Thank you for your letter regarding statutory regulation. You raise concerns about two aspects in particular: register transfer and principled non-compliance (PNC).

Entry onto a register destined for transfer to a statutory register is voluntary. All professional associations, including BACP, should only be entering members who have consented to enter the voluntary register (registrants on the voluntary register, if that register is accepted by the regulator, will be transferred onto the state/statutory register when it opens). I can categorically state that BACP will not offer a register that includes members who have not willingly joined for the express purpose of entering the regulator’s statutory register. Members will be able to opt in or opt out.

If entry to a central or state register is voluntary and a member’s non-compliance was congruent with the BACP Ethical Framework, then it is difficult to see how a complaint against that non-complying member could be sustained. If entry to the central register is statutory, then BACP would need to decide if it could, or should, act to endorse members who were acting illegally. That requires public debate before a decision could be made; a debate informed by the precise wording of the Section 60 secondary legislation and by the ethical principles being claimed by non-compliers. Since the final form of a statutory register is not yet known, BACP cannot at this stage pre-empt a decision it will only be able to make in the future. That requires a debate which actively involves BACP members.

In relation to principled non-compliance, BACP, as a member organisation, seeks to represent the views of its wide-ranging membership; including those who do not wish to register with the Health Professions Council (HPC), should we become a profession regulated by that Council. We value a membership that openly expresses its agreements and differences in relation to regulation. Dissonance, difference, conflicting opinions and positions – all are inevitable and convey a field that is proactively engaged in its ongoing development.

Inevitably, the position on principled non-compliance will vary, depending on whether the central register is voluntary or statutory. In either case, principled non-compliance would need to be congruent with the BACP Ethical Framework.

Should ‘counsellor’ and ‘psychotherapist’ become regulated titles, as noted in the Health Professions Order of 2001 (Article 6 (2)), HPC can prosecute someone using a protected title if they are not registered. A person could also be liable for prosecution under Article 39 (1)b of the Order if the protected title is not used but its use is implied through, for example, referring to ‘psychotherapy’ or ‘counselling’. How the regulator will respond to those who intentionally occupy the roles of counsellor and psychotherapist in every way but name, through adopting alternative titles and means of describing their work, is unknown – it is a matter to address should we be in a situation where the law changes to make persons liable to prosecution through ‘function’.

In your letter, it is not clear how you would relate actions of non-compliance to the principles in the BACP Ethical Framework. How our personal and professional ethics inform our decisions and actions on regulation are core matters that those who opt for non-compliance must address. BACP, and other professional associations, must ask what relationships will exist with members who elect to practise in ways deemed illegal by the regulator and Government. If honesty, transparency and integrity prevail in a regulated landscape, are professional associations going to be willing to knowingly endorse illegal action? That is a matter for public debate.

As Chair of the Association, I can initiate a forum in which to debate Section 60 legislation on the regulation of counselling and psychotherapy. In the meantime, along with other professional associations and colleagues in the Psychological Professions Alliance Group (members include BACP, UKCP, BPC, BABCP, BPS) I will continue to push for engaged and informed debate on key issues around regulation, including standards of proficiency, fitness to practise processes and professional training and development that informs entry levels to the profession. These debates will also take place in member consultations and in other events organised to debate statutory regulation.

I welcome further debate on the points I have made and value the opportunity to engage with you around the complex territory that constitutes statutory regulation.