So who is in bed with whom (part 1)? & further on the Government’s CON-sultation mechanisms

by Bruce Scott on September 28, 2011

Dear Julia (JE: Bruce’s comment was sent to me in an email),


From my recollection the Command paper, setting out the voluntary registers scenario, came out in Feb 2011. Now in another quick reading of the CHRE paper (early thinking), it is dated January 2011[i],




7.3 We welcome feedback on our early thoughts by 12 January 2011.


Fast forward to 30 April 2011 (CHRE discussion paper) and it said this (underlines by me):


Professional Standards Authority Accreditation Scheme for Assured Voluntary Registers Discussion paper (draft – 30 April 2011) available here.

1. Introduction

1.1 This paper builds on our previous discussion paper ‘Early thinking on CHRE’s

potential role in operating a voluntary register scheme’ and reflects the views,

concerns, opinions and suggestions made by interested parties during informal

discussions to date. It is intended to set out some preliminary proposals and to act

as a ‘straw man’ – a foundation for further consultation and development of the

accreditation system.


What I am curious to know is:


1) Who was talking to CHRE before the command paper (the Health and Social Care Bill 2011) came out in 17th Feb 2011? Who was asked for feedback on the CHRE early thinking paper?


2) If “they” were talking to CHRE, did they know that the HPC route was folding – if so why was this secret? I did not know?


3) Why was the early thinking paper not circulated amongst people? – I never heard anybody talking about it-everybody I knew was asking what would the voluntary registers consist of and what was the future of HPC; yet the CHRE paper on “early thinking” about voluntary registers was written before the Command paper/Health and Social Care Bill 2011.


4) The Health and Social Care Bill is being heard again on the 11th October again. This relates to the voluntary registers yes?


Things are just not adding up for me or have I been half asleep?


Best regards



[i] Council for Healthcare Regulatory Excellence: Discussion Paper: Early thinking on CHRE’s potential role in operating a voluntary register scheme: January 2011: available here.

One comment

Quick answers to the questions. I welcome further comment.
1) The New Savoy Partnership or the ‘Psychological Professions Alliance Group’ (see Collaborators win: Putting the State Wellbeing Strategy to work… Julia Evans on February 8, 2011) & at least two other training organisations have been in secret negotiations since at least October 2010.
2) Yes I have evidence that they did know & were keen to maintain their position as sole supplier to the Government’s Happiness Factories (IAPT).
3) Because the Establishment, in collusion with the Government’s imposition of CHRE, had no intention of letting go of their control of the Government-protected Mental Health Industry or market in provision of Mental Health or Wellbeing care.
4) Well spotted. Time to reconnect with all your contacts in Parliament, NOW.

by Julia Evans on September 28, 2011 at 12:00 pm. #