EGM Minutes of the Aromatherapy Council Meeting

6^th November 2007

Morley College, London

This meeting was split into two parts. In the morning, the professional associations and awarding bodies were invited to attend to voice their opinions. In the afternoon, the Aromatherapy Council board members met.

First part of meeting

Attendances:

Carol Jordan (APNT), Frances Fewell (ICNM), Dr Hans Meier (Lay Chair), Carole Preen (Admin Manager/Registrar), Fran Rawlings (IFPA), Brenda Coverdale (IHAF), Joyce West (AAPA), Lawrence West (AAPA), Gabrielle Haines (IFA), Carole Lindsay (CIBTAC), Jan Jones (BABTAC), Anita Crosland (City & Guilds), John French (FHT), John Dent (CThA), Kay Barnard (Lay), Viv Hinks (Council member).

Apologies:

Teddy Fearnhamm (ESIPF), Jane Foulston (ITEC), Heather Mole (VTCT), Vivienne Parker (Raworth Guild of Graduates), Association of Natural Medicine

The BCMA felt that it was inappropriate for them to attend as they are setting up their own voluntary self regulatory federal structure.

Hans Meier formally welcomed everyone and thanked them for attending this very important meeting. He opened the floor for discussion.

Joyce West from the AAPA opened the discussion by telling the group what the AAPA members considered to be important. She stated that in February the Government had published a White Paper setting out the standards for the regulation of health care professions. Although it referred primarily to statutory regulation, the aromatherapy profession had always been told that the structure required for voluntary self regulation should be the same. The White Paper requirement for regulatory councils was that there should be at least parity between lay and professional members. Nowhere did it require lay only council members. The HPC also consists of 26 members with equal representation of lay and professionals. The AAPA could not, therefore understand or accept the FWG insistence on a lay only council. Professional advisors are not an adequate compromise and the AAPA members consider that complementary health practitioners were being treated like naughty children and having a lesser substandard system imposed on them. The GRCCT model was far more acceptable with its proposed structure.

John Dent from the CThA said that the CThA had always been in favour of a single model and favoured a model where just the therapists are regulated, not the therapy. He stated that he personally felt that the old Consortium should have remained in existence. He therefore favoured the idea that the Council should revert back to what the Consortium had been in terms of a lead body controlling the standards of the therapy.

John Dent also stated that he had many concerns over the FWG model in particular with regard to the PSB. He has argued that the professional forums must be entitled to select the professionals for this board and the Federal Regulatory Council agree to pay them, with the professional forums being able to “sack” them if the forum feels they are not satisfactory. He has not had a reply from the Foundation as yet.

The CThA believes that whatever the regulator is, it should be supported by the Department of Health by providing the benefit that all medical professionals would be advised only to refer their patients to use practitioners listed on the regulators register.

John said that he had asked CThA members’ and other in groups he attended how often they checked to see if a doctor, nurse, dentist, plumber or electrician was registered and would they know where to go to check. The overwhelming response was no to both. Members of the public do not much use regulatory registers unless they have problems.

He feels that in essence, the CThA is already operating its own system of voluntary regulation very successfully, with very few complaints. There are insurance claims for damage but this is a separate issue. He reiterated that the CThA wants one therapy body as experts for each therapy and until such time as a regulatory body exists that ticks ALL the boxes, the CThA will not recommend its members to join. From a business perspective, he personally believes that the Federal Regulatory Council structure being proposed by the FWG will not survive, that financially it is doomed to fail and he cannot see how one registrar and 2 staff could cope on their expectation of 9,000 registrants as in their budget. Because of this, the CThA is ‘sitting on the fence’ and waiting to see what happens.

Carole Preen asked if John Dent felt that if the AC reverts back to being what the Consortium or AOC was did he feel that it could provide the necessary board members for both structures. He replied “yes” there needs to be one body in Aromatherapy to set standards and promote aromatherapy to the public and other professions.

Viv Hinks felt that in her role as a teacher in aromatherapy that she was today representing learners. The image of the profession is important. What do you tell students who want to train about your courses and their standards and accreditation without an Aromatherapy lead body in existence. She personally believes therapies are moving towards individual specialisms. There are not so many multi-disciplined therapists as there used to be. With research, employers want top notch therapists who have specialised in their filed rather than multi-disciplined therapists.

Joyce West stated that it is important that regulation captures the heart of the therapists. Even though not all of the AAPA members are on the AC register, at least they all know about it. She said we could make a decision now about what route we want to take for regulation as her association fully supports the GRCCT model and we can always review that decision in the future as time moves on. She said we need to engage the therapists. Lawrence West agreed that it is not a good idea to “sit of the fence” as you have got to get involved and make a commitment in order to make things happen. We need commitment. The AC failed because it lacked commitment.

John French thought the term “sitting on the fence” was wrong. He concurred with John Dent but stated that the FHT is not sitting on the fence. The FHT is also regulating therapists via the FHT (Lawrence West interjected that “we all are”). He does feel the mantle should be grasped now and if the perfect regulator comes along, the aromatherapy profession needs to have a lead body to work with it. At the moment though, the FHT will not be advising its members to join any regulator.

Lawrence West agreed that we do need to set up an aromatherapy lead body. John French wants one regulator to emerge. John Dent believes that if two models exist and they will basically fight it out. In the meantime we do need a lead body for aromatherapy.

A short break was given for people to read communication form the DH and the GRCCT Progress Report.

Carole Preen explained the AC position. The AC, although it has supported and been involved with the design of the GRCCT model, it has not formerly advised its registrants to join. She explained that the AC, along with Reflexology had tried to present this model to the FWG but had been advised by the Chair that the rest of the 9 groups had already reached consensus on the structure and they did not want to revisit it. The other 9 are in the main are made up of groups that are very small or very immature in terms of regulation and certainly do not represent the majority of the CAM industry.

Hans Meier then shared his conversation with Kate Ling of the Department of Health and circulated her letter of the 5^th October and his response. He commented on how nice and helpful she was. Kate had suggested that the AC ask for observer status on the FWG and when Hans told her that we had already requested this and been refused, she was horrified. She had offered to help in this respect but nothing has come of it. She told Hans that they are going to help fund the FRC, which now has the rather bad name of the Natural Healthcare Council, for one year and after that it is on its own.

Hans made the point that the FWG had been exclusive and not inclusive. Kate did tell Hans that the NHS will not open its doors via regulation. There is certainly no hope for statutory regulation for complementary therapies because the Department wishes it had not now done that for osteopaths. Many osteopaths now call themselves spinal manipulators in order to avoid expensive costs of regulation and registration. The Department does want a solution for Complementary Therapies with a federal regulator and they are not concerned about the structure that takes as long as it is in place and workable. Hans suggested to her that it would be better to have 2 models and let the best one come out on top, especially if one is not liked after the first pilot year and the preferred one will emerge. Hans did ask the DoH not to exclude us the way the Foundation and FWHG had done. Exclusion only makes people feel rejected and therefore rebellious. After all, this is all voluntary.

Kay Barnard explained her role on the AC and that she came to this position through the Prince’s Foundation for Integrated Health. She also has experience as a lay member on other boards, including the NHS. She said that we would not be here today if the Foundation had come up with a sensible option. She does not think the FWG model is workable. She asked what the associations concerns were over the GRCCT model as she feels it is the better option. John French replied that his concern is over having more than one regulator. He wants to see just one as he feels it will confuse therapists. Carole Preen stated that this was already impossible as the GRCCT exists and the BCMA also has set up a federal regulator. The one the Foundation will launch in April will be the third one. FHT basically wants to “back the strongest horse” and wants to advise its members of the benefits of being regulated. John French believes there is no compelling reason at this time for FHT members to be registered.

In reply to Kay’s question, John Dent stated that we do not know who “owns the GRCCT”. What happens to the excess money etc? We need to see this first before making any decisions. The CThA feels that the GRCCT model just might be the one that will end up on top and feels the professions should engage with it but not exclusively.

John Dent stated that the CThA does want a regulator even though it feels it is effectively regulating its members. He said that they are in a difficult position when a serious complaint does come in as to what to do with it because they represent the therapist. Again he said that the GRCCT may well be the answer, but it needs work.

John French said that IF regulation guarantees GP referrals, then the FHT will tell their members to register. Carole Preen explained that the AC had achieved through regulation being entered onto the NHS Direct database, but many GPs won’t refer their patients to private therapy because they don’t know anything about complementary therapies or are even against it altogether. There are some that do refer now to therapists and don’t even check qualifications. John Dent agreed stating that he knows of hospitals that pay for CAM without checking the therapists. As long as they have a certificate and insurance that seems to be enough. Carole believes that it will take 20-30 years before we see more integrated healthcare, regulation first and then in time things will improve, but it will take time, you only have to look at the physiotherapy profession to see how long that took to be accepted and they worked in hospitals!

Fran Rawlings stated that IFPA does not approve of more that one regulatory body existing and agrees this is confusing. The IFPA does not support the AC becoming part of the GRCCT. They want the AC back in the FWG so that they can alter policy from within. Hans Meier said being allowed back on the FWG was not possible and that we had already asked for this repeatedly, without success. Unless we were willing to agree to the structure that has been devised, we could not go back. Carole Preen stated that there were no more meetings anyway and had been informed that all the rest of the work is being completed by email. The structure is now agreed and fixed and there is no room for negotiation.

John French stated that Reiki was back on board so why couldn’t aromatherapy have done the same thing and just turned up at the last FWG meeting, invited or not? Carole Preen explained the Reiki position and that she was not prepared to go through the same negativity that the Reiki representative had gone through. That rep had read the stakeholders feedback and felt that the FWG would have to listen to reason and change its structure, but sadly this is not going to happen. The only real change was the name. The Chair of the FWG told the group the same thing she told us “We do not want to go backwards over old ground. Consensus has been achieved”.

Gabi Haines said that the IFA believes that by having two federal regulators, the profession will be split in two. The IFA will not be recommended either model. She said that she does like the idea of the Consortium being reinstated.

The IFPA do not like their name appearing on the GRCCT website. John French explained that there is nothing legally wrong with what they are saying and they do not need to remove it. Fran said she was concerned that the GRCCT model has no details about its structure available and no Constitution which the IFPA finds rather worrying. She reiterated that the IFPA is not in support of there being two models (however that is the reality we face as the GRCCT already exists).

Lawrence West stated that the AAPA would like us all to move directly into the GRCCT. The details can be worked on as we go. The Aromatherapy Council should remain as should the register and the professional associations should either pay or get their members to join the register.

Carole Preen asked if all the associations would be willing to pay to fund this new lead body and there seemed to be general agreement around the table.

Frances Fewell summed up that if we do nothing and we have two regulatory bodies that fail in a year, it will be very damaging to our profession. The fact that the profession is not being listened to is a worrying factor because as it fails, without professional support, the public perception will be that CAM can’t get its act together. She feels the whole FWG structure is flawed even before it begins. Therefore we need to take action and ensure we have a lead body that can survive come what may.

Viv Hinks agreed. Something has to happen with the AC, it can’t just dissolve over this. It cannot continue as a regulatory body so we need to rewind it. The AC one year ago had DoH and PFIH support; it was legitimate when we set it up. As things have changed so much in just one year, we now need one lead body with a joining together of registers bringing the profession together. It will involve lots of structure but it requires action.

Joyce West said that she has one proviso. The PFIH are out there setting up a federal body that is not fit for purpose and not supported by the majority of us. There will be a PFIH launch in April, with a big fanfare and she is worried that all the poor therapists will be drawn into joining it. Therefore, although we can work together to get our profession right, the danger is that the FRC is all lay with no professional votes and so we will have to use all the publicity we can muster to advise our therapists not to join the Natural Healthcare council and tell both them and the public the truth.

Lawrence West said that he does not want the old AOC back but that the AAPA would be happy to pay to belong to a new Aromatherapy Council as a lead body. Ruth Bridge stated that it would take £60,000 a year to run what the old Consortium was. There was general agreement then that the AC would be converted into a lead body supported and funded by the professional associations and some thought a register should remain in existence. The FHT agreed that it would part-fund the AC if it was rewound.

Kay Barnard asked if what every body wanted was an accreditation agency for which members pay. Is this what was meant by a register? The CThA said it should be a professional forum supported by the associations. Another source of revenue could be accreditation of training providers. Jan Jones said that from an educational point of view this would be a high financial burden to do. She suggested that we need instead to have a National Accreditation system for aromatherapy. The QCA is fine for FE colleges but the private sector needs something in place.

Joyce West suggested a flat rate fee of £2000 for each association to join rather than a per capita. Carol Jordan said that the small associations like the APNT could not afford that and you would be excluding people. It was agreed that the new Council could supply the board members for the GRCCT and the PSB/PAP on the Natural Healthcare Council.

Anita Crosland stated that C&G would want quality of standards maintained for the profession.

Carol Jordan said that the APNY supports the GRCCT but not exclusively. They are disappointed in the FWG.

The group therefore agreed to set up the Aromatherapy Council as a lead body.

ACTION> Carole Preen to circulate a draft Constitution regurgitated from previous years and work with Ruth on a draft budget. First meeting will be in January (date to be confirmed).

It was also agreed that we would need to have lay members.

Some of the associations felt that a register should be maintained to part fund the Council and suggested a fee of £30. The therapists should be told they are supporting the voice of the professions. However, you get nothing back as such (no real benefit to the practitioner).

Carol Jordan asked the associations if they would tell their members to support this register and tell them to join. Dead silence was the reply!

Joyce West suggested £5 to join a register and every member of all the associations to join for this fee done via the associations themselves.

It was agreed that it needs to be an independent body, supply board members for the GRCCT and the NHcC and it will represent the therapy whether there is a regulator or not.

The first part of the AC meeting ended at 1.20pm.

The second part started at 1.30pm.

We had received apologies from the following Council members:

Sue Mousley, Sophie Hudson, Declan Bowers-Clark, Jennifer Makin, Richard Eaton.

These were the decisions made:

· The AC would end as a regulatory body on the 30^th November 2007.

· The Aromatherapy Council will re-establish itself as the lead body for the UK aromatherapy profession from the 1^st December 2007; the Voice of the Profession”. It will be funded via the profession and operate in a similar way to the Consortium rather than the AOC.

· The AC will not have another “rival” register that does not benefit the therapist. Instead we will encourage them to choose to join one of the federal regulators and help them make an informed choice.

· The AC’s website will list the qualifications that are accepted and if the aromatherapist is also a full member of one of the associations within the AC with one of those qualifications, they will be entitled to use “AC Recognised” after their names.

· A similar scheme will be set up for training providers so they can also be AC Recognised (via Education Board)

· The AC will set up an Education Board to deal with educational matters and report back to the AC at its quarterly meetings.

· There will be one lay chair (Hans Meier) paid an honorarium of £5000 and 3 lay members who will be paid a daily allowance fee of £100 and have expenses reimbursed.

· The education chair will be paid a daily allowance fee of £100 and have their expenses reimbursed.

· The Education Board will carry out the audit function of the school via the existing AC accreditation policy.

· Administration will be run by CP as one day per week at £5000 per annum plus office rent (to go into the budget). The same phone number and address will be used for continuity and the name remaining the same means the domain name and email address can all remain and the logo can be used.

· We will supply the GRCCT and NHcC with board members as necessary and continue to lobby for one federal regulator.

A letter will be sent to AC Registered aromatherapists next week to advise them of everything. Ruth & Carole will work on a budget for the new Council and circulate it to the associations and awarding bodies.

ACTION> CP to circulate a draft letter to Council members for approval

Meeting ended at 2.15pm with Hans thanking everyone for their participation. He said that we had had an interesting year and learned a lot. Carole Preen also thanked everyone for their support over the past 12 months.