A tighter regime?

In a landmark judgement in the family courts, the President of the Family Division in England and Wales, Sir Andrew McFarlane, gave a judgement which confirms, as we all knew, that the generic label 'Psychologist', not being a protected title, can be used by absolutely anyone.

I read in The Observer (26 February 2023) that the Association of Clinical Psychologists supported the appeal of the appellant that the jointly instructed expert 'was neither regulated nor appropriately qualified'. I was, however, very disappointed indeed to see that neither the British Psychological Society nor the Division of Clinical Psychology were represented in this landmark case.

As part of his judgement, Sir Andrew said: 'The court must therefore work with the current, potentially confusing scheme' and 'It is not… for this court to prohibit the instruction of any unregulated psychologist'. However, he also stated, very clearly: 'It is, however, a matter for the psychological profession and, ultimately, parliament, whether a tighter regime should be imposed'.

It is my view and, I am sure, that of many, many others that the Society was 'sold a pup' when it was persuaded, against, I think, the better judgement of very many, to join chiropodists, dietitians, hearing aid dispensers, orthoptists, prosthetists and various others under the umbrella of the newly formed Health and Care Professions Council.

Medical doctors have their own regulatory body, the General Medical Council, so do nurses, the Nursing and Midwifery Council, and so do dentists, the General Dental Council.

It is high time that our profession and its professional body properly stood up for its members and revisited the proposal of a Psychological Professions Council, which could regulate not only a new protected title of 'psychologist', which would have to be regulated by parliament but also, potentially, a range of other psychological therapy professions in addition.

Personally, I have to say that I felt extremely let down by Society in this matter in the past. Here is another opportunity, so, for goodness' sake, let's seize it.

Professor Jamie Hacker Hughes
President 2015-2016

Response: The Society established a HCPC Liaison sub-group of the Practice Board in 2020. There have been regular liaison meetings to consider the role of regulation, to provide feedback from members about HCPC policies and operation, and to try to facilitate improvements where possible. In addition, there are now annual meetings between the CEOs of the two organisations supported by the sub-group. This group is aware of the limitations of the current system and the need to both provide challenge and to work productively with HCPC. We have written several updates for the BPS website about this work.

The liaison work of the sub-group also involves regular meetings with the Professional Standards Authority (PSA – the Regulator of the Regulators) to provide a stakeholders' perspective of the operation of the HCPC, to discuss issues arising from the BPS's approval to hold a register for the wider psychological workforce and to discuss other matters related to workforce and related national policy developments. The Society contributed to the PSA's annual review of the HCPC (see tinyurl.com/mr4c8naa).

With regard to the specific issue about 'expert witnesses', and indeed other matters, the group has endeavoured to work with the ACP-UK. In addition, we met with Mr Justice Williams, late last year, about expert witnesses together with colleagues from the PSA. Justice Williams was concerned that expert witnesses were withdrawing from this area of work after many years of experience and that others avoided taking on this work altogether. He was also interested to know how many expert witnesses were subject to FtP processes.

Unfortunately, HCPC don't hold these data. We have jointly published with the FJC guidance on expert witnesses, which can be found under the 'Guidance' tab at www.bps.org.uk/expert-witness-advisory-group. We are considering amending this in light of recent judgements. 

Our work in the sub-group and with HCPC has focused on the processes and procedures for the accreditation of courses, the registration and re-registration of UK Practitioner Psychologists, the registration of International applicants, Fitness to Practice processes, and (in all these matters) the quality of the communications between HCPC and registrants.

There has been some progress in re-registration processes, in providing induction sessions to HCPC staff about each of the practitioner groups, running a joint supervision webinar and contributing to the review of HCPCs communication to members. We have also helped BPS members in their international applications, with Fitness to Practice procedures. There is clearly much still to do, and we will report on this work via the blog and through each of the Practitioner Psychologists' Forums/newsletters.

We have been responding to all major policy consultations about regulation. For example, the Department of Health and Social Care's (DHSC) recent consultations on regulatory reform have given us the opportunity to make current concerns known and to propose alternatives. This group, along with relevant staff, prepared responses highlighting that the system of protecting titles allows loopholes which may put the public at risk and that a focus on the work carried out, rather than on titles or roles, would ensure regulation of potentially harmful activity. This a method of regulation which is already used in other professions, such as the legal profession.

Since then the DHSC has stated that 'While we believe that that there is a case for greater consistency, we also recognise that for some of the professional regulators there may be a legitimate need for variation in the offences set out in their legislation to recognise variation in the functions they perform (for example regulation of businesses or premises), or to restrict activity that can only be performed by specific regulated professionals. […] We will consider the case for any variation in the protected title and related offences for each regulator when preparing the legislation to reform its regulatory framework.'

We anticipate that there will be some opportunity for change as the regulatory reform proceeds, with the HCPC legislation due for amendment in 2024, after the GMC has been considered. 

In response to the failure to secure a Psychology Professions Council, there was undoubtedly disappointment at the time, although we understand that the Government made it very clear that it was the HCP (which was the name then) or no Stat Reg. This led those involved to seek the best arrangements with the Government's choice of regulator. It may be a good time to think again about this issue, alongside the need for wider regulation about the psychological professions and how this could work.

In parallel, the Society is developing its registers to underpin a strategy of improving our presence as a reliable source of expertise in the non-regulated space. This complements our recent launch of the accredited register for the Wider Psychological Workforce, developed with the NHS, which includes specific roles that lie outside of statutory regulation.

We are revising the Specialist Register of Clinical Neuropsychologists and planning an update to the Directory of Expert Witnesses to become a register with revised entry criteria and ongoing CPD requirements. Relevant Divisions, Advisory Groups and other members have been instrumental in this work and the Professional Standards Authority is supportive of these developments.

Professor (Emeritus) Tony Lavender, BSc. M.Phil. PhD. FBPsS. 
Chair of HCPC sub-group
Canterbury Christ Church University, 
Salomons Institute for Applied Psychology.

Dr Rachel Scudamore PFHEA GMBPsS, 
Head of QA & Standards, BPS
Nigel Atter MSc BA (hons), 
Policy Advisor