You Are Here:

Home > The Society > Statutory Regulation > Statutory Regulation - Latest Updates > Statutory Regulation Archive

Statutory Regulation Archive

This page contains an archive of information and correspondence regarding Statutory Regulation.

The Society's first draft response to the Department of Health's (DH) public consultation on the Section 60 Order (S60) is now available.

Update 21 December 2007

1. the office will prepare a draft response by 25 January 2008
2. a briefing meeting will be held for Representative Council
3. the draft response will be posted on the members' area of the website and therefore available for subsystems and individual members to make their response
4. the final deadline for those responses will be 22 February 2008
5. the office will then revise the draft response, this will be available for a final review by the membership, and the Trustees will sign-off the document before submission.

I just need to remind you again that the Society's policy is that there will only be one official Society response to the consultation.

• Download documents from Department of Health website

"The ... legislation is the UK implementation of a European Directive which is focused only on the recognition of qualifications to enable free movement of labour throughout the European Economic Area (EEA). The principle is that there should be as few restrictions as possible: This is a European policy matter, to which the UK Government ascribes as an EU member state, but it is not the decision of the UK Government. It applies to statutorily regulated professions only. There are some professions agreed by Europe and officially listed in this Directive who are subject to restrictions of movement to ensure that members of those professions are adequately trained and checked on public health and safety grounds; these include clinical psychologists, but no other practitioner psychologists. This is because UK clinical psychologists, alone of the practitioner psychologists, are treated in Europe as a statutorily regulated profession because of the former requirement that only BPS-accredited clinical psychologists could be employed as such in the NHS. All other practitioner psychologists will come under this Directive once they are statutorily regulated by HPC, along with clinical psychologists who will also be HPC regulated.

"However this is the European requirement, and in the UK the requirement will go much further since statutory regulation will cover all applicants for registration for practice in the UK, wherever they come from. So, Pam, they will not be outside regulation, as your website report says. You may like to publish this clarification to reassure your membership".

I would like to thank Ros Mead for this clarification, but it does appear that she is only talking about psychologists that are coming to the UK on a permanent basis, rather than those coming here temporarily, which is one of our concerns. It also seems very odd to us that Europe already treats 'clinical psychologists (working in the NHS)' as 'statutorily regulated' although there is no law, no statute.

Update 10 October 2007

On Monday this week, 8 October, we again met Department of Health (DH) officials. At the end of the the previous week they had sent us a two documents - a new draft of the Section 60 Order (the necessary piece of legislation for psychologists to be statutorily regulated); and, a draft of the public consultation document that would accompany the Section 60 Order.

In the very short time available to us between receipt and the meeting on Monday we circulated the documents to Division and Training Committee Chairs and to representatives of the other main psychology organisations for initial comments, and we sent the draft Section 60 Order to our lawyers for their advice.

The new draft documents have taken on board some of the issues that we have raised with them over the last few months, but there are still major sticking points that we would wish to see amended before the documents see the public light of day. And when is that likely to be? The end of this month, or the beginning of next, is my best guess.

On Tuesday, 9 October, I met Lord Alderdice, together with the Hon Gen Sec, Ann Colley, and the Parliamentary Officer Ana Padilla. The purpose of the meeting was to bring him up to date with our discussions with the DH. Lord Alderdice has been enormously supportive of our regulation stance over the last couple of years.

Also on Tuesday, 9 October, we received another Government Statutory Instrument - this one controls the free movement of labour throughout the EU. There are some worrying new provisions, the main one being that only 'clinical psychologists (working in the NHS)' coming here as temporary workers will have their qualifications checked by the regulator, no other type of psychologist will be subject to the same check, as they are not deemed to have 'public health or safety implications'. This could well undermine a key Society principle in regard to statutory regulation - that there would be no reduction in public protection following the transition from voluntary to statutory regulation. This point and many others were made by the Society to government during the consultation phase on the Statutory Instrument, but were not taken on board. Indeed they have been the basis of all our discussions throughout the process. It seems, given this latest legislation, that our concerns have not been taken on board.

I'll bring you further news as soon as it's available.

Update 28 September 2007

The key decision from the Health Professions Council (HPC) Education and Training Committee concerning the threshold level for entry to registration is that no recommendation as to academic level will be contained within the public consultation document.

Update 26 September 2007

Applied Psychologists : Threshold level of qualification for entry to the register - initial response from the British Psychological Society

Update 19 September 2007 - President's Briefing

On Monday this week we received a draft consultation document from the Health Professions Council (HPC) concerning the proposed educational threshold entry level that would allow psychologists to be registered and therefore to practice. The HPC are preparing these standards in advance of legislation being laid; the draft of which is not completed. The level proposed by the HPC is Masters.

Education and Training Committee paper

Appendix 2 to Education and Training Committee paper

Update 12 September 2007 - President's Briefing

There were two important meetings last week. The first meeting of the Health Professions Council Professional Liaison Group (HPC PLG) on 4 September, and a meeting between the Presidents Negotiating Group (PNG) and Department of Health (DH) civil servants on 6 September. Once the agreed minutes of these meetings are available then they will be posted on this site.

Other issues raised by the Society's two 'observers' on this group (Drs Graham Powell and Liz Campbell) were:

These negotiations and discussions will lead into the DH producing, for public consultation, a new draft section 60 Order (the Statutory Instrument) and I was very pleased that the DH agreed that these discussions would inform both the public consultation and the new draft section 60 Order. Although no firm date has been given for the publication of the consultation and Order the expectation is that they will emerge from the DH in the next couple of months and we will post them on the web as soon as they are available.

Update 3 September 2007 - President's Briefing

Professor Pam Maras
President

Activity in relation to Statutory Regulation is increasing. The Department of Health is moving forward on early secondary legislation and the Health Professions Council (HPC) is undertaking work on standards prior to that legislation being laid. It is crucial that members receive information as quickly as possible and that the Society’s strategy is open and transparent. I have therefore actioned weekly President’s briefings of which this is the first. I am also happy to receive comments and questions from members as things progress.

Professor Pam Maras
President

Update 23 August 2007

Legislation on regulation of psychology

The Society is in discussion with the Department of Health about key principles in proposed legislation and how these will be addressed practically. We are pleased that the DH has agreed these but we are still very concerned that the legislation should put in place clear guidance on how psychology might be regulated.

The Health Professions Council, Professional Liaison Group

The Health Professions Council has appointed a Professional Liaison Group (PLG) to advise on Standards of Proficiency for Applied Psychologists in advance of any legislation on the regulation of psychology being laid.

Although we are still talking to the DH about the proposed legislation we believe it is important that the Society engages in this process.

The Terms of Reference for the PLG can be found on the Health Professions Council website. The Society has two invited places and our official representatives are: Dr Graham Powell and Professor Norah Frederickson who will sit on the Group as observers while discussions with the DH are ongoing.

We understand that the HPC has invited a number of Society members to sit on the PLG in an individual capacity.

For information, the published membership at the time of writing this briefing is below. We have added in brackets additional information:

Chairman: Jeff Lucas (HPC Council lay member and Deputy Vice Chancellor, University of Bradford)
Malcolm Adams (Co-Director and Honorary Professor, Doctoral Programme in Clinical Psychology, University of East Anglia)
Karen Bryan (HPC Council Registrant member and speech and language therapist)
Jonathan Coe (Chief Executive of Witness)
Chris Fife-Schaw (Representative of the Association of Heads of Psychology
Departments)
Peter Kinderman (Professor of Clinical Psychology, University of Liverpool)
Geoff Lindsay (Director of CEDAR, Centre for Educational Development, Appraisal and Research, University of Warwick)
Diane Waller (HPC Council Registrant member and arts therapist)
Gill Pearson (HPC Council Alternate Registrant member and dietician)
Barbara Stuart (HPC Council lay member and business careers advisor)
Graham Powell (Representative of the British Psychological Society (Observer))
Norah Frederickson (Representative of the British Psychological Society (Observer))

The published meeting dates of the PLG are:

Tuesday 4 September 2007 at 10:30 am
Friday 12 October 2007 at 10:30 am
Thursday 25 October 2007 at 1:30 pm

The HPC will then hold a public consultation on draft standards of proficiency. Further details about this work can be found on the Health Professions Council (HPC) website.

1. Future meetings

The President’s Negotiating Group will be meeting again with Department of Health civil servants on Thursday 6 September 2007.

A meeting with our partner organisations is being arranged.

2. Update on proposals for a Psychological Professions Council

The PPC proposal was a jointly authored document. It was not intended to be definitive but was meant as an outline of an alternative model of regulation.

The Department of Health has recently provided a detailed joint critique (with the HPC) of the proposal for a Psychological Professions Council.

The nine organisations that authored the PPC proposal are preparing a joint response to the DH/HPC critique.

The Trustees as well as senior members of other organisations have serious concerns about the accuracy of some of the Department of Health’s comments. However we feel it important that members should be aware of all relevant information and have posted the critique on our website (see below) for information. We have also included a note of our main concerns.

Together with our partners, we are preparing a reply.

Proposals for a Psychological Professions Council

Critique of proposal for a Psychological Professions Council submitted by nine professional bodies)

Update 18 June 2007

ii. We remain opposed to regulation by the HPC as it presently operates.

iii. We will enter into discussions and negotiations with the Department of Health (DoH) on two fronts:

a) to ensure that any Section 60 Order is acceptable to the discipline/profession and to discuss our argument that this may require a new independent regulator to be set up;

b) to explore the alternative which would be to reform the HPC so that its processes provide for an acceptable level of public protection.

iv. In all discussions/negotiations our bottom line principles are:

a) that the public must be fully and completely protected;

b) that all areas of practice in psychology must be regulated to ensure that the discipline/profession is not split;

c) that the title to be regulated shall be 'psychologist';

d) that a 'psychologist' is defined as a person with Doctoral level qualifications/competences;

e) that all those that need to be regulated have to be regulated (i.e. all those that offer psychological services to the public);

f) that in all areas covered by a statutory register there will be no reduction in standards relating to regulation and professional recognition from those currently employed to determine Chartered status. This also relates to standards of, and for, course accreditation.

The Society will continue to communicate its views to government and will attempt to take this issue forward in a constructive manner at the earliest opportunity. We will continue to keep members informed of developments.

2. Our Parliamentary Briefing document and adverts received many favourable responses from MPs, MSPs and Peers. Many responders asked to be kept informed as the issue develops. The new First Minister for Scotland, Alex Salmond, has been written to outlining the issue and offering a meeting to brief him.

3. Further meetings have been held with Department of Health (DoH) officials and the Minister of State, Lord Hunt. These meetings were held to attempt to clarify the Government's policy and to ensure that the Society's position is understood. The meeting with Lord Hunt was a joint meeting with several of our partner bodies, principally those associated with the psychotherapies. In brief, Lord Hunt offered further detailed talks at a high level, which we will wish to pursue initially with the DoH; clearly stated that the professions must be involved in the process; and, agreed to ensure that a full critique of our Psychological Professions Council (PPC) proposal/model (which we have been awaiting for some time) will be sent to us.

4. The meeting between EPS/AHPD and the DoH was held in May and the official minutes have been passed to the Society as a courtesy. The key outcome was that the academic/researcher community were reassured that in general terms academics and researchers will not need to be regulated to carry out their 'teaching and research' tasks. This is in line with the position held by the Society for many years - that only those that offer psychological services to 'the public' need to be regulated. Discussions will continue with both the EPS and the AHPD in order to share information and concerns. Discussions are also continuing with our partner organisations. Recently the President has talked to both the Association of Educational Psychologists (AEP) and the Association of Business Psychologists (ABP).

5. Meetings have been held with a group of senior opposition and cross-bench peers. They are very supportive of the Society's policy stance and have agreed to discuss the issue with colleagues.

6. The DoH held an 'implementation of the White Paper' conference in early June at which the Society was represented, although initially we had not been invited. As with so much other discussion of the White Paper the conference concentrated on medicine and the reforms to the GMC, the other professions including psychology hardly getting a mention.

7. Despite the Society's policy position to oppose regulation by the Health Professions Council (HPC) as it presently operates, the HPC's Education Ctte met in early June to discuss and begin the process of looking at the necessary standards and competences to admit psychologists to an HPC register.

8. And finally, below is an edited extract from the July President's Column in The Psychologist:

"The Society’s position on statutory regulation is founded on the principle of public protection. However, it is government, not bodies like us, that is responsible for law to make statutory regulation possible. The White Paper 'Trust, Assurance and Safety: The Regulation of Health Professionals in the 21st Century' is the government’s policy statement, and whilst we support the underlying principles, we continue to have major concerns. Not least because the main emphasis is on regulating persons employed in or by the National Health Service, who deliver individual ‘patient’ services; whereas over half the psychologists who need to be regulated work outside the NHS - in business, commerce, schools, prisons and education, and with individuals, groups and whole organisations.

"That said, we very much welcome the recent comments of Lord Hunt, the Department of Health Minister responsible for regulation, that ‘statutory regulation should be a professionally led process’ and that ‘the way forward has to be led by the professions themselves’. These are exceptionally positive statements which promise an ethos of collaboration and responsiveness; the Society is committed to working with government and the Department to ensure that we get this right.

"Reducing public risk/protecting the public is the primary reason for statutory regulation. The Society’s position is underpinned by the need for public protection and that those who need to be regulated should be regulated. By this we mean individuals that provide a direct service to the public that is based on psychological knowledge - most teaching and research is not such a service, accordingly most academics and researchers would not need to be regulated. We are aware though that some academics and researchers do provide a service, and may wish or need to be able to be registered. How these few people can be encompassed in any new procedures is yet to be decided and is an area that we will be discussing with the DoH.

"It is important that the regulated title should not be confusing to the public - ‘applied psychologist’ (the Department of Health’s preferred title) would therefore not be suitable. Your Representative Council took a view that the preferred title should be ‘psychologist’; however, in the same discussion it was recognised that ‘registered psychologist’ might be the second option, in preference to a plethora of adjectival titles.

"The Society, with several of our partner organisations, attended a meeting with Lord Hunt in June. This was a vital meeting for us and our partners to enable us to check, clarify and question some of the detail of government policy. We will continue to update you here on progress through updates, and I am happy to receive comments or questions."

Update 4 June 2007

The Parliamentary Briefing document on statutory regulation of psychologists is now available to download.

Statutory Regulation Parliamentary Briefing

Update 30 April 2007

Update 20 March 2007

Following the recent publication of the Government's White Paper 'Trust, Assurance and Safety: The Regulation of Health Professionals in the 21st Century’ the Board of Trustees met on 16 March and discussed their reaction and next steps.

The Trustees' view was that:

1. The Society recognises that the government, in their White Paper, have set their policy and direction of travel (i.e. that psychologists are to be regulated and that the regulatory body will be the Health Professions Council).

2. We remain opposed to regulation by the HPC as it presently operates.

3. We will enter into discussions and negotiations with the Department of Health (DoH) on two fronts:

a) to ensure that any Section 60 Order is acceptable to the discipline/profession;

b) to attempt to reform the HPC so that it’s processes provide for an acceptable level of public protection.

4. In all discussions/negotiations our bottom line principles are:

a) that the public must be fully and completely protected;

b) that all areas of applied psychology must be regulated to ensure that the discipline/profession is not split;

c) that the title to be regulated shall be 'psychologist';

d) that a 'psychologist' is defined as a person with Doctoral level qualifications/competences;

e) that all those that need to be regulated have to be regulated (i.e. all those that offer services to the public);

f) that there will be no reduction in standards in all areas relating to regulation and professional recognition from those currently enjoyed by Chartered Psychologists, this also relates to standards of and for course accreditation.

The Society will be communicating its views to government and will attempt to take this issue forward in a constructive manner at the earliest opportunity. We will continue to keep members informed of developments.

Update 22 February 2007

The Government published its White Paper, which mentions the Statutory Regulation of psychology, Trust, Assurance and Safety: The Regulation of Health Professionals in the 21st Century, on Wednesday 21 February 2007. The Trustees will be assessing the content and will report back in due course on the next steps for the Society.

• Society press release on 'flawed' White Paper
  
• Read the White Paper on the Department of Health website

Update 6 February 2007

Statutory Regulation Lords debate: On Monday 5 February Lord Alderdice led a debate last night in the House of Lords on the question of what progress has been made in the last six years towards the statutory regulation of psychologists, psychotherapists and counsellors. A Hansard report of the debate is available.

Update 18 December 2006

Representatives from the British Psychological Society met with Andy Burnham, MP, and Ros Mead from the Department of Health on 18 December 2006.

Report on Meeting with Andy Burnham, MP, 18 December 2006

Update 6 December 2006

The British Psychological Society’s President, Ray Miller, and Alison Robertson, Chair of the Society’s Division of Clinical Psychology in Scotland, had an opportunity to brief the entire Health Committee of the Scottish Parliament yesterday afternoon, Tuesday 5 December.

Briefing on the day

Update 30 November 2006

Proper Public Protection and Psychological Services

Update 10 November 2006

Further to our last update, the Society has now submitted its response to the Foster Review and Donaldson Report. The formal response, together with the formal proposal for the formation of a Psychological Professions Council, can be found below.

A letter has also been sent from the President to all members to update them on developments and to ask for their support during the next period.

The government is expected to publish its response to the consultation somewhere around the turn of the year and we will keep all members informed of developments.

Consultation response - 6 November 2006 - final.doc

Proposals for a Psychological Professions Council

Update 24 October 2006

The Society’s consultation period on its response the Foster Review and Donaldson Report has now closed and we are very grateful to members and subsystems for their comments. In total we have received nearly double the number of responses from individual members than the Department of Health consultation on the ‘Regulation of Applied Psychologists’ 18 months ago. We have received a host of constructive and helpful comments about how our response to government might be improved and we will be working on that over the next couple of weeks. The response from members has been overwhelmingly supportive of the line taken by the Society, with 94% of individual respondents offering their support to it. A sample of member and subsystem comments can be found below for information.

Sample of member comments.pdf

DCoP response_.pdf

DCP response.pdf

DECP response.pdf

DFP response.pdf

DSEP response.pdf

DTRP response.pdf

Ethics Committee response.pdf

Special Group in Coaching Psychology response.pdf

Quantative Methods in Psychology response.pdf

Update 18 October 2006

The Society has issued a press release with the aim of making the issues surrounding statutory regulation of psychologists more widely known.

Update 22 September 2006

As promised in the last update on 17 August the Society has prepared its draft response to the DoH’s Foster Review and Donaldson Report and now we would like your input. You will find below links to two documents on which we would like your comments.

Draft consultation response - 22 September 2006

Proposals for a Psychological Professions Council (Draft)

Update 17 August 2006

Consultation response

Update - 2 August 2006

Since the publication of the ‘Foster Report’ on 14 July the Society has been working to develop a robust response strategy based on our existing policy, which was agreed following member input to last year's public consultation document on the regulation of applied psychology. We are currently meeting with 'sister' organisations who have an interest in how professions, drawing on 'psychological approaches', might be regulated. The aim of these meetings is to identify common concerns and agree how we might address these issues jointly. We will continue to report on developments.

View frequently asked questions

Update 17 July 2006 - Government announcement on the 'Foster Review'

On Friday 14th July, the Government published its response to the recent ‘Foster Review’, which has significant ramifications for the statutory regulation of psychologists. A further consultation on the proposals in the report is planned, but in short, the Society’s proposals for a General Psychology Council appear to have been rejected and the Government’s recommendation is that psychologists should be regulated by an existing regulator, most likely the Health Professions Council (HPC).

The Society is strongly opposed to this as we believe that it will not improve protection for the public. A media release, setting out the Society’s position, will be issued on Monday 17th July and will be posted on this part of the website. Also on this site, you will find a document summarising the concerns that the Society has with the proposal for the HPC to regulate psychologists.

Further updates on how the Society plans to respond to this development will appear on this website in due course.

Update - 8 March 2006

Statutory Regulation update - 8 March 2006

Update - 26 October 2005

Statutory Regulation update - 26 October 2005

Update - 16 August 2005 - response to the Foster Review 'Call for Ideas'

Foster Review - 'Call for Ideas' response

Consultation update - 6 July 2005

Statutory Regulation - 6 July 2005

Formal Society response to the Department of Health consultation - 6 June 2005

Response of the British Psychological Society to ‘Applied Psychology: Enhancing Public Protection: Proposals for the Statutory Regulation of Applied Psychologists’

Letter to Ros Mead

Archive of Older Information and Correspondence

View archive of older information and correspondence

Draft response - 27 May 2005

Statutory Regulation Draft Response - 27 May 2005

---

Consultation update - 10 May 2005

Over the last two months the Society has received a significant number of comments on the Department of Health consultation document. Every single response has been reviewed by the President and while there are too many to publish them all on this web page there are copies below of the responses from the Society's Boards and Divisions which give a strong flavour of the views received.

Membership and Professional Training Board
Professional Conduct Board
Psychology Education Board
Research Board

Division of Clinical Psychology
Division of Counselling Psychology
Division of Health Psychology
Division of Health Psychology (Scotland)
Division of Neuropsychology
Division of Sport and Exercise Psychology
Division of Teachers and Researchers in Psychology
Division of Education and Child Psychology
Scottish Division of Educational Psychology

The overall Society response to the consultation was discussed at length by the Board of Trustees when they met on 6 May 2005 and a summary note of the discussions is below for information.

Board of Trustees

It was agreed that the President will lead a small team to draft the response which we anticipate will be posted on this website within the next week for any final comments.

---

Consultation update - 20 April 2005

View the latest Consultation Update on responses received by the Society to date

---

Consultation update - 10 March 2005

The public consultation on the Proposals for the Statutory Regulation of Applied Psychologists was launched on 10th March 2005. To view the document on the Department of Health website please click on the following link:

http://www.dh.gov.uk/Consultations/LiveConsultations/fs/en

Please also read the following letter from the President to all members about this most important issue:

Letter from the President

---

The Society's Response to the Health Professions Council Consultation on Continuing Professional Development

Society Response to HPC CPD Consultation

Further Information on Continuing Professional Development

---

Consultation update - 22 February 2005

After months of false starts the latest news from the Department of Health is that the public consultation concerning the statutory regulation of applied psychologists will start in late February or early March. This was subject to Ministerial go ahead but the papers have been produced and, we believe, have now been approved for publication.

Please watch this space for further news - we aim to update the website as soon as a definite date is announced.

Geoff Lindsay
Chair, Statutory Regulation Working Party

---

Consultation update - 20 October 2004

The public consultation on the statutory regulation of applied psychologists has been delayed and is now likely to take place starting in November. THE reason is not concerned with our consultation but is caused by the desire of the lawyers to add another facilitatory section to the consultation document and Section 60 Order.

Legislation often contains additional elements for which the main document is a handy vehicle. In this case, The issue concerns the future addition of protected titles beyond this specified in the original Section 60 Order which is presented to Parliament. This arose in our case where we stressed that over the next 5-10 years there may well be new sub-disciplines, but the proposed amendment is of more general application to the Health Professions Council professions.

This possible addition would allow a simpler approach by statutory instrument rather than Section 60 Order, saving time etc. However, This raises a new principle in Parliamentary decision-making and so needs to be considered in the context of devolution of parliamentary power.

In discussions with the Department of Health we are both agreed that this would be a useful facility but our primary objective at present is to have the consultation document out. To this end, DH officials will be consulting with Scottish colleagues and then decide whether this addition needs to be withdrawn and introduced later, so allowing the consultation to proceed.

Watch this space!!

Geoff Lindsay
Chair, Statutory Regulation Working Party

---

Consultation update - 6 September 2004

When?

The advice provided by the Department of Health on 2 September 2004 was that the public consultation was expected to begin in mid to late September. At that time the officials were awaiting further advice from lawyers but believed that they had a draft consultation document which was about final.

What will the document contain?

The draft is entitled Enhancing Public Protection: Proposals for the Statutory Regulation of Applied Psychologists. We expect this title to be the one used. The document sets out the Government's intention to regulate applied psychologists and seeks the views of the public. It explains the proposed system of regulation through the Health Professions Council and seeks responses to a number of questions.

Has the BPS been involved?

Yes, Society representatives have been in active discussion with the Department of Health officials in developing the consultation document. The Society's advice has been taken seriously. This process has taken many months and the development of a series of drafts. We are generally content but this is a Department of Health consultation and not all of the Society's suggestions have been accepted.

What will happen?

The consultation period will last three months. A number of organisations will be sent the document and asked to comment. Any individual will be able to respond - this is a public consultation.

The results of the consultation will be considered by the Department of Health and will shape the next step when a Section 60 Statutory Order is placed before Parliament. So responses are important.

What will the Society do?

The Society will submit its own corporate response over the name of the President. In order to develop this response the Society is undertaking a number of initiatives:

• All subsystems are being invited to identify a lead person
• Two meetings will be held for these representatives to discuss the content of the Society's response:
  • Monday 8 November - workshop for Sections and Branches
  • Tuesday 9 November - workshop for Divisions and Special Groups
• The Board of Trustees and Representative Council will also contribute
• Individual members are invited to contribute their views

What can/should I do?

As this is a long standing policy objective of the Society we hope that members will write as individuals to welcome the initiative and respond to the questions raised. You should send that response to the Department of Health; a copy to the Society would be helpful.

In addition, your contribution to the development of the Society's response will be very welcome.

Where should I send my response?

The member of staff co-ordinating the Society's Statutory Regulation work is Mike Carpenter, Membership and Qualifications Directorate Manager (miccar@bps.org.uk).

Will the Society provide guidance?

We do not want to provide a standard set of words but guidance will be provided as soon as possible.

Professor Geoff Lindsay
Chair, Statutory Regulation Working Group
E-mail: geoff.lindsay@warwick.ac.uk

---

Update - December 2003

Public consultation

A public consultation must take place regarding the statutory regulation of applied psychologists through the Health Professions Council. At our meeting we discussed the principles and general content of the consultation document. This will be based on a generic template for all potential new professions joining the HPC. We considered this helpful and relatively straightforward. There is a need to check legal references, for example laws in which applied psychologists are specified, such as the Education Acts concerning assessment of children with special educational needs. There has been some confusion among members, especially in Scotland, on the scope of the Order in Council that will implement statutory regulation for psychologists. The document will make it clear that discussions have been held between the constituent government bodies of the UK and that the consultation and the Order are UK-wide.

Protected titles

With the exception of dentists and veterinary surgeons, professions that are statutorily regulated in the UK are subject to indicative regulation rather than functional regulation. It is not so much what they do as what they call themselves and what they claim to be. Therefore the 'protected title' that may only be used by members of the profession who are entered on the register is critical. It also delimits the profession by making it a criminal offence to claim the title and not to be on the register.

here are two related questions about title. The first is what should the part of the HPC register that deals with psychologists be called. The second is the list of titles that may only be claimed by people who have satisfied the HPC that they should be entered on the register.

There are two primary principles that inform these choices. The first is the protection of the public, the second is the need to avoid unnecessarily criminalising individuals. To a degree these two principles are in opposition. For example, if psychologist were to be made the protected title it would be a criminal offence for anyone to call themselves a psychologist unless they had completed the education and training that is specified for those who are on the register. Since the greatest risk to the public is from psychological practitioners (and those who call themselves such) it is clear that practitioners must be so regulated. But if the general title psychologist were reserved only to them, all those graduates with psychology degrees would find themselves at risk of prosecution if they chose to call themselves a psychologist in the same way that mathematicians and historians might, unless they were entered on the register.

The experience of those who have been deeply engaged in the task of developing legislation that is designed to produce effective professional regulation is that it is important to establish a regulated profession (and part profession) in terms of the specific training and competence that characterises it. These need to be clearly and unambiguously described so that there can be no doubt that a person who seeks entry to the register is either qualified and experienced to be so entered or not. In essence there needs to be a specific training, and those who have not taken it will not be registerable.

These considerations have led to the following proposals for the psychologists' register. The part of the register shall be called 'Applied Psychologists'. This will not however be a protected title. The protected titles shall be those titles currently and generally used to describe practitioners: that is clinical psychologist, clinical neuropsychologist, counselling psychologist, health psychologist, educational psychologist, forensic psychologist and occupational psychologist. These are the seven groups of applied psychologists that will be regulated when the register is formally opened.

This proposal is agreed to be workable. It will capture the current range of practitioners and will limit the effect of the legislation in avoiding the unnecessary criminalising of people who may be on the fringe of practice or in an area of practice that is not yet sufficiently well defined as to enable it to be safely brought into the realm of regulated professions. Legislation along these lines would protect the public in that no practitioner would be able to claim any of these seven areas of expertise if they were not on the register. This would assist both corporate employers and clients in making a safe choice.

The position of the academic psychologist would be unchanged. Such scientists would be free to engage in consultancy and research whether or not they were on the register. It is likely that the only academics who would seek registration would be those who were already qualified as applied psychologists and engaged in the teaching of the next generation of practitioners. It would not stunt or inhibit the development of new areas of applied psychology. When an area develops to the point that it is distinguished by a defined course of training, a new protected title could be relatively easily added to those currently established. Subsequently, other new areas of applied psychology could also be developed within the Society, where the requirements for training and qualification criteria would be identified within the wider community of applied psychology. The new applied branch with its suggested protected title would be proposed to the HPC.

It would not prevent business psychologists and analytical psychologists continuing to call themselves by those titles, nor would these practitioners be eligible for the HPC register.

Clearly there is a small price to pay in that the degree of protection of the public is less than total. However, the fact that psychology is both an academic subject and a profession make total protection extremely difficult to achieve. The formula that has now been proposed is considered to be an appropriate and effective compromise.

Chartered Psychologists

These proposals do not affect the position of the title Chartered Psychologist. This remains a Society title, which will continue to be awarded to those who meet the present criteria. The Society would wish to maintain this qualification as an important indicator of qualifications.

Next steps

DoH officials are drafting the consultation document for our consideration and approval. The consultation period is expected to take place, later than originally estimated, during spring 2004. The Order in Council would be laid before Parliament in the autumn, allowing the register to be amended to include applied psychologists from late 2004 or early 2005.

---

Download the Society Open Meeting on Statutory Regulation minutes.

---

An update from Geoff Lindsay, Chair of the BPS Working Party on Statutory Regulation

The Society has sought for over 30 years to persuade the government to regulate psychology. This is Society policy, confirmed by votes of the membership. At the Annual General Meeting in Blackpool (15 March 2002) I was able to announce that the minister, John Hutton, had confirmed his agreement on action to bring this about. The route was to be the Health Professions Council (HPC), set up in April 2002. These important events were reported by Graham Davey in his June 'President's column'. The purpose of this report is to bring the membership up to date, and to explain the likely developments over the short to medium term.

Why regulation?

Careful observers of these developments will notice the change in terminology from 'registration'. In fact, the government and their officials have always referred to 'regulation' when discussing these issues for all professions.

The primary purpose is the protection of the public. The medical, dental and legal professions all have the power for good, but if misapplied they can cause significant harm. Ministers, both Labour and Conservative, have accepted for many years that the arguments for regulation that apply to these older professions also hold for applied psychology. This has also been supported by MPs and members of the House of Lords. Indeed, two members of the Lords were prepared to sponsor a bill.

The need for regulation has clearly been demonstrated by the work of our Investigatory Committee and Disciplinary Board, but their powers are limited to members, and disciplinary committee decisions cannot prevent a person who has committed a serious offence continuing to practise. Only a statutory regulation system can do that.

Why the Health Professions Council?

The Society's preferred route has been a regulatory body specific to psychology, as is the case with the General Medical Council for medical practitioners. However, the government has made it clear that this is not an option, for psychology or any other profession. This left two possible routes: the HPC or a new body that would cover the 'talking therapies', to include psychotherapy, counselling and psychology. Council took the view that the latter was not acceptable.

The HPC route does not imply that psychology is seen necessarily as a health profession. The Health Act 1999 specified that relevant professions were those that dealt wholly or partly with individuals' mental and physical health. This allows psychology to be included. Furthermore, it allows the whole of applied psychology, not just those elements which are exclusively concerned with health.

Next steps

These developments have been reported regularly to Council, most recently at the meeting on 19 October. This followed the latest meeting between Professor David Legge and myself representing the Society with Department of Health officials, where we began to discuss action.

The HPC has just undertaken a consultation exercise on its proposed operation, to which the Society responded. Over the next 6—12 months it will be developing and bedding down its procedures for the 12 founder- member professions. It will then be in a position to consider new professions. It is likely that we will be the second in line for consideration as we meet all the requirements for membership, and have well-developed and established procedures. Indeed, we have been advised that our experience should be very useful to the HPC.

We shall meet with HPC officials in the new year to discuss both an action plan for psychology and how we might aid the HPC in its formative period. I must stress that there is no guarantee, but the best estimate is that the legislation will be moved later in 2004.
In order to prepare for these developments we shall be considering in detail the implications of regulation by the HPC for psychologists and the Society. Meetings will continue with DoH and HPC officials. Meetings with representatives from the subsystems most affected, Divisions, Special Groups, and Sections will be held in the new year, and there will be regular reports to Council, and to the members via The Psychologist and the Society website.

Who is affected?

Only psychologists who offer a psychological service to the public will need to register with the HPC. The HPC register will be very similar to the present Register of Chartered Psychologists. However, those who are not providing a psychological service to the public will not need to register with the HPC — including those members who are engaged solely in teaching and research.

Final comment

The Society is now in sight of the realisation of a long-term objective. There are a number of issues to address, in particular the relationship of
the Society with the HPC.

Two important issues remain of concern for the future: our comprehensive accreditation system and what investigatory and disciplinary procedures the Society needs to retain for its own purposes. We shall be actively involved with the HPC in discussions, not least because these are issues that affect the other professional bodies concerned and our experience will be important to the HPC.

Members will be kept informed by updates in The Psychologist, and the Society's website. Members might also like to visit the HPC website ( www.hpc-uk.org ).

Email Notification

The BPS is expecting developments on the statutory regulation front to increase in the next few months or so. Regular and major developments will be printed in The Psychologist but, with lead in time for articles being several weeks in length, you may wish to be updated on a more regular and immediate basis with our new email alert system.