Regulation
The National Counselling Society has dedicated considerable time and energy over the last few years to ensure that we were at the forefront of the debate about the previous Government’s plans for statutory regulation of counselling and psychotherapy via the HPC. Uniquely, the NCS is required to reflect its members’ views (rather than our members being guided by a committee) and it was clear that there were widespread concerns about the plans.
The main issues centred around the fact there was no evidence that this kind of regulation was needed, would work, or would protect the public. This was especially true when it became apparent that thousands of counsellors intended not to comply with the regulation and would seek to practice under alternative titles, further undermining its credibility.
In addition there was evidence that it would significantly undermine the variety, inclusivity and diversity of counselling practice and cause direct harm to the provision of counselling in the UK, especially in the voluntary and part time sectors.
Lastly there were great concerns about the HPC complaints procedures, in which a significant amount of complaints about registrants were being made, not by clients, but by colleagues or organisations with which the registrant was involved. Furthermore, we felt that the early publicising of many complaints in the national media was a violation of the rights of the registrant and of due process.
In 2007 we launched a campaign and actively lobbied every MP, Peer and other stakeholder through Blakes Parliamentary Yearbook.
We sought and obtained meetings with Tim Loughton MP (shadow health minister) through whom we posed Parliamentary questions on behalf of our members; with Lord Howe (Conservative Health Spokesperson) and we also liaised with Ann Milton MP (now Health Minister). Our concerns alongside those of many other organisations were listened to with professionalism and courtesy.
We lobbied for and helped to fund a Judicial Review of the HPC’s actions – and this was granted in the High Court in January 2011.
We attended all of the Professional Liaison Group (PLG) meetings at the Health Professions Council (HPC) as well as meeting with members of the HPC committee individually. Our experience of attending the PLG meetings only confirmed our members’ views that regulation by the HPC was not appropriate for our profession.
There were many vested interests present within the PLG and it was clear that it had not been constituted democratically or in a manner which allowed for inclusivity or diversity. Furthermore it was clear that there was an attempt to exclude large sectors of our profession from the regulatory process. This was coupled with the lack of experience of the HPC which had never dealt with a non homogenous profession and which was trying to impose a medical framework on our vocation. By the last PLG meeting in February 2011 there was no real agreement and at that stage we predicted that the ‘tide had turned’.
Throughout the whole period we have ensured that the National Counselling Society has been represented – in Parliament, in the Courts, at the HPC and at meeting of groups such as the Alliance for Counselling and Psychotherapy.
From the point of view of all our individual members we feel passionately that any form of regulation should be inclusive – for example that great army of voluntary part-time counsellors out there who support and enrich the lives of so many people should not be cast aside or devalued in any way because they do not fit into a rigid box created by an organisation that does not understand what they do.
Once the new Government was elected the Society ensured that we made our views clear to them again – and we started meeting with the Council for Healthcare Regulatory Excellence towards the end of last year in anticipation of a hoped for change of direction. They are the Government body who are at the forefront of the proposed ‘voluntary register’ scheme that is being created to replace the planned statutory regulation. We will ensure that the opinions of our members are represented and we will continue to post regular updates on both the website and in our monthly e-newsletters.
We support the principle of voluntary regulation provided that it is appropriate for our vocation and that it offers public protection where needed. The current Government intends to pursue a voluntary scheme via the CHRE. We will support this scheme to the extent that it can demonstrate an understanding of our vocation and that it is inclusive, transparent and actively listening. Our members will be kept updated of further developments.