Author: TACTT Group

Ahead of UKCP’s meeting this evening

Ahead of tonight’s UKCP meeting members about the Board election with we wanted to give a loose timeline and comments on UKCP’s withdrawal from the MoU.

In short: UKCP withdrew citing concerns that the MoU applied to children. The MoU does not prescribe how we work, except that we must start from the premise that no one identity (cis or trans) is better than the other. The UKCP’s clarification letter then says more about this, but draws on irrelevant things to support its point (which is a concern about working with children). Then a letter from the UKCP’s board cites legal actions as a reason. We were aware of one legal action involving UKCP, which they settled early this year. We are aware of one other legal action which also does not specify children. However, the clarification letter now states legal actions (and resultant increase in insurance) as a significant reason. Whether children are covered under the MoU2 is irrelevant to the claims, as this disctinction would not have stopped either legal action (which began in 2022 BEFORE the re-signing of the MoU2). The long UKCP letter claims “we couldn’t directly engage with you all due to the content of some of the organisational risks”. NCPS also failed to engage with its members on this. However, when approached, NCPS were open about their reasons (financial). If UKCP was also struggling with the financial aspect, they too could have been transparent from the start. Pink Therapy, who were forced to withdraw from the MoU (for insurance reasons) were transparent about this aspect.

We argue that the insurance premiums, whilst perhaps a  genuine concern, are a red herring for the real issue here, which is that the MoU SHOULD cover all people. We also argue that if it was explicit that children were not covered, UKCP would be facing the same issue of finances.

Conversion therapy kills. The view put forward by people describing themselves as “gender critical” is that trans people are at best deluded about their experiences and at worst, predatory. Gender critical therapists apply the term “exploratory therapy” to their work with trans clients and trans clients only, which in the context of gender critical views and the limited application of “exploratory therapy” means that this can only be conversion therapy by another, more palatable name. The legal cases mentioned by UKCP have BOTH been in place since before the UKCP re-signed the MoU in 2022. This would also mean that the insurance company would have been aware of these cases for over a year.

At length:

UKCP initially withdrew citing the following reasons:

“The UKCP Board of Trustees reached this decision following concerns it held regarding whether the MoU applies exclusively to adults, or if children and young people are included in its scope. UKCP has received clarification that the MoU does indeed relate to all ages. Upon investigation, it became evident that there are historical concerns held by a number of UKCP colleges that regulate psychotherapeutic work with children and young people relating to this subject, and which have yet to be addressed – hence our decision to withdraw at this time.” (UKCP update on conversion therapy (psychotherapy.org.uk))

It seems clear from this statement that the issue for the UKCP here is about conversion therapy and children.

 Their clarification states:

“Children and young people require and deserve careful support, that is often different from what is required for adults.

UKCP has been concerned for some time that this is not reflected in the current MoU. The current MoU was drafted to apply to adults and was retrospectively applied to children and young people without consultation with the relevant bodies and child therapists with the specialist and regulatory knowledge of working with children and young people.” (UKCP withdrawal from MoU on conversion therapy (psychotherapy.org.uk))

UKCP has not raised concerns suggesting this is the case in the past. The current MoU has consistently been accepted as a document that would protect LGBTQ+ youth as well as adults from conversion therapy since its inception. In particular, UKCP as a signatory agreed to the BPS Document ‘Guidelines and Literature Review for Psychologists Working Therapeutically with Sexual and Gender Minority Clients’ as the basis for their work in relation to the MoU as early as 2012. The document incorporates adults, young people and children.

In 2015 the UKCP agreed to the following as part of the  publication of MoUv1 under the section: ‘Roles and Responsibilities’ that:

“Training Organisations will refer to the BPS guidelines on working with                              gender and sexual minority clients when reviewing their curriculum on equality and diversity issues”.

Within this document Children and young people are mentioned in Part II.

At several points along the way and between 2012 to date there have been ample opportunities for UKCP to move from the inclusion of children and young people and they have not. Trustees of UKCP have attended and been a party to discussions within the MoU about inclusion of young people as ‘members of the public’ who might be impacted by conversion therapy. UKCP Trustees have always been party to the knowledge and decision making surrounding MoU1 and 2, and the spirit, aims, and wording of these documents were unanimously aimed at safeguarding LBGTQ+ youth from conversion therapy. This is well documented and witnessed by those in attendance as signatory members. UKCP Trustees have attended meetings and been part of the decision making process.

As late as 2019 the MoU2 released a position statement to the press, agreed by all members including UKCP, which states clearly that:

“… a legal ban should not divert our attention from the fact that education and professional training remain essential in order for practitioners to be able to work competently with LGBT people of all ages and to provide them with a safe and respectful environment in which they can explore who they are without judgement or fear”. 

UKCP has always been part of the decision making process surrounding the MoU2, and have always been aware that conversion therapy involving LGBT members of the public of all ages is harmful. As a signatory to the MoU2 UKCP have previously agreed that an adequate description of the MoU Coalition submitted to Parliamentary members is that the Coalition ‘acts on behalf of’  children and young people as well as LGBT people of all ages’ as part of its brief to government consultations.

It is not clear what the concern actually is. UKCP says it is against conversion therapy and the MoU states that:

“’conversion therapy’ is an umbrella term for a therapeutic approach, or any model or individual viewpoint that demonstrates an assumption that any sexual orientation or gender identity is inherently preferable to any other, and which attempts to bring about a change of sexual orientation or gender identity, or seeks to suppress an individual’s expression of sexual orientation or gender identity on that basis.”

It also states:

“this position is not intended to deny, discourage or exclude those with uncertain feelings around sexuality or gender identity from seeking qualified and appropriate help.” And “Nor is it intended to stop psychological and medical professionals who work with trans and gender questioning clients from performing a clinical assessment of suitability prior to medical intervention. Nor is it intended to stop medical professionals from prescribing hormone treatments and other medications to trans patients and people experiencing gender dysphoria.

For people who are unhappy about their sexual orientation or their gender identity, there may be grounds for exploring therapeutic options to help them live more comfortably with it, reduce their distress and reach a greater degree of self-acceptance. Some people may benefit from the support of psychotherapy and counselling to help them manage unhappiness and to clarify their sense of themselves.

Clients make healthy choices when they understand themselves better. Ethical practice in these cases requires the practitioner to have adequate knowledge and understanding of gender and sexual diversity and to be free from any agenda that favours one gender identity or sexual orientation as preferable over other gender and sexual diversities. For this reason, it is essential for clinicians to acknowledge the broad spectrum of sexual orientations and gender identities and gender expressions.”

It is completely unclear as to why this wording would provide a problem when working with children and young people. As therapists we should be seeking to help all clients understand themselves better. We should be able to help clients clarify their sense of themselves. 

When challenged, UKCP have not been able to answer this question. Their concerns are listed as:

  • “No safeguarding distinctions between adults and children and young people”.

Trying to work out if you’re trans is not a safeguarding issue, if you work from the basis that being trans is not a ‘worse’ position than being cis. It simply means that you work ethically with children to allow them to explore their identities, INCLUDING the possibility that they are trans.

  • Applying adult-focused legislation and guidelines to children and young people which overlooks their unique developmental requirements.

There is no adult-focused legislation in the MoU. The MoU is not a legislatory document and the guidance is to remain open

  • Children and young people need a unique therapeutic approach that acknowledges their developmental stage and capacity for informed consent.

Agreed. However, the MoU leaves explicit space for professionals to work in the ways in which they work ethically with children. The MoU does not prescribe an approach; it says we have to work ethically.

  • The family and social context of children and young people, which is a vital source of information to understand the child/young person, is not taken into account.

Again – this is not what the MoU is trying to achieve here. It does not say that professionals cannot do this.

  • Due to the lack of child-specific guidance, child therapists face legal risks, including the possibility of lawsuits if a child detransitions in the future.

Any therapist who works with anyone  is at risk of a lawsuit. We are not infallible and will make mistakes. The MoU does not say “YOU MUST TELL A CLIENT THEY ARE TRANS” it says “accept that trans is a valid identity”. It explicitly asks us to allow clients to clarify their sense of themselves.

  • Policy changes in the Department for Education (DfE) and the National Health Service England (NHSE) and safeguarding implications from emerging evidence and research relating to gender incongruence has not been taken into account.

We would argue again that this is irrelevant. Whatever NHS and DfEE policy say, this does not mean that counsellors/psychotherapists cannot allow clients the space they need. To suggest this is to suggest that we are in some dystopian future where thoughts should be policed. Stopping a person from having space to fully explore their identity will not stop people from coming out as trans. It *will* potentially lead to poorer mental health outcomes when children are being pushed into one particular outcome (“not trans”)

In a lengthy email to UKCP Members on 11th June, the focus shifts from instead of leaving because of safeguarding concerns (although this is still mentioned) to UKCP being named in legal action and this being expensive. UKCP suggests they could not consult with members in advance.

This may be true. However, there is nothing in any of the minutes available online for trustee meetings in 18 months that even mentions the MoU, leaving us to wonder just how important this was, when the UKCP has been named and implicated in legal action across that entire timeframe.

However we feel about whether or not UKCP should remain in the MoU (and of course, it is TACTT’s position that they should), the UKCP has not engaged in its stated objectives – the organisation should be consulting with members. It should have a clear narrative on why it has done what it has done. It seems clear that when faced with the backlash, the focus of the UKCP’s story has slowly changed to reflect a more palatable version of the reasons why. This is unacceptable and not how a board of trustees should be acting.

Statement by TACTT on UKCP Board ‘no confidence’ vote (full version)

Context

The UKCP has announced a removal election of the Board of Trustees in response to a call from some of its membership through an open letter petition initiated by UKCP members who are also members of Therapists Against Conversion Therapy and Transphobia (TACTT). The petition was signed by the required threshold of at least 2% of the UKCP membership, and also garnered support from over 1500 professionals and trainees from across the sector. 

The open letter and petition came after the UKCP Board decided to withdraw the UKCP as a signatory of the Memorandum of Understanding on Conversion Therapy (MoU2) (and as a member of the Coalition) earlier this year, without consultation with the UKCP membership.

In this statement,TACTT want to take the opportunity to clarify the origins of the petition, and its rationale for calling a vote of no confidence.

Who Are TACTT?

TACTT is a collective of therapists, counsellors, psychotherapists, psychologists and other therapeutic practitioners, including trainees in these fields, who oppose conversion therapy and transphobia in the therapy profession. TACTT members belong to a number of professions, and those who are counsellors, psychotherapists, or psychotherapeutic counsellors are members of a number of different professional bodies, including the UKCP. TACTT holds members of all genders.

What is the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU2) on Conversion Therapy?

The MoU2’s main aim “is the protection of the public through a commitment to ending the practice of ‘conversion therapy’ in the UK” (MoU2, point 1), viewing conversion therapies as unethical and harmful. By signing they are committing to ending the practice and ensuring their members are working ethically, based on training, within that principle. 

Anyone seeking therapeutic support deserves a safe, trained professional who is truly acting in their best interests. This assurance has now been removed for LGBT+ people approaching UKCP members for such support.

What led to the petition? 

(i) No consultation of membership for major policy shift

While much of the TACTT membership was alarmed by the Board’s decision to withdraw from the MoU2, we were further shocked that this was done without any consultation with the membership or Articles-mandated Member’s Forum which “should be consulted on the future direction and strategy of the Charity and advise and collaborate with the Board of Trustees.”

(ii) Contravening UKCP’s Code of Ethics point 32

Furthermore, we are appalled by the contradictions and lack of clarity found in the UKCP’s Board statements:

The stated reason for the withdrawal given by the Board included concerns about how it specifically applied to children and young people. This contradicts the facts of the MoU2 (which states in point 10 that it does not provide these specifics to signatories and leaves each organisation within their own purview to determine the specifics of how that training, and working practice is managed to achieve the commitment of ending the practice of conversion therapy). The Board also stated the UKCP had not known, when signing, that this statement applied to children. This cannot be squared against their years of membership supporting the MoU and its re-signing of the Memorandum in its second version.

Unfortunately the statement put out by the UKCP Board thus contradicts itself as well as the facts of the MoU2. Especially when their withdrawal statement still speaks to the same end purpose of the MoU2 that they are now disavowing. 

This all stands to confuse the wider MoU2 membership, the UKCP membership, and the wider public about the expectations of therapy they can receive from counsellors and psychotherapists. 

Furthermore, the nature of the comments the Board makes in its withdrawal statement imply that the MoU2, and by extension every other signatory organisation, is failing to sufficiently safeguarding the interests of young people. In doing so the UKCP Board is calling the practice of the wider psychotherapeutic community into disrepute and contravenes the UKCP’s Code of Ethics point 32, which states that members must “act in a way which upholds the profession’s reputation and promotes public confidence in the profession and its members.”

In addition to this, the Chair of the Board of Trustees has in TACTT’s view, publicly contributed to this misrepresentation in the national press and on social media accusing the signatories of the petition and TACTT of “bullying” the Board, comparing UKCP’s members’ legitimate and constitutional call for a removal election with a ‘coup’, and further suggesting that those who support the petition are somehow not interested in the “safety of children”. 

We point out once more that in calling for a removal election, the UKCP’s Articles of Association have been adhered to and members are entitled to exercise their democratic right to vote on the continuation or removal of the Board of Trustees, without being defamed by the Chair of their Board. In TACTT’s response statement, TACTT reminds readers that being held accountable through a democratic election is not bullying.

(iii) Lack of response and dialogue

Following the UKCP’s withdrawal from the MoU2 and their statement, UKCP members of TACTT individually and TACTT as an organisation, have tried on numerous occasions to contact the UKCP to discuss their decision and try to talk to them about reconsidering. All attempted contact has been ignored. The open letter/petition is a response to this lack of engagement by the UKCP.

Concerning views about gender and invalidation of trans identities

The open letter/petition was not TACTT’s first attempt to raise questions about the UKCP’s seeming policy direction and its lack of consultation around this. In late 2023, a previous open letter, raised major concerns about how the UKCP’s position was moving towards one that re-pathologised trans identities- in ways that seemed resonant of outdated, homophobic positions-, and how it seemed to promote so-called ‘exploratory therapy’ (a practice which typically ‘explores’ all possible meanings of a trans client’s gender identity experience other than that they are actually trans) for ‘gender-critical’ therapists (i.e. those who typically do not believe being trans is a valid state of being). Here again, the UKCP repeatedly refused to respond to invitations for dialogue about serious concerns raised by multiple UKCP members, Members’ Forum Representatives as well as over a thousand signatories of Therapists Against Conversion Therapy and Transphobia (TACTT)’s open letter (last updated in January 2024). 

From this lack of dialogue, engagement and reassurance, we do not have the confidence that the UKCP Board is supportive of trans voices, trans clients, trans students, trans therapists, as now embodied in its unconstitutional withdrawal from the MoU. Again, many other UKCP members outside of TACTT, along with professionals who are members of other therapeutic bodies, agree.

Conclusion

The public discourse around transgender people in the UK is currently toxic, with relentless political and media attempts to smear and misrepresent them. This has left the small UK trans community in deep distress. TACTT sees this in the lives of some of its members and in the anxiety it encounters from many trans and gender expansive clients. This said, TACTT wants to make clear that the grounds for this vote of no confidence lie in the UKCP’s own Code of Ethics, as the authors and signatories of the letter believed that the UKCP Board’s decision did not meet point 32 and they have not been “acting in a way which upholds the profession’s reputation and promotes public confidence in the profession and its members.”

We point out that the Board has made a major policy decision without consultation with individual, college or educational members and note that its communication of its decision to psychotherapy professionals, the wider public, LGBTQIA+ people as potential clients is at best confusing, at worst incoherent. In this confusion they are damaging the reputations of other MoU2 signatory bodies and their professional members by implication. 

Further, whilst the UKCP’s statements still claim its opposition to conversion therapy, this confusion stands to harm and reduce the safety of LGBTQIA+ clients and potential clients.

We cannot believe that these actions are in the interest of the fee-paying members or of our clients. Numerous LGBTQIA+ students and trainees from within and outside TACTT have shared their concerns, including students on UKCP accredited courses who are required to be members of the UKCP or to remain members after completing their courses for qualification until they can be able to even consider transfer to a different professional body. That they may be required to remain members of a professional body that leaves them feeling this unprotected and unvalued is unconscionable. 

The Board’s Chair has chosen to stand by his comments and the Board’s decision, even after TACTT raised its concerns, and how, in TACTT’s view, they risked casting many UKCP members, and/or members of the wider professional community, into disrepute. We remain puzzled about the Board’s claim to be in discussion with other organisations about the creation of alternatives to the MoU2, when the largest of these organisations, the NCPS, have just announced their intention to rejoin the MoU2, having confirmed that their previous withdrawal was solely on the grounds of being subject to potential legal action by hostile actors which would have been prohibitively expensive to defend. 

We ask all the UKCP members with voting rights to consider what, in TACCT’s view, has been done in your name and how, by the Board :

  • Ignoring the concerns of professionals
  • Making large policy changes without consultation of educational, college, or individual members
  • Implying that large swathes of our profession, including UKCP members are failing in safeguarding responsibilities for continuing to support a document, which continues to have the support of 23 other major mental health and related organisations (soon to be 24 once more), whilst claiming confusion over a core aspect of the agreement, eight years after having first signed and then later resigned it. 
  • Breaching the UKCP Code of Ethics 
  • Claiming to be in discussion with other organisations about a successor agreement to the MoU without providing evidence of this, and offering no response to recent NCPS actions which seem to clearly contradict this.
  • Betraying and abandoning LGBTQIA+ members, many of whom now feel unsafe within the UKCP, and LGBTQIA+ clients.

As a UKCP member, we believe that you deserve better than this. If you agree, then you have the right to vote to remove the members of the Board who enacted this in your name. If you are happy with these actions then you too must vote with your conscience.

Statement by TACTT on UKCP Board ‘no confidence’ vote (Summary Version)

Context

Last month, the UKCP announced a removal election of the Board of Trustees in response to a call from some of its membership through an open letter petition initiated by UKCP members who are also members of Therapists Against Conversion Therapy and Transphobia (TACTT). The petition was signed by the required threshold of at least 2% of the UKCP membership, and also garnered support from over 1500 professionals and trainees from across the sector. The petition followed UKCP’s decision to withdraw from the Memorandum of Understanding on conversion therapy.

UKCP’s decision to withdraw from the MoU2 on conversion therapy

On 5th April 2024 the United Kingdom Council for Psychotherapy (UKCP) advised its members and the public that it had withdrawn its signature from the Memorandum of Understanding on Conversion Therapy in the UK v2 (MoU2). The major decision to withdraw from the MoU2 was made by the UKCP Board of Trustees, without consultation nor notice with its wider membership.

In the statement, UKCP asserts itself as “fully committed in its belief that conversion therapy is harmful and must not be practised” and later confirmed that to do so would also breach of the organisation’s Code of Ethics, while at the same time advising its members to “discount the MoU as a published policy of UKCP”. In effect, UKCP asks its membership to discount as policy a document of which its entire purpose is ensuring conversion therapy is understood as harmful, unethical, and should not be practised.

These actions and statements are contradictory and potentially confusing, especially for a Board who is informing their membership and the public about major changes they have enacted without consultation. 

Who are TACTT?

TACTT is a grassroots collective of therapists, counsellors, psychotherapists, psychologists and other therapeutic practitioners, including trainees in these fields, who oppose conversion therapy and transphobia in the therapy profession. TACTT members belong to a number of professions, and those who are counsellors, psychotherapists, or psychotherapeutic counsellors are members of a number of different professional bodies, including the UKCP.

Why is the MoU2 important for LGBT+ people?

The MoU2’s main aim “is the protection of the public through a commitment to ending the practice of ‘conversion therapy’ in the UK” (MoU2, point 1), viewing conversion therapies as unethical and harmful. By signing they are committing to ending the practice and ensuring their members are working ethically, based on training, within that principle.

Anyone seeking therapeutic support deserves a safe, trained professional who is truly acting in their best interests. This assurance has now been removed for LGBT+ people approaching UKCP members for such support.

Responses to UKCP’s decision to withdraw

While much of our membership was alarmed by the Board’s decision to withdraw from the MoU2, we were further shocked that this was done without consultation with its members. 

Following the UKCP’s withdrawal from the MoU2 and their statement, UKCP members of TACTT individually and TACTT as a collective tried on numerous occasions to contact the UKCP to discuss their decision and try to talk to them about reconsidering. All attempted contact was ignored.

UKCP members from TACTT then decided to try and bring our concerns to the Board’s awareness, as well as other UKCP members, through public conversation via an open letter: Open letter to UKCP on their recent withdrawal from the MoU2 on conversion therapy

Why has a ‘vote of no confidence’ in the Board been called within UKCP?

UKCP members of TACTT created the above letter, and were joined by UKCP members within and outside of our group as signatories, to trigger the call for a removal election. Together we reached the 2% of the UKCP membership who are eligible to vote on matters within the professional body, that is sufficient to trigger an election for a vote of no confidence in the Board.

These authors and signatories believe that the current Board’s actions around the MoU2 membership have not been in keeping with UKCP policies that seek to “[act] in a way which upholds the profession’s reputation and promotes public confidence in the profession and its members.” (point 32 of the Code of Ethics).

The way UKCP’s Board have made this decision and communicated about it will be confusing to psychotherapy professionals, the wider public, LGBTQIA+ people as current and potential clients.

In that confusion they are damaging the reputations of other MoU2 signatory bodies and their professional members by implication. They are misleading the public and the professional community about the MoU2 either on purpose or by misunderstanding.

In addition to this, the Chair of the Board of Trustees has in TACTT’s view, publicly contributed to this misrepresentation in the national press and on social media comparing the UKCP’s members’ legitimate and constitutional call for a removal election with “a coup” and “bullying” of the Board.

Whilst TACTT’s opinions on conversion therapy are clear from our name as well as our work, any breach of UKCP’s Code of Ethics and its policies (regardless of the subject matter and related opinions) must be taken seriously. 

Next steps

We ask all UKCP members with voting rights to consider what has been done in your name and in making use of your membership fees. Is this what you expect from a Board who represents you?

·      Vote for what you believe is correct conduct for your membership group’s Board members: https://www.psychotherapy.org.uk/about-ukcp/elections/

17th June, 6:30pm (online): Hear from the Board.

20th June – 3rd July (5pm): Voting opens.

All eligible UKCP members will receive an e-mail to vote.

NCPS’ letter to TACTT

NCPS have also now responded to TACTT. Their email is given below for completeness:

Thank you for your letter of 23rd April.

While there is an historic blog by Dominic Davies on our website, we did remove reference to membership of MOU when we were forced to step back. We don’t remove historic blogs from the site where they are accurate at the time they were written. We apologise if this may have caused any confusion.

Our not being a member of the MOU has never meant we have changed our policy on conversion therapy, and it hasn’t changed our Code of Ethics. We are members of many different organisations and groupings, but leaving or joining any of these is a separate issue from our ethical stance. You can rest assured therefore that there hasn’t been any effect on your practice or with any of your clients. As a valued member, you have been working under the same ethical guidance and policy framework irrespective of what organisations or groupings your professional body belongs to.

We felt it was in the MOU’s best interests not to publicise our withdrawal as this risked media headlines of division and could have imparted the sense that the legal activists were gaining traction. We didn’t want this to happen.

Opposing conversion therapy can take many forms – for example, we pioneered and suggested making sure insurance companies would not cover therapists practising in this way. After our meetings with the GEO we were assured that, in the absence of a ban coming in to force, there is a multitude of actions than can still be taken.

We have been working behind the scenes for many months to find a route back to the MOU and have now been able to ringfence funds to protect us from future legal action. We’re happy to inform you that we have applied to rejoin MOU.

We appreciate your concerns over this matter. Do rest assured that we are engaged appropriately in this issue on behalf of our members.

Yours sincerely,

Jyles

The NCPS applies to rejoin the MoU!

Some of our members (certainly not all the members that have approached them about this) have had an email from NCPS saying that they are applying to rejoin the MoU. We know this to be factually accurate – this is not empty words.

There are still many questions to be answered – specifically around being a ‘member-led’ organisation and the naivety around the idea that one must withdraw from the MoU for fear of being sued but can create an alternative that doesn’t have that threat (which seems to have shifted position in the letter below), but please see below the full letter.

Dear [member]

Please find a message from the Society below regarding your communication with us.

Thank you for contacting us regarding the MOU and conversion therapy. Due to the number of communications from members we’ve received, we are sending out this response to everyone who kindly contacted us about the issue.

The Society opposes conversion therapy and wishes to see legislation that would ensure it was unequivocally banned. We have campaigned on this for a number of years, including engaging with Equalities Ministers, meeting their advisors, and meeting with the senior civil servant at the Government Equality Office (GEO) as far back as 2018.

The Society put forward and pioneered the approach, in the absence of legislation, to approach insurance companies in order that they invalidated insurance cover where a counsellor practised conversion therapy. Our Code of Ethics specifically prohibits conversion therapy and a member practising it would face de-registration.

Our policy has not changed on conversion therapy in any way. We signed up to the multi organisational Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) in order to come together with other organisations to push forward a plan to ban conversion therapy.

In 2022, we were targeted by legal campaigners who threatened us with legal action if we remained in MOU. Our insurance providers would not cover our defence of said legal action, and at the time we did not have sufficient funds to allocate to defending our position.

Alongside other signatories, such as our friends Pink Therapy, the noted LGBTQIA+ organisation, we were forced to leave MOU at the time and the threat of legal action was dropped. This was not a decision we wished to make. At no time did this decision change any of our policies or our Code of Ethics. We decided not to publicise this withdrawal to avoid misrepresentation or reputational harm to MOU.

Since then we have continued to campaign against conversion therapy, and have been looking for solutions that would enable us to rejoin MOU. We have managed to secure funds to protect the Society against future legal action and so we are pleased to announce that we have started the process to rejoin the MOU. We look forward to resuming joint campaigning on this issue.

We have no plans to change any of our policies in this area. Any substantive policy change would be a matter for our members, just as with ScoPEd. It’s worth emphasising again that leaving or indeed rejoining MOU is not related to our policies.

Thank you again for contacting us. Please rest assured that we continue to be a member-led organisation and all our members’ views are very welcome.

Kind regards,

The NCPS

Response and corrections to The Telegraph

We are aware of an article by Henry Bodkin for The Telegraph that has made several unfounded claims about Therapists Against Conversion Therapy and Transphobia (TACTT). The article focuses on the UK Council for Psychotherapy (UKCP)’s public withdrawal from the Memorandum of Understanding opposing Conversion Therapy (MOU2), citing concerns about the inclusion of children in that document.

The article features comments from the Chairman of UKCP, representatives of the Cass Review Committee, and the British Psychoanalytic Council. A variety of accusations were levelled at TACTT in the article and, in a failure of the most basic journalistic ethics set out in the IPSO Editors’ Code of Practice, the article does not accurately convey the facts of the situation and misrepresents both TACTT and members of UKCP who have sought a ballot for possible removal of the Board of Trustees. 

TACTT can confirm that no approaches have been made publicly or via direct message for us to comment on the piece or its accusations, even though we are easy for journalists to reach through email and social media and Mr Bodkin cited our website in the article. 

There are three patently false claims in the article that defame members of TACTT who have taken a stand on UKCP’s withdrawal from MOU2, and one further factual inaccuracy. All of these inaccuracies are liable to mislead the public: 

1. TACTT is trying to undertake a coup against the UKCP Board of Trustees
2. Members of TACCT are ‘bullying’ members of the UKCP Board of Trustees
3. TACTT is ‘[turning] a blind eye to the safety of children
4. UKCP is a “regulator of child psychotherapy and psychotherapeutic counselling”

We will address each of these points in turn. 

1. The calls for a vote of no confidence in UKCP’s Board of Trustees come from within the UKCP’s own membership. Signatories to the motion included members of TACTT and UKCP members who have no association with us. The motion was submitted in line with the regulation established in article 17.1 of UKCP’s own Articles of Association. 

The numbers of UKCP members who signed the motion exceeded the minimum required two percent of the number of members as of the first day of the month of the receipt of the first petition, as set out in the Articles of Association. Signatories believed that UKCP Trustees did not follow their own by the UKCP board when they made this decision to withdraw from the MOU2 without consultation with the membership or Articles-mandated Member’s Forum which “should be consulted on the future direction and strategy of the Charity and advise and collaborate with the Board of Trustees.” It is this failure in process that led to this call for a vote of no confidence. 

The motion will put the continuation or removal of the Board of Trustees to a democratic vote of the entire membership within 120 days of the motion, as set out in the Articles of Association. This is far from the definition of a coup. If the membership expresses through a free vote that it agrees with the organisation’s withdrawal from MOU2 and is satisfied with the conduct of the Board of Trustees on this matter, no individual or group of members will be in a position to take over the Board of Trustees nor does TACTT believe this would be in the best interest of members or psychotherapy clients of any age.

The Board of Trustees is accountable to its membership. The Articles of Association have been adhered to and members are entitled to exercise their democratic right to vote on the continuation or removal of the Board of Trustees. 

The characterisation of TACTT as making a power grab is disingenuous. TACTT would have been able to correct these inaccuracies had we been approached, but no attempts have been made to contact us for comment. 

2. It is false and misleading to characterise the membership of UKCP who have requested the removal election as “bullying” the Chair of the Board of Trustees or any other members of the Board. It is particularly misleading to say that TACTT as a collective is doing so. The Articles exist to ensure the proper running of the UKCP for the benefit of its membership and the psychotherapy and psychotherapeutic counselling clients with whom its membership works. Being held accountable through a democratic election is not bullying.

3. It is false and defamatory to characterise either TACTT as a group or members of UKCP who have signed the removal election motion as having disregard for the wellbeing and safeguarding of transgender children and young people. While we were not able to comment on The Telegraph’s article, we would like to thank Dr Moon for their comments included in the article. We concur that all therapeutic models are exploratory and this can only be ethically achieved in situations where gender or sexuality enter the therapeutic work by viewing no gender or sexuality as inherently better or preferable. This holds true for people of all ages seeking psychotherapy or psychotherapeutic counselling. Any other approach is conversion therapy.  

The comments from the Cass Review committee representative also imply that any membership organisation or regulatory body remaining signatories of the MOU2 are “[lowering] the bar on standards of clinical practice and safeguarding for… children and young people.” In the Cass Review’s own FAQs, they state that “no LGBTQ+ group should be subjected to conversion therapy,” and the MOU2 and TACTT are in agreement on this point. It is the guiding idea behind both the memorandum and our group. However by standing by that idea, we and the MOU2 signatories are painted as placing children and young people at risk.

Within the article, the Cass Review itself is presented as a “report on the dangers of gender ideology”, rather than the systematic review of trans healthcare provision by NHS England for children and adolescents. This is false and misleading. The article also misquotes and misrepresents the recommendation from the review that enhanced follow-on support for those aged 17-25 from GIDS, suggesting that people under 25 have been “rushed into changing gender”.

4. The story as presented in the article had a further inaccuracy and raised additional concerns amongst TACTT members. The UKCP chair presents the organisation as a “regulator of child psychotherapy and psychotherapeutic counselling.” The representative of the Cass Review committee similarly implies that the UKCP is a “regulator.” 

The UKCP is a membership organisation, not a regulatory body. It is factually incorrect to state that UKCP is a regulator, as membership organisations and regulatory bodies are very different things. A regulatory body mandates registration. Counsellors and Psychotherapists in the UK can voluntarily join a number of organisations, but it is not a requirement to be a member of any, nor specifically the UKCP. 

While TACTT members have our concerns about the Cass Review recommendations, and are working on a full response having given an interim response on our blog, we find the way the report is being used, misused, and weaponised in media conversations deeply worrying. This is especially evident when erroneous claims that misrepresent the UKCP members within and outside of the TACTT members who are making use of their democratic ability within their voluntary membership bodies to work how they see ethically fit when the Board of Trustees has not adhered to its own standards of behaviour.

Our petition for removal by election to UKCP

As many followers know, we have recently been described as bullying for asking that processes be invoked around voting for removal by election of the trustees of UKCP.

Our response to the newspaper article will follow later today but for completeness’ sake, here is the official letter to UKCP, sent on 11 April:

Dear UKCP Company Secretary, and who else this may concern,

I am writing to formally deliver a petition on behalf of alarmed UKCP members regarding UKCP’s board’s latest decision to withdraw as a signatory of the Memorandum of Understanding on Conversion Therapy in the UK v2 (MoU) and its membership of the Coalition Against Conversion Therapy. 

The petition lays out the reasons for our petition and calls for a vote of no confidence in the UKCP board, and for a removal election to be held for the current Trustees. Please find the link to the petition here: Petition

As per UKCP’s Articles of Association, Article 17, the petition has so far garnered the signatures of the required threshold of 2% of your membership as of the 10th April 2024 (9072) (this is not considering students, trainees and retired members). Please find attached the list of the signatures extracted from the letter for your reference. The letter has also garnered the additional support of more than 1000 of concerned professionals in the sector.

As per your Articles of Association, we are expecting a removal election to be held within 120 days of receipt of this petition, with members receiving at least 30 days of notice of it happening. 

Please kindly confirm reception of this petition and provide confirmation of the timeline by which we should get a response.

As a trainee UKCP member, I am personally delivering this petition as one of the many trainees and students who are refused a voice in UKCP elections, as a symbolic show that we do have a voice.

Sincerely,

Where do NCPS stand?

TACTT recently sent a group letter to The National Counselling and Psychotherapy Society (NCPS), signed by members, asking for clarification on their position regarding conversion therapy, and the Memorandum of Understanding. This followed NCPS being named in the statement in which UKCP announced their withdrawal from MoU; UKCP stated that they, with NCPS (and other bodies would seek to create new guidelines). The CEO of NCPS, Jyles Robillard-Day, has confirmed that he has received this letter and will respond within 28 days, but since then, new information has come to light, which have raised further questions for us.

Through further investigation, we have become aware that NCPS themselves does not appear to be listed as a signatory on the MoU. This was, for all of us NCPS members at TACTT, a big shock, especially given the fact that historically, they had been a signatory. From what we can see, they remained a signatory up until the end of 2022, but no longer appear on the document in January 2023. This seems to coincide with an update that was made to the MoU in November 2022.

The questions we are therefore asking are as follows:

*Why is it that NCPS appears to have disappeared as an MoU signatory between those dates?

Is this an error, or was it purposeful?

*If this is an error:

  • is it connected to the changing of the name of the society, from NCS to NCPS?
  • Can it be rectified asap so the membership can feel confident that they belong to a body who is part of the partnership against conversion therapy and supports the principles laid out in the MoU?

*If it was purposeful:

  • what was it about version two of MoU that they originally signed that made them make this decision, when their own written code of ethics supports it?
  • why have the membership not been informed, let alone consulted?

If the NCPS has not been a member of the MoU for nearly a year and a half, without its members being aware (and given there is still open reference to the MoU on the website), this would be an extremely serious matter.

Whether an intentional action or an error, we consider this action a grave mistake. What will be actioned in order that NCPS is fully transparent and accountable to its members to ensure such a grave error not be made again?

All these questions need answering and in our opinion, NCPS must (re)commit to the MoU at the earliest opportunity, and an apology and explanation should be submitted to its thousands of members, untold numbers of whom believed that they were part of an organisation signed up to the MoU, and who thus had a known and widely accepted framework to work within.

We await a full response from NCPS and will share any updates accordingly.

Response from and to NCPS

NCPS responded to our letter. The text is below, along with our response back.

Text from NCPS reads:

“Thank you for your communication regarding the Society and conversion therapy.

 

The Society, alongside other MOU signatories, was forced to withdraw from the MOU in 2022 after receiving formal threats of legal action against MOU and naming us as potential co-defendants.

 

Our professional indemnity insurers confirmed they would not be able to cover us should legal action commence against the Society and so we had no choice but to withdraw on financial grounds.  Our withdrawal from MOU does not change our position of opposing conversion therapy and has not changed any Society policies. It was agreed at the time that publishing our forced exit as a signatory of the MOU would have had a detrimental effect on the coalition.

 

We have agreed to enter into exploratory discussions with UKCP and other professional bodies which does not signal policy agreement.  Should the Society consider any policy changes in the future these would first be put to member consultation and ratification.


We are aware of the significance and complexities of this issue and will keep members fully informed of any developments.

 

Kind regards

 

Jyles Robillard-Day

Chief Executive Officer”

We have now sent the following response to NCPS:

Dear Jyles,

 

Thank you for your email and the additional information. However, it leaves us with more questions than answers. I have emphasised the questions to which the members who have supported the development of this response ask of the Society, and a request arising from the emergence of NCPS’s withdrawal from the MOU without informing its members.

 

Breach of trust and ethical duty of care to clients

NCPS members of TACTT are shocked and disappointed by the Society’s misrepresentation of its support of the MOU since 2022. Several TACTT members joined NCPS within the past 12 months under the impression that the organisation was a signatory to the MOU. The website states that the organisation is “a proud signatory to the Memorandum of Understanding on Conversion Therapy, making it very clear that counsellors can help clients who present with conflicting feelings about themselves concerning sexuality or gender identity.” The GSRD page in the Members area of the NCPS website states that “the NCPS supports the work of the MOU.” Given the context of your email, these statements are false and misleading to members and prospective members.

 

The Society has placed members in the position of harming our clients. Informed consent cannot be given by clients when they believe they are safe because their counsellor or psychotherapist’s membership body supports the MOU when it has not done so since 2022. 

 

The Society has not conducted itself with the transparency that its own code of ethics demands of its members. The code demands that members “ensure that all advertising, no matter in what form or medium it is placed, represents a truthful, honest and accurate picture.” NCPS has recruited paid members using misinformation stating on public-facing parts of its website that the Society is a signatory to the MOU and reinforcing that in member-only information. 

 

Although NCPS members involved with TACTT appreciate statements from the Society on conversion practices, this is an individualised response to a systemic problem. TACTT Members who chose to join NCPS did so on the understanding that their membership body was part of a broad coalition that was using its collective power to bring about systemic change in the UK. 

 

NCPS has let down and misled its membership. This is not only a breach of trust between the Society and its membership, who could not freely choose a different membership organisation that was still an MOU signatory; the vitiation of the therapist/client relationship cannot be undone. The Society has placed its members in the position of deceiving clients, and now we are left with the burden of working out the steps we can take to repair this rupture of trust with our clients. 

 

As members, we require immediate guidance on how we can rectify the position of maleficence that this has placed us in with our clients.

 

Legal action and MOU alternatives

We are aware of legal action that was brought against a number of co-defendants. However, the legal filings we have seen do not show NCPS as a co-defendant in that case. 

 

We would be grateful if you could confirm the case to which you are referring.

 

If the Society’s objective for withdrawing from the MOU was to avoid legal costs, it is unclear how entering into a different coalition to produce an alternative statement on ending conversion practices will protect it from future legal action. If the Society intends to withdraw from any coalition or consensus statement openly supporting ending conversion practices, it is difficult to see how the Society’s involvement in any future coalitions will make any meaningful change. A coalition is only as strong as its members, and whilst we appreciate that the executive team has a responsibility to protect NCPS as a legal entity, it also has a responsibility to be accountable to its members for how its funding, which is generated largely from membership subscription income, is used to support ending oppressive practices in counselling and psychotherapy. 

 

We request a statement on how NCPS makes decisions about which of its principles it will stand by and which it will recant when challenged.

 

Consultation with the membership

It is unclear from your email who you refer to when you say that “we” have agreed to enter into exploratory discussions with UKCP and other professional bodies. The email says that “should the Society consider any policy changes in the future, these would first be put to member consultation and ratification,” but a policy change has already been made. Withdrawal from the MOU coalition is a significant policy change about which the membership was not consulted. As such, we remain sceptical about the trustworthiness of the Society to consult and engage with its membership. 

 

How do you intend to consult and engage with the membership on future changes in policy? 

 

Would rejoining the MOU coalition constitute a change in policy, since the membership was entirely unaware of the policy change to leave the coalition in the first place?

 

Please feel free to contact me if you require any clarification on the above queries. I look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience. 

 

Kind regards, 

TACTT

Our interim response to the Cass report

Friday 12th April 2024

Media statement: 


TACTT is deeply concerned by the final report of the Cass Review, whose core underlying premise is effectively an eliminationist agenda, dressed up in the language of ‘reasonableness’. 

We do not accept the manner in which the report’s findings were reached, nor the contention that such findings were reached in good faith. We are appalled by reports that the Cass Review is already being used to justify restrictions to access to private care for under-18s and could potentially restrict access to care for under-25s.  

The UK is now considered a hostile country for trans people, especially trans children (Horton, 2024). We fear that this situation will worsen in the aftermath of this review. 

TACTT acknowledges that a review of service provision was needed in the light of distressingly long NHS waiting times. Such delays were named as a matter of concern in the prevention of future deaths report issued by the coroner presiding over the December 2023 inquest into the tragic death of Alice Litman.

Pending our forthcoming detailed response, we urge fellow clinicians to be cognisant of the fact that uncritically following the review’s recommendations/findings could invoke a risk of harm. 

We reiterate our commitment to a basic accepting and open-minded attitude, and our respect for principles of self-determination and autonomy, as fundamental elements of psychotherapeutic support. 

In the interim:

• We note that the Cass report claims to consider wider context, yet excludes mention of recent increases in abusive hate speech, discrimination and violence and sustained legislative, political and media campaigns that threaten the human rights of trans people (as recently noted by a UN Special Rapporteur). Moreover, the final report did not present findings on any potential barriers to accessing care for multiply marginalised young people, who experience racism, classism and other forms of discrimination. 

• We express our profound concern at review findings/recommendations that are at variance with current international guidelines. 

• We note that despite the report’s claims that a wide range of perspectives including those with lived experience were heard, anti-trans voices and opinions were centred throughout the report whilst often being presented (from the inception of the project) as ‘impartial’.

• We echo expressions of concern from expert individuals and organisations regarding methodological flaws of the report. We note that evidence supporting an anti-trans position was consistently held to a lower burden of proof or research standard than other material. We note that the Cass Review dismissed numerous research studies whose results strengthened the evidence base to support medical treatment for gender incongruence. 

• We reject the report’s hunt for ‘causes’ that paves the way for fundamentally pathologising approaches that treat trans people – young and old – as a problem. 

We express our support to impacted young people and their families for whom this week has been profoundly traumatic.

We urge clinicians to treat the Cass findings with extreme caution and not to assume that they represent best practice or that they have been arrived at after a full and impartial review of clinical data. 

Further information: 

email therapistsagainsttransphobia@gmail.com

TACTT

Who we are

Therapists Against Conversion Therapy and Transphobia (TACTT) is a  grassroots collective of therapists, counsellors, psychotherapists, psychologists and other therapeutic practitioners, incuding trainees in these fields, who oppose conversion therapy and transphobia in the therapy profession.We do not have a formal structure, which allows for individuals within the group to take action. We are UK-based but our members are based all over the world, each doing their bit to take action.