There is an article on Times On Line about state regulation of psychotherapies which I read with great interest but which at the end left me with a mixed feeling of a vague contradiction. The writer, Lucy Banneman, tried to approach the issue carefully, highlighting the arguments of both sides, on the one hand of those who claim that an unregulated world of psychotherapies and other therapies of all kinds are infested by charlatans who only look to manipulate clients and maximise their income, and on the other hand of those who claim that the HPC is too bureaucratic and costly and not really suitable to deal with what psychotherapists do.

I have made my position on the subject clear in various posts of this blog, and if I am returning to ít is not because this article of the Times has something very new to offer to the debate. I am mentioning it because in my opinion it is flawed by something which in my view is a serious journalistic error.

I was following news from UKCP very closely these last weeks. We had elections for chair. These elections were the first in which all registrants were invited to vote, and were particular important in view of all the changes currently happening in the British "psi" world (the world of psychotherapists / psychoanalysts / counsellors). I am referring, of course to the much debated and undesired, in my opinion, but imminent, possibly, statutory regulation of the psychotherapeutic professions by the Health Professions Council. I have argued about this elsewhere in this blog.

The election process took place in October and early November and the results were announced on Monday. New chair is going to be Andrew Samuels who won by a vast majority of 66%. The second candidate, Carmen Joanne Ablack, got 34%. As you can see, with a margin of 2 to 1 Andrew can call his a real victory.

According to Electoral Reform Services, the independent charity commissioned to administer the voting, the turnout was "tremendous", with almost 48% of registrants voting.

It appears that voters felt that something important was at stake, and decided to do their bit.

There has been a lot of movement recently in relation to the proposed regulation of counseling and psychotherapy under the Health Professions Council.

In other posts of this blog I have made my personal and professional opinion clear. As I have argued, the HPC, in its attempt to create an umbrella of standards applicable (with minor adjustments) to all Health Professions, has created a Procrustean bed that works by eliminating differences and homogenizing approaches in the name of “protection of the public”, “scientific evidence” and “measurable outcomes”. This, I wrote, can only be to the detriment of a discipline like psychoanalysis which as we have seen, and very clearly, does not fit on that Procrustean bed.

The war is far from over, but there were some interesting developments. Instead of re-writing things that have already been written by others much better than I could ever hope to do myself, I choose to reprint below a press release by several Psychotherapy Organisations –including the ones that I belong to, CFAR and College of Psychoanalysts-UK.

Here it goes.

There was a very amusing article on BBC the other day. It was about George the cat, which has been registered as a hypnotherapist with three relevant professional bodies in the UK. According to what BBC wrote, the bodies accepted credentials which were a bit dodgy –to use an understatement– such as a certificate from the "Society of Certified Advanced Mind Therapists".

Of course, such a Society does not exist, but some of the British bodies that represent Neuro-Linguistic Programmers and Hypnotherapists do not seem to run rigorous checks on their prospective registrants. This allowed Chris Jackson, presenter of "Inside Out" in the North East and Cumbria, to register George.

My argument against the state regulation of psychotherapy is still under construction so to speak; several more steps are needed. You could perhaps look at previous posts to get an idea.

But while I am at it, the world has not stood still.

It is already September; gone are already half of the three months set aside as consultation period for the regulation of psychotherapy through the Health Professions Council.

I am very well aware that any last minute arguments will not suffice to stop what has started many years ago –namely the move towards state regulation of the so called Health Professions.

But I need to make my position clear. For the record, if for nothing else. Urgently.

So, let me attempt to summarize my point of view.

It has been already some weeks that the Consultation on the statutory regulation of psychotherapists and counsellors has begun. This is, no doubt, one of the most pressing and important issues for all professionals working in this "industry".

While no-one would seriously argue that therapists, counsellors and psychoanalysts should be left alone, practicing with no external regulation, the case for statutory regulation by the HPC (Health Professions Council) is, in my opinion seriously flawed.

I will present my full argument in the next couple of days or so, but let me outline it here in the form of a number of questions.