Minutes of the Aromatherapy
Council Meeting on the 18th September 2007
Connaught Hall,
Present: Dr. Hans
Meier Lay Chair), Carole Preen (Secretary/Registrar), Frances Fewell, Sophie
Hudson, Kay Barnard, Richard Eaton, Carol Jordan,
Apologies: Sue
Mousley, Jennifer Makin, Viv Hinks, Declan Bowers-Clark,
Dr Meier welcomed
the group and started by looking through the minutes of the previous meeting.
These were agreed. The action points were then discussed and all had been
actioned with the exception of the Education Board/APL/APEL Centres as this is
on hold waiting for the outcome of the negotiations on federalization of
Dr Meier reported
on the Parliamentary group attended by himself and CP in July. It was clear
from this meeting that there is no further appetite for the Government to allow
any more Statutory Regulation of CAM. In fact the Osteopaths now wished they
had not become Statutory Regulated since it is extremely expensive to register
and they have received no benefit from it in terns of integration into the NHS
or patient referrals from GPs. In fact, because of the high costs involved,
there is depleted care available as fewer osteopaths registered. KB stated that
there is demand within Primary Care for
HM also reported
on the Lay Chairs meeting he attended on the 17th August where he
met Dame Joan Higgens, ILC of the Federal Working Group (FWG). Only 3 other lay
chairs attended apart from him. At that meeting, the alternative model was
discussed and the fact that Kim Lavely had written to the three groups,
Aromatherapy, Reflexology and Reiki. Shortly after this we were excluded from
the FWG prior to us replying to this letter, which was circulated to the
Council for comment and input. As it was the month of August, it was difficult
to get everyone involved in the reply as so many people were away, including HM
during the first 2 weeks of August. We have tried to arrange a meeting with the
Foundation to discuss this and HM wanted to meet them with Carol Bailey, ILC of
the Reflexology Forum. A date of the 24th October has been
suggested.
RE suggested that
we contact David Tredinnick MP again to ask him to call a meeting between the
Foundation and ourselves. He feels we should question them regarding the
management of funds. He believed we should ask the Foundation for the cost analysis
of this project and where the £900,000 received from the Department of Health
has been spent. We have the right to ask these questions under the Freedom of
Information Act. RE also asked what Market Research was done to find out how
many
RB sent her apologies
and CP reported on the current bank balance of the AC.
Federal structure:
RE asked the
question “What is the cost of federalisation?” It cited the work being done by
the Bar Council and the costings that had been done to regulate the barristers
and solicitors. There are 120,000 of them, and although this is statutory
regulation, the costings done by Price Waterhouse to run a regulatory body for
this number is in excess of 20 million. He wondered where the budget was for
the federal
Next we discussed
the results of the consultation with the professional associations. CP also
reported that she is attending the aromatherapy forum meeting on the 26th
September who asked her to give them an update on regulation, and they have
also invited Jean Nestor to attend in the afternoon so that they have both
perspectives. The majority of the associations and awarding bodies that were
contacted support the alternative model as a sound framework for a federal structure.
It will require some further discussions and tweaking, but it will be an
organic process that will be adaptable but at the same time giving devolved
powers to individual therapy councils to remain in control of their own
therapy. It was noted that some of the PA’s would like the AC to remain part of
the FWG right up to the end of the meetings, but of course this is no longer an
option. The AC has agreed that the alternative plan is the preferred option.
This model is not anything new, it is something that the aromatherapy
profession had felt was the best model and had been around for a number of
years. It was felt that the Foundation has refused to listen to our ideas and
not allowed us the chance for a fair hearing.
LD said that she
knows the FHT are basically sitting on the fence and want to see what comes out
of the FWG before making a decision.
With regard to
the GRCCT model, it is ready to be launched fairly quickly if required. CP
asked what we should do with registration re-validation which is due on the 1st
October. After much discussion, it was agreed that we would delay re-validation
until the 1st December as at that time we should have a clearer
picture of the way forward.
ACTION POINT> CP to send out re-validation forms
to start on the 1st December. Covering letter to go out to tell
registrants what we have achieved in our first year.
As for new
registrants, it was agreed to register them, but to put the registration fees
in a separate account so that we can refund them should we decide to go with
the GRCCT model.
ACTION POINT> CP to advice RB of this to set up
another account.
It was agreed
that we would tell the Reflexology Forum of our decision to hold off making any
decisions but that we do want structured meetings with the Reflexology Forum
and the Reiki Regulatory Working Group so that we can move forward quickly with
agreed plans across the board. It is important that although we want to hold
off, that we do not lose the goodwill of the other two groups. CP reported that
CORH has dissolved due to lack of money and that a rival register/group has set
up. She has been informed that CORH is trying to regroup. HM said that with
regard to block registrations, we need to contact the associations and see if
they are willing to participate in this.
The GRCCT model
was discussed and although it could be launched very
quickly if we wanted to, it was agreed that things should not be rushed. The
concern was raised that is the Reflexology Group withdrew their support of the
GRCCT, where would that leave us? Also, they do not have a VSR in place yet and
so are not in the same position as the AC. It was agreed that in the
alternative system, we retain our professional identity and the AC would remain
in existence. If one group drops out, the others can continue in their own
right. This advantage would be lost in the FWG model where if it fails, it
takes everyone down with it with nothing to come back from. In the GRCCT model,
only the admin/registrar is shared along with the complaints and disciplinary
procedures. There is therefore no risk to individual professions.
It was agreed
that we should talk to associations about block registrations and see if they
are interested. We should also talk to other therapy groups if they want to
meet directly with us, to share our views. This is all too important not to
engage in as many discussions as possible. It was also agreed that we would
continue discussions with the Reflexology Forum (RF) and the Reiki Regulatory
Working Group (RRWG) and members of the General Council for Massage Therapists
(GCMT) who have demonstrated in favour of the alternative model.
LB said that she
wanted it minuted that she abstains from any decisions the rest of the group
made as she is in a difficult position bearing in mind her job.
CP stated that if
the AC wants to remain as a single VSR, that she did not want to run the
administration, particularly if it became so big that she needed staff and to
run and lease office premises. She agreed that if the AC remains as part of the
GRCCT model that she would be happy to manage the meetings, website and
co-ordinate the APEL centres for the AC on a reduced salary.
The meeting ended
at 3.30pm