You raise important matters in your letter and invite us to engage with the challenging debates associated with the ever-changing regulatory landscape. To date, BACP, along with other leading professional associations, has supported regulation in principle. As ever, ‘the devil is in the detail’. I am stating the obvious when I note that the detail of our counselling and psychotherapy training and practice is becoming increasingly complex through, for example, IAPT (Improving Access to Psychological Therapies) and Skills for Health. Although not directly related to regulation, developments in IAPT, Skills for Health and other areas are likely to influence developments and employment trends in work within a range of settings. BACP members work in a wide range of settings, including healthcare, workplace, education, third sector and private sector. Whilst current IAPT developments might not spread far beyond a Strategic Health Authority remit, it is likely that its influence will be felt across other sectors. For instance, Lord Layard is proactively signalling the scope for IAPT within an educational/schools setting.

Your letter questions the appropriateness of the Health Professions Council (HPC) as a regulator of counselling and psychotherapy. The decision regarding who regulates counselling and psychotherapy is made by the Department of Health (DH); it is clear that their regulator of choice is the HPC. Whilst many might prefer to be regulated by a body more familiar with the challenges and strengths of working from a social and relational model or approach (as the majority of counsellors and psychotherapists are likely to) rather than a medically oriented model, the decision is not ours to make. You are probably aware that Lord Alderdice has recently been calling for a regulator who is more apt for counselling and psychotherapy – for example, a body along the lines of the previously proposed Psychological Professions Council. Although HPC is currently the DH regulator of choice, a different government might mean potential for change. That said, there is evidence that all the main parties, in principle, support the notion of regulation of counselling and psychotherapy. 

Your notion of taking a principled position of non-compliance is one that we recognise and respect as an individual’s right. It becomes more complicated if we take ourselves to a post-regulated landscape. Then, unless we are entered into the part of the statutory register that represents our occupational title (for instance, counsellor or psychotherapist), we cannot legally practise using that title. Of course, that does not prevent individuals from practising under another title; I’m sure we’re all aware of ways in which some individuals manoeuvred around the statutory regulation of podiatrists by calling themselves ‘sole doctors’ or ‘foot doctors’. However, this whole area is in flux. For practitioners in a post-regulated landscape who choose not to register under a regulated title, but instead elect to adopt another title and continue their counsellor or psychotherapist work, it is likely that the regulator will focus on the practitioner’s role or function and take legal action if the work they undertake is that which would normally reflect the regulated title. Were this scenario to be the case, should we not be asking whether any of the professional associations and their individual and organisational members, BACP included, are willing to endorse illegal action?    

You rightly note that the proposed regulation will not prevent harm to the public. No regulatory body – self- or state-imposed – can do that. When a profession or occupational area is regulated, HPC normally undertakes a major campaign of public awareness raising, to inform the public that consulting/accessing a practitioner who is regulated by HPC is essential. Should counselling and psychotherapy not become a regulated profession, BACP will continue as now as a self-regulatory body in matters of ethical standards and professional conduct. In a post-regulated landscape, we envisage some work of a similar nature, as well as the continuing development of services and member facilities that are of value to our membership – including the development of research in counselling and psychotherapy. As you note, there would be scope for us to offer mediation and support services. 

BACP values and respects people’s rights to hold differing perspectives on regulation; it is often through exploring our differing positions or conflicting beliefs that better understanding and ideas can be reached. There is no current reason, legal or ethical, why BACP would not value members with wide-ranging positions on regulation. The specific questions you raise about BACP’s positions on the transfer of registers and what constitutes a contravention of the Ethical Framework (that is, in relation to principled non-compliance) are being considered by the Board and we will keep members informed, through Therapy Today and the website, of developments in relation to these.  

As ever, our individual and collective worlds are constantly changing – personally, professionally, socially and politically – and the threats and opportunities of statutory regulation give us both the potential and the passion to engage and make a difference. Your perspectives make a valuable contribution to an ongoing process of dialogue around statutory regulation.