The proposals in question were announced in the weeks leading up to the CMC's Annual General Meeting in December 2008. They envisaged registration schemes for mediators, mediation organisations, a code of good practice for each, and an independent complaints review scheme. While the proposals set low thresholds for compliance, the mediation community was divided in its support. Those who objected to the proposals did so on broad grounds. 

As successive mediators made plain at the AGM, the community had insufficient time to consider such far-reaching proposals before being called upon to vote on their approval. Time pressure raised the emotional temperature of the consultation, and was an inescapable backdrop to the debate. 

Commenting on proposals following an extended consultation period, Independent Mediators spoke for many in stating they were, "suspicious of the motives of forcing a scheme through in such undue haste and without adequate consultation..."

Objections to the substance of the proposals, likewise, attracted some forthright responses. Nevertheless, Sir Henry Brooke, chairman of the CMC, observed in his report on the consultation that, "On a simple headcount, respondents were fairly equally divided, but objectors tended to set out their objections in detail, while many supporters simply responded with an unqualified 'Yes'."

The objectors were largely experienced, well-known mediators, and included then CMC Board member, Amanda Bucklow. They objected variously on the grounds of cost, over-regulation, unnecessary regulation, and questioned whether the CMC was the right body to register and regulate mediators. Others pointed out that registration of mediators was outside the scope of the CMC's constitution. Others, too, voiced concern over the commercial activities of Board members: "Whilst the commercial activities of members of the Board may be a strength in some respects, inevitably it creates a perception of possible conflicts of interest..." wrote respondents for the Bar Council ADR Committee.

The personality of the organisation was further questioned by respondents for PIM Senior Mediators who found the schemes did not provide for "registration of individual mediators by mediators", instead describing the CMC as "a composite group comprising Mediation Service Providers, the Law Society, the Bar Council, the Civil Justice Council, the Department for Constitutional Affairs, the Department for Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, as well as a small number of individual mediators."

Another issue which stretched the community's credulity was the Board's insistence that the proposals were not regulation, and that the CMC as an organisation was anti-regulation. Few were convinced: "We believe it is wrong to think that Registration or Accreditation is somehow different from Regulation...," wrote the representatives of PIM Senior Mediators, "We believe the scheme proposed is in effect Regulation. The fact that it might be voluntary, set a low threshold or amount to light touch makes no difference." 

William Wood QC took up the point in a letter to the CMC Board in January, "Some of the CMC Board minutes appear to imply a belief that only something done by the government can be 'regulation'. That would be a mistaken view. On that basis the Bar would be an unregulated profession."

In the face of such strong opposition, rather than risk dividing the community, the CMC backed away from many of its proposals retaining only a registration scheme for workplace mediation organisations. 

This, too, raises questions. "Despite being sold as a means for individuals mediators to get their hands on government-referred work, and urgent because of the April deadline, it now seems that only providers will get work under the schemes after all," commented one mediator. "People should be really angry about this," the mediator continued. "No urgency. No need. Just a turf war." 

As of 24 February the CMC has a new Board, whose members include Judith Kelbie, William Wood QC, Heather Allen, Paul Randolph and Andrew Paton. With regulation now off the agenda for the foreseeable future, the community is keen to see future initiatives take a more constructive direction.