How does Politics affect all this?

The Conservatives may not wish to proceed with the current plans.  Tim Loughton MP, former Shadow Mental Health Minister, has stated a preference for a different model of regulation.  The CS has met with him and he has tabled Parliamentary Questions about regulation which we provided him. In addition we have spoken with the former shadow minister, Anne Milton MP, and have met with Lord Howe, Conservative health spokesperson in the Lords to talk about this issue and he is not convinced that regulation will protect the public.
An overall feeling from the Conservatives is that the current HPC regulation plans may very well not be actioned and indeed the project may be re-thought or abandoned.  In any case the timetable has been extended significantly.
The Liberal Democrats are concerned about the HPC plans.  They state:
Our position on the issue you raised is that we do support the introduction of statutory regulation, but that we understand that concerns expressed by a number of worried professionals in this field. I believe that my Norman's colleague Lord Alderdice has proposed the setting up of a specialist organisation to regulate this area given the concerns about the prescriptive nature of what seems to be being proposed by the HPC.
Our basic position is that we believe that there is a need for statutory regulation of any person who is acting as a health professional, but that the need for regulation should not be used as an excuse to exclude practitioners people from practicing legally if there is no evidence that their methods are harmful.
UKIP opposes the plans:
"16.1 UKIP is opposed to the Government's intention to regulate counselling and
psychotherapy through the Health Professions Council as their proposals are unnecessary,
costly and impossible to enforce properly. Consequently UKIP will examine alternative
regulation proposals such as the Practitioner Full Disclosure (PFD) which has been
pioneered successfully in Canada and Australia. This is a simple scheme in which
practitioners register their qualifications centrally and which provides for an efficient
complaints and mediation procedure."
In view of the current political and economic climate quick progression of these issues is unlikely at this point.

Is it popular?
No.  The BACP in 2007 stated that 100,000 practitioners were against HPC regulation of counselling (while in favour of regulation in principle).  Furthermore, 2 groups with petitions of several thousand practitioners have sprung up in opposition: the Alliance for Counselling & Psychotherapy, and the Coalition Against Over Regulation. Many practitioners are intending not to comply with regulation,e.g. by changing title. 

WHY is it unpopular?
There are many reasons given.  HPC is not the right regulator; there is no need for regulation; the harm outweighs the benefits; protecting titles doesn't work; HPC uses a healthcare model; there has been no proper assessment of what regulation will work; other countries use much better models; involving the state in psychotherapy will cause harm to clients; HPC complaints procedures are too judicial and adversarial, expensive, and too often used by colleagues rather than by clients.

What is the difference between the HPC role and that of Skills for Health?
The HPC is the regulator; Skills for Health is developing sets of standards which can be used to inform the regulator to develop the regulatory standards. 

How will regulation happen?
If the HPC eventually goes ahead, it will set up a register of counsellors and will then gain legal protection for certain *titles.*   It's possible that the title "counsellor" and/or "psychotherapist" will then only be used by someone on the register.
HOWEVER, the HPC states it will "wish to consider whether it is possible to protect the title "counsellor" or whether this title is so widely used in therapeutic settings that it could only be protected as part of an adjectival title."
Currently, the recommendation to the HPC from its Professional Liaison Group (a group of professionals and lay people)  is to protect the titles "counsellor" and "psychotherapist" and to differentiate between them – essentially making psychotherapist a more senior title. 
However, this is highly unpopular and the Counselling Society and BACP have lodged strong objections to separating the titles.  Chrysalis wishes to see the title "healthcare counsellor" protected (to safeguard counselling in the mental health sector), not the title counsellor.  We believe that it will be unnecessarily intrusive on the volunteer sector and private practice and will encourage professionals to use other titles.

What is an "adjectival title"?
An example might be "psychodynamic psychotherapist" or "mental health counsellor" – rather than just "counsellor."

Why might the HPC not regulate the title "counsellor"?

Because it is too widely used to be able to regulate properly, e.g. debt counsellor, stress management counsellor, relationship counsellor, health counsellor etc.  However, the current recommendations from the PLG are to regulate the title counsellor.  Also because in regulating psychologists it did not protect the title "psychologist", only adjectival titles.  However the PLG recommends it does regulate the title.   This issue is quite stuck at the moment.
The HPC did not regulate the title "psychologist" when it regulated psychological therapies –instead it regulated only adjectival titles.

Won't I just be able to practice my counselling under a different title?

Yes – this is the flaw in protecting titles.  You could describe yourself using any word that isn't specifically protected and continue as normal, provided that you made sure that you weren't misrepresenting yourself as an HPC counsellor. In practice this would mean differentiating yourself in your advertising and using a waiver.  You would have to be explicit that you were not an HPC counsellor.  A leaflet is available from the Alliance for Counselling & Psychotherapy entitled "Alternative Practitioner Accountability (APA)".   Many practitioners will choose to do this in the future.
 
Will I need a degree?
Not to be a counsellor, no.   Current recommendations are that counselling training should be Level 5 on the National Qualifications Framework.   

Is the HPC trying to make standards "tougher"?
The HPC is there to regulate *minimum standards* - not maximum standards.  "We want to make sure that any proposals are inclusive so that as many practitioners as possible can be regulated and it is important that the level we set is not aspirational in nature." (HPC).  The HPC knows that counsellors could simply change title and so rather than letting this happen, are keen to ensure that everyone can get on the register who is safe to do so.

Will I need to be accredited by this or that body to be state registered?

No – counselling regulation will be independent of any accreditation scheme of any professional body.  You will only need, eventually, to be registered with the HPC.  This said, professional bodies will still accredit training (often to higher standards than the minimum standards required by the HPC) and will have a host of benefits to joining, e.g. advertising your services and having someone to support you in a complaints process.  Professional bodies may also have an initial role in providing their registers of members to the HPC.
It will be vital in the next few years to maintain professional body membership to ensure transfer to the state register and to protect you from complaints to the HPC (your professional body will be your support system.) 

What does the Counselling Society think of regulation?
Do we really trust the State to understand our vocation as counsellors?

Protecting titles is notoriously inefficient at doing this because practitioners who don't want to be regulated change their job descriptions.  For example, in the US many counsellors became "life coaches."

If indeed the HPC is a sensible and professional organisation and they acknowledge that regulation must be inclusive and about minimum standards, not unachievable and unreasonable accreditation criteria.  The HPC is keen to see public protection but also keen to see that professionals can continue to offer their services to clients with minimum disruption.  It knows that to exclude people will simply see them change their job descriptions.
One view we hold is that counsellors working in mental health settings could be regulated more stringently than those seeing "the worried well."  There is, of course, a difference between counselling a seriously ill client in a mental health setting and seeing someone who self-refers to your clinic to talk about their relationship difficulties.  This said, the fact that the HPC is wondering whether it can regulate the title "counsellor" at all may indicate just this: that specialist roles working within mental health are regulated but private practice is not.
Put another way, most counselling is not actually a "health profession" – it is a relationship between two people.
We don't agree with differentiating psychotherapist and counsellor (neither does the BACP) and we don't agree with seeing counselling as a healthcare profession (although sometimes, it is.)
We view Practitioner Full Disclosure (PFD) as practised in Canada and Australia as the most appropriate model for the regulation of hypnotherapists, counsellors and psychotherapists.  Although there are many versions of this, essentially it becomes a legal requirement to register and to fully disclose your training and qualifications, but complaints are handled in a more mediated fashion and the sanctity and integrity of the way you practice are preserved.

In conclusion, The Counselling Society will do everything to ensure that our members make a successful transition should regulation occur.  

 
We will update this FAQ as things develop further.