question related to designating the speakers with names and positions - both seating and substantial. Your reply addresses only 2 of my 4 points. You supplied a list of names and organisational associations, but I also asked for their position statements and where they were seated. Even the minimum would have been a welcome addition to the day - my neighbours also spent many minutes looking for such a list on and about the chairs. I understand that you are not obliged, and that we might have brought our own copy, etc but be assured a few of us at least had expected it as a courtesy.
There is little courtesy here, in fact, and I am indeed surprised. Your reply is rather mechanical and lacks a human touch. This gives me cause for concern.
One final point – I should like you to know that I have been writing a blog called ‘hpcwatchdog’ for a few months now, and that I would like to record this correspondence there. May I suppose that you will let me know if you don't agree to this act?
Yours sincerely
Thank you for your letter dated 21 January, which I received yesterday.
I am surprised and pleased to hear that I am the first to take the trouble to draw to your attention the strange seating arrangements of your rooms, and the first to spend time reflecting on the unintended or unexpected consequences of this. It is good to be of use and to bring something new to light. I wonder, though, why you decline to engage with me on the point. When I described the layout to a colleague, he was most surprised. He had thought that 'public gallery' meant what it said.
I had no idea you were also seated here during the course of that meeting, but am happy to hear you were not uncomfortable. However, I am surprised you are not aware that you and I are in different positions and that this has a bearing on my experience, also it seems necessary to say that though you weren't made uncomfortable this is not evidence that I was not uncomfortable. I do wonder why you are so quick to dismiss my point.
My suggestion that the coffee tables could easily give way to the comfort of the public remains true. It was a simple suggestion made in good will, which you have completely overlooked.
I have been unable to fathom the meaning of your third paragraph (that the public is not expected to participate in the actual meeting itself). In a court of law, a lecture room, or indeed an opera house the audience might not be expected to participate in the actual thing itself, but nevertheless has a role to play. Moreover, it must be rare for the audience to be confined to a corner, and obliged continually to look askance at the backs of many players’ heads.
My other question related to designating the speakers with names and positions - both seating and substantial. Your reply addresses only 2 of my 4 points. You supplied a list of names and organisational associations, but I also asked for their position statements and where they were seated. Even the minimum would have been a welcome addition to the day - my neighbours also spent many minutes looking for such a list on and about the chairs. I understand that you are not obliged, and that we might have brought our own copy, etc but be assured a few of us at least had expected it as a courtesy.
There is little courtesy here, in fact, and I am indeed surprised. Your reply is rather mechanical and lacks a human touch. This gives me cause for concern.
One final point – I should like you to know that I have been writing a blog called ‘hpcwatchdog’ for a few months now, and that I would like to record this correspondence there. May I suppose that you will let me know if you don't agree to this act?
Yours sincerely
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
