Meeting between Carol Bailey (ILC Reflexology Forum), Dr Hans Meier (ILC Aromatherapy Council), Kim Lavely (CEO PFIH), Dame Joan Higgens (ILC of FWG) and Carole Preen (AC FWG Representative).

 

24th September 2007, Connaught Hall, London

 

KL started the meeting by stating that the Foundation has no interest in the outcomes of the FWG except to have been able to facilitate the meetings and provide the services in respect of the lay members and PFIH staff. There has been no hidden agenda from the Foundation as to what type of model should be developed. CP mentioned during the meeting that she had received a detailed outline of the points to be discussed at each FWG meeting from Ian Cambray-Smith, but that she appreciated that there did need to be a plan.

 

CB stated that the RF is completely committed to VSR and CP and HM stated that as a VSR already, the AC is completely committed to the development of a federal structure for CAM. Both groups requested to be re-instated to the FWG immediately. JH and KL said that now there was an issue of trust, that the FWG did not trust the expelled groups.

 

JH explicitly said that CP was always polite and constructive at FWG meetings and HM asked therefore why she had been excluded.

 

Discussions ensued over the Power Point presentation of the GRCCT. KL stated that the Foundation were shocked to receive such a well developed plan and a possible launch date and were angry that this had not been shared with the group. CB stated that this alternative model had been borne out of frustration as the various representatives felt that their own therapy group’s ideas had not been allowed to be circulated or discussed at FWG meeting. JH stated that this was untrue since Stuart Bold (FWG Project Manager) had taken all the elements from individual group’s ideas and amalgamated them; therefore the AC model had been agreed and rejected. CP felt that this was not the case as the entire model had never been shared with the group, or the RF or RRWG model. CP stated that this was only Stuart Bold’s perception and in no way has this ever fairly represented the AC’s preferred model. This was no secret as it had been sent to PFIH in January 2007. CB stated that one of the RF’s members had asked that they just have a fair hearing. CP stated that the RRWG model had kept falling off the agenda too.

 

CB stated that one of their expert lay members had looked at both models in respect of accountability and governance and that in fact both models would satisfy the Department of Health and the White Paper. CP stated that one of their lay members with experience on NHS Boards had stated that it was unheard of to have a Council made up entirely of lay members and CB stated that one of their expert lay members who has experience on the Health Profession’s Council (HPC) had also raised similar concerns. KL and JH agreed that the model that the FWG had come up with is very radical and KL felt it was very brave and admirable in the sense of demonstrating best practice.

 

Further discussions took place around the mandate PFIH had with the DH. She asked them to share the agreed outcomes, objectives and timescales that PFIH had agreed with the DH. HM also stated that he was disappointed with the various models circulated. There were no risk assessments or certainly none with any consistency in this respect. As a manager himself responsible for securing public funding, he found this to be of concern. No answer was forthcoming.

 

CP also asked about what Market Research had been conducted to show how many therapists there are and whether or not therapists were indeed interested in regulation. This was a concern of one of the AC lay members. She stated that the AC had been very open in sharing that despite launching its VSR last December, the registrations were minimal when you take into account the number of aromatherapists who are registering. This, she felt, demonstrates the lack of interest in regulation. Also, one of the main questions she is asked in the AC office is “what will I get if I register?”. She felt there is no carrot large enough to encourage therapists to part with what they see as an additional £60 a year when they will not get any more referrals and the NHS has no money to spend on secondary care, indeed there is not even enough for primary care.

 

CB stated that one of their lay members had also raised a concern over the proposed consultation period. 28 days is too short and the normal period of 3 months and would be more appropriate for something as important as this. JH stated that this 28 day period is not a consultation period but more of a sharing period. They feel that the groups have had 9 months already to consider the proposals.

 

In terms of returning to the FWG, CP stated that the AC very much desired this to happen and HM said his group was disappointed at the unprofessional behaviour of the PFIH to remove their representative without any discussion. KL said they had taken this decision because of the Power Point presentation. HM said that they should have asked questions first before taking such action. KL stated that it may have been the wrong decision, but if the AC and the RF were allowed back, they would not be able to change any of the decisions that had now been agreed by the other 9 groups and would have to work in consensus with the rest of the group. KL asked if the AC and RF would be able to do this bearing in mind they do not agree with the FWG model. JH did state that the current model, with one adjustment is exactly the same as had been discussed and broadly agreed upon back in May. CB stated that she did not think the RF could agree to that and CP and HM agreed that the problem is that the AC fundamentally disagrees with that model. JH said that we were only 3 groups (Aromatherapy, Reflexology & Reiki) but CB stated that although she realised you could not have proportional representation, that these 3 groups represented many thousands of therapists whereas some of the other 9 were only very small groups that were very immature in terms of regulation. CP agreed stating that she felt some of those 9 were in fact sitting on the fence despite agreeing at FWG meetings or in some cases may not fully comprehend what they are agreeing to. CB said that if the RF were to come back, they would like the opportunity of presenting the alternative model, but JH said no, that this was not possible.

 

CP asked with regard to the FWG minutes of the 4th September, will the FWG go ahead and include an Aromatherapy & Reflexology PSB despite the fact that these two professions have consulted widely and do not agree with the FWG model. JH stated that it was up to the FWG but she believes this will the case.

 

HM asked what we could do to resolve this impasse and how we could move forward positively. CP offered that this alternative back up plan might be one the Foundation could help develop since so many associations were supporting it and it would be likely that overall, this would be the preferred model anyway. CB agreed that we want to keep the door open and keep open all communication channels.

 

As there seemed no immediate way forward, CP suggested that KL and JH go and discuss this further and come back to her tomorrow with a decision on the FWG meeting scheduled for the 26th September.

 

NOTE:

Reply came via email that we could not be allowed back.