England and Wales Care Standards Tribunal

SIRAJ-ULHAQ YOUSAFZAI
.v.
GENERAL SOCIAL CARE COUNCIL [2007] 1013.SW
BEFORE:
Ms L Goldthorpe (Nominated Chair), Mr D Griffiths (Specialist Member) Ms L Redford (Specialist Member)
Sitting on 14 November 2007 at the Care Standards Tribunal, 18 Pocock Street, London SE1 0BW

REPRESENTATION

The Appellant appeared in person.

Ms Eleanor Grey of Counsel, instructed by Field Fisher Waterhouse, appeared for the Respondents.

Appeal

1. This is an appeal by the Appellant under s.68 of the Care Standards Act 2000 (the CSA 2000) against the decision of the Respondent to refuse to register the Appellant as a social worker on the register maintained under the CSA 2000 s.56.

Evidence

2. In addition to the tribunal bundle of papers (the tribunal bundle), which was prepared in advance of the hearing, the Tribunal also considered a Skeleton Argument from the Respondents on the day of the hearing. The Appellant confirmed he had received the Skeleton Argument two days before the hearing, understood its contents and did not wish to seek further advice on this document.
3. The Tribunal read two witness statements (dated 26 April 2007 and 14 May 2007) from Ms Cathrine Clarke, the Education Standards and Information Manager of the Social Work Education Group of the General Social Care Council. The Tribunal also read the contents of the file opened and maintained by the Respondent following the Applicant's application for inclusion on the register, which was disclosed by the Respondent pursuant to the direction given by Mr Wadling, a Chair of the Care Standards Tribunal on 6^th August 2007 and included in the bundle of documents. The Tribunal read the evidence of the Appellant contained in his witness statement dated 1^st November 2007 and a further document entitled 'Objection on witness statement' received by the Tribunal Secretariat on 7^th November 2007, and the documents referred to therein.

The Evidence heard on 14^th November 2007

Ms Cathrine Clarke gave oral evidence.

4. We were conscious that the Appellant was representing himself and that his first language was not English. He declined the services of an interpreter. We took care to explain the proceedings to him and took a more inquisitorial approach than we might otherwise have done in order to explore the points he wished to make and assist him in presenting his case. We clarified with the Appellant in what capacity he sought to register with the General Social Care Council ('the GSCC'), his understanding of the GSCC and the Tribunal appeal processes and the outcome he expected.
5. We have considered all this material with care and for the purposes of this appeal the material findings of fact are set out below.

The Law

6. In the case of an application for registration as a social worker the CSA 2000 states that a applicant must satisfy the requirements of the CSA 2000 section 58 (1), which requires the Council of GSCC to be satisfied that the applicant is (a) of good character; (b) is physically and mentally fit to perform the whole or part of the work of persons registered in any part of the register to which his application relates. Neither of these requirements was at issue in this case: indeed the GSCC recognised that Mr Yousafzai was held in high esteem in his country of origin.
7. However, section 64 of the CSA 2000 sets out specific requirements that have to be satisfied by applicants seeking registration as a social worker who trained outside the United Kingdom (UK).
8. The requirements of Section 64 (1) (b) deal with qualifications gained outside England and states as follows:-

"An applicant for registration as a social worker in the register maintained by the English Council satisfies the requirements of this section if:-

…(b) he has, elsewhere than in England, undergone training in relevant social work and either:-

(i) that training is recognised by the Council as being to a standard sufficient for such registration: or

(ii) it is not so recognised, but the applicant has undergone in England or elsewhere such additional training as the Council may require".

9. The CSA 2000, section 57 (1), provides that an application for registration must be made to the GSCC in accordance with the relevant rules, which are set out in the GSCC (Registration) Rules 2005 (the rules). Under the terms of the rules an applicant who has obtained their qualifications and training abroad will be asked by the GSCC to complete a form on which they ask general information about themselves (the Part 1 form), and an additional form in which they are asked to provide information about their qualifications, education and experience (the Part 2 form). Part 2 includes a personal statement in which the applicant is asked to demonstrate how they have met the six core competencies of social work qualification and to supply evidence to support this.
10. The standard that the GSCC applies when considering whether a qualification or training gained abroad is of sufficient standard to meet the requirements for registration is whether the applicant's training and experience is equivalent to the requirements of the UK diploma in social work (DipSW), the professional qualification for social workers in all settings. Most registered social workers in the UK hold a DipSW, although this has now been superseded by a requirement to follow a three year BA (Honours) Degree course in social work. The last point of registration in England for the DipSW was 2003 and those wishing to become qualified social workers must now take the degree course.
11. The standard applied by the GSCC when considering whether a qualification gained abroad is of sufficient standard to merit registration is whether the applicant's training and experience Is equivalent to the DipSW. The assessment requirements for the DipSW were set by the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work (CCETSW) the body that preceded the GSCC. In order to qualify for a DipSW students had to demonstrate they had met the practice requirements for the diploma, namely the 6 core competencies, integrated social work values, acquired and applied knowledge, reflection and critical analysis of their practice and transferred knowledge skills and values in social work practice. In addition, students had to show that they had undertaken 130 days assessed social work practice that had been supervised and reported on by a study supervisor in the field. The 6 core competencies of the DipSW were communicate and engage, promote and enable, assess and plan, intervene and provide services, work in organizations and develop professional competence.
12. Where an applicant obtains their qualification and training abroad they are asked by the GSCC to complete a form giving general information about themselves ("Part 1"); there is also a further form in which they are requested to provide information about their qualifications, education and experience ("Part 2").
13. In deciding whether an applicant has undergone training in social work elsewhere other than in England which is equivalent to the requirements of the DipSW or the degree course the GSCC relies on the GSCC's International Recognition Service (IRS) process which includes sending the applications to an external assessor for comment. Whenever an IRS assessor determines that an applicant has not obtained the appropriate level of training, the IRS can seek a second opinion from another assessor and can recommend a period of additional training to make up any shortfall between the applicant's qualifications and the requirement of the DipSW.
14. The onus is on the Appellant to demonstrate that he is a person who meets the requirements of s.58 of the CSA 2000.
15. The Act does not provide for conditional registration. Section 64(1)(b)(2) refers to "undergone" training. Therefore, in order to qualify for registration any additional training must have been completed.

The findings of the Tribunal on the evidence

16. The Appellant is originally from Pakistan where he spent sixteen years working in different fields, including extensive practical experience in community related sectors. He received a wide variety of awards for his work. He came to the UK on 14^th July 2005 and, having worked for Oxfam as a volunteer, he subsequently decided to pursue a career in social work in this country. He then took a variety of courses in the UK, including ones to improve his English, and others in subjects such as Business Administration.
17. Having obtained admission to an LLM course in Human Rights in London, the Appellant decided to pursue admission to an MA course in social work. In 2005 he applied to the University of Manchester for admission as a postgraduate student on the MA (Social Work) course. He says he was then told he would need to register with the GSCC. In an email to him, Ms Harper of the University Postgraduate Admissions department stated that: "to practise as a social worker in this country you need to be approved by the GSCC. The only way of achieving this at postgraduate level within our department would be by doing the taught MA in social work….I have attached information regarding both the taught MA and the Mphil/PhD so that you can get an idea of eligibility, the course structure, the application process etc."
18. In a letter to the GSCC dated 9 July 2006, the Appellant set out his experience and background and stated he was "still looking for admission in [MA] social work as well as a job in social work" but understood from an informant that he must first apply for registration to the GSCC. Based on his 16 years of social work experience, his stated aim was "to get a degree in social work in order to develop [his] professional profile and to offer [his] skills and experiences as a social worker in Britain."
19. In Part 2 of his application to the GSCC dated 8 August 2006, the Appellant stated he was an international student, and supplied a curriculum vita and a number of training certificates. The certificates included a Bachelor of Arts obtained in 1995 from the University of Peshawar in Pakistan, a Diploma of Associate Engineer obtained in 1987, and the completion of a wide variety of training courses in areas such as English language proficiency. None of these contained any evidence that they were directed to the professional social work competencies required.
20. The Appellant's CV showed he had held public office in administration and finance and had worked in the social welfare field including experience in the supervision of a welfare home for orphans and blind children, running welfare associations providing improvements in public utility services such as drinking water to the community, health, security, and housing, as well as fund raising and voluntary work in family planning. The Appellant pointed to the fact that he had 16 years experience of what he termed social work. However, none of these were jobs that substantially covered the professional role and expectations of a social worker in the UK as defined by the legislation and in the assessment criteria set out above.
21. Throughout the latter part of 2006 there was regular correspondence between the Appellant and the Respondents who were seeking clarification of such matters as his employment, documents proving his identity, and the requisite endorsement of his application. The Appellant complied with each of these requests for information.
22. In a report provided on 29 November 2006, the IRS manager concluded that the Appellant's application for registration could not be processed, as he did not appear to hold a qualification in social work gained outside the UK that could be appropriately assessed. Ms Clarke agreed with this conclusion and with the recommendation to refuse registration.
23. As he had not completed any social work training in England, the Appellant's application for registration relied on his qualifications, training and work experience in Pakistan. In this case the GSCC recognised the merits of the public duties carried out by the Appellant but it formed the view that the Appellant had not demonstrated he had undertaken and obtained any relevant training or an equivalent qualification in social work. Therefore it concluded he could not comply with specified conditions as to qualifications set out in s.64 (1) (b) CSA 2000.
24. The Respondent initially sent a notification letter to the Appellant on 12^th January 2007 advising the Appellant that it was considering refusal of his application on the grounds that the training criteria set out in CSA 2000, S64 (1)(b) had not been satisfied. The Appellant emailed the Respondents requesting that he be sent a list of the competencies he had not met and information on the additional training he should follow in order to meet them. The final decision letter was sent to the Appellant on 12^th February 2007, stating that as he had been unable to supply any further factual information to show that he had met the qualification criteria, his application for registration was refused.
25. The Appellant appealed to the Tribunal on 10^th May 2007.
26. As he confirmed to us, the Appellant himself recognised that, as he put it in his document entitled Appellant's Response to Council's Response, "as regards the training criteria laid down in section 64 (1) (b) of the CSA 2000 and as far as the training requirement of the same Act is concerned, it is true that I do not meet the condition mentioned therein." However, he continued to maintain that his 16 years of practical experience and qualifications, together with his unconditional offer of a place on a postgraduate course in social work, were sufficient to entitle him to registration. He had obtained endorsement of his application from Ms Karakaya, Director of the Manchester College of Professional Studies (MCPS), where he did a one year course for the Diploma in Business Administration from March 2006 and he said her recommendation supported this.
27. In addition, he said that the process of refusing him registration was flawed in the unnecessary length of time it had taken to complete, when it should have been obvious that a refusal could have been issued much earlier. He said that, in direct consequence of this, he had been deprived of the opportunity to enrol on an appropriate course for 2 years, had wasted time and energy and had suffered monetary loss. Therefore, he argued, natural justice dictated that his appeal should be upheld.

Conclusions

28. The facts are straightforward in that Mr Yousafzai does not possess the necessary qualifications to practice as a social worker in the UK. As he himself conceded, he does not have a UK qualification, nor are any of the courses he pursued or the qualifications he obtained in Pakistan equivalent to the necessary UK qualification. It is clear from the descriptions of his practical experience in Pakistan that these do not cover all the skills, knowledge and understanding required by a social worker as he asserted and therefore this does not meet the requirements set down in the legislation. Therefore, he does not have a relevant qualification obtained in either his home country or in the UK that satisfies the criteria laid down in s.64 (1) (b) of the CSA 2000, and his appeal must fail.
29. Unfortunately, in the course of the events leading to this appeal, the Appellant has become somewhat confused about the different processes involved and he recognised at the hearing that he had misunderstood a number of matters. Specifically, he appears to have mixed up the meanings of the terms entitlement, registration, application, enrolment, training and qualification, which has inevitably led him down a number of logical blind alleys. The email from the University of Manchester was clear and obviously intended to be helpful but the Appellant interpreted the use of the word 'assist' logically to mean that because the GSCC would help him therefore it was directly responsible for enrolling him on a course. Furthermore, he believed that enrolment of itself meant his application for registration would be granted.
30. Effectively, the Appellant's logic for not seeking registration as a student was, in short, I have a degree, I have international student status, therefore I am a student, therefore the GSCC should register me, and therefore I do not have to obtain a qualification as a student of social work. In fact, he was not yet in a position even to seek registration as a social work student since he was not actually enrolled on the relevant course. In addition, enrolment on a course does not of itself amount to possession of the necessary qualification: that is merely the initial step.
31. There was only one possible application to the GSCC that was ever likely to succeed, namely for the Appellant to apply to register as a social work student, which would have meant applying once he was a student already on a course leading to the necessary undergraduate degree qualification in social work, but there was no suggestion in this appeal that any of the relevant paperwork amounted to an application for registration as a social work student. In any event, sadly, in the long period this matter has taken to reach the appeal stage, this confusion has led the Appellant to become increasingly frustrated by the barriers he encountered. He feels aggrieved by the sense that his time and effort over a period of two years have been wasted and he has missed out on the opportunity to be enrolled on a course this year. However, the GSCC process followed a pattern of careful checks and therefore did not allow for outright refusal of registration at an early stage. Furthermore, it was only the Appellant's own confusion that has prevented him enrolling before now on a social work course.
32. Having read the documentation and listened to his argument, we can appreciate how the process of his application for registration confused the Appellant, with some unfortunate consequences. However, there are no grounds, legal or otherwise, for registering him in order to recognise his past professional experience or to compensate him for the length of time it has taken to resolve the issues involved in his registration application.
33. We are concerned to impress upon Mr Yousafzai that he should not be discouraged by the failure of his appeal. He is justifiably proud of his record of achievement and his experience, which include a range of responsibilities that clearly indicate he is an intelligent and committed individual. Nothing in his conduct of his appeal would prevent him from pursuing his desire to become a social worker in this country. Indeed, as a result of this appeal, there is nothing now to prevent him making a direct application to one of the 68 universities listed by the GSCC as providing a recognised and accredited course leading to qualification as a social worker.
34. Pending that qualification, he cannot be employed as a social worker, which we emphasise is a protected title with a specific legal definition and meaning in the UK, but he could seek employment as a social care worker.
35. However, if he still wishes to register as a social worker in this country, the first step is for him to become enrolled on an approved social work course in order to apply to the GSCC for registration as a student. This means he has to apply directly to one of the universities to be accepted on a course approved by the GSCC. Once his application to the college or university has been accepted, he has been offered a place on the approved course, has taken up the place and been formally enrolled on the course as a student, he can then fill out the separate application to the GSCC for registration as a student.
36. As Ms Clarke pointed out, this will then mean that, once the Appellant has successfully completed the course and obtained his qualification in social work, the college or university will assist him in making an application to the GSCC for full registration as a social worker.

Concluding Remarks

37. Ms Clarke made it clear to us that the GSCC is anxious to learn from its experience as a relatively new organisation. Undoubtedly, it has dealt with a very large number of applications but until recently, a comparatively small number of appeals to this Tribunal.
38. We are of the view that the GSCC's decision-making process is clear and transparent and the information it provides emphasises that applicants can seek advice if they are unsure about anything. There may well be some improvements to the accessibility of the forms it uses that will emerge from the current review of processes and documentation that we are told is currently being undertaken.

ORDER:

Accordingly, our unanimous decision is:

APPEAL DISMISSED

Ms L Goldthorpe (Nominated Chairman)

Mr D Griffiths (Specialist Member)

Ms L Redford (Specialist Member)

Date: 27^th November 2007