We have had some technical problems uploading this reply to a previous comment on the “Selling out?” post for which I apologise. Below is the response from Paul Salkovskis.
Peter Harvey,
Blog Administrator.
Thanks Dick.
To clarify; with respect to
“the BABCP would investigate a complaint against a PWP but only if no-one else could be given the job”,
this should, (!) in my view really read
“the BABCP would investigate a complaint against a PWP but only if no one else SHOULD be given the job”.
To explain; this preferment is normal practice where the registration or accreditation is secondary but not statutory, which it often is for example in CBT acccreditation. For example, if someone is registered with statutory bodies such as the GMC, HCPC or NMC as well as the BABCP, the statutory professional registering body should take pole position. The secondary registration body would accept their ruling (and it would be odd if they did not). I presume (but don’t know) that the BPS takes the same position with respect to Chartering, for example. This “hierarchy” prevents “double jeopardy”, inconsistencies and avoids confusion in terms of public access to fitness to practice information etc. There may be other ways of doing it, but I don’t know. Where the BABCP is the sole registering body (which will be true for most but not all PWPs, AMHPs, CYPs etc) then the BABCP procedures will be applied, and this according to the PSA rules. (I can’t speak for the BPS on this or any other matter, of course.)
What I can say is that being removed from either register as a PWP (and the subsequent other LI professions) disqualifies people from being on the other, and this is clearly specified. BPS and BABCP will both have their own complaints procedure in line with PSA requirements. The BABCP has a long established process for fitness to practice linked to the current accreditation of CBT therapists.
In terms of the fuller details and its availability on the web etc, this is pending the final processing of the PSA applications. This is a lengthy and presumably thorough process which has yet to be concluded. Until that is in place, we are not in a position to put up the details as they may have to be changed if PSA require it.
As outgoing Vice President of the BABCP (posting here in a personal capacity of course), I am very pleased indeed that we have been able to begin the process of helping the development and oversight of the “Low Intensity” psychological professions and think they are a wonderful addition to the Psychological Professions in the NHS and beyond.
Of course all of this raises the not entirely unrelated issue of the extent of statutory regulation of psychological therapy, psychotherapy, counselling and so on, but that’s a discussion for another day!
Best wishes, Paul
BPSWatch 