26th November 2008                                                                                                        Issue: 2

Political Campaign
 
The RCCP is continuing to work with the Whitehouse Consultancy on its campaign to develop strong relationships with Parliamentarians across both Houses, political parties and other wider stakeholder bodies. 
 
The overall purpose of this public affairs campaign is to put pressure on the Government to publish a clear implementation timetable for the inclusion of clinical physiology into the regulatory regime so that the current risks to patients of malpractice are minimised.  The RCCP feels strongly that patient safety must be protected as the new regulatory system develops and regulation must be allowed to develop before a redesign of educational pathways through the Modernising Scientific Careers programme is considered.
 
The RCCP achieved a major outcome this month when we received a commitment from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Department of Health, Lord Darzi of Denham, that the Government will publish a next steps document later this year on the Modernising Scientific Careers programme with a consultation to follow. We received this commitment in the form of a parliamentary answer to a question we drafted for Earl Howe, Conservative Spokesman for Health in the House of Lords.
 
Meetings and Outcomes
 
At the beginning of November, the RCCP board members attended a two-day programme of meetings in London with both Parliamentarians and other wider stakeholders. We received a positive response from all those whom we met with and feel we have advanced our campaign by building to our support base within Parliament.
 
Over the two days the RCCP met a number of Parliamentarians including Anne Milton MP, the Conservative Health Spokeswoman, Sandra Gidley MP, the Liberal Democrat Health Spokeswoman and Dr Evan Harris MP, Liberal Democrat Spokesman for Science. The RCCP also met their respective counterparts in the House of Lords: Earl Howe, Conservative Health Spokesman, and Baroness Tonge, the Liberal Democrat Health Spokeswoman.  These Parliamentarians are key spokespeople for the opposition parties so will be important allies in putting pressure on the Department of Health.
 
We also met a number of influential backbench Parliamentarians including Robert Syms MP, a Conservative member of the important House of Commons Health Select Committee; and Baroness Masham of Ilton, a Crossbench Peer, who is very involved in health issues. We were also delighted by the positive response we received from these members and will be ensuring they are kept updated on our future progress.
 
Aside from our Parliamentary meetings, we were also able to meet Martin Else, the Chief Executive of the Royal College of Physicians, and Harry Cayton, the Chief Executive of the Council for Healthcare Regulatory Excellence (CHRE). Whitehouse will be supporting the RCCP in continuing a dialogue with both of these bodies. In particular, Harry Cayton was very supportive of the RCCP's position and committed to discussing the issues further with Prof Sue Hill and Marc Seale of the Health Professions Council and to considering the CHRE's position on the issues. The RCCP also recently had a very positive meeting with Andrew Butcher, Director of Workforce Strategy at Skills for Health.
 
Parliamentary Activity
 
As mentioned above and further to his Parliamentary Questions tabled last month, we have continued to liaise with Earl Howe, Conservative Spokesman for Health in the House of Lords, with a view to tabling follow up Parliamentary Questions extracting more information on the Department of Health's Modernising Scientific Careers proposals.
 
Supportive Parliamentarians have also agreed to write to the relevant Health Minister expressing the RCCP's concerns, supporting our position. They have also agreed to table parliamentary questions to find out more information on the Department of Health's plans around regulation and the MSC, as well keeping the Government to account on its commitment that a formal consultation will take place on these plans.
 
The way forward
 
Now that we have received a commitment from the Department of Health that they will soon publish a consultation document on the Modernising Scientific Careers programme the next step will be ensuring that the RCCP's views are fed into the consultation process. We plan to carry out work on a number of strands over the coming months to help achieve this aim. 
 
Due to the positive response to our meeting request letters, we have a further day of meetings scheduled on 2nd December. On this day we plan to meet Mario Dunn, Special Advisor to the Secretary of State for Health and a very influential voice within the Government and Vivienne Nathanson, Director of Professional Activities at the British Medical Association. We have now also finalised a meeting date with Professor Sue Hill, the Chief Scientific Officer, who is the overall lead in the Department of Health on the Modernising Scientific Careers programme. We understand Prof Hill has also invited a number of her colleagues from the devolved administrations and look forward to a fruitful discussion.
 
We also plan to table an Early Day Motion (EDM) early in the new Parliamentary Session which starts in December. EDMs are formal motions submitted for debate in the House of Commons. Although they are rarely debated on the Floor of the House, they are useful in drawing attention to a campaign and attracting support in Parliament from MPs from all three main parties. We will liaise with the MPs we have met in order to generate as much cross-party support as possible.
 
In December we also plan to ask Earl Howe to table a motion for short debate in the House of Lords. A short debate presents the opportunity for a Peer to put an oral question directly to the Minister and an eight minute debate will follow on the topic. We will make sure that we brief other supportive Peers ahead of the debate in order to ensure we get our points across to the Minister.   
 
As previously mentioned, the RCCP has taken a four-nation approach to its public affairs campaign and we have now sent meeting request letters off to the relevant policy makers in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. We are currently collating the responses and hope to soon be embarking on a body of meetings with politicians and officials in these countries.  
 
As outlined in the previous newsletter, we would really appreciate your effects through using the 'lobbying toolkit' and contacting your local MP which we hope will be instrumental in showing the Government that there is real support on the ground within the profession for statutory regulation and in informing them that failure to act can have dramatic effects in patients' safety.

Summary of RCCP Member Feedback from Modernising Scientific Careers Listening Events 

Below is a summary of feedback provided by RCCP members on the listening events which took place across the UK recently. At these events presentations were given by Professor Sue Hill, Chief Scientific Officer, and Professor Shelley Heard, Modernising Scientific Careers(MSC) Programme Director. There were also workshops and 'question and answer' sessions at the events. 
 
The feedback shows that although the events provided an opportunity to see the proposals in more detail, there was little opportunity for participants to gain futher information or express their concerns. Members were particularly concerned about the lack of detail and the contradictions within the proposals.  Whilst some proposals were supported by members the majority were not. 
 
General Points

• The general consensus of RCCP members was that little opportunity was provided for participants to express their views at these events. Although promoted as 'listening events', there was little opportunity for members to offer feedback to the MSC project team.
• Many members left the event feeling anxious and confused, citing the lack of detail in the proposals as the major reason for this. Many of the proposals were very vague of many leading to concern about implementation and transition arrangements. 
• In terms of implementation, members got the impression that it was a done deal that they would be introduced despite the concerns raised. However some members were reassured that there may still be the opportunity to influence future development.    
• There was concern amongst members that many of the representatives at the event were clinical scientists who may have less practical understanding about the requirements of service where there is direct patient contact.
• Concern was expressed about the reduced length of specialist training. It was felt that this would lead to a less experienced practitioner at the end of the training period.
• Members raised concerns about what would appear to be a lack of consistency in the approach to statutory registration of health professions. Examples were cited of other areas (e.g. nursing and physiotherapy) where staff is currently state registered and thus regulated at BSc level and below.
• One member expressed concern about the potential loss of the BSc and MSc in Audiology.
• Some members believe that the proposals will benefit those with good multi-tasking skills.
   

Specific Points made by RCCP members
 

• Central funding will be required for foundation degrees as the proposals will mean far more people will be entering them.
• Strong concern was raised about the potential loss of the BSc in Clinical Physiology, which has been responsible for producing a high number of very competent practitioners.  The expense of training practitioners to this level would be prohibitive.
• Core subjects such as physics and chemistry will not be a problem, but specialist subjects such as ECG instrumentation and interpretation or electrophysiology will require specialist lecturers. Higher education establishments already have severe difficulties recruiting specialist lecturers at the level required.
• The loss of the HCS pathway, with practitioners divided into Assistants, Practitioners and Scientists is likely to lead to a 'glass ceiling'.  Clinical physiologists wanting to move up the career pathway would only be able to move to the next band through competitive entry, potentially restricting people in service.
• The proposals as they stand are very low in detail with regards to how people are likely to be trained, very short time scales for implementation and the potential loss of existing qualifications with no clear replacement. 
• Concerns remain also about transitional arrangements and the effect upon current grading.  The proposals as they stand do not address these concerns.  
• One to one practical training of physiologists is essential as large numbers of students cannot be practically trained at one time as they can with analysis of a specimen. Patients need to be treated with dignity, it is not appropriate for more than one trainee to be learning on a patient at one time.
• After several years, a BSc for physiologists has been set up. This new qualification is largely practical with assessments throughout and works perfectly with the largely practical nature of our work.
• Recruitment for lecturers is difficult because their salary is much lower than that of Senior Healthcare Scientists.
• The new proposals of a 3 year rotational degree based on Healthcare Science overall with clinical and theoretical rotations in different specialisms, will not provide an Audiologist with the knowledge, understanding and clinical skills required to perform the role of a graduate audiologist at Band 5 or higher level.