The UK Reiki Federation
Regulation – Which way?
As reported previously, the Reiki Regulatory Working Group, RRWG had withdrawn from the Federal Working Group (FWG) and the proposed Natural Healthcare Council (NHC). Representatives from Reiki and other therapies had attempted to bring their concerns regarding the proposed model to the FWG meetings but as these were not included in discussions, the RRWG decided to withdraw from the process due to concerns raised. Letters had previously been sent to the FWG Chair and the Princes Foundation for Integrated Health (PFIH), meetings were held but no progress had been made.
The RRWG meeting in January was called to review other available options, and presentations were given on each.
1. Single Regulation
The UKRF in 2003 was advised by the PFIH that a Professional Association could not be a Regulatory Body as well, even if they set up a separate organisation, as there must be no link between the two. The UKRF then invited other Professional Associations to join together and the RRWG was formed.
The RRWG had, until the formation of the FWG, been working on a single structure, but as recommendations of the Stone report in 2005 had been for a federal structure, this model was temporarily suspended. The RRWG would need to recommence the work which had been started before.
There would be a tremendous amount of work required to set up as a single regulator and a long list of considerations were put forward to the group. One of the biggest issues was cost to the practitioner and the amount of time needed to set up the process.
The RRWG cannot be the Regulatory Council and a separate organisation would need to be set up This would be to ensure independence and transparency between a Regulatory Council for Reiki and the professional lead body for Reiki (ie currently the RRWG with its Professional Associations as members). The Regulatory Council would need to be completely independent, self financing. There would be no Government funding, or funding from Professional Associations and would be totally dependent on registrants.
The budgeted expenditure for the year is £120,000. To cover this there would be a need to have a minimum of 1000 registrants each paying £120 to register. If more than 1000 registered then annual fee could be reduced. If there were less than 1000 registrants in the first year, costs would increase in the second year, not only to cover costs but to recover any debt.
2. BCMA VSR Programme
A presentation was given by the BCMA. Their proposed register is to be called the British Complementary Therapies Regulatory Council (BCTRC).
The programme is being developed by a progress team. They would be regulating therapists, not the therapy. To save money, the administration for the register would be done in the admin office of the BCMA. To be on the BCTRC Register, prospective registrants would first have to join the BCMA at a cost of £20 pa, then an additional £20 for the VSR registration, making total registration fee of £40.
The BCMA website is www.bcma.co.uk.
3. GRCCT
The representative from the GRCCT gave information on the GRCCT Business Plan. There was a detailed summary of benefits for the practitioners as well as what the public wanted.
The setting up of the GRCCT (which was launched in October) was clearly explained. Each profession has its own VSR (ie lead body such as the RRWG) which feeds into the GRCCT. Each VSR would send a member to sit on the Federal Regulatory Council. The Federal Council is composed of equal numbers of lay and professions, and is chaired by an elected lay chair.
The registration fee is £30 for practitioners who are members of the professional associations such as the UKRF, with £5 for each additional therapy to be registered. The fee for practitioners who were not members of one of the professional associations is £130 as they would need to be vetted in a different way.
The GRCCT Website is www.grcct.org.
The UK Reiki Federation feels that the GRCCT model would be the most appropriate for its members. However, each practitioner should make their own decision as to which is most appropriate for their particular circumstance. We welcome comments back on this by Wednesday 30 January 2008 via the appropriate contact form.
