The case for regulating counselling

By Mark Montovio
The question of whether counselling should be formally regulated in Gibraltar is no longer abstract or theoretical. It is a live issue, sharpened by developments in the United Kingdom and by growing awareness of both the benefits and the risks inherent in therapeutic work. As demand for mental health support increases, so too does the urgency of ensuring that those who offer such services are competent, accountable, and operating within a robust ethical framework. At the centre of this debate lies a simple but critical proposition: the title “counsellor” must be protected and subject to statutory regulation.

In the United Kingdom, counselling and psychotherapy occupy a paradoxical position. On the one hand, they are widely recognised as essential components of contemporary healthcare provision. On the other, they remain largely unregulated professions in legal terms. Unlike doctors, nurses, or even certain categories of psychologist, individuals using the titles “counsellor” or “psychotherapist” are not required by law to hold any specific qualifications or to be registered with a statutory body.

This lack of legal protection has significant implications. In practical terms, it means that anyone, regardless of training, competence, or ethical grounding, can present themselves as a counsellor. There is no mandatory licensing system, no universally enforced minimum standard of training, and no statutory mechanism for accountability. While many practitioners voluntarily align themselves with professional bodies such as the British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy (BACP) or the UK Council for Psychotherapy (UKCP), this remains a matter of choice rather than legal obligation.

The consequences of this regulatory gap are increasingly visible. Reports from the UK highlight rising concerns about client safety, including cases of malpractice and boundary violations. There have been growing calls from MPs, professional bodies, and service users alike for statutory regulation to protect the public from harm. The argument is not that the profession is inherently unsafe, but that the absence of enforceable standards creates conditions in which unsafe practice can occur without adequate recourse.

This distinction is crucial. Counselling, by its nature, involves working with individuals at points of vulnerability, people experiencing grief, trauma, anxiety, or relational distress. The therapeutic relationship is built on trust, confidentiality, and professional integrity. When these elements are compromised, the potential for harm is profound. Unlike many other services, the damage caused by poor counselling practice may not be immediately visible, but it can be deeply enduring.

It is precisely for this reason that many comparable professions operate under statutory regulation. Titles such as “clinical psychologist” or “counselling psychologist” are legally protected in the UK, requiring registration with the Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC) and adherence to clearly defined standards of training and practice. The contrast with counselling is stark. Where one part of the psychological professions is tightly regulated, another arguably just as impactful in people’s lives, remains open to anyone.

Gibraltar, while distinct in its governance, cannot afford to ignore these developments. As a small and interconnected community, the risks associated with unregulated practice may be even more pronounced. The absence of regulation does not simply create ambiguity; it places the burden of discernment on the public, who may not have the knowledge or resources to evaluate a practitioner’s credentials effectively.

Moreover, the increasing normalisation of seeking counselling, an undeniably positive cultural shift, means that more people are entering therapeutic spaces than ever before. This amplifies both the potential benefits and the potential risks. Without a regulatory framework, there is no consistent way to ensure that those offering services meet minimum standards of training, supervision, and ethical accountability.

It is in this context that the work of the Counselling and Psychotherapy Forum in Gibraltar becomes particularly significant. By making representations to the Minister for Health, the Forum has taken an important step in bringing this issue into the policy arena. Their position reflects a growing consensus within the profession: that voluntary regulation, while valuable, is no longer sufficient on its own.

Voluntary registers and professional memberships do play a critical role. They establish ethical codes, provide frameworks for supervision, and offer mechanisms for complaints and disciplinary action. However, they are inherently limited by their voluntary nature. Practitioners who choose not to engage with these bodies remain outside their scope, regardless of the quality, or lack thereof, of their practice.

Statutory regulation, by contrast, introduces a baseline of accountability that applies universally. It does not replace professional bodies but complements them, creating a layered system in which legal standards and professional standards work together. Crucially, it enables the protection of title. If the term “counsellor” were legally protected, only those who meet defined criteria could use it. This would provide immediate clarity for the public and a clear benchmark for the profession.

The protection of title is not merely symbolic; it is functional. In many regulated professions, title protection serves as the primary mechanism through which standards are enforced. It allows the public to make informed choices and provides regulators with the authority to act when those standards are breached. Without such protection, the term “counsellor” remains ambiguous, its meaning dependent on individual interpretation rather than shared professional criteria.

There are, of course, legitimate concerns about regulation. Some practitioners worry that statutory frameworks may impose rigid models of practice, potentially marginalising diverse therapeutic approaches. Others point to the complexity of defining standards across a broad and varied field. These concerns should not be dismissed. However, they are not arguments against regulation per se, but arguments for thoughtful, collaborative regulation that reflects the realities of the profession.

The experience of the UK suggests that the absence of regulation is not a neutral position. It is a choice with consequences that are increasingly being questioned by policymakers, practitioners, and service users alike. The call for regulation is, at its core, a call for accountability to clients, to the profession, and to society as a whole.

For Gibraltar, the opportunity now is to act proactively rather than reactively. By engaging with the representations made by the Counselling and Psychotherapy Forum, and by learning from the evolving situation in the UK, policymakers can develop a framework that safeguards the public while supporting the integrity of the profession.

Protecting the title of “counsellor” would be a decisive first step. It would signal a commitment to standards, to safety, and to the recognition of counselling as a serious professional endeavour rather than an unregulated activity. It would also align Gibraltar with broader international movements towards greater accountability in mental health practice.

Ultimately, the question is not whether counselling matters. It clearly does. The question is whether those who provide it should be held to consistent, enforceable standards. In a field defined by trust, the answer should be unequivocal.

Mark Montovio is a Trustee of the Counselling and Psychotherapy Forum Gibraltar.