100,000 reject government plans

The representative organisations have delivered a highly critical reaction to the Department of Health’s moves towards regulation via the Health Professions Council (HPC) in their response to the Foster Review of the regulation of non medical professions, and the Chief Medical Officer’s report Good Doctors, safer patients.

However, rather than simply highlight the many shortcomings of the Government’s model, the organisations have worked together to develop an alternative of how their members - in the fields of psychology, education, business, psychotherapy, counselling, the prison service and sports science - might be best regulated to give the public protection on a par with that guaranteed with Medical Practitioners.

"Our proposal for a new independent regulator has been developed because we regard the HPC route as unworkable and incapable of protecting the public from charlatans and under-skilled practitioners. The widespread view amongst practitioners, who overwhelmingly support the concept of statutory regulation, is that regulation via the HPC would be disastrous, possibly even ending up weaker than the voluntary regulation currently provided through the existing codes of conduct of their own professional bodies", said Ray Miller, President of the British Psychological Society.

Although the government has not yet publicly announced that the HPC will be the definitive regulatory route, it has made it clear that its preferred method of regulation would be to place all psychological professions under the auspices of the HPC.

This is despite the fact that organisations in this field have already responded to an earlier consultation on the statutory regulation of applied psychologists (commissioned by the Government in the spring of 2005) and made it quite clear that statutory regulation through the HPC would be totally inadequate to oversee such a complex and diverse profession. The response of the psychological professions to the Foster Reviews ‘Call for Ideas’ was also clearly disregarded in the published revision document.

Whilst the Department of Health has refused to reveal the results of that earlier consultation the professional bodies believe that the Foster Review is a response to the issues that were raised. They also believe the Government has ignored their reasoned arguments against regulation via the HPC and indeed has added new material, which raises yet further concerns.

Amongst the failings of the Government’s proposals are that;
· The Health Professions Council would apply its ‘employees in the health service’ model of regulation, to predominantly non health based professions. More than half of the professionals who would be registered (around 60,000) do not work in the health service. This has a number of implications which would mean less effective regulation, and lower public protection. The Foster proposal is essentially an NHS workforce solution and not a whole professions solution.
· The Health Professions Council has little experience of regulating sole trader practitioners as its experience is predominantly with mainstream NHS professionals, yet there are many such professionals who would need to register. This lack of experience could result in sole practitioners being inappropriately allowed to register or excluded from registering when they are clearly eligible to do so.
· There are concerns that charlatans or practitioners who have previously been expelled from their current professional bodies could gain registration through lax assessment procedures. There are particular concerns over non standard and international applications where applicants for registration have non-HPC recognised qualifications.
· The proposals for revalidation - that is staying on the register - are weak, with poor follow up monitoring procedures for professionals once they are accepted on to the register. This could mean failings in individual practitioners would not be picked up and that they could continue to offer services to the public putting them at risk.
· Professionals in training or assistant posts are not covered by the HPC’s model of regulation. This leaves a serious gap in public protection as there are many trainee and assistant professionals in direct contact with clients.
· It is proposed that the first stages of complaints against professionals will be dealt with at local (NHS) level. Even if the NHS could set up a consistent system across all its various parts, it is most unlikely that this system could be transferred to the prison services or education. It is still less likely to be transferred to and imposed on industry and commerce.

The proposal for a new independent regulator is the result of a two month consultation period with more than 100,000 practitioners being asked for their views. To allow the Department of Health to fully compare its strengths with the HPC the proposal has been worked up in some detail. Key features and strengths of the counter proposal for a Psychological Professions Council are;
· The new independent regulator would have strong lay representation at all levels ensuring full public accountability and transparency.
· It would cover trainee and assistant practitioners ensuring comprehensive public protection for all psychological practitioners who may work with them.
· It would have more specific and subject-appropriate standards. As the psychological professions are dealing with psychological processes - which are not visible like a broken wrist or ankle - the public needs to be confident that the standards of proficiency and code of conduct for practitioners addresses the subtleties of the relationship between professional and client.
· Psychological practice has a strong science and research base. The proposed Psychological Professions Council would maintain and potentially strengthen this link by offering registration to academics and researchers. This would ensure the continued quality of evidence based practice so important for ensuring public benefit and safety.
· The proposed body would have strict revalidation procedures policed through a robust system of continuing professional development which would be based on more frequent and thorough assessments than any of those currently in use by the HPC in its health settings.

Lisa Wake, Chair of the United Kingdom Council for Psychotherapy said: "Our members remain entirely committed to the principle of statutory regulation, but it must be based on a system that is fit-for-purpose and one that will give the public full and proper protection.

"Rather than just say ‘no’ to the government’s HPC model, we have decided to grasp this opportunity to develop a positive alternative, and have presented them with an improved system that is practical, robust and workable."

Editors Note;
1) Organisations in the group developing the alternative model of regulation are:
· The British Psychological Society.
· The British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy.
· British Association for Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapies.
· British Association of Sport and Exercise Sciences.
· The United Kingdom Council for Psychotherapy.
· The Association of Business Psychologists.
· The National Association of Principal Educational Psychologists.
· The Association of Educational Psychologists.
· The Association of Heads of Psychology Departments.

2) A copy of the full response to the Foster review and the counter proposal for the creation of an independent regulator specifically for the talking therapies can be found on the British Psychological Society’s web site at www.bps.org.uk/statreg.

3) A summary document is also available from the British Psychological Society Public Relations Manager - contact details below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Douglas Brown, British Psychological Society Public Relations Manager, tel. 0116 252 9500 (work) or 07793 800 366 (mobile), e-mail - mediacentre@bps.org.uk

Date: Friday 10 November 2006
Ref: PR1118