England and Wales Care Standards Tribunal

Christian KAHL
 

-v-
GSCC [2007] 880.SW
-Before-
Mr Simon Oliver (Nominated Chairman) Ms Janice Funnell Ms Caroline Joffe
Application for a review of the Decision
1. In this matter we have been asked by Mr. Kahl to review the decision we made on 10^th July 2007 in respect of his appeal against the refusal of the GSCC to register him as a social worker. We had a paper hearing on 22^nd June 2007 where we considered the file of papers and information produced by the GSCC solicitors.

2. Mr. Kahl's application for a review is dated 23^rd July 2007 and sets out 8 reasons why he says that our decision is wrong. An application for a review is made under Regulation 25 of the Protection of Children and Vulnerable Adults and Care Standards Tribunal Regulations 2002. There are three grounds for applying for a review: wrongly made decision as the result of an error by the Tribunal; failure of a party to attend a hearing and obvious error in the decision. Although it is not expressly stated, we assume that Mr. Kahl relies upon the 'obvious error' ground.

3. In Mr. Kahl's first ground (as elsewhere in his review request) he asks us to contact an organisation to obtain information. We cannot do that. Our task is to consider the evidence placed before us as part of the appeal. We are not an investigative body and cannot seek information for ourselves. If Mr. Kahl believes that there is information available which has not yet been seen that supports his case his course of action is to bring it to the attention of the GSCC and ask them to reconsider their decision.

4. In his first ground, Mr. Kahl says that the Tribunal relied on the statement that there was no 'reference to social work methods, theory, reflective practice, professional values and so on.' That is correct. It was the view of the assessor from the International Recognition Service. Whether or not the courses identified by Mr Kahl in his application for a review satisfy the requirements of 'social work methods, theory, reflective practice and professional values' is not for us to determine. We have expert evidence from the IRS but we have no contrary expert evidence. As before, if Mr. Kahl believes that the courses he has identified in Paragraph 1 of the application for a review give him professional values he should submit this evidence to the GSCC and ask them to reconsider. However, we have to say that the point made by the assessor is that Mr. Kahl did not have any experience of professional social work practice. We cannot see that this deficit will be rectified by courses studied and 'social work practice' means working as a social worker, not studying theory in lectures.

5. The second point made by Mr. Kahl is that the assessor was wrong to conclude that he held a qualification in education and not social work. Mr Kahl asserts that the qualification "Magister der Erziehungswissenschaft" and "Socialpadagoge" are the same title in Germany. He contends that every university in Germany decides for itself which title of degree they grant to students and that Jena University has given the title 'Magister', thereby qualifying him to practice as a social worker in Germany. This point was made by Mr. Kahl in his e-mail to the GSCC on 14^th September 2006 and was considered by the IRS assessor.

6. We are also aware that it is not the view of the Secretariat of the German Culture Ministry that the two degrees are the same. The Ministry official could not find a specialisation in social work or social pedagogics and concluded that Mr. Kahl had studied (general) education as his main subject. On the evidence we received for the hearing we do not accept that the two titles are the same in Germany as the evidence we have is to the contrary and given the views of the German Culture Ministry and the IRS assessor, we do not accept or agree that Mr. Kahl is entitled to work in the field of social work in Germany. If the German ministry does not believe that Mr Kahl is directly qualified as a social worker, how can we say that he is?

7. As to point 3, again we rely on the evidence provided to the IRS assessor by the German Culture Ministry. If Mr. Kahl is sure that he is right about this, he needs to take up that point with the Secretariat of the Culture Ministry. In point 4 Mr Kahl states that all Ministries are located in Berlin and we should check whether Mr. Olemann from Bonn is authorised to give the statement he did to the IRS assessor on 21^st July 2006. This is the first time that it has been suggested that this person might not be qualified to comment upon the matter. We cannot investigate that matter. It is something for Mr. Kahl to do directly with the Culture Ministry and, once again, take up the matter with the GSCC if he is right in his assertion.

8. In point 5, Mr. Kahl states that he has corresponded with the German Ministry of Education in Berlin. He provides us with a copy of two e-mails to make his point. Both are in German and neither member of the panel has sufficiently good German to understand exactly what is being said in them. Mr. Kahl suggests that all states and cities in Germany are authorised to decide and specify the requirements of social worker under the authority of the German Ministry of Education. If this is correct, it needs to be addressed to Mr. Olemann at the Ministry of Culture. However, we would be surprised if there was not a national standard qualification for a social worker in Germany, the same way as there is in the United Kingdom. Whilst it is accepted that in the UK we have different education systems and policies, the qualifications and requirements to become a social worker in each country are set by the GSCC for each country and are identical in each so that there can be transfer of people between jurisdictions.

9. Whilst East and West Germany might have had different systems before 1989, we anticipate that post reunification there would be one system with one set of standards and requirements. Once again, if there is evidence that Mr. Kahl is correct, this is a matter for the GSCC and Mr. Kahl should ask them to reconsider in light of the fresh evidence.

10. In point 6 Mr. Kahl states that we inappropriately referred to the example from the University of Tuebingen in paragraph 28 of our decision. We do not agree. This was referred to by Mr Olemann in the e-mail to the IRS assessor in relation to another applicant for registration by the GSCC. The point made is that the female applicant studied Social Pedagogics as a major subject and was thereby entitled to pursue the regulated professional activity of a social worker in Germany. The reference to the other applicant is to underline the fact that Mr. Kahl's degree does not qualify him as a social worker in Germany, whatever he says, whereas there are degrees (of which his is not one) that do. Mr. Kahl has not proven to anyone's satisfaction that what he says is correct: namely that his degree entitles him to be a social worker. All the evidence we have seen and read is to the contrary.

11. Mr. Kahl's 7^th point is that what we set out in Paragraph 16 of the decision is irrelevant. This refers to the assessor's statement that she referred to a background report on Germany which stated that on completion of a social work/care qualification an applicant had to complete a state exam in order to obtain a licence. Mr. Kahl states that his degree means that he is an entitled social worker in Germany and does not need to take any extra social work state exams because the university examinations are the state examinations. Our conclusion was based on the information we had read. This point is really the same as ones made earlier: that Mr Kahl's degree qualifies him to be a social worker in Germany. All we can do is reiterate the point that the evidence from the Culture Ministry and the IRS assessor is to the contrary. Mr. Kahl needs to persuade the German Ministry that his degree is what he says it is. We are only able to rely on objective expert evidence and that is that Mr. Kahl's degree does not qualify him to be a social worker.

12. Mr. Kahl's 8^th and last point is that we refer to the need for 130 days work experience in the social work field but that does not apply in Germany, it being the degree that entitles Mr. Kahl to be a social worker. Whilst that might be correct, we have no evidence to support the contention. Further, the point being made by Mr Kahl fails to take into account section 64(1)(b) of the Care Standards Act 2000 which permits the GSCC to impose a training requirement even if the professional qualification has been obtained. It is open to the GSCC, therefore, as it did, to recommend that Mr Kahl undergo professional social work training in the UK to satisfy the requirements of registration. In other words, what ever the qualification process in Germany, the GSCC can still impose additional requirements before agreeing to registration

13. In the circumstances, having considered all the points mentioned by Mr. Kahl, we have come to the conclusion that his application for a review has no prospect of success and so we dismiss it unanimously.

    Accordingly, our unanimous decision on the APPLICATION FOR A REVIEW is that the APPLICATION is DISMISSED

    Mr. Simon Oliver (Nominated Chairman)

    Ms Janice Funnell

    Ms Caroline Joffe

    Date: 29^th August 2007