Welcome to Bulletin 4
These Bulletins are a quick and effective way for the Chair and Chief Executive to report on important current.
In this Bulletin you will find: (1) a brief report on the first meeting of the reconvened HPC Professional Liaison Group; (2) a more fully articulated statement of the Board's policy on regulation than you have seen before; and (3) a summary of the situation regarding the complaint about us made to the Charity Commission.
David and Andrew
The reconvened HPC Professional Liaison Group
The Health Professions Council (HPC) works with a Professional Liaison Group (PLG) to develop proposals for the statutory regulation of psychotherapists and counsellors. The Group includes about a dozen outsiders alongside officials of the HPC. UKCP has been directly involved in the work of the PLG from the outset two years ago.
It is a year since the last meeting of the PLG. The HPC had accepted most of the recommendations from the previous work of the PLG, but there is effectively a new PLG programme of work this year. Some of the most contentious issues are still unresolved and have been referred back to the PLG for further work. These issues include differentiating between psychotherapists and counsellors in the proposed register, identifying those qualified to work with children, qualification levels for entry to the register, and standards of proficiency.
Carmen Joanne Ablack represents UKCP on the group. Kathi Murphy had done sterling work on the group for UKCP for the past couple of years. She has asked to step back, but has agreed to continue in an important support role. We are glad both of them are on board and willing to undertake this work.
Our commitment to regulation
Overall, the first meeting of the reconvened PLG went well from our perspective. It was clear that the issues that have been raised over the past year outside the PLG, many of them by UKCP, have had an impact on the thinking of other professional bodies and HPC itself. There had also been some questioning of our stance which includes both criticism of and engagement with HPC, so we distributed a clear statement from the Board setting out our commitment to regulation and to participation in the processes that aims to improve HPC's proposed approach.
Methods of response
At the meeting, Carmen made the important point that the various organisations had used different methods of responding to the HPC consultation exercise last year. Some, including UKCP, had requested individuals to channel their responses through their organisation. Others actively encouraged mass write-ins. Carmen suggested that this needed to be taken into account when the PLG considered the volume of responses on particular consultation questions.
We will ensure that our members are able to contribute to future consultations by HPC and the Department of Health.
The summary report from Carmen about the PLG meeting can be found on our website www.psychotherapy.org.uk/12_may_2010_summary_report.html. The full report will be posted on the website soon. *The full report can now be viewed here*
David
UKCP's policy on regulation of psychotherapy and psychotherapeutic counselling
Following advice and criticism, we have revised and rewritten the documents about our policy on regulation. We realised that some people were seeing the term 'multi-track' as meaning both for and against regulation, when the reality is that UKCP wants independent statutory regulation for all our members. So we have consulted with the Board and the UKCP Colleges and Faculties Committee and redrafted the policy as follows.
Strong regulation is a fundamental component of contemporary professionalism. Our policy must respect all those who are genuinely committed to a well-regulated modern profession. Our clients have a right to demand that we handle these issues in a way that enhances and protects the therapeutic relationships that lie at the heart of psychotherapy and psychotherapeutic counselling. We must do so in a way that protects them from the possibility of harm and abuse, and gives potential clients confidence in the profession.
Appropriate regulatory frameworks
UKCP is in favour of clear and robust independent statutory regulation. This always has been and continues to be our position. Strong regulation is a fundamental component of contemporary professionalism. However, all UKCP members need appropriate regulatory frameworks. This applies to those who do not welcome regulation by the government's HPC as well as to those who welcome and accept the HPC as a regulator that is independent of the profession. It was in order to satisfy these requirements that what has been called the 'multi-track approach' became the policy of UKCP's Board of Trustees. However, the Board's approach to regulation has been much misunderstood and inadequately articulated.
Ensuring our responsibilities are addressed
It is central to our charitable objectives that UKCP works to ensure that regulation is designed in a way that is suitable for clients, psychotherapists and psychotherapeutic counsellors. We have put forward criticisms of the proposed HPC regulation because we are not confident that in its current form it will deliver this, and because we recognise the serious concern over the proposals. Some of our members believe the level of protection HPC can provide in its present form has been exaggerated.
In line with our pro-regulation stance, this is actually a very necessary part of securing the best regulation for the professions affected and, above all, for the work these professions undertake with clients. It would be wrong for us to act only in the interests of psychotherapists who are in favour of HPC regulation, just as it would be wrong to act only in the interests of those who oppose HPC regulation. The intention of our policy is to seek to ensure that our public responsibilities are addressed.
UKCP sees a need to get beyond a black-and-white, either-or approach to statutory regulation. We have developed what we regard as a responsible way to address the issues. Without decisive and informed intervention by the Department of Health, organisations like ours presently have to do their best in the face of proposed regulations whose principles and processes do not as yet command consensual professional respect - a pre-requisite for effective regulation.
Engaging with HPC
The position of the Board is that we continue to engage constructively, robustly and diplomatically with HPC to get the best possible regulatory regime for public, clients and practitioners. We have concerns about the current profession-specific standards of proficiency, including the question of the differentiation between counselling and psychotherapy, and are pleased they will be addressed in forthcoming meetings of the PLG. We continue to engage in discussions about these with other professional bodies and the HPC itself.
We also judge that revisions to HPC's fitness to practise framework might be needed to make it fit for purpose.
The question of whether or not there is a special arrangement within the HPC register to cover those who work with children and young people remains open and will be discussed in the PLG.
Later in the year, we hope to welcome HPC to a specially organised 'HPC day' with a focus on issues that affect training and accrediting organisational members. We are currently in discussion with them to confirm details of this event.
Alternative futures
It is possible that HPC regulation might not become fit for purpose. In this eventuality, fresh thinking might be needed so we are also calling for the new government to organise a convention to discuss alternative futures for the profession if they are required.
UKCP and regulation
Because some of our members may be sufficiently uncomfortable with the HPC proposals to refuse to register, we are considering the viability of an alternative approach to professional regulation. We are beginning to explore how our Central Complaints Process can be used to regulate those UKCP members who do not wish to register with HPC. We are continuing the stance of the previous Board under James Antrican that no member's details will be handed over to HPC without consent.
Nothing is being done that will prevent members from registering with HPC, if that is their wish. Up to now, the bulk of our energy has gone into our engagement with HPC and we are hopeful that we can achieve our goals and that the changes we think necessary will be made.
We acknowledge the argument that making arrangements to continue to regulate those members who do not wish to register with HPC undermines our negotiations with HPC. While this remains an unproven point, we take it seriously. Hence we will be very careful to make sure that maximum energy is invested in the direct HPC work. We will work to create opportunities for all our members, organisational and individual, to discuss what regulation by HPC means as a practical reality.
We also acknowledge that some people believe that adopting a critical approach to HPC regulation has led UKCP to lose its influence in the professions and the wider world. We know we have caused some upset at HPC, but there is evidence that the PLG is willing to listen to what we have to say.
Related items
There are three related items that should be noted. The first concerns a complaint that was made about us to the Charity Commission which has been dismissed. You can read more about this below.
The second matter concerns the legality of UKCP's developing an alternative regulatory framework to that of HPC. There is now a consensus that a practitioner who does not use a protected title is of no concern to HPC and so, as far as we know, no legal questions arise. Should this change in the future, we shall review the position at that time. Of course, we will seek appropriate legal and professional advice before bringing forward such a scheme.
Finally, it needs to be made clear again that UKCP is not involved in any way with the Judicial Review into HPC regulation.
Seeking and reflecting your views
With so much in flux at the time of writing, it does not seem wise to ballot members at this point. However, when the shape of the HPC's regulatory regime is clearer, and when the UKCP's arrangements for an alternative regulatory regime are more developed, the Board will issue a declaration of intent upon which a ballot will be held. We cannot claim to know the precise views and best interests of members in advance - we will use reliable and thorough approaches as and when we have a complete picture. There are further important consultations involved in the HPC PLG process and in the production of the final Section 60 Order by the Department of Health. UKCP will continue to ensure that your views are sought and reflected in our responses to the discussion documents.
Broad and inclusive
Lastly, we need to declare that UKCP remains a very broad and inclusive organisation. As in the past, we want, now and in the future, to achieve the engagement of people who may hold contrasting views and concerns about future regulation arrangements. If there are issues and provisions that we have not addressed adequately, we will listen and adjust. It will weaken us greatly as an organisation if the views of one group of passionate advocates can be allowed to invalidate or dismiss the views of another group of equally passionate but opposed voices.
David and Andrew
on behalf of the Board of Trustees
Comments on Charity Commission rejection of complaints about UKCP
I am pleased to report that the Charity Commission has rejected complaints about UKCP. The Commission has made clear that it is not illegal for us to question the government's proposals for statutory regulation. But of course that does not mean we have all the answers - on the contrary, there are very real issues that we still need to address, as made clear earlier in this Bulletin.
The second part of the complaint rejected by the Charity Commission was that Andrew Samuels, UKCP's elected chair, has an unacceptable conflict of interest because of his connection to the Alliance for Counselling and Psychotherapy - Against State Regulation. We told the Charity Commission that this prior interest had been known both before Andrew stood for election and as part of the democratic election process with UKCP members. The UKCP Board has discussed potential conflict of interests and accepted Andrew has stepped down from representation of the Alliance now that he is chair of UKCP.
UKCP is unswerving in its commitment to regulation for all our members, but we accept that there is a diversity of views about the proposed HPC regulation - some are passionately for, and some just as passionately against HPC regulation. I am sad to hear that some of our members felt it necessary to take their grievance to an external body. I hope that all our members will be willing to engage with us to find the best forms of regulation that can respect and accommodate our diverse members. We need to work harder to create an appropriate atmosphere for respectful debate. This bulletin is part of that process, but Andrew and I will also be taking other steps to engage those who have felt disconnected since the UKCP elections last year.
A formal statement setting out detail of UKCP's response to the Charity Commission complaints can be found at www.psychotherapy.org.uk/charitycommission, but the real work to develop our policy on statutory regulation is above.
David
UKCP events
Supervising difference
5 June 2010, Sadler's Wells, London
Inaugural annual research conference
10 July 2010, City University, London
Regional forum
17 July 2010, Cross St Chapel, Manchester
Self, other and society
3-5 September 2010, York University
Chairs' day (morning)
Members' forum (afternoon)
6 November 2010, London
The cost of not caring - responding to the psychological needs of children
5-6 March 2011 (location to be confirmed)
For more details about UKCP events, visit www.ukcp.org.uk, telephone 020 7014 9966 or email | 
