FROM Carolyne Cross, Chair, BABTAC & CIBTAC takes a look at possible industry regulation and its potential impact questions When BABTAC first started in 1977, the beauty industry was a very different place; treatments were certainly not such a mainstream high-street demand and therapists had an expected and demanded training path. Since then, the industry has had a significant and somewhat unanticipated boom, and was one of the only industries which actually grew through the recent recession. More therapists are entering the industry than ever before, there is an increasing number of training providers with varying standards, and the quality and calibre of therapists and treatments is varied. Couple that with accessible and expanding media and the beauty industry is now one of the most talked about industries in the UK; both good and bad. As with any industry, the quality of its professionals are varied, but unlike other service industries, the unregulated nature of the market means that this variation can be more pronounced. Frequently, sometimes even several times a month, you see the true-life ‘horror’ stories of bad treatment experiences, which although minimal in reality, are actually damaging a largely reputable, responsible and innovative industry. Last year, the PIP breast implant scandal created a stir and the resulting Review by Sir Bruce Keogh has shined a spotlight on our industry, subjecting it to unprecedented scrutiny. Many have questioned the liberal and unregulated nature of our industry, despite the potential risks of some of the treatments. When considering these factors, should we be looking at regulation as a solution? Will it help or hinder the industry as we know it? A few years ago, BABTAC identified a growing need to consider industry regulation and the recent developments simply fuelled that fire. We held a Corporate Taskforce on the issue last year, and also consulted with industry professionals, even meeting with some Government departments to better understand the options and their potential. In simple terms, regulation can take many forms and can be controlling or liberating in equal measures. For example: Regulation by statute is Government driven, where parameters are dictated and enforced centrally; this would be compulsory, which positively, means no one is exempt, but it can sometimes be a hindrance for a creative and innovative industry. Self-regulation offers a chance for the industry to unite and drive its own standards and expectations; this has the benefit of being flexible for a growing industry, but as it is voluntary, standards can be eroded over time and often it doesn’t regulate those who really need it. This has already been implemented by the complementary therapy industry in 2009 and is becoming recognised by practitioners, employers and service users. In the middle there is co-regulation, a process whereby the industry self regulates in a transparent manner, subject to government scrutiny and challenge, thereby enabling a reduction in direct central regulation. Here top down regulation and inspection are removed in favour of local accountability, where providers self regulate in a transparent fashion and enable bottom up service user scrutiny and local systems of redress. Discussed in detail at the Corporate Taskforce, this issue was then opened to vote by industry professionals; 20% opted for Government Regulation because of the encompassing nature of the regulation and the accountability, whilst just shy of 40% voted for co-regulation and only 16% wanted self-regulation. A single person opted for no regulation at all. Considering the evidence, it is clear that regardless of the type, the industry needs and is demanding some form of regulation. It was also apparent that the regulation, in whatever format, needs to be impartial, and driven by an independent body with regulation as its central goal. Some have questioned the potential cost to therapists, concerned it will be expensive, ineffective and even difficult, however we believe that with the right approach, it can provide a framework that holds the industry accountable and is effective. If successful, this should free the industry for sustained and appropriate growth, where the actions of a few do not tar the credibility of the many. John French, Chief Executive of the Federation of Holistic Therapists (FHT), and who attended the Corporate Taskforce meeting said “With appropriate regulatory safeguards, beauty therapists have so much to offer the health and well being of society which underpin the current political agenda. Without it, beauty therapists may find themselves left out in the cold.” Regulation is a complex option, potentially riddled with pitfalls, but in an industry where quality and affordability are demanded, can we really afford not to succeed?
Posted on: Sun, 17 Nov 2013 18:27:21 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015