A new template letter you can use to send to your MP

with thanks to the author, here is a helpful outline you can use to write to your new MP.

Dear ---

I am writing to you regarding the proposed regulation of the talking therapies by the Health Professions Council. At the time that the HPC was suggested as a potential regulator by the previous government, nearly all of the psychotherapeutic training organisations in the UK protested that the remit of HPC was too narrow to accommodate the breadth and diversity of the talking therapies. Detailed arguments were set out which explained why the talking therapies could not be reduced to health professions, yet the government at the time overruled these without any real process of consultation. We hope that now, with a new government in place, the time has come to recognize the shortcomings of the HPC model and to explore the best regulatory model for the field.



The consultation process itself has been highly controversial: representatives of training organisations and user groups initially included in draft lists of committee membership were excluded, and the original Department of Health requirement to include representation from the wide spectrum of professional groups was not followed. Instead a small number of people with their own highly specific political agenda gained control of the process and tried to force the talking therapies into a mould which quite simply won't fit. This is the mould of the medical health professional: that what a therapist does is to correct pathology.



Although there are certainly some therapists who use the medical model as a metaphor of their work the majority do not. For them, therapy is a conversation with the unconscious, an enquiry into an individual's history, a spiritual journey, an exploration of the human condition and the many other forms of enquiry which could be described under the heading: a life examined.



In the HPC's brief, following the 2001 Health Professions Order, it is stated that "The occupation [proposed for regulation] must cover a discrete area of activity displaying some homogeneity". With the talking therapies this is simply not the case: some therapies aim to remove people's symptoms, some do not; some involve the application of predetermined procedures, some do not; some offer a set outcome, some do not; some focus on an individual's history, some do not. The list goes on, but the key is the absolute heterogeneity of the field, a fact which those who have gained control of the consultation and regulatory process seek to obscure.



Regulatory consultations in many other countries have recognised this diversity of conceptions of therapy and appropriate regulation has then been proposed. This has happened in Australia and many parts of Canada and the US. The most robust model involves the statutory requirement that all therapists are registered with a list, administered by an independent professional body, giving full disclosure of training and qualifications, together with a public education programme to inform the public about the different varieties of therapy available.



Under HPC, the public will no longer have the freedom to choose the therapist they wish to consult. Therapists will have to fit the restricted definition of what therapy is set by HPC. Innovation in the field will be severely limited likewise by the parameters set by HPC on what constitutes best practice, a concept in itself rejected by many traditions in the therapy world. The richness and diversity of the field will be dramatically affected, with therapy trainings forced to satisfy requirements which are antithetical to their basic philosophies.



The issue of public protection is the main card HPC has played, yet the key point for thousands of therapists is not this, which everyone agrees is crucial, but rather the whole package that comes with it: therapy will become something different, shoe-horned into a vision of human life and relations that many traditions reject, offering instead critiques of received notions of ‘happiness’, ‘wellbeing’ and ‘health’.



It is understandable that HPC is lobbying harder than ever to become the regulator of the therapies, as its budgets are spiralling, with massive increases predicted for next year. Regulating therapists would provide the single largest cash injection the HPC has ever had. Yet alternative models of regulation, such as the Psychotherapy Bill proposed by Lord Alderdice or the models used in other countries, are far less expensive, and are for the most part entirely funded by registrants. Further detailed information on the regulation debate can be found in The Maresfield Report (www.maresfieldreport.com).



I hope that you will give these matters your consideration, and recognise the diversity of the field of the talking therapies and the risks involved in hasty regulation under HPC. I also hope that you will advocate an alternative model which does not reduce the therapies to outcome-based healthcare procedures but gives space for those many enquiries into the human condition which have flourished for the last 100 years.



Yours sincerely





Facts and Spin in the Regulation Debate

1) Current spin is that anyone opposed to HPC is opposed to regulation. In fact, everyone campaigning against HPC is in favour of regulation, just the appropriate kind. Therapy organizations have been in dialogue with government to seek appropriate regulation for nearly 40 years now.

2) When the Department of Health proposed HPC as regulator in 2006, nearly all groups in the field objected. Since then some groups have come to support HPC, less in terms of approving of its framework than of not wanting to ‘miss the boat’. It is believed by some that if HPC regulation happens, some individuals will become ‘Partners’, thus increasing their power and influence.

3) It is sometimes said that only a minority of practitioners object to HPC. In fact, in the only poll conduced to date, 48% were firmly opposed and only 22% in favour. The main organizations have refused to poll their members, and most therapists in the UK simply haven’t been given all the information about the process.

4) Public protection is the main card played by HPC. If a therapist abuses a patient they can, according to HPC, continue to practice under current arrangements. But in fact the HPC model allows precisely this. The practitioner can simply change their title, re-branding themselves as a ‘coach’ or any other kind of ‘therapist’. Regulatory schemes in other countries close this loophole.

5) HPC complaints procedures are public, formal and adversarial, and do not include mediation as a first step. HPC also deem more than 70% of complaints from members of the public ‘no case to answer’. In contrast, the main therapy organizations deem only around 10% of complaints ‘no case to answer’. In the field, more than 60% of complaints are successfully dealt with via mediation. HPC would thus discourage or disallow complaints, especially those which deal with sensitive issues requiring confidentiality.

6) The very rare cases of abuse that have come to light have nearly always involved a breach of current laws of the land. Little additional legislation would be required to prevent those convicted from practising again.