Statutory regulation: continuing the conversation and considering the options

Introduction: picking up the conversation

In our first think piece on statutory regulation, which we emailed to members in March, we revisited the long-standing debate over statutory regulation for psychotherapy and psychotherapeutic counselling. We outlined the history of previous attempts, clarified what statutory regulation means in legal and professional terms, and examined the criteria the government is likely to consider if they look to implement statutory regulation of the profession. At the heart of that analysis was the purpose of statutory regulation: the protection of the public from the risk of harm.

Since publishing that piece, the UKCP working group has continued to explore this issue – both in terms of current risks to the public and the evolving regulatory landscape. We are grateful for the engagement of members who shared reflections, questions and concerns in response to the first paper. These conversations have helped shape the focus of this second piece.

In this article, we aim to:

• recap our recent thinking on the issue of harm and risk
• explore, in greater detail, the possible models for statutory regulation
• introduce emerging possibilities, including the idea of UKCP taking on statutory powers itself
• encourage further reflection and feedback ahead of more formal decision-making.

This is a complex issue. There are no perfect solutions. But if public pressure for change continues to grow – and government interest is reignited – the profession must be prepared. That preparation starts with clarity, curiosity and conversation.

Harm: a renewed focus on public risk

A significant shift in the regulatory discussion over the past decade has been a sharper focus on harm to the public. For regulators, the media and the government, the justification for statutory regulation lies not in professional development or prestige, but in protecting the public from significant risks.

With this in mind, the UKCP statutory regulation working group has been thinking about a way to analyse the types of risk associated with the provision of psychotherapy and psychotherapeutic counselling. One of our starting points has been to consider three categories of therapist that may pose different levels of risk:

1. Unregistered therapists

These are individuals offering psychotherapy or counselling services who are not registered with UKCP or any other register accredited by the Professional Standards Authority (PSA). They are not subject to any form of professional accountability or oversight.

The concern here is clear: the public has no guaranteed mechanism to verify their training, competence or ethical conduct. If something goes wrong, there may be no formal complaints process or consequences.

2. Registered therapists

These are individuals who are on a PSA-accredited voluntary register. They are subject to standards of practice, codes of ethics and fitness-to-practise procedures. While harm can still occur within this group, there is at least a regulatory framework in place to mitigate and respond appropriately.

One question for the profession is whether the existing PSA scheme is strong enough to hold practitioners accountable and protect the public effectively – or whether statutory regulation would significantly strengthen this system.

3. Deregistered or struck-off therapists

Perhaps the most complicated category. These are practitioners who were once registered but were removed for conduct or competence issues. In some cases, they continue to practice without informing clients that they have lost their registration or in some cases may explicitly mislead them about their status.

In these cases, the potential for harm is high, especially as clients may wrongly assume the practitioner is still regulated. The current system has no legal power to prevent someone from continuing to work after being removed from a register.

These three categories help us frame the question of risk more precisely. While regulation affects all categories, it is categories one and three that appear most difficult to address through current voluntary mechanisms alone. The working group is now exploring what further research and data we need to evaluate:

• how frequently harm occurs across these groups
• the nature and severity of that harm (emotional, psychological, financial or sexual misconduct, for example)
• what kinds of regulation or safeguards would reduce this risk most effectively.

We are actively seeking evidence to inform this evaluation.

The regulatory landscape: what's changed since 2011?

Much has changed since the last major debate about statutory regulation in our profession, which culminated in 2011 with the government deciding not to proceed with regulation under the Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC), instead setting up a system of assured voluntary regulation under the Professional Standards Authority (PSA), which launched in 2012.

That decision reflected a broader shift in regulatory thinking. It was no longer assumed that statutory regulation was always the 'gold standard'. Instead, the focus moved to right-touch regulation – a principle promoted by the PSA that emphasises proportionality of regulation to risk. While there is work to do on public understanding of the PSA-accredited registers scheme, the government would need to consider whether 'statutory regulation provides the most effective and proportionate means of delivering this public protection function'.

Today, statutory regulation does not automatically mean HCPC oversight. There are now several plausible models for what a statutory system could look like, each with strengths and trade-offs.

Exploring the models: four main options

1. HCPC regulation

This is the model proposed until it was dropped in 2011. Under it, 'psychotherapist' and 'counsellor' (or variations of these) would become protected titles regulated by the HCPC. Practitioners would need to be registered to legally use these titles and the HCPC would oversee fitness to practice, training standards and conduct.

Potential advantages:

• legally binding protection of title
• alignment with regulation of other health and care professions
• clear public messaging and accountability
• minimal need for legislative change.

Potential challenges:

• potential loss of professional autonomy and identity
• perceived medicalisation of psychotherapy
• risk of one-size-fits-all standards not suiting the diversity of modalities.

Many UKCP members previously opposed this model on philosophical and practical grounds. While it remains an option, the working group is mindful of past concerns.

2. Statutory powers for UKCP (or a sector-specific regulator)

An alternative approach would be for UKCP itself – or another body representing the sector – to be granted statutory powers by legislation. This would effectively create a bespoke statutory regulator with strong input from the profession, rather than being placed within a multi-profession body such as the HCPC.

Potential advantages:

• retained control of standards and ethos within the profession
• builds on the current work UKCP already does under PSA accreditation
• allows regulation to reflect the distinct nature of psychotherapeutic work.

Potential challenges:

• would require major changes to UKCP's governance, structure and legal status
• additional financial and operational burden on the organisation
• likely to require major legislative change
• resistance or scrutiny from government.

This is an emerging idea within the working group and would need extensive research to understand feasibility before it could be recommended. However, it reflects growing recognition that one-size-fits-all regulation may not suit all professions.

3. Statutory barring scheme

Rather than creating a register of authorised practitioners, this model would create a list of barred individuals. People found to have committed serious misconduct or who are judged unfit to practice could be legally prohibited from offering services under certain titles.

Potential advantages:

• focuses directly on the individuals who pose the most risk
• easier and quicker to implement than full statutory regulation
• may be a proportionate step for the government in the short term.

Potential challenges:

• wouldn't regulate entry into the profession or assure standards
• only acts after harm or misconduct has occurred
• extensive promotion to the public to know that the scheme exists may be difficult to enforce if people use alternative titles.

This approach is currently being considered in other sectors, such as NHS managers, and may appeal to policymakers focused on high-profile cases of abuse rather than systemic reform.

4. Strengthened voluntary registers scheme

A final option is to remain within the PSA scheme but push for improvements in how registers operate, how the public understands the profession and how unregistered practice is managed.

Potential advantages:

• builds on existing systems and avoids legislative delays
• maintains flexibility and diversity of practice
• encourages professional responsibility rather than legal compliance.

Potential challenges:

• may be seen as insufficient in the face of high-risk cases
• relies on public awareness and trust in fitness to practice processes
• no legal powers to prevent unregistered or struck-off individuals from practising.

This model may be part of a wider, phased strategy, but alone it may not address the concerns raised by campaigners or the media.

Emerging considerations: readiness, reform and representation

If UKCP were to consider seeking statutory powers itself, it would need to demonstrate readiness for such a transformation. This would involve:

• reviewing internal governance structures to ensure regulatory independence
• clarifying distinctions between membership, professional association functions and regulatory activity
• engaging with other registers to explore opportunities for collaboration or shared activities.

There are precedents for this. In the legal professions, for example, the Legal Services Board, which plays a similar role to the PSA, has the power to designate regulatory powers to professional bodies. These bodies then operate regulatory functions under special governance rules which require them to separate their regulatory work from membership functions. This usually means they form separate subsidiary organisations to undertake regulatory work.

Equally important is the voice of the membership. If the profession is to be regulated by statute, whether under UKCP or another body, that regulator must reflect the values, standards and diversity of its community.

Your role: what do you think?

We will soon be inviting all members to share their views through a structured survey, where you will be asked to:

• indicate whether you think UKCP should advocate for statutory regulation or not
• indicate your preferred model of regulation (if any)
• rank key concerns
• share any additional thoughts, evidence or concerns.

These responses will feed into the wider process the working group is currently carrying out.

As we said in the first think piece, the government is unlikely to consult the profession before acting, especially if regulation is driven by media pressure or public scandal. If UKCP does not develop a clear, evidence-based position, the risk is that decisions will be made for us, not with us.

We encourage you to take the time to reflect on what regulation means to you, what risks you see and what safeguards you believe would best protect both the public and the profession.

Let's keep this conversation going

We want to hear from you. You can share your thoughts and reflections directly with us by emailing strategy@ukcp.org.uk.

Talk to your colleagues. Join the conversation. Help us make the right choices for our profession and for the public we serve.