Discussion Document

Aromatherapy Council EGM

6th November 2007

 

 

Based on the responses from the Aromatherapy Associations (& multi-disciplinary associations) to the FWG Report, I have put together the main points of contention that was a common theme from everyone.

 

The purpose of this document is to enable a decision to be made on the future, if any, of the Aromatherapy Council or the establishment of a new professional forum that can become the Lead Body for Aromatherapy.

 

The GRCCT model is now in existence, supported by the Reflexology Forum and many of our own PA’s and therefore we will need to acknowledge it as therapists who are aromatherapists are registering with it now. Within that model, an Aromatherapy Council is required, but it can be similar to the Consortium if the profession wants. This body would have to be part funded by the professional associations and will be part funded by aromatherapists joining the GRCCT register.

 

The CNHPC will not require the Council to continue, but will need a Lead Body through a professional forum to supply the PAP and PSB for Aromatherapy. Therefore some formal structure will need to be set up either way.

 

The AC is funded through its register. This discussion will assist the existing Aromatherapy Council to make a decision as what to do with its registrants now that the renewal date for registration is due. Do we dissolve the AC (as it cannot continue without its income) and advise therapists to either join the GRCCT or to wait until April to join the CNHPC? Individual associations will make their own minds up what to advise their members, but what should the AC advise? Should the AC just state the facts and options and let individuals choose for themselves? Either way, the AC will have to cease its functions in November 2007.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Common areas of concern FWG model:

 

Ø      No budget exists to show where the £45 fee has been derived from nor has any information been given on the loading for additional therapies. The common perception is that £45 for the first therapy and £30 for additional therapies is too expensive. The average therapist with 4 therapies (aromatherapy, massage, reflexology and reiki) will have to pay £100.00 (capped figure) to register annually.

 

Ø      There is common concern about the support of the Dept. of Health. It is clear that the Dept. is unconcerned with the model that evolves as long as therapists are appropriately registered (source – telephone conversation between the DH and Hans Meier)

 

Ø      There is common concern that a light touch regulator is not what has been suggested but more a controlling management system that is devoid of professional input. The common perception is that the FRC should be 50% lay and 50% professional as proposed in the White Paper. This is the structure within the GRCCT model which is taking one professional and one lay member from each profession involved.

 

Ø      The flowchart produced by the Foundation for the FWG does not show the whole picture as there are no details of administration, roles and salaries of the registrar etc. No management structure is included, so it is impossible to determine who is responsible for what and to whom.

Ø      No market research or risk (SWOT) analysis has been prepared.

 

Ø      With regard to the licensing for accreditation of schools, the majority view is that the role of the regulatory body should be to perform an auditing process of those professional bodies rather than to “license” them to carry out this function. Those seeking accreditation of their courses should not be responsible for funding the process. 

 

 

Ø      Most people are concerned about the FRC positions and that no external interviews are being done nor are the jobs being advertised. It is felt that it is unfair that anyone who has already been involved should automatically be appointed to these positions. It would be better if everyone was interviewed individually for each position including the one professional member on the PSB that the PA’s are not selecting.

 

Ø      Many associations are concerned about the numbers on the PSB responsible for education. 3 out of th4 of these are to be selected by the professional forums and yet the forums are constitutionally outside of the regulatory structure. Therefore the ability to appoint 3 of the 4 may only be applicable to the initial shadow council in its first year and under the current structure, the lay members on the FRC have the right to change anything they want and could also change this. The FRC have to “listen” to the PAP, but ultimately there is no control to stop them making any decision they choose without professional input.

 

Ø      No-one organisation likes the name and feels it is too long and confusing. Everyone agrees that “Complementary Therapies” should be in there as this the main wording used.

 

Ø      Several associations are worried that there is no “carrot” for therapists to join a register. One association has made specific reference to the AC’s achievements in getting its register accepted. This was not done by the Dept. of Health though, rather through hard work and communication. Despite these achievements of the AC being accepted by the NHS, AC Registered Aromatherapists have not seen an increase in work and no GP referrals have been reported. It is true to say that regulation cannot guarantee anything.

 

Ø      Several associations like the idea of checking paperwork for registration to make it easier and save on administration time and costs. Again this is a system originally presented by the GRCCT model.

 

Ø      One association has commented on the statement from the FWG to "make proposals for a model which is acceptable to all parties in the debate" and it is true that this has not been achieved. Furthermore, rather than hearing the concerns raised by three of the main professions, the reaction was to exclude them from further debate. It is now clear that the three representatives who were excluded were representing the views of their respective professions accurately and admirably.

 

Ø      One association has felt that the daily meeting rate to be paid to FRC members and PSB members of £150 a day to be too high.

 

Ø      The IFPA has stated that “There does need to be effective communication between the professional association of the registrant [if applicable] and the Complaints panel as registrants could be removed from the register and still be practicing with the professional association providing insurance etc”. It is important to note that should a complaint come into the registrar, it will not be dealt with by a professional association. However, because this is voluntary self regulation and not statutory, the PA will still be able to welcome members who are not registrants and deal with complaints for those individuals. If the FRC removes anyone from the register (although I understand that this cannot happen under a voluntary system), then it will make no difference to the therapist as they will be able to continue to practise and no doubt even get insurance under a voluntary system. There are no guarantees that insurance companies will refuse insurance to anyone, registered or not.

 

Ø      There is concern how education standards will be monitored in the future. Who will look at Awarding bodies applications to Sector Skills and the QCA in the future? When NOS revisions are due, will full consultations be undertaken with the lead bodies? Who has the final say?

 

It is interesting to note that all of these concerns on the FWG model are dealt with completely in the GRCCT model, but the RF, AC and RRWG were not permitted to formally present it to the FWG. The GRCCT model was developed after listening to PA concerns following FWG meetings. It is clear now that these concerns should have been addressed earlier as it would have prevented the current position of dissatisfaction.