You Are Here:

Home > Media Centre > Press Releases > Statutory Regulation

Society rejects proposal for statutory regulation

The British Psychological Society has today, 9 June 2005, rejected the Department of Health's proposal that the Health Professions Council should take responsibility for the statutory regulation of psychologists, who offer services to the public.

"The Society's response to the Government's consultation makes it clear that we are committed to the principle of statutory regulation, but we have serious concerns about the proposed way of doing this," said Dr Graham Powell, President of the British Psychological Society. He continued: "We already have well established and highly respected systems of regulation. These include the determination of applicants' suitability to practise in applied areas of psychology; the accreditation of 115 programmes of professional training; and, a rigorous investigatory and disciplinary system which, perhaps uniquely, has a majority of non-psychologists at all stages of decision-making. We are not convinced that the Health Professions Council has the systems in place to equal or enhance our procedures".

The Society regards statutory regulation as being essential to enhance public protection. This is because it is not a statutory requirement that psychologists who offer services to the public are on the Society's existing Register. Nor can a removal from the Register automatically stop a person from practising.

The intention to introduce a statutory system to strengthen the Society's current non-statutory system is therefore welcomed, but the Society has expressed significant doubts as to whether the Government's proposals for regulating applied psychology through the Health Professions Council would achieve this objective in all areas. (A bullet point summary of the Society's main concerns is attached).

Of particular concern to the Society's members, who have contributed to the response, was that they provide a wide range of services across many different fields and that the degree to which their practice is concerned with 'health' varies substantially. In addition the membership raised a number of concerns related to the fact that, unlike typical health professions, the discipline includes a substantial number of academics/researchers who do not offer services to the public.

The full draft response to the Department of Health Consultation "Applied Psychology. Enhancing Public Protection: Proposals for the Statutory Regulation of Applied psychologists", is available online at the British Psychological Society's web site, www.bps.org.uk

Ref: PR804

Summary of The British Psychological Society's main concerns in response to the Department of Health's public consultation document on the Statutory Regulation of applied psychologists:

· The HPC was not designed for and has no familiarity with regulating a profession of the breadth of psychology, covering at least 7 different fields of practice.

· The HPC has no experience of regulating professionals outside of health settings, and several of the Divisions have very little to do with health, and future Divisions might have nothing to do with health.

· The HPC has no experience of regulating a profession based at least 3 years postgraduate qualifications, creating a risk of lower standards.

· The standards of proficiency are written at a very general level and do not validly reflect the proficiencies required within each field of psychology practice.

· The HPC does not agree that the highest level of English language proficiency is required to practise psychology, whereas such proficiency should be seen as a prerequisite for talking therapies.

· The HPC have not guaranteed that the criteria for grandparenting will match current entry standards.

· The HPC have no experience of assessing non-standard entry (eg overseas candidates) into a profession of the breath of psychology, and their suggestion that this could be done by just two assessors, or even one, is not viable.

· The HPC system for accrediting courses seems less rigorous than the current BPS system, hence a danger that standards will be lowered.

· Conflict could arise if HPC and the BPS disagree over a decision on course accreditation, and no system has been proposed for managing this conflict.

· There is significant lack of detail about requirements for continuing professional development, and no guarantee that they will match our own.

· The Department of Health consultation document lacks detail regarding the HPC process of investigating complaints.

· The HPC code of conduct is not as rigorous as the BPS code, eg in relation to interpersonal behaviour.

· The HPC system of investigating complaints is less expert and less rigorous than the current BPS system, with only one expert opinion required when our experience is that given the breadth of psychology one needs a committee drawn from a range of backgrounds and if necessary a specialist panel.

· The medical information about registrants published on the HPC website seems to the Society to be a breach of basic rights and natural justice.

· The proposed legislation assumes that the BPS register will close, which it will not.

· There are errors in the Department of Health cost benefit analysis, for example it cost the BPS £1800 to investigate a case, not the £7,000 stated.

· The HPC seems to marginalise the professional body and not to guarantee routes that will draw upon the Society's expertise and experience, which obstructs the Society in fulfilling its obligations under the Royal Charter to advance psychology and promote efficiency.

· The current proposal does not allow those undertaking professional training to be regulated, whereas the Society currently manages this quite simply by allowing conditional registration.

· The current proposal does not allow for protection of the title 'clinical neuropsychologist'.

· The current proposal assumes that all psychologists currently regulated by the BPS will transfer to the statutory register, but the proposal is only to regulate 7 titles, so none of those who have chartered status but do not hold one of these titles can be regulated by HPC.

· We welcome the clear statement that there is no intent to regulate academic or research psychologists, but there is no route for an academic or research psychologist to be regulated by HPC should they wish to be so.

· It is essential for the practice of psychology that the core discipline is not adversely affected in its development and growth but the current proposal could disadvantage applied researchers.

· The Department of Health document is confusing about which teachers on professional training courses need to be registered, and this has potential for undermining the teaching strength of courses.

· As a result of our serious concerns, we have asked the Department of Health and the Government to think again as to whether there should be a regulatory body specifically for psychology, reporting to the new Council for Healthcare Regulatory Excellence as the overarching body. If the Government continues to insist upon regulation by HPC then the above list of concerns indicates the ways in which the HPC proposal will have to be developed and improved in order to be fit for purpose. We expect to engage with the Department of Health in discussion following their consideration of the response from the Society.