Related articles

• Given the rising tide of informed criticism and concern about regulation by the Health Professions Council (HPC), now is the time for BACP to work out, in consultation with the membership, what its attitude will be to those conscientious objectors who may wish to enter what has become known as principled non-compliance (PNC) with HPC. There could be many thousands of them if the current trend continues. Of course, we also believe that BACP should continue to negotiate robustly so as to get the best possible deal for those who do wish to transfer to the HPC register. To be absolutely clear, we seek choice for all, not the imposition of our own particular views.
  
  A particular cause for concern, given that this has been the method adopted by HPC with other professions, is the possibility of an automatic transfer, en masse, of personal information held by BACP on its members to the state register. The HPC has indicated that, once the transfer of members’ details from voluntary registers has taken place, they will be kept on their database in perpetuity, whether or not the individual concerned chooses to register with them, or practise under a ‘protected title’. We note that, at the time of writing, a considerable number of newly regulated ‘practitioner psychologists’, whose personal details were recently transferred to the HPC, have yet to register. The HPC has warned them that if they do not sign up by its deadline, not only will they forfeit their right to a ‘protected title’, but also the regulator will write to their employer, and if they wish to re-apply subsequently they will face an additional £115 ‘readmission fee’ on top of the usual costs of an application. For us, this domineering and coercive approach, treating practitioners like recalcitrant children, is further evidence of an ethos incompatible 
with counselling and psychotherapy, in which we place a high value on equality, respect and individual autonomy.
  
  Data Protection law only allows information to be transferred against the expressed will of an individual if it can be shown to be in the public interest, yet it is self evident that no consensus exists, either within the profession or within society more generally, as to whether regulation by the HPC is in fact in such a ‘public interest’. Many strongly believe that it is not. Indeed, our own Chair Lynne Gabriel has described the current proposals as ‘not fit for purpose’ and BACP’s recent response to the HPC consultation expressed the view that some of the HPC’s proposed ‘standards’ would actually place clients at an increased risk of harm. Regardless of one’s position, the possibility that transfer of personal data could take place without the informed consent of the individuals concerned must be deeply worrying. We urge BACP to announce without delay that an ‘opt-in’ policy will operate whereby only members who expressly give permission will be subject to auto-transfer. Three organisations, the United Kingdom Council for Psychotherapy (UKCP), the National Council for Psychotherapy and the Counselling Society, have already announced such a policy for their members. We consider that this is the only conceivable ethical, principled response to the threat of a mass data transfer that would contravene the human rights of potentially thousands of practitioners.
  
  We see that in the recent election for Chair of UKCP, Andrew Samuels won on a platform that explicitly rejected HPC and pledged to support principled non-compliance. He took two-thirds of the vote, and the turnout of 48 per cent was described by Electoral Reform Services as ‘exceptionally high’. It is not impossible to imagine such a grassroots uprising within BACP. However, we believe that the BACP leadership is prepared to become more responsive to the diversity of views amongst its membership. What is needed from BACP right now is an unambiguous declaration that it will not transfer personal information unless members have explicitly asked it to do so, and an assurance that no punitive or professionally damaging action will be taken against those who, in good faith, enter into PNC. Counsellors and psychotherapists who make that choice are entitled to know where they will stand as BACP members if the HPC subsumes the voluntary registers into its own database.

• 
  Emma Boulting, MBACP
  Christine Bartholomew, MBACP
  Jean Clark, BACP Fellow
  Professor Windy Dryden, BACP Fellow
  Noreen Emmans, MBACP (Accred)
  Chris Evans, MBACP
  Professor Colin Feltham, BACP Fellow
  Simon Fisher, MBACP
  Penny Georgiou, MBACP
  Jeni Hills, MBACP
  Carol Jones, MBACP
  Dharmacharini Kalamanani, MBACP
  Dr Janet Low, MBACP
  Jennifer Maidman, MBACP
  Jimmy McGhee, MBACP (Snr Accred)
  Paul McGahey, MBACP (Snr Accred)
  David Murphy, MBACP (Accred)
  Arthur Musgrave, MBACP (Accred)
  Andy Rogers, MBACP
  Dr John Rowan, BACP Fellow
  Barbara Shannon, MBACP (Snr Accred)
  Professor Ernesto Spinelli, BACP Fellow
  Professor Brian Thorne, BACP Fellow