Alliance for C&P - Open Letter to HPC Council Members

Here is the text of the Open Letter from the
ALLIANCE FOR COUNSELLING & PSYCHOTHERAPY to
Members of the Council of the HEALTH PROFESSIONS COUNCIL

12th MARCH 2011
CALL TO COUNCIL MEMBERS
The Government's unmistakable and welcome change of policy concerning statutory regulation means that the time has come for the HPC to withdraw from the fields of counselling and psychotherapy. The Alliance has consistently argued, as did all the professional bodies when it was first announced, that the HPC is an inappropriate regulator for the activities of counselling and psychotherapy. Thousands of practitioners have agreed with us.

In addition, the recent decision in the High Court to allow a Judicial Review of the HPC's conduct has seriously undermined public trust in the HPC.

We now call upon the Council Members of the HPC to instruct the Executive to desist from claiming that there is a compelling public-safety risk attached to the professions of counselling and psychotherapy, such that a case might be made for statutory regulation.

We further call upon the Council Members of the HPC to instruct the Executive to desist from attempting to open a voluntary register, or registers, for counsellors and/or psychotherapists.

NO CASE FOR STATUTORY REGULATION
In seeking to justify statutory regulation, alarming figures on the prevalence of abuse have frequently been claimed. However, such data stem from research carried out on other professions, usually in other countries, and often many years ago. There is no evidence whatsoever of a correlation between studies of American psychiatrists and psychologists conducted decades ago and the behaviour of counsellors and psychotherapists working in the UK in 2011; yet such unsubstantiated claims of statistical equivalence have been misleadingly presented to the HPC as if they were established fact.

Even allowing for under-reporting, the incidence of complaints in our field is very low in both absolute and comparative terms, and the number of cases that lead to practitioner striking-off is tiny. For instance, in 2008 the British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy (BACP) conducted an audit which found that the rate of upheld complaints had not exceeded 0.072 per cent over a ten-year period. The Alliance shares the view, held by most practitioners in the field, that the Government’s preferred option of quality-assured voluntary regulation (QAVR) will be more than adequate to deal with any existing or future misconduct; and the Alliance will do all in its power to ensure that QAVR is robust, effective, and consonant with the core values of the field.

We are particularly concerned about the credibility of any ‘research’ which may be produced by private companies describing themselves as 'clinics' who offer to work with the victims of professional misconduct by counsellors and psychotherapists. Such companies offer therapy – on a private fee-paying basis, often at extremely high rates – for those who may have suffered from, or engaged in misconduct. Given the obvious potential for a conflict of interest, we would urge Council to be very sceptical indeed about the objectivity of any such research. In fact, serious academic research into misconduct is, at present, lacking.

The Alliance believes that professional misconduct by counsellors and psychotherapists should be dealt with by a complaints system that is fit for purpose, being robust yet sensitive to the unique particularities of work in counselling and psychotherapy. HPC's Fitness to Practise system was widely criticised across the entire field of counselling and psychotherapy, even by those who are in favour of statutory regulation.

SAY 'NO' TO VOLUNTARY REGISTERS HELD BY STATUTORY REGULATORS
With regard to the power given to the HPC to establish voluntary registers for groups of health and care workers not currently statutorily regulated: we do not believe that the Department of Health ever anticipated that the HPC would seek to establish such a voluntary register for counsellors and psychotherapists. Given the model of accreditation to be employed by the Council for Healthcare Regulatory Excellence (CHRE), we can anticipate a potentially schismatic situation wherein the HPC and the existing professional bodies effectively compete to register counsellors and psychotherapists on a voluntary basis.

The CHRE has clearly stated that it believes statutory regulators should not hold voluntary registers where an existing alternative already exists. The CHRE believes that this would be confusing to the public, and would undermine the credibility of the entire accreditation system. The Alliance strongly concurs with this view.

The HPC has no experience whatsoever of working as a regulator outside of its existing approach based on legal protection of title. To expect a major culture change to take place within a short period as the organisation is forced to embrace the voluntary principle is entirely unrealistic.

HPC MUST WITHDRAW
For all these reasons, the Alliance seeks a clear declaration from the Council, to the effect that it will instruct the Executive that HPC should now gracefully withdraw from the fields of counselling and psychotherapy.



ALLIANCE FOR COUNSELLING & PSYCHOTHERAPY www.allianceforcandp.org

E&T Comm 10 March 2011: a problem for hearing aid dispenser graduates

At the end of the E&T committee, about 1.05pm, there was a small discussion about a problem that had arisen for new graduates of courses for hearing aid dispensers. This profession had been transferred without comment into the hands of HPC on 10 Feb 2010, and the old Hearing Aid Council (HAC) had then been dismantled.

A little glitch had led to a problem for students on courses during this takeover period. People who graduated under the HAC were eligible to apply for HPC registration, and graduates on courses which commenced after the handover date were also clearly eligible. But students who were on courses during this period were left in a black hole when administrators interpreted the handover date ('approval date') to mean that only training courses begun after the date of approval were eligible pathways for HPC registration. Hundreds of application forms had been returned to the new grads who were rejected as HPC applicants, and therefore denied the right to work.

These recent Graduates had no other option but to appeal the decision as the bureaucratic machinery was in motion. The administrator reported to the E&T committee that 'a former member of the Hearing Aid Council happened to be sitting on one of these appeal panels, and he confirmed to us that the approval date was meant to apply to all courses in action, and not just for those yet to begin.'

The administrator showed no sign of embarrassment at the botch up, and I wondered whether he thought that it wasn't the HPC's responsibility. It is also perhaps worth mentioning that the Director of Education at HPC is young woman, which is simply to say that the title 'director of education' probably doesn't mean that she 'directs' any 'education' and may even have no experience of ever having done so. I shall ask for the job spec to be sent.

Ed & Training Committee 10 March 2011. Service User Involvement

At last week's Education and Training Committee (10 March 2011), there was an item on the agenda for discussion about 'service user involvement'. A difficult issue which had been discussed at previous meetings. A member of the exec had prepared a paper to help.

Discussion was opened in a careful and measured way by acting chair Jeff Lucas ('lay' council member, and Deputy Vice Chancellor at Bradford, where he is also Prof of Health Studies) who noted the absence of any definition of the term SUI. Is it a patient, a student, an employer? It is a very general notion. Di Waller (art therapist, council member and Professor at Goldsmiths College) backed him up - 'we need to know what we are on about before we put in another standard, a legal standard.' They both welcomed the opportunity to commission some research into the question before going ahead, tho Prof Lucas did note that the budget would only pay for 25 days of research time.

Then Joy Tweed (a lay council member, and part time lecturer in integrated governance in health care at Westminster Uni), who seemed frustrated and quite passionate, invoked a 'democratic right to be involved' and argued that 'even if we can't find research that it adds value, we need to do it'. She added a slogan to reinforce her point: 'nothing about us, without us'.

Penny Renwick (chiropodist/podiatrist, council member and associate dean of health, psychology and social care at Manchester Metropolitan University) said "I strongly support Joy, we have to get the boat on the river before we find the evidence', and John Donaghy (paramedic, council member, and lecturer at Hertfordshire Uni) said 'this is best practice in the NHS whether the evidence is good or bad'.

Anna van der Gaag (not a committee member, but Chair of the HPC, and a speech therapist) encouraged the committee to get going 'on a journey we don't know the end point of' and Marc Seale, CEO, brusquely chivvied things on by reminding the committee that 'this has been discussed ... you must give us a clear steer in an ambiguous ... we can't help you ... you must provide us with ammunition... we really need to get going ... if we do the research it will take till April ...' etc. Practical problems were thus thrust firmly out of view.

Jeff Lucas admitted defeat when he closed the discussion saying 'we believe it has been proven elsewhere,' he seemed somewhat cowed when he added 'we have this belief, this value'.

This committee of 19 people come together quarterly to make decisions which the HPC exec and administrators implement through the agency of the partners.

The standards are the instrument of legal power, delegated by Parliament via statutory instrument.