Brief summary report of the HPC PLG meeting held on 12 May 2010
From Carmen Joanne Ablack, UKCP PLG Representative
Please note that this report contains navigation tools to allow you to move to different headings and attachments as you go.
The full report can be found here
Introduction
To begin, a big thank you to Katherine Murphy. Kathi has held the role of UKCP's PLG representative with clarity, dignity, intelligence and openness from its first meeting. She has done an amazing job thus far, in difficult circumstances. I am grateful that she has agreed to continue working and contributing to UKCP's PLG work on behalf of the profession and our clients. Her thoughtful advice and support will be helpful to me especially, and to all at UKCP working on the different aspects of statutory regulation.
Before attending the meeting, I wrote to the Chair of the PLG, the President of the HPC and the Director of Policy and Standards HPC - Diane Waller, Anna van der Gagg and Michael Guthrie respectively. I sent them (and all the members of the PLG) a statement from the chief executive on behalf of the board of trustees explaining the approach that UKCP was taking to statutory regulation and making clear our commitment to remain engaged in the work at the PLG. Click here to read this statement
My role at the PLG:
I am a member of the HPC Psychotherapists and Counsellors Professional Liaison Group (HPC PLG), responsible for representing both the UKCP and the wider profession. My primary task is to try to ensure that the recommendations on titles, standards of proficiency and entry levels to the statutory register are fit for the purpose of statutorily regulating UKCP psychotherapists and psychotherapeutic counsellors.
I will be discussing, negotiating, sharing ideas and facilitating dialogue between UKCP and other professional groups, between UKCP and the PLG and between UKCP members and HPC.
The meeting
May 12th 2010 HPC PLG
The Meeting at Avonmouth House London SE1
Present:
Carmen Joanne Ablack (UKCP)
Peter Fonagy (UCL)
Sally Aldridge (BACP)
Julian Lousada (BPC)
Fiona Ballantine Dykes (CPCAB)
Brian Magee (COSCA)
Peter Bell (Relate)
Linda Matthews (BABCP)
Jonathan Coe (Witness/we need to talk?? )
Jean McMinn (Queen's University, Belfast)
Mick Cooper (Strathclyde)
Annie Turner (HPC member)
Attending:
Colin Bendall , (Secretary to the Group, HPC)
Anna van der Gaag (President HPC, chaired meeting)
Michael Guthrie (Director of Policy and Standards HPC)
Charlotte Urwin (Policy Officer HPC)
A Brief Summary report
Thank you to Judith Lask, I have used much of her report to the UKCP Systemic College to produce this brief summary report. A fuller report from me can be accessed by clicking here
This meeting was to review the results of the December consultation (click here to navigate to 61 page document from HPC on this) and to set out a work plan for the next phase of work. The HPC Council had acknowledged that there was still a lot of work to be done in order to refine the scheme for regulation of psychotherapists and counsellors.
The Group was chaired by the President of HCP, Anna van der Gaag, in the absence of Diane Waller who was sick. She was appointed to the chair by the group and chaired it well. This was technically the 6th meeting of the PLG, but given the hiatus of a year and a change of people it was in effect a new start of the PLG.
The meeting began with a round robin for everyone to comment on how they saw things. There was an acknowledgement of further work to be done. The meeting was informed by a discussion document prepared by Michael Guthrie and this can be found here. There was an acknowledgement also of the need for further work and specifically mentioned was:
- The distinction or not between counselling and psychotherapy
- The issue of differentiating those who work with children and young people.
- Refinement of the Standards of Proficiency
Mention was made by a number of people from different professional bodies and organisations about the opposition to regulation by HCP in the profession and the importance of listening to this and hopefully making amendments that would carry the profession with the work.
It had been a year since the last meeting and there had been discussions in all the organisations represented. There was also a stress on the importance of keeping protection of clients at the centre of the group's thinking and to keep asking what effect particular standards would have on the services offered to them and to their protection.
Another theme was the need to wherever possible have reference to evidence. There was an agreement on the importance of taking account of the diversity of the client group and diversity of ways of delivering services (including private practice).
There was some discussion about ways of capturing the importance of the therapeutic relationship in standards of proficiency and discussion about the way the relationship in therapy was actually the service in a different way than other professions. There was some degree of difference on this issue but general agreement on the importance of the relationship.
There was strong agreement that the user perspective had not been included sufficiently in the work and the need to hear from clients who had been satisfied as well as those who had been harmed with their service.
There was some discussion on entry levels for psychotherapy and counselling and clarification that SOPS did not match with levels as they could be delivered at a number of different levels. SOPS also do not describe everything that someone does and are not learning outcomes. Some concern was expressed that standards of education and training should take account of more than SOPS and also include requirements on hours. Some discussion on personal therapy and there was a slightly uneasy agreement that "work on self" could be done in a number of ways and not just personal therapy.
More work is to be done in June by the HPC Education and Training Committee on the generic standards of proficiency.
Any SOPS and SETS must not lead to a closing down of diversity in the profession.
Next steps: the PLG and HPC would seek to hear the views of a number of people: service users, international perspective, views of the professions including those in opposition to HPC, representations on differentiation for those working with children.
Between Sept and Dec there would be 4 stakeholders meetings ( one in each home country) which would provide an opportunity to hear a range of views and also meetings for the group to hear representations on each topic followed by discussion. In February there would be a whole day meeting. There is a crucial HPC Council meeting in May. There was a bid not to leave the contentious issues till late in the process - this had happened last time.
There is uncertainty with the change of government and legislative diary.
Judith's conclusion: Overall it was a good meeting. It is clear that there are various differences around the table but also some important agreements but a lot of work to be done.
Brief summary report of the HPC PLG meeting held on 12 May 2010
Thank you to Judith Lask, I have used much of her report to the UKCP Systemic College to produce this brief summary report. A fuller report is being prepared and will be uploaded soon.
This meeting was to review the results of the December consultation and to set out a work plan for the next phase of work. The HPC council had acknowledged that there was still a lot of work to be done in order to refine the scheme for regulation of psychotherapists and counselors.
The Group was chaired by the President of HPC, Anna van der Gaag, in the absence of Diane Waller who was sick. She was appointed to the chair by the group and chaired it well. This was technically the 6th meeting of the PLG, but given the hiatus of a year and a change of people it was in effect a new start of the PLG.
The meeting began with a round robin for everyone to comment on how they saw things. There was an acknowledgement of further work to be done. The meeting was informed by a discussion document prepared by Michael Guthrie. There was an acknowledgement also of the need for further work and specifically mentioned was:
- The distinction or not between counselling and psychotherapy
- The issue of differentiating those who work with children and young people
- Refinement of the standards of proficiency (SOPS)
Mention was made by a number of people from different professional bodies and organisations about the opposition to regulation by HCP in the profession and the importance of listening to this and hopefully making amendments that would carry the profession with the work.
It had been a year since the last meeting and there had been discussions in all the organisations represented. There was also a stress on the importance of keeping protection of clients at the centre of the group's thinking and to keep asking what effect particular standards would have on the services offered to them and to their protection.
Another theme was the need to wherever possible have reference to evidence. There was an agreement on the importance of taking account of the diversity of the client group and diversity of ways of delivering services (including private practice).
There was some discussion about ways of capturing the importance of the therapeutic relationship in standards of proficiency and discussion about the way the relationship in therapy was actually the service in a different way than other professions. There was some degree of difference on this issue but general agreement on the importance of the relationship.
There was strong agreement that the user perspective had not been included sufficiently in the work and the need to hear from clients who had been satisfied as well as those who had been harmed with their service.
There was some discussion on entry levels for psychotherapy and counselling and clarification that SOPS did not match with levels as they could be delivered at a number of different levels. SOPS also do not describe everything that someone does and are not learning outcomes. Some concern was expressed that standards of education and training should take account of more than SOPS and also include requirements on hours. Some discussion on personal therapy and there was a slightly uneasy agreement that "work on self" could be done in a number of ways and not just personal therapy.
More work is to be done in June by the HPC Education and Training Committee on the generic standards of proficiency.
Any SOPS and SETS (standards of education and training) must not lead to a closing down of diversity in the profession.
Next steps: the PLG and HPC would seek to hear the views of a number of people: service users, international perspective, views of the professions including those in opposition to HPC, representations on differentiation for those working with children.
Between Sept and Dec there would be four stakeholders' meetings (one in each home country) which would provide an opportunity to hear a range of views and also meetings for the group to hear representations on each topic followed by discussion. In February there would be a whole day meeting. There is a crucial HPC Council meeting in May. There was a bid not to leave the contentious issues till late in the process - this had happened last time.
There is uncertainty with the change of government and legislative diary.
Judith's conclusion: Overall it was a good meeting. It is clear that there are various differences around the table but also some important agreements but a lot of work to be done.
UK Council for Psychotherapy | Registered Charity No. 1058545 | Company No. 3258939 Registered in England
|
