England and Wales Care Standards Tribunal

RH v General Social Care Council [2005] EWCST 559(SW) (30 May 2007)

RH -v- General Social Care Council [Preliminary Hearing under Part V to consider a preliminary issue of the interpretation of Schedule 1 of the General Social Care Council (Registration) Rules 2005] [2005] 559.SW
 
-Before- His Honour Judge David Pearl (President) Dr J Low Ms M Halstead DECISION ON THE PRELIMINARY ISSUE
1. The Appellant in this case, (Mrs RH) appealed to the Care Standards Tribunal as long ago as 16^th September 2005 the decision of the General Social Care Council dated 17^th August 2005 refusing her application to be included on the General Social Care Council's Register. The reasons for the decision are set out in the Notice of Decision:

a. "The Care Standards Act 2000 and the General Social Care Council (Registration) Rules 2005 specify the qualifications required for registration. The Council has no discretion to vary those qualifications.

b. The qualifications which you hold – a Degree of Bachelor of Arts, a Diploma in Social Study, a Practice Teacher Award, and a Post Graduate Certificate in Social Work and Welfare: Research and Practice – are not qualifications listed in Schedule 1 of the Rules".

2. This case, together with a number of other appeals raising similar (although not identical) issues has been linked to the progress through both the Care Standards Tribunal and subsequently the Courts of the case of JS v GSCC [2005]553.SW. The decision of the Tribunal in JS was issued on 26^th April 2006. By letter dated 5^th June 2006 from Solicitors acting on behalf of the General Social Care Council, the Secretary to the Tribunal was informed that the Respondent had been served by those representing JS with a Notice of Appeal to the High Court against the Tribunal's decision. Accordingly, by Order dated 6^th June 2006 the appeal in the case of RH (and five other appeals) was stayed "until after the High Court proceedings in JS are concluded." Liberty was granted to all of the parties to apply to remove the stay.
3. The High Court proceedings in JS have taken a lengthy and somewhat circuitous route, as set out by the Tribunal in one of the other appeals where a stay has been lifted, Dmitri Guskov v General Social Care Council [2005] 600.SW promulgated on 30^th April 2007 at paragraph 20 of that decision. Suffice it to say that the High Court proceedings in JS have not been concluded, and the Respondent, by email dated 6^th December 2006, sought a continuing stay of the Care Standard Tribunal proceedings in this and the other cases.
4. The Tribunal considered the approach it should take in the current appeal on 20^th March 2007. It heard Mr Weinbren, of the BASW Advice and Representation Service on behalf of the Appellant and Mr M Smith Solicitor of Field Fisher Waterhouse LLP on behalf of the Respondent. After considering the submissions made on that occasion, the Tribunal directed that the stay of the proceedings be lifted "so as to consider whether the Appellant meets the qualification requirements as set out in Schedule 1 of the GSCC (Registration) Rules 2005 in respect of her course's recognition by the (then) Institute of Almoners."
5. The Respondent was directed to serve a witness statement from Mr A Skidmore, Head of Quality and Business Efficiency of the General Social Care Council, and the Appellant's Representative was asked to file a skeleton argument responding to the witness statement.
6. We considered both documents, together with oral evidence both from Mrs RH herself and from Mr A Skidmore, as well as further oral submissions made by Mr Weinbren on behalf of the Appellant and Ms E Grey of Counsel on behalf of the Respondent, at a hearing held on 22^nd May 2007.
7. The relevant statutory provision is s 58(2)(a)(iii) of the Care Standards Act 2000, which states (so far as relevant) that a condition for registration as a social worker is that "he satisfies any requirements as to training which the Council may by rules impose in relation to social workers."
8. The Rules, coming into force on 18^th July 2005 (replacing the earlier 2003 Rules that were revoked) sets out in Schedule 1 that "holders of the following certificates, letters or other evidence of training shall also be regarded by the Council as having completed training for the purposes of section 58(2)(a)(iii)." There then appears a list of twelve. Nine from this list are holders of certificates etc which were issued by the relevant body, including the Institute of Almoners. Three from the list are holders of certificates etc which were recognised by the relevant body, including the Institute of Almoners.
9. In this case we are concerned with a "certificate or other evidence of completion of a course recognised by the Institute of Medical Social Workers (previously the Institute of Almoners)."
10. Mr Weinbren submits that Mrs RH's award of the (post graduate) Diploma in Social Study from the University of Edinburgh in 1960 was recognised by the Institute of Almoners and in consequence she is entitled to be registered as a Social Worker, because she qualifies under the provisions of s 58(2)(a)(iii) of the Act.
11. He referred us to the University of Edinburgh prospectus from that time which states "recently the demand for trained social workers has considerably increased, a demand which seems likely to be maintained in order to meet the requirements of welfare legislation. In the Department of Social Study provision is made for those who desire to qualify themselves for different branches of social work. The University of Edinburgh awards (a) a Post-Graduate Diploma in Social Study for graduate students, which may be gained in a minimum period of one year after graduation…These qualifications are recognised by the Home Office, the Institute of Almoners, the Institute of Personnel Management and other bodies since the training provides the basic course for those who wish to become Medical Social Workers (Almoners), Personnel Officers in Industry, Family Case Workers, Care Committee Organisers, Child Care Workers, Psychiatric Social Workers, Youth Organisers and Probation Officers. For most of these careers a further specialised training is demanded, particulars of which may be obtained from the Director. The courses of study are open also to those wishing to do voluntary social work who feel that their usefulness will be increased if their qualifications are no less than those of the salaried official".
12. Mr Weinbren submits that a distinction is drawn in the Schedule between a certificate issued by the Institute of Almoners (which Mrs RH has not obtained as she wished to work in the field of child care social work) and a certificate recognised by the Institute. He submits that the prospectus from the University proves that the certificate is recognised by the Institute.
13. Ms Grey submits that the word "recognised" can make sense only if it is interpreted to mean "recognised as a professional qualification" for professional purposes. She submits that it is necessary to consider the intention of the General Social Care Council in drafting the Rules and that in that context it is proper to consider the evidence of Mr Skidmore. Mr Weinbren asks us, in effect, to ignore Mr Skidmore's evidence. He submits: "If the Council had intended to put in the word 'professional' they should have done so."
14. In support of these two opposing approaches, we heard arguments advanced as to whether we should apply a purposive or a literal interpretation of the word "recognised." We were referred by both Ms Grey and Mr Weinbren to the discussion in Craies on Legislation (Eighth edition, 2004 at pp 555-561 and pp 672-675) where recent cases are discussed.
15. We must bear in mind that we are here interpreting neither a Statute nor a Statutory Instrument, but rather Rules drafted by the General Social Care Council under s 71 of the Care Standards Act 2000, which require the consent of the Minister (s 71(4)) but are not subjected to Parliamentary scrutiny.
16. Our approach is to interpret the Rules in a way that gives effect to the intention of the draftsman of the Rules. In this context, it would be wrong of us to ignore the evidence given by Mr Skidmore. He said that the whole ethos behind the Rules (and the Schedule) is that a professional Register requires an applicant to have achieved the threshold of a professional qualification. He said in evidence that the word "recognised" refers to recognition for professional purposes, rather than a basic or entry level qualification for those going on to obtain a professional qualification
17. We do not accept that we must approach this case by applying the "literal interpretation" as advocated by Mr Weinbren. The Care Standards Tribunal must ensure that the Rules are applied and interpreted in accordance with the clear policy as set out in the Legislation. This policy is to create a professional Register and to enable the General Social Care Council to place on that register qualified social workers. This is expressed by paragraph 16 of Mr Skidmore's witness statement: "[the Council's] intention was only to include in Schedule 1 courses providing an appropriate professional training."
18. We have no doubt but that the Diploma that Mrs RH obtained was a "basic" course. This is clearly what is described in the Prospectus from the University, and we are of the opinion that what Mrs RH said in evidence about her recollection of the content of the course supports this conclusion. She told us that the course comprised 70 days of supervised practical work. This contrasts with the 130 days required by the DipSW. She was made aware at the time that she required further study in order to obtain a professional qualification in child care, for example the Home Office Letter of Recognition in Child Care which was issued by the Home Office Central Training Council in Child Care from 1947 to 1971 and which is listed in Schedule 1 to the Registration Rules 2005.
19. There is exhibited to Mr Skidmore's statement a document from the Institute of Medical Social Workers that lists the Diploma in Social Studies from the University of Edinburgh as a course that provides "basic preparation for students intending to proceed to professional courses in medical social work". This document makes clear that "none of the courses listed provide professional training in medical social work." Mr Skidmore, in his evidence, said that it was the view of the Council that the course in question was a first-step towards obtaining a full-blown qualification, and that a prerequisite for professional status was a further year of study.
20. In conclusion, therefore, we interpret the word "recognised" in the Schedule to mean "recognised for professional purposes". The Diploma in Social Studies from the University of Edinburgh was a "basic" course and was not "recognised for professional purposes."
21. Accordingly, on the Preliminary Issue before us, we decide in favour of the Respondent and against the Appellant.
22. Other aspects of the appeal, as set out, in part, in the Appeal application, must await the decision of the High Court in JS, and in consequence further steps in this appeal remain stayed until the conclusion of the JS proceedings, or further Order.

ORDER ACCORDINGLY

His Honour Judge David Pearl

(President)

Dr J Low

Ms M Halstead

30^th May 2007.