Draft Minutes of the Interim Hypnotherapy Working Group

 Initial Meeting, Thursday, 9th February 2006

12pm – 3:30pm, King Edward VII Room, Oxford & Cambridge Club, London.

Those in attendance (listed alphabetically by surname)

William Broom               General Hypnotherapy Register

Thomas Connelly           British Society of Clinical Hypnosis

Richard Evans                World Federation of Hypnotherapists

Chris Forester                Hypnotherapy Society

Kenneth Huggins           Hypnotherapy Association

Stephanie Kirke             UK Confederation of Hypnotherapy Organisations

Jean Nestor                    Prince's Foundation for Integrated Health

Anne Marie Smellie       Association of Qualified Curative Hypnotherapists

Michael O'Sullivan         General Hypnotherapy Standards Council

Josephine Teague         National School of Hypnosis & Psychotherapy

Terence Watts                Association for Professional Hypnosis & Psychotherapy

1. CF opened the meeting at 12:15pm and invited those present to introduce themselves and the organisations which they represented.  He then offered to facilitate the meeting by taking the minutes and no objection was raised.

2.  Jean Nestor of the Foundation for Integrated Health (FIH) was introduced to the meeting.  Jean gave a brief history of the Foundation and its work as follows:

The FIH has established teams for regulation, communication & information, education & training, and research & development.  The Foundation has several functions including disseminating clear and concise information about Complementary Therapies to the general public.

Voluntary Self Regulation (VSR), i.e. a “light touch” regulation, is appropriate for most complementary therapies and the FIH was originally given a substantial grant by the King’s Fund to work with 13-14 therapies during the period 2000-2005. In 2005, FIH secured a second grant to continue its program of work. Therapies already working with the Foundation had to submit an application to continue with the Foundation’s programme and a  total of 10 therapies were chosen to continue with the Foundation’s programme.  

CAM groups are at varying stages of the process with varying levels of documentation (e.g. constitutions) in place.  The groups are of mixed size: for example, there are an estimated 70,000 massage therapists but only 7-800 Bowen Technique therapists.  Larger therapies are generally further along the VSR process having been working with FIH since 1999-2000.

Aromatherapy is ready to launch its transitional register by 2007 and is far along in the VSR process.

3. After summarising the FIH and VSR, Jean went on to talk about the regulatory climate and specifically, the “federal model” currently being considered by the Foundation.  This model would, if implemented, cut down on the cost of regulation by introducing economies of scale.  The FIH commissioned a report by Prof. Julie Stone which recommends a federal model where all complementary therapies participate in a central federal register and other structures to ensure public safety.  This federal regulator would be a “one stop shop” for the public in terms of complementary therapies, and would develop core generic standards across all therapies with profession-specific strands in addition.

4. After Jean’s introduction of the model, RE reported that he had not received the documentation and CF promised to correct this.  It was asked whether we should comment on the initial discussion document about the model immediately or wait for the full consultation document; JN asked us to wait.  SK asked for clarification of the length of the consultation period, which JN confirmed was three months from the issuance of the document.  MS stated that this was not a long time for consultation and others agreed. JN also pointed out that individual therapists could comment as well as organisations.

5. JT asked whether previous work done by organisations on hypnotherapy’s National Occupational Standards would now be lost: would we have to reinvent the wheel to cooperate with a new federal model?  JN responded that on the contrary, the NOS would be a good foundation although under the federal model (if adopted) there would be generic as well as profession-specific strands.

6. JT and TW raised issues about the financial implications of two regulatory approaches, one for counselling/psychotherapy, one for hypnotherapy – and the roles of the UKCP/BACP.  JN pointed out that the FIH was not dealing with counselling/psychotherapy which was scheduled for statutory regulation.

7. TW advocated some kind of professional and truly independent body for hypnotherapists – an equivalent to the UKCP.  CF wondered whether the federal model would provide this role.

8. TC asked what the difference in terms of finances and funding would be to set up a voluntary versus a statutory body.  JN didn’t know the full implications of this.

9. CF stated that the Hypnotherapy Society accepted the federal model as a positive way forward but with the qualification that the role for professional bodies should be a lot more central within the model.  For example, although registration should reside with the central federal body, setting training standards and maintaining them should probably be the work of the professional body, rather than have the very secondary “input” role described in the initial documentation.  Professional bodies know their profession best and should not be sidelined.  Other than that, the HS welcomed the model.

10. MS wondered, given the emphasis on the need for public safety, what was the evidence that hypnotherapy/hypnotherapists were unsafe?  Do we need more than we already have both in what the professional bodies are doing and through the criminal law if necessary?  A discussion followed between TW and SK about codes of ethics and complaints procedures.  TW suggested that a Code of Ethics may be a good starting point for the Working Group.

11.  AM wanted to ensure that any federal model allowed individual sub-specialisms within hypnotherapy to flourish without being subsumed into only one type of teaching.  A discussion ensued about core curriculum versus individual teaching styles and a general view was reached that basic generic components of courses could be agreed but then individual trainers could add their own special style or techniques to this easily.  JN confirmed this and pointed out that our National Occupational Standards could be the starting point for a core curriculum.

12.  WB suggested the starting point for the group should be to examine a common Code of Ethics.  TW supported this.  CF agreed.  SK stated that the group should consider the process rather than the details first.  CF asked for clarification of this point and SK stated that a structure for the working group needed to develop before individual issues could be progressed upon.  The meeting at large wondered how many hypnotherapists the organisations present represented.  WB stated that this could be as high as 95% but qualified this by stating that this figure related to those registered with professional bodies but not those who practised unregistered, which was an unknown quantity.

13.  MS agreed that concentrating on the single issue of a Code of Ethics would be a good starting point.  The group agreed that this would be practitioner ethics rather than training ethics.  TW suggested any such code should include a clause about not maligning therapists.  TW suggested we create a common code of ethics by comparing the codes of those membership bodies present.  SK stated that the issue of watering down more stringent codes should not happen and this was agreed. She also raised the idea that Complaints and Disciplinary Codes (may) needs to be included.  Discussion ensued and a consensus was reached to start with a Code of Ethics and to address Complaints at a later stage.

14. TW proposed and RE seconded the motion that the group work towards a profession-wide unified code of ethics.  This motion was unanimously carried.

15.  TW raised another possible area of cooperation by setting up an informal and advisory forum using internet technology were ethical dilemmas not covered by current codes could be discussed.  CF agreed that this would be very useful as the BACP utilised a similar advisory system.  There was general consensus that this would be a good way for organisations to cooperate in a friendly manner.  SK raised concerns about how this forum would work and about the anonymity of ethical cases discussed on the forum.  TW suggested it not be a public forum and the technical aspects were discussed.

16.  TW formally proposed the establishment of a bulletin board site (exact format/technology to be decided) for the discussion of ethical dilemmas with a guarantee of anonymity in all cases discussed, said site to be utilised by the organisations of the working group.  JT seconded the motion.  The motion was carried nem com with SK abstaining.

17. RE raised the issue as to whether the organisations present now considered themselves a working group.  A discussion ensued and it appeared that there was consensus that we were an interim working group as the exact constitution of the group (both in terms of membership and a written constitution) were items for the future.  JN suggested that this would be a good idea.

18. AM proposed that the organisations present form an interim Working Group for Hypnotherapy.  RH seconded the motion which was unanimously carried.

19. A discussion ensued as to the practicalities of working on a common Code of Ethics and the practicalities of coordinating the group’s activities.  The mechanism of exchanging electronic versions through an appropriate medium and then commenting on differences and similarities before meeting to establish a common Code was agreed.  CF offered to continue to facilitate the meetings and no objections were raised to this.

20.  The issue was raised about the problem of admitting organisations to the group in the future and how this was to be achieved in a way which balanced fairness and openness with the need to ensure the harmony of the profession.  SK pointed out that if the group (were to focus on the Constitution, then issue of membership requirements would be identifiable.

21.  The group discussed the idea of admitting new groups by consensus during the interim phase of the group’s growth.  When a constitution was developed for the group, this would set out membership eligibility and thus open and transparent procedures could then be followed.

22.  CF proposed that as an interim measure and only until the development of a constitution, admission to the group of new applicant organisations would be subject to the consensus of the group.  WB seconded the motion which was unanimously carried.

23. The need to consult with members/committees etc as to the formation of the group and its development of a core code of ethics was discussed and all groups agreed to report back to, and consult with, their membership in the manner appropriate to their constitutions or organisational structures.  A suggested timeline of 3 months was agreed for this.

24.  The issue of how organisations would do this was discussed and a consensus reached to distribute the minutes without lengthy editorials as appropriate.

25.  JN made some closing remarks.  She congratulated the group for a very productive first meeting and promised to send out a document distinguishing regulation from representation for the group to digest.  She stated that the group should not lose sight of the need for inclusivity but that the interim approach of accepting new members by consensus was a valid temporary measure.

26. CF thanked JN for her attendance on behalf of FIH, and mutual thanks was shared between all present for their work during the meeting.  The meeting was closed at 3:05pm.