1. Shadow Health Minister Anne Milton calls 3-hour meeting in The Grand Committee Room, Westminster Hall on 2nd November for major stakeholders in the regulation debate for counselling and psychotherapy.
2. Videos are now online from The Alliance conference on 11 October. Independent reports can be downloaded by clicking here.
3. Andrew Samuels is standing for election as UKCP Chair – click here for videos and reports on the process, and click here for the on-line discussion on the UKCP web.
4. BACP rejects the HPC Proposals for regulating Counselling and Psychotherapy.
5. The Maresfield Report published: a thorough analysis of the statistics and expense of the HPC Fitness to Practise regime. Legal challenge to HPC via the well-known London law firm Bindmans. NCP publish 72 page report 'Is HPC Legal' by Italian Barrister A Amicarelli
6. The Kings College and Royal Holloway study, 'Statutory Regulation and the Future of Professional Practice in Psychotherapy and Counselling' Funded by the General Medical Council and the Economic and Social Research Council – warn of over-regulation failing to provide the best model of patient care.
7. Compliance? Ambivalence? Rejection? A short book of responses to the HPC Consultation signed by 103 members of the Alliance Conference on 11 Oct was delivered to HPC on Monday 12th October, but no acknowledgement has been received.
8. A pamphlet by Arthur Musgrave containing ‘one half of a dialogue with enthusiasts for HPC regulation’ –a fascinating account of a serious attempt to enter a dialogue with those who are strongly in favour HPC of counsellors and psychotherapists.
9. Andrew Smith, Labour MP for Oxford East put a written question to the Department of Health (22 Oct) asking the Minister “If he will make a statement on the rejection by the British Association for Counselling & Psychotherapy of the Health Professions Council's proposed statutory regulation of psychotherapy and counselling.” The rather bland answer can be found by clicking here.
10. The House of Lords Select Committee on Merits of Statutory Instruments argues for less Government reliance on Regulations, in order to leave greater room for the professionalism of practitioners to deliver the objectives of improving learning.
11. 200 members now participate in the Alliance ning blog
12. AHPP (Humanistic Psychology Practitioners) advise members on strategies to avoid data transfer to HPC.
13. Regional groups continue to stage meetings to allow their members time and information to think with – a new meeting in Solent is currently being planned.
Monday, 26 October 2009
HPC answers some questions posed by Prof Andrew Samuels
"Dear Professor Samuels
Thank you for your recent emails. I have responded to each your questions in turn below.
1) How many people do you think will be registerable?
Estimates of numbers of psychotherapists and counsellors in the UK do vary by between around 40,000 (the approximate total of individuals on the larger professional bodies' registers / membership) up to around 100,000.
Reaching a more precise figure at this stage is difficult as it is hard to quantify the number of practitioners who may practise outside of the existing self-regulatory systems run by professional bodies and associations. In addition, at this stage it is also difficult to quantify how many practitioners are registered currently with more than one organisation.
I am sorry that I am not able to be more helpful in relation to this question.
2) How many voluntary registers do you think will be involved? How many are above 1,000?
We anticipate at the present time that the numbers of registers we will need to consider for transfer will number around the 30 to 40 mark. However, we may be contacted by other organisations who wish their membership lists to be considered for transfer and there may of course be further registers established or consolidation of registers prior to the opening of any statutory register, which would affect the overall figure.
I know that the registers / membership of the BACP, UKCP, BPC and BABCP all total over 1,000 members / registrants. However, we will know more once we begin the process of making recommendations about which registers should transfer early in the new year.
3) How do voluntary registers get transferred?
In order to introduce regulation for the first time, a Section 60 Order under the Health Act 1999 is required. This piece of secondary legislation has to be passed in Westminster and in Holyrood before the regulation becomes law.
The Section 60 Order specifies which registers will transfer to the statutory register and may indicate any arrangements that need to be entered into between the HPC and the holder of that register. This is a result of discussion between the Department of Health, the organisation and the HPC.
In terms of logistics, we would work with the organisation holding the register to establish the data they hold and compare it to the data we require for registration (name, address, data of birth, etc). The transfer of data would then normally occur electronically with security measures such as encryption put in place to protect data security.
Once the register transfer has taken place and the HPC register opened, we would normally write to everybody that has registered to welcome them to the Register. Approximately one month later the profession would go into ‘renewal’ – every profession renews its registration with us on a two-yearly cycle. Registrants would receive a renewal form and would be given three months in which to complete the form including reading and signing the declarations and returning this to us with payment. Registrants can choose to pay their fees for two years in full, or to pay via a 6 monthly direct debit. If we do not receive a completed form after two months we send a reminder; if a completed form and payment is not received by the end of the three month period, the registrant with lapse from the Register.
An organisation could potentially only send a proportion of names on their list(s); the registers that transfer is controlled by the detail included in the Section 60 Order. For example, when practitioner psychologists became regulated by us on the 1st July 2009, only those who held British Psychological Society practising certificates and who held or held in the past membership of one of the divisions relating to a relevant domain of practice transferred. This is fine detail that would need to be discussed between the Department of Health, the organisation concerned and us prior to the opening of the register. For example, as we register at the point of qualification and do not hold a student register, we would not want to transfer any data relating to students. In addition, we know that some registers differentiate between psychotherapists and counsellors, whilst others do not, and, depending on the final recommendations, we may need to enter into discussions about which parts or sections of registers transfer and to which ‘sub-section’ of the HPC register.
With regards whether someone can refuse their data to be transferred, this is something that an individual would need to take up with the organisation that holds their data (i.e. the holder of the voluntary register); this would also be something which might be covered during discussions with the Department of Health in specifying the registers that transfer in the section 60 order. Once the section 60 order comes into force, that gives the holder of the register the legal permission to transfer the register data.
4) What happens if someone whose data you hold after the transfer of a voluntary register does not re-register? Is it deleted, or held for the purposes of investigation of a protected title?
If someone transfers of the HPC register but does not renew their registration, they will no longer be registered and their name will no longer appear in the public-facing register.
In terms of the data we hold, if someone lapses from our register, their details would remain in our registration database (but no details would be publicly available). In many circumstances, someone may come off our register because they are taking a career break or are going on maternity leave but wish to re-register again in the future. Sometimes individuals also fail to renew their registration on time because of an oversight on their part and need to apply for readmission to the register so that they can begin to practise again. If someone has been previously registered with us, they have to complete an application form. If someone has previously been registered with us, we do not ask for proof of qualification but we ask instead for confirmation that they were previously registered. Subject to checks that the information we require has been received, they will be re-registered under their previous registration number – this avoids potentially creating duplicate entries in our register, ensuring the register remains as accurate as possible.
The information is not retained for the purposes of investigating protection of title offences. However, if we do receive a complaint about the potential misuse of a protected title, our first check is to ensure the person concerned isn’t already registered with us. Sometimes we receive complaints about the misuse of protected titles where the person is already registered with us, sometimes under their maiden rather than their married name or vice versa. In such circumstances we can normally advise the complainant and registrant as appropriate and close the case without the need for further investigation.
5) How do you know who their employer is? Why do you write to the employer?
When someone registers with us or renews their registration, we ask them to provide /update us with a home address and employer / practice address (if they have one). The employer / practice address is used in order to provide information on our online register which includes the approximate geographical area in which the registrant practises. For example, someone who worked in SE11 would have the location ‘London’ listed against their name in the online register. However, their full home or employer / practice address would not be publicly available. Listing a general area on the public-facing register means that a member of the public can easily identify a practitioner as this allows them to differentiate between registrants with the same or similar names.
If the voluntary register holds details on employer / practice address, this will normally be given to HPC as part of the Register transfer. However, this data will sometimes not be held on the voluntary register, or, in the case of a HPC registrant, this information may not have been provided or the registrant may not have kept their details up to date.
When someone lapses from the register, we will write to the employers details (if we have them) within a month to let them know that the individual has lapsed. If someone is not on our Register, then they are legally unable to continue using a protected title. We do not have powers to make any legal requirements of employers directly; it is an individual’s responsibility to renew their registration if they still wish to practise using a protected title.
We write to the known employer following feedback we received from employers who asked us to do this. They wanted to ensure that they met their obligations to ensure that their staff were registered when necessary. In particular, employers want to avoid problems that arise where a member of staff fails to renew their registration but does not advise their employer who is unaware until the next time they check the registration status of members of staff.
The letter we send to employers (if we have this information) advises them that a registrant has lapsed from the registrant and explains that they are legally unable to use the protected title for their profession until they have readmitted to the register.
This letter is only sent where we hold details and where someone has lapsed from the register because they have failed to renew their registration and pay the requisite fee by the renewal date. However, registrants may decide to come off our register at any time by voluntarily asking us to remove their name.
I hope the above is helpful and answers your questions; but please let me know should you have any additional questions or points of clarification.
Kind regards,
Michael Guthrie"
Thank you for your recent emails. I have responded to each your questions in turn below.
1) How many people do you think will be registerable?
Estimates of numbers of psychotherapists and counsellors in the UK do vary by between around 40,000 (the approximate total of individuals on the larger professional bodies' registers / membership) up to around 100,000.
Reaching a more precise figure at this stage is difficult as it is hard to quantify the number of practitioners who may practise outside of the existing self-regulatory systems run by professional bodies and associations. In addition, at this stage it is also difficult to quantify how many practitioners are registered currently with more than one organisation.
I am sorry that I am not able to be more helpful in relation to this question.
2) How many voluntary registers do you think will be involved? How many are above 1,000?
We anticipate at the present time that the numbers of registers we will need to consider for transfer will number around the 30 to 40 mark. However, we may be contacted by other organisations who wish their membership lists to be considered for transfer and there may of course be further registers established or consolidation of registers prior to the opening of any statutory register, which would affect the overall figure.
I know that the registers / membership of the BACP, UKCP, BPC and BABCP all total over 1,000 members / registrants. However, we will know more once we begin the process of making recommendations about which registers should transfer early in the new year.
3) How do voluntary registers get transferred?
In order to introduce regulation for the first time, a Section 60 Order under the Health Act 1999 is required. This piece of secondary legislation has to be passed in Westminster and in Holyrood before the regulation becomes law.
The Section 60 Order specifies which registers will transfer to the statutory register and may indicate any arrangements that need to be entered into between the HPC and the holder of that register. This is a result of discussion between the Department of Health, the organisation and the HPC.
In terms of logistics, we would work with the organisation holding the register to establish the data they hold and compare it to the data we require for registration (name, address, data of birth, etc). The transfer of data would then normally occur electronically with security measures such as encryption put in place to protect data security.
Once the register transfer has taken place and the HPC register opened, we would normally write to everybody that has registered to welcome them to the Register. Approximately one month later the profession would go into ‘renewal’ – every profession renews its registration with us on a two-yearly cycle. Registrants would receive a renewal form and would be given three months in which to complete the form including reading and signing the declarations and returning this to us with payment. Registrants can choose to pay their fees for two years in full, or to pay via a 6 monthly direct debit. If we do not receive a completed form after two months we send a reminder; if a completed form and payment is not received by the end of the three month period, the registrant with lapse from the Register.
An organisation could potentially only send a proportion of names on their list(s); the registers that transfer is controlled by the detail included in the Section 60 Order. For example, when practitioner psychologists became regulated by us on the 1st July 2009, only those who held British Psychological Society practising certificates and who held or held in the past membership of one of the divisions relating to a relevant domain of practice transferred. This is fine detail that would need to be discussed between the Department of Health, the organisation concerned and us prior to the opening of the register. For example, as we register at the point of qualification and do not hold a student register, we would not want to transfer any data relating to students. In addition, we know that some registers differentiate between psychotherapists and counsellors, whilst others do not, and, depending on the final recommendations, we may need to enter into discussions about which parts or sections of registers transfer and to which ‘sub-section’ of the HPC register.
With regards whether someone can refuse their data to be transferred, this is something that an individual would need to take up with the organisation that holds their data (i.e. the holder of the voluntary register); this would also be something which might be covered during discussions with the Department of Health in specifying the registers that transfer in the section 60 order. Once the section 60 order comes into force, that gives the holder of the register the legal permission to transfer the register data.
4) What happens if someone whose data you hold after the transfer of a voluntary register does not re-register? Is it deleted, or held for the purposes of investigation of a protected title?
If someone transfers of the HPC register but does not renew their registration, they will no longer be registered and their name will no longer appear in the public-facing register.
In terms of the data we hold, if someone lapses from our register, their details would remain in our registration database (but no details would be publicly available). In many circumstances, someone may come off our register because they are taking a career break or are going on maternity leave but wish to re-register again in the future. Sometimes individuals also fail to renew their registration on time because of an oversight on their part and need to apply for readmission to the register so that they can begin to practise again. If someone has been previously registered with us, they have to complete an application form. If someone has previously been registered with us, we do not ask for proof of qualification but we ask instead for confirmation that they were previously registered. Subject to checks that the information we require has been received, they will be re-registered under their previous registration number – this avoids potentially creating duplicate entries in our register, ensuring the register remains as accurate as possible.
The information is not retained for the purposes of investigating protection of title offences. However, if we do receive a complaint about the potential misuse of a protected title, our first check is to ensure the person concerned isn’t already registered with us. Sometimes we receive complaints about the misuse of protected titles where the person is already registered with us, sometimes under their maiden rather than their married name or vice versa. In such circumstances we can normally advise the complainant and registrant as appropriate and close the case without the need for further investigation.
5) How do you know who their employer is? Why do you write to the employer?
When someone registers with us or renews their registration, we ask them to provide /update us with a home address and employer / practice address (if they have one). The employer / practice address is used in order to provide information on our online register which includes the approximate geographical area in which the registrant practises. For example, someone who worked in SE11 would have the location ‘London’ listed against their name in the online register. However, their full home or employer / practice address would not be publicly available. Listing a general area on the public-facing register means that a member of the public can easily identify a practitioner as this allows them to differentiate between registrants with the same or similar names.
If the voluntary register holds details on employer / practice address, this will normally be given to HPC as part of the Register transfer. However, this data will sometimes not be held on the voluntary register, or, in the case of a HPC registrant, this information may not have been provided or the registrant may not have kept their details up to date.
When someone lapses from the register, we will write to the employers details (if we have them) within a month to let them know that the individual has lapsed. If someone is not on our Register, then they are legally unable to continue using a protected title. We do not have powers to make any legal requirements of employers directly; it is an individual’s responsibility to renew their registration if they still wish to practise using a protected title.
We write to the known employer following feedback we received from employers who asked us to do this. They wanted to ensure that they met their obligations to ensure that their staff were registered when necessary. In particular, employers want to avoid problems that arise where a member of staff fails to renew their registration but does not advise their employer who is unaware until the next time they check the registration status of members of staff.
The letter we send to employers (if we have this information) advises them that a registrant has lapsed from the registrant and explains that they are legally unable to use the protected title for their profession until they have readmitted to the register.
This letter is only sent where we hold details and where someone has lapsed from the register because they have failed to renew their registration and pay the requisite fee by the renewal date. However, registrants may decide to come off our register at any time by voluntarily asking us to remove their name.
I hope the above is helpful and answers your questions; but please let me know should you have any additional questions or points of clarification.
Kind regards,
Michael Guthrie"
UKCP officer election prompts new thinking on HPC
Reproduced below is a message from Andrew Samuels who has agreed to stand for election as Chair in the UKCP and is using this to bring information and debate alive on the impact of HPC on psychotherapy practice [the highlighting is mine].
"There's a strange and paradoxical feel to this election. Just at the moment when who we are and what we do as psychotherapists is going to be determined by the state, we hold an election in which individual judgement and choice will be decisive in UKCP for the first time. The idea that the future is in our hands is abroad – and at the same time, we are seeing how hard it is for some to truly accept that.
Everyone running for office says they wish to be judged on the issues and I am no exception. But the way this election is shaping up is very worrying indeed. We have seen a number of statements issued by the leadership of some sections that basically instruct their registrants on how to vote. The tone of some of these statements is not what I, for one, would have expected to see in public, as opposed to private discourse.
Equally worrying is the possibility of UKCP Central being manipulated by interests who are palpably opposed to what I am standing for. You should have received your voting papers by now but they have not been sent out. It has been suggested that the reason for this has been to allow for horse-trading between the two candidates from one section so that one would withdraw to avoid splitting their vote. The political tactic is fair enough, but not if it involves voting papers going out after the formally announced date showing only two candidates and not three, as if it were all just business as usual. Anyway, perhaps now really is the moment to focus on the issues.
HPC is not the only problem facing us but it is the one with the pressing time frame. In my position statement, which is included in Item 2 of the three items that follow this message, you will see that I am not trying to make the election into a referendum on HPC. We have other problems to face, both out there in arenas such as NICE and IAPT, and, after the way the election has gone, some pretty dire internal problems as well. I have had something to say about the whole range of issues, not just HPC.
The problem with my candidacy is that it does seek to reverse policy and hence it is an uphill struggle for me. Not least because, quite understandably you could say, the leadership of UKCP and of the sections are deeply implicated in and committed to the HPC policy. Hence they are bound to feel personally affronted if criticised and to take drastic action to stabilise their positions. I respectfully suggest that you, as registrants, do not necessarily share in the back stories of your leaderships, and I am asking you, in the secret ballot, to do your bit to restore UKCP to a commitment to some form of regulation that is more fitting to our values and traditions as psychotherapists.
For, as you will have realised, I am not opposed to all regulation. It has to be the right kind of regulation. That is why I am calling for a Convention on the Future of Psychotherapy and Counselling. There are alternative models for psychotherapy regulation, some of them having been tested in other countries. Yet I have been amazed to find, in discussion with architects of UKCP's regulation policy, that they have never even read the material.
Two ideas are worth noting. The first would be a 'Talking Heads Council', an improved version of the Psychological Professions Council that, only a few years ago, it was UKCP's policy to fight for. The other model is called the Practitioner Full Disclosure List; without going into detail, such a List would definitely safeguard the interests of the public and has other interesting features that might make it more appropriate for our profession.
I have been discussing our future with politicians from all three parties in both the Commons and the Lords. They are, by now, nearly all convinced by the arguments that HPC is wrong for us, though they do differ on how easy it would be to bring about a change. (No-one I have spoken to says a change is impossible or out of the question. They all say that a change will have to be towards a better model of statutory regulation.) There does seem to be a new willingness in Westminster and Whitehall to think again. If we send a clear message via our election that this is what we want, then, given the fact that the politicians will be thinking for a while about their own election, there is a window of opportunity. Nothing legislative that affects us is going to happen before the General Election.
This is what I am going to do about HPC if I am elected. First, I would try to bring the BACP and the BPC on board. Whether that succeeds or not, I will go to HPC and ask them to ask Government for the suspension of the process towards state regulation. Whether that succeeds or not, I will then call upon the Department of Health (and the Shadow health teams in the other parties) to back the call for the Convention on the Future of Psychotherapy and Counselling.
If this all fails, then I will assuredly work as hard as I can to get the best possible deal for UKCP in terms of how the HPC operates its register, and what the standards of proficiency and the criteria for approval as a training organisation turn out to be. I will make sure that we are adequately protected against those claims by BACP that are not sustainable (but support them where they seem to have serious grounds for complaint about the HPC proposals). I will do my best to protect the positions of those who do not wish to register, provided they adhere strictly to the rather stringent conditions of Principled Non-Compliance which are outlined in Item 3 that follows this message. It will not be enough just to do nothing at all.
You will see from this serious and detailed thought that is plain wrong for the HIPS Political Group to claim that I shouldn't even be in the election at all. The statement from this faction of HIPS is causing consternation and protest within their own section due to its defamatory choice of language, misrepresentation of the historical and contemporary facts, and authoritarian tone. Sadly, from the point of view of integrity in our professional life, the statement was distributed far and wide. I am sure it has been damaging to my chances despite the retraction of some of the wilder claims. In Item 2 that follows this message you will see my Response to what the HIPS Political Group sent out. It includes a rebuttal of their statement by a member of the UKCP Board of Trustees. When you read what Paul Atkinson has written, ask yourselves whether the HIPS statement is a reliable guide to how you should vote.
There is an election on and so everyone, including me, will tend to overstate their case. Nevertheless, I must say that the notion circulated by the Family, Couple, Sexual and Systemic Therapies Section that a vote for me will lead to people losing their jobs represents election scaremongering at its best (or worst)! Think about it for a moment. If HPC goes ahead in spite of Samuels, then no jobs will be lost. If there is another system put in place, then everyone will be in exactly the same boat. Again, no jobs will be lost. Opposing HPC won't lead to any losses of jobs. What all this shows is how invested everyone at the top of the professional tree (could we call them our Ruling Class?) is in maintaining control. Hence 'Stop Andrew at All Costs'.
Not everything that has been written is so awful, though, and I am grateful for the measured tone emanating from the Hypno-Psychotherapy Section. My reply to their statement, which is Item 1 following this message, enables me to explain why the Alliance came into being, and to remind everyone that over 850 UKCP registrants have signed the petition against regulation via HPC. No-one knows what the balance of opinion in the profession really is. Even BACP doesn't know and is at present conducting a sort of emergency poll on the HPC proposals. In my Response to the HIPS Political Group, I say it is 'amazing' that we don't know. I think I was pretty moderate in my choice of language. Maybe even after this election we still won't really know, but I will make good on my pledge to hold ballots on all matters to do with regulation in the future.
I am sure that, if elected, I will be tempted to 'go native', and to enjoy meeting with the powerful (and with the interesting) a little too much. I could well get inflated. But I will do my best to be conscious of this. I will certainly try to put a stop to the growing tendency for UKCP Central to develop a life and interests of its own, expressed in a ceaseless stream of authoritarian memoranda. As the Chair of a Member Organisation, I quite naturally get to read all the papers. Hence I feel able to say that our leaderships have got mixed up with the aims and objectives of the bureaucratic approach to civic life that is so prevalent in Britain today. I was first amused and then concerned to see that the latest papers from UKCP Central include documentation presented on forms and using language and notation identical to that used by HPC.
Go interpret!
Returning to the other challenges that face us, I think it is reasonably well known that mine was the first voice to go public about the outrage of IAPT getting all the resources from the government for its watered down version of CBT (apparently not particularly effective, according to their own research). I took a terrible hammering for speaking my mind and, though UKCP notables told me privately to keep on trucking because they couldn't be as direct in the meetings they were attending, they did nothing in public to help. What you can draw from this, in terms of what kind of Chair you want, is that I am likely to be more effective than most (in settings like the IAPT committees) to get the injustices and absurdities redressed. I would also seriously question what we are doing in the Savoy Partnership. I wouldn't advocate our leaving it as yet but we have lost our distinctive voice therein.
Similarly, with NICE, there seems to be this strange reluctance on the part of UKCP to really stick up for the kind of work we do. Either it is that, or we have not yet really worked out a concerted political strategy.
I will conclude on a personal note. I know I can be a difficult person, self-centred and bombastic at times. I am a funny mixture to myself of tough and fragile. Truly, I really didn't want to stand for this job, which is why I say in my position statement (in Item 2 below) that I was 'surprised' to be standing. At 60 years old and enjoying my clinical, academic and political work, and my personal life, I didn't need to do this. But I just felt so damn passionately that something has gone fantastically 'off' in our little world of psychotherapy. So, against my own needs for pleasure and a quieter life, I responded to requests to stand. I do so as an underdog, without the resources that candidates backed by powerful sections have. Could I really win when I have been targeted in the way I have been? We shall see. I am certainly not a 'man in a white suit', no Martin Bell – but I really think I have argued my case that it is time for a rethink by UKCP concerning its policies and its style of doing things.
I was going to say you could stop reading here but then I realised how patronising it would be to assume that you wouldn't be interested when, as they say, the future is in your hands. Please take the time (the election lasts all of October) to read through the material ....
Andrew
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
