Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-kwt9d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-14T00:09:36.687Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Devolution: a process, not an event

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2018

Robin McCreadie
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content. As you have access to this content, full HTML content is provided on this page. A PDF of this content is also available in through the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Information

Type
Editorial
Information
Advances in Psychiatric Treatment , Volume 9 , Issue 5 , September 2003, pp. 317 - 318
Copyright
Copyright © The Royal College of Psychiatrists 2003 

Early in 2002, I was asked by the then President of the College Professor John Cox to ‘take soundings’ within the College with regard to matters of devolution. 1 The topic had arisen partly because of an increase in devolved health powers in the Scottish and Welsh governments; some unease about the relationship between the College in [the Republic of] Ireland and the Irish government; and some unease within the English divisions about their role and purpose.

Before I began the consultation process I reminded myself about the objects and purposes of the College (Box 1) and the functions of its divisions (Box 2). I was struck, first, by the emphasis in the objects and purposes on education, training and research; and, second, by the rather vague functions of the divisions – they seemed merely to be advisory and to be a conduit for the exchange of information.

Box 1

Objects and purposes of the College

‘The objects and purposes for which the College is constituted are to:

  1. (a) advance the science and practice of psychiatry and related subjects;

  2. (b) further public education therein;

  3. (c) promote study and research work in psychiatry and all sciences and disciplines connected with the understanding and treatment of mental disorder in all its forms and aspects and related subjects and publish the results of all such study and research.’

Supplemental Charter, p. 5: 3/1 (Royal College of Psychiatrists, 2001)

Box 2

The College's divisions

‘Divisions shall, through their Executive Committees, keep Council informed of training and service issues arising in the Division. They shall inform members of the Division of the activities and requirements of the College. Divisions shall represent the College locally and provide professional advice where required.’

Regulations, p. 50: XXIV/A/2 (Royal College of Psychiatrists, 2001)

Consultation

I consulted widely within the College and made myself available to speak at meetings of various divisions. Four main themes emerged.

The English divisions

Members in the English divisions look somewhat enviously at Scotland, Ireland and, to a lesser extent, Wales. They perceive organisations with a clear sense of identity, which have administrative support and which are over-represented in the various College structures and committees.

Ireland

Considerable devolution is already apparent in Ireland, with the creation of the Irish College of Psychiatrists and its associated developments. A view expressed by a number of members in Northern Ireland was that they felt ‘disadvantaged’, as no psychiatrist in Northern Ireland can belong to the Irish College of Psychiatrists. There was a strong feeling in Northern Ireland that there should be a separate Northern Ireland [sic] Division.

Overseas members

About 15% of our members work overseas (Table 1). Although there are loosely formed overseas groups, there are no overseas divisions. If there were, and if they had responsibilities similar to those of the British Isles’ divisions, then the voice of the overseas members could be more clearly heard.

Table 1

Membership of College divisions (2002)

Division Membership
UK
    Scotland 871
    Wales 319
    Northern Ireland 205
    England, by region
        Northern & Yorkshire 772
        North West 733
        Trent 588
        West Midlands 545
        Eastern 542
        London 2033
        South East 1006
        South West 611
    England regional total 6830
UK total 8225
Ireland 498
Overseas
    Europe 138
    The Americas 455
    Indian subcontinent 100
    Middle East 106
    Oceania 482
    Far East 211
    Africa 43
Overseas total 1535
No-mail division 111
Total membership 10 369

Central structures

Almost no one was happy with Council. It was seen as being too large and unwieldy (it currently has 61 members). English members believed that too much time was taken up with ‘Celtic’ matters; Celtic members thought that Council was far too ‘England-oriented’; non-London-based English members thought most topics were ‘London-related’.

Both English and Celtic members had reservations about the Court of Electors, which was seen as somewhat shadowy and secretive.

A scoping group

In November 2002 I submitted a report to the Executive and Finance Committee. The upshot of this was the creation of a ‘scoping group’, which would look closely at the findings and make recommendations for change.

The vast majority of the people I had consulted and spoken to were keen for change. They wanted to be more involved in College activities and believed that devolution of functions to the divisions would strengthen, not weaken, the College. It was also recognised that devolution is a process, not an event. Change should come, but possibly at a different pace in different parts, with regard to both the divisions and central structures. It was also expected that success would build on success: ‘The more you do, the more you'll want to do’.

Proposals of the scoping group

Functions and responsibilities of divisions

It is proposed that each division be responsible for:

  1. • elections of regional advisers, members of the Court of Electors and members of the executive committees of faculties and sections;

  2. • nominations of MRCPsych examiners, assessors on advisory appointment committees, Fellows, and for distinction awards;

  3. • administration and audit of CPD;

  4. • public policy: with a public policy committee in each division to deal with national issues, and a supra-divisional committee in England.

Structural changes in divisions

It is proposed that each division has full-time administrative support, based within the division's geographical area. The chairman of a division would be a Vice-President of the College. Scotland, Wales, Ireland and Northern Ireland would each have a division, and there would be a reduced number of English divisions and six international divisions (corresponding to the six regional offices of the World Health Organization).

Central structures

Council and the Executive and Finance Committees should no longer exist in their current form. In their place there should be a single, smaller committee, which would consider issues of a supranational nature. Policy issues would be devolved to divisions.

The future

These are the proposals. Consultations continue. Some of the proposals can be introduced quickly; others will take time. The end result should be a College more responsive to its members’ needs and more able to fulfil its ‘objects and purposes’.

Footnotes

1. ‘devolution noun the transfer or delegation of power to a lower level, especially by central government to local or regional administration. descent or degeneration to a worse state’ (The New Oxford English Dictionary, 1998). It is my view, and that of almost everyone I spoke to, that devolution does not mean separation.

References

Royal College of Psychiatrists (2001) Supplemental Charter, Bye-Laws and Regulations (Occasional Paper OP52). London: Royal College of Psychiatrists.Google Scholar
Figure 0

Table 1Membership of College divisions (2002)

Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.