I wanted to applaud the editorial team of Therapy Today for their courage and skill in putting together the May issue. It seems there is a real blast of fresh air blowing through BACP lately. It was heartening to have almost a whole issue dedicated to the subject of regulation – it felt that at last the subject was being given the prominence it so richly deserves. 

In her article Sally Aldridge invited members to make up their own minds about whether or not they agreed with the need for regulation. At the end of her letter, Julia Peters asked for an online referendum on the subject of IAPT. Why not, surely members have views on this and a right to express them? And why not one on regulation too? Over something so significant, surely BACP needs the mandate of the whole membership. That would feel more transparent, democratic and just. A true consultation would enable BACP to be guided by the will and wishes of its fee-paying members. If BACP is to maintain a relevant role post-regulation, it may have to re-define its identity and learn to be more responsive to its members’ views.

In my letter in the March issue I argued that one of the main functions of the journal should be to reflect the differing views of the membership. I want to add now: even if some of those views directly contradict the direction and intentions of BACP itself. With specific reference to regulation this subject has never really been afforded the visibility and gravity it deserves. Given that this process will affect the future of the profession, there has been an incongruous absence of detailed engagement with the complex arguments – pro and con. 

This is a debate that is still alive and worth having even if it will not affect the eventual outcome – a properly informed membership is better able to reach a mature, considered judgment. The emergence of the Alliance for Counselling and Psychotherapy has been a welcome and necessary change to the predictable, sanitised discourse, which hardly reveals that there is any controversy whatsoever.

These days it may seem unfashionable, unrealistic and futile to try and disturb the progress of the regulatory machine or to attempt to construct a convincing argument against the ‘inevitable’ imposition of a state system of regulation. All this against a backdrop of recent events, political and economic, that have fuelled public indignation and outrage. In the current Parliamentary crisis brought about by our MPs’ abuses of expenses and the now infamous ‘light touch’ regulation of the City, that has helped to cause an economic meltdown affecting millions of individuals and many of our most respected financial institutions, much of the blame has been focussed on the lack of effective, transparent systems of external monitoring and control – a hands-off trust in the operation of the financial markets. Within this atmosphere it makes it difficult to argue therefore that the same remedy of tougher regulation should not apply to counselling and psychotherapy, especially where the interests of the public are involved. 

It seems so obvious that more regulation is needed, it hardly needs to be argued. I would not be the first to have argued that the impulse towards regulation is more about title protection than it is about public protection. I believe that ultimately the best and most effective way of ensuring public safety is to put most of our efforts into establishing training courses where we produce highly trained, reflective, ethically minded practitioners who are grounded in the philosophy and theory of their model and are skilled at forming effective helping relationships. During that process they will learn to trust themselves and their clients and to work creatively without losing their humanity or spontaneity. The system of regulation that is being proposed under the HPC is a very blunt instrument indeed and will introduce fear and stifle creativity, leading to ‘safe’ but ultimately sterile practice. All of which will be to the detriment of the work with our clients.

Paul McGahey MBACP Snr Accred