England and Wales Care Standards Tribunal

Madzi v General Social Care Council [2007] EWCST 995(SW) (11 December 2007)

Gloria Madzi

Appellant

v The General Social Care Council [2007] 995.SW

Respondent

Before: Mr Stewart Hunter (Nominated Chairman) Mrs Lydia Gladwin Ms Margaret Williams Sitting at the Care Standards Tribunal, Pocock Street, London On 30^th October 2007
DECISION

Representation

At the hearing Ms Madzi represented herself and Mr Grant, a solicitor with Bevan Brittan LLP solicitors, represented the Respondent.

Appeal

1. This is an appeal by Ms Gloria Madzi under Section 68 (1) of the Care Standards Act 2000 ("the Act"), against the decision of the Respondent made on the 22^nd January 2007, to refuse to register the Appellant as a social worker on the register maintained for this purpose, pursuant to Section 56 (1) of the Act.
2. Section 58 (1) provides that the General Social Care Council ("GSCC") must be satisfied that an applicant for registration as a social worker is of good character and is physically and mentally fit to perform relevant work. This was not an issue in this case. However, Section 58 does allow the GSCC to specify conditions that an applicant must meet for registration, which are set out in Section 58 (2) and (3).

Section 58 (2) (ii) requires an applicant to satisfy the requirements of Section 64 of the Act, which is the section that deals with qualifications gained by an applicant outside England. In this case the GSCC formed the view that the appellant did not comply with Section 64 (1) (b). That section 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, else where 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."

3. Section 57 (1) of the Act provides that an application for registration must be made to the GSCC in accordance with the relevant rules, those rules being the GSCC (Registration) Rules 2005 ("The Rules"). Rule 4 deals with applications for registration and sets out the information that an applicant is required to provide.

Where an applicant has obtained their qualifications and training abroad they are asked by the GSCC to complete a form giving general information about themselves, ("Part 1"), they are also asked to provide information about their qualifications, education and experience ("Part 2").

4. The standard which 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 qualification, the Diploma in Social Work ("DipSW"). This is the qualification held by most social workers, although students in social work in the United Kingdom now follow a 3 year BA (Hons) degree course in Social Work. The six competencies of the Diploma in Social Work were Communicate and Engage, Promote and Enable, Access and Plan, Intervene and Provide Services, Work in Organisations and Develop Professional Confidence. In addition to the knowledge requirements each student was required to undertake 130 days of assessed social work practice, overseen and reported on by a study supervisor in the field against the core qualification requirements.
5. In assessing whether an applicant has undergone training in social work elsewhere than in England which is equivalent to the requirement of the DipSW, the GSCC relies upon its International Recognition Service ("IRS").
6. The onus is on the Appellant to demonstrate that she is a person who meets the requirements of Section 58 of the Act.

Facts

7. The Appellant submitted an application to the GSCC for registration as a social worker dated the 12^th January 2006.
8. Amongst the qualifications obtained by the Appellant was a Bachelor of Education in Population in Family Law Education, Second Class Honours degree from the University of Cape Coast in Ghana. The degree was awarded in July 2001 following a 3 year course beginning in October 1998. As well as producing her degree certificate the Appellant also submitted a transcript of her academic record, showing the subjects studied in each of the three years of the course. They included in year one Philosophy and Objectives of Education, the Teacher as a Professional and Individual, Family, Community and Society. In the second year the course included, Family and Socialisation, Curriculum Studies of Population and Family Life and as well as On- Campus Teaching Practice. In her third year the Appellant covered such subjects as Adolescent Reproductive Health, Personal and Family Financing and Issue in Population Education.
9. Whilst studying for her degree the Appellant participated in a number of placements, details of which were set out in her application form. These included a placement with the Community Water and Sanitation project between June 1999 and October 1999 as part of the Community Health and Hygiene Education team and a teaching placement at the Ghana National College where the Appellant stated that she had taught Social Studies and Life Skills between January 2000 and March 2000. Also with the Needy Foundation between 1^st December 2000 and 28^th February 2001 where her duties were said to have included interviewing, assessments of clients and their needs, risk assessments, education on rights and options, appropriate referrals and follow ups. The Appellant submitted with her application form a letter from the Needy Foundation dated 20^th December 2005. The letter included the following statement: -

"Mrs Madzi was part of a placement team responsible for shelter and crisis centre. Her duties were to make assessment and place clients appropriately and provide counselling to all service users amongst other duties. Although she was a student learner, she had proved to be very efficient and able to work with little supervision. She diligently followed the organisations policy and guidelines and demonstrated a high level of good practice."

10. After completing her degree the Appellant indicated that she was employed between October 2001 and September 2003 with Ghana Breweries Limited (a subsidiary of Heineken International) as a special assistant to the companies' medical advisor and co-ordinator where she had dealt with HIV/Aids and other reproductive health issues. The Appellant produced a letter from Ghana Breweries Limited dated 11^th January 2006 from Dr Richard Amanor Orko an occupational health advisor who confirmed that he had worked with Ms Madzi for about 2 years from October 2001 to September 2003, he included the following comments: -

"She worked with me at Ghana Breweries, subsidiary of Heineken International as my special assistant co-ordinating our Workplace HIV/Aids programme and other Reproductive Health Issues. She provided counselling at both employee and family levels, and person-centred support services to all employees. This role she competently played to the admiration of all."

11. In her application form the Appellant stated that she was a member of a regulatory body outside the UK namely the Ghana Association of Social Workers.
12. The Appellant came to the UK in 2003 and between October 2003 and March 2004 worked as a carer at Fairfield Manor care home for the elderly. The Appellant indicated that in this employment she had provided day to day hygiene care and followed daily living outline in accordance with each clients care plan. She had encouraged and assisted residents to participate in leisure activities, ensuring that their social and emotional needs were met.

In June 2004 she had worked with an organisation called High Quality Lifestyles Limited working with young people with learning disabilities as a key support worker, the Appellant remains in that employment. A letter was produced from the manager, Mr Steve Wood who commented that: -

"She has been a key worker for some of the service users in the time that she has worked at Ebbsfleet and has always advocated for them when the need has arisen speaking on their behalf and acting in their best interests."

Also since June 2004 the Appellant has been a volunteer with Home- Start Thanet and a letter was provided from their executive manager, Ms Sharon Tate. In the letter Sharon Tate wrote: -

"I have known Gloria for approximately 20 months; she jointed Home- Start as a volunteer and started a Course of Preparation with us. This course, although basic, covers subjects such as Listening Skills, Values and Attitudes, Confidentiality, Child Protection Awareness and obviously explains fully what their role would be in working with families."

Later in the letter Ms Tate stated: _

"Unfortunately due to her work and study commitments she has been unable, due to her limited time, to work directly with a family, however, she was able on occasions to offer the Young Parents Organiser some support at the group."

13. Between September 2004 and December 2005 the Appellant studied and obtained an MA in International Social Work with Community Development Studies from the University of East London. The information regarding the course supplied by the Appellant, indicated that the programme aimed to enable students to –

Enhance their understanding of global influences on social economic and welfare developments and appreciate the place of Europe in a wider frame.

Increase their knowledge of comparative and cross national welfare issues, a particular reference to community development and migration and European social policy and practice;

Develop skills in comparative analysis and research as relevant to the field of work of the social professions and engage in analysis of roles of social professionals and their place in promoting social change and individual and community empowerment at a local and global level.

Engage in intercultural learning in ways which promote developments in professional knowledge and practice across national and international levels.

14. In the Personal Statement part of her application form the Appellant set out how she believed that her qualifications, training and experience enabled her to meet each of the six competencies of the DipSW.
15. The GSCC asked its International Recognition Service ("IRS") to assess the Appellant's qualifications and provide a recommendation on the equivalence of her training to the DipSW. The report of the assessor, Ms Gill Bradbury was contained in a report from her dated 19^th June 2006. Ms Bradbury commented that the Appellant's Bachelor of Education course was essentially an education and not a social work course, although there was some overlap of module materiel such as "Individual Growth and Development", "Communicative Skills", "Family and Socialisation" and "Principals of Guidance and Counselling." There was no consideration of social work theory and methods or working within the framework of the law and no input relating to values.

Ms Bradbury then went on to consider the three placements undertaken by the Appellant during her course, noting there was no detail about the length of the placements.

As far as the Appellant's MA in International Social Work and Community Development was concerned, Ms Bradbury stated that the admission requirement for the course was "a professional social work qualification or nationally accepted equivalent." Also the course information had stated that it was a qualification for people seeking employment in international welfare and major non-governmental organisations in social work and community development.

The Appellant's post degree work was also considered, in particular her work for Ghana Breweries and her work in the UK. In relation to the Appellant's Personal Statement, Ms Bradbury commented that this showed that the Appellant had "appropriate social work values."

Ms Bradbury concluded as follows: -

"Whilst the applicant has evidence of her academic ability I believe there are gaps in both her experience and knowledge. Her qualification is essentially an education qualification and her MA, which assumes a basic social work qualification, focuses on very specific areas which are addressed in depth. The applicant has been engaged in work activity, some of which has involved social work tasks but in Ghana these formed only a part of her responsibilities and her work in England I judge not to be of sufficient complexity to equate to the DipSW qualified practice."

Ms Bradbury then went on to recommend that the Appellant had not immediately demonstrated an equivalency with the DipSW and that she should complete a 50 day placement in a mainstream social work setting and complete modules of learning on social work theory and methods in order to increase the range of her social work skills. Additionally, she should complete a module on English Law as it applies to the social work.

16. On the 13^th October 2006 the GSCC wrote to the Appellant sending her a copy of Ms Bradbury's report, indicating that the GSCC was considering refusing the Appellant's application for inclusion on the Social Care Register. The letter gave the appellant the opportunity to provide further evidence of her competency in social work in addition to what had already been supplied. The Appellant sent a detailed response on the 12^th December 2006 in which she commenting that her degree in Ghana was a combined degree and equipped participants to practice in multi-disciplines. The Appellant also gave more details of the length of her placements and the work that she had carried out whilst on those placements.
17. The Appellant was critical of the type of communications that the GSCC had had with the Ghana Association of Social Workers. The GSCC had sent an e-mail to the association seeking more information about social work training in Ghana. The response was that Ghana did not have a regulatory body for social work apart from the Ghana Association of Social Workers. Although the law empowered the association to establish a disciplinary body and rules and standards of social work practice, in practice the association's power to regulate the practice of the profession and other related issues were said to be virtually non existent.

As far as social work training in Ghana was concerned it was pointed out that the School of Social Work in Accra and the University of Ghana, Legon offered professional training for social workers.

The Appellant is a full member of the Ghana Association of Social Workers, full membership being open to "social workers who had completed an accredited course of study in social work leading to at least a Diploma in Social Work or equivalent." Further clarification was provided in a letter from the National President of the Association to the GSCC in which it was stated: -

"Our information shows that Bachelor Degree in Population and Family Life is a social work programme run by University of Cape Coast, Ghana. The programme has 2 options; students either graduate as Bachelor of Arts (BA) or Bachelor of Education (B.ED) in Population and Family life. The difference is that students who complete the Bachelor of Education in Population and Family life have to read additional courses and merit the title (B.ED Honours). This means that anyone who graduates in Bachelor of Education in Population and Family Life has enhanced his qualification from Bachelor of Arts in Population and Family Life.

Mrs Madzi holds a Bachelor of Education in Population and Family Life. Our assessment of her transcript clearly reveals that a substantial number of the courses she pursued under that programme are Social Work orientated. It was on this basis that Ms Madzi's application for full membership of the Association was granted."

18. On receipt of the additional information provided by the Appellant the matter was re-referred by the GSCC to the IRS for a further assessment, on this occasion the assessment was carried out by Ms Dianah Pritchett-Farrell, her report being dated 8^th September 2006. Ms Pritchett-Farrell again looked at the Appellant's qualifications, placements and work experience as well as her Personal Statement. In relation to the Bachelor of Education in Population and Family Life degree Ms Pritchett-Farrell concluded that: -

"Given the educational nature of the qualification gained and the nature of the placements completed, this qualification does not meet the requirements of the DipSW, there is insufficient underpinning social work theory and methods informing practice."

The Appellant's Masters in International Social Work and Community Development was described as being limited to very specific fields of interest. Finally having considered all of the available information, together with the Appellant's Personal Statement Ms Pritchett-Farrell concluded that there were clear gaps in both the Appellant's social work experience and social work knowledge, although the Appellant's Personal Statement had demonstrated an insight into social work values.

Ms Pritchett-Farrell concluded by stating: -

"Given the educational nature of the qualification gained in Ghana, as well as the MA from UEL being not accredited by the GSCC, the applicant has not immediately demonstrated that they had met the requirements of the DipSW and additional training of 80 days practice learning in a statutory social work setting is recommended. This should address social work theory and methods, social policy and legislation, analytical and critical reflection skills."

19. On the 22^nd January 2007 the GSCC wrote to the Appellant with a copy of a final report from the manager of the IRS, Ms Diane Smith. The letter indicated that having considered all of the information supplied the GSCC had reached its final decision which was to confirm that the Appellant's application for registration had been refused. The recommendation from Ms Smith being that the Appellant had not met the requirements of the Diploma in Social Work because there was a mismatch between the Appellant's professional activities and that of the DipSW. The Appellant had not undertaken social work training in Ghana. If the Appellant wished to qualify as a social worker in the UK that would be possible if she were to successfully complete social work training in the UK.
20. In her appeal to the Tribunal the Appellant indicated that she had been initially asked by the GSCC to obtain more information from the University of Cape Coast and whilst waiting for this information the GSCC had made its decision. Further information was eventually obtained from the University of Cape Coast. The University Registrar writing to the GSCC on the 6^th December 2006, the letter containing the following comment: -

"We wish to explain that the degree programme she followed had theory and practical components which will enable her to fit into any job placement outside her teaching profession."

Enclosed with the letter was a Programme Structure, together with a description of the various courses making up that programme.

21. In response to this appeal the Respondent set out a history of the Appellant's application and the way in which it had been processed, stating at paragraph 14 as follows: -

"Whilst it was noted that the Appellant was a member of a Ghana Association of Social Workers, had undertaken an academic course in social work in the UK and had worked in social care, that could not make up for the fact that she had not trained in social work in Ghana. It was therefore a mismatch between the Applicant's training and experience and that of a Diploma in Social Work. To qualify as a social worker it would be necessary to complete qualifying social work training in the UK. The decision of the GSCC was therefore to refuse the application for registration on the above grounds."

22. The Appellant did not submit a written witness statement, but she did give oral evidence to the Tribunal. The Appellant said that the University of Cape Coast was not a teacher training college, the programme that she had studied was relatively new and that part of the reason she had taken a course involving some education was to please her parents who were both teachers. The students taking the course had two options they could either do a Bachelor of Education in Population and Family Life or do a Bachelor of Arts Degree in Family Life and the Appellant had chosen the former which came under the Faculty of Social Services and the Faculty of Education. The Appellant then described in detail the contents of a number of courses she had studied as part of her degree.

The Appellant said that she had undertaken a number of placements whilst at university, including with the Ghana National College, which had been a teacher placement, where the Appellant had carried out such tasks as planning lessons. She had also had a placement with the Community Water and Sanitation agency where she had been involved in looking at social structures and breaking down barriers between men and women and their respective roles, there had been no external assessment of her work on this placement. Finally she had been in a shelter and crisis centre placement with the Needy Foundation where she had worked as part of a team carrying out assessments and counselling of people who had been a victim of various forms of abuse. The Appellant's work on this placement has been assessed.

The placements had all been found by the Appellant and then approved by the university.

The Appellant said it was necessary to understand that the concept of social work differed from country to country. The course that she had taken at The University of Cape Coast equipped her to practice as a social worker or as a teacher in a classroom. The qualification that she had obtained had been accepted by the Ghana Association of Social Workers.

23. After leaving university the Appellant told the Tribunal that she had worked for Ghana Breweries Limited where she was the only employed social worker, she had worked with the medical advisor dealing with health issues including HIV and Aids; she had been called upon to provide counselling as well as providing education for those with whom she was working.
24. The Appellant then went on to describe the work that she had been engaged in since arriving in England, including working as a residential social worker and as a key worker for young people. In the latter category she was monitored on a day to day basis and gave a monthly report.
25. The Appellant provided further information about the MA that she had obtained in International Social Work and Community Development. She explained that she had taken three modules social welfare, policy and mental health. She had not considered at the outset whether or not the course was one recognised by the GSCC.
26. The Appellant said that she had done her best to provide the information required in support of her application to register and the fact that she was a member of the Ghana Association of Social Work was testament to her social work qualification and training.
27. The GSCC had been supplied with a letter from the Needy Foundation dated the 12^th January 2007 confirming the Appellant's placement with them for a total of 61 days. The letter confirmed that she had been part of a placement team responsible for shelter and crisis centre. Her duties had involved assessing clients, working with other agencies to put in place appropriate care packages and direct placements for social users. She had also provided counselling to all service users amongst other duties. The author of the letter Perpetual Awude stated: -

"I supervised Gloria and signed off her work. Based on her work I can confirm that she was a well motivated confidant learner. She got on well with all the staff and clients at the centre. I have no doubt that she can work effectively anywhere including the UK."

A letter was also provided to the GSCC from Mr Richard Akumbas a former project development officer with the Community Water and Sanitation project. He confirmed that the Appellant was with the project between June 1999 and October 1999. Further that as part of the Community Health and Hygiene Education team the Appellant was "responsible for programmes centred on empowerment, advocacy, health education, water and sanitation mainly for women and the girl child." He also explained that although the project was mainly based on water and sanitation there had been a recommendation that a social worker should be part of the team to deal with the social and welfare issues and that's where "Gloria's work became very essential".

Mr Akumbas said that he had not supervised Gloria directly but he was aware that she had been supervised and assessed by the head of the project in the district the late Mr Alfred Ampofo-Addo.

28. The Tribunal also heard evidence from Ms Catherine Clarke an Education Standards and Information Manager with the GSCC who had also signed a witness statement dated 20^th August 2007. In terms of the International Recognition Service, Ms Clarke stated that she acted as a resource to that team providing social work education expertise in an advisory capacity and giving guidance on complex equivalency assessments, together with recommendations for additional training. The IRS manager made recommendations, but was not a qualified social worker.

In this case IRS had concluded that the Bachelor of Education (Honours) in Population and Family Life obtained by the Appellant was outside the field of social work and would not prepare the Appellant to undertake work as a qualified social worker in the UK. The IRS had also considered the Appellant's MA qualification but considered that the course, whilst of academic merit and relevance to academic study and international social work was not approved by the GSCC for preparing students to undertake the professional role of social worker in the UK.

Ms Clarke stated that she had concurred with the conclusion not to register the Appellant on the basis that the qualification held was not in the profession of social work. In agreeing with the recommendation, Ms Clarke had taken into consideration the fact that two independent assessors had concluded that whilst the Bachelor of Education course was not a social work qualification, there had been some overlap between the two qualifications held by the Appellant and that this warranted a recommendation of additional training. However, Ms Clarke had formed a view that the recommendation of 50 or 80 days with supplementary taught input, was not within the range of recommendations that could be made, given that neither qualification held by the Appellant was in the profession of social work nor had been assessed against a social work knowledge, theoretical, practice or value base as part of a process of qualifying to undertake the profession of social work, training in social work. The refusal of registration with a facility of addition training was relevant only where the qualification was held in social work.

Ms Clarke had also taken into consideration the fact that the Appellant held full membership of the Ghana Association of Social Workers and that the GSCC had been informed by the Association that full membership was only open to social workers who had completed an accredited course of studying social work leading to at least a Diploma in Social Work or equivalent. However, the Association was not a regulatory or accredited body for social work education. Ms Clarke was in agreement with the IRS manager's summary assessment that the Appellant's membership of the Ghana Association of Social Workers did not in this particular instance change the nature of the qualifications held by the Appellant.

29. Ms Clarke also made reference to the nature of the Appellant's placements which she had undertaken as part of her degree course. Mr Grant on behalf of the GSCC conceded that the evidence provided by the Appellant did indicate that she had done at least 130 days in total on the placements. However, Ms Clarke stated that whilst the number of days was a factor, as was the content of the practice, a key determiner for the purposes of GSCC registration was whether the practice learning was assessed against social work knowledge, theory and values as part of qualifying training to undertake the role of a social worker. Although the placements undertaken by the Appellant did in some part have a bearing on social welfare they had not been assessed as part of qualifying or approved training in social work.

Tribunals conclusions

30. The Appellant obtained a B.Ed in Population and Family Life from the University of Cape Coast following a 3 year course. The GSCC through its IRS service raised a number of issues relating to this qualification. The principle concern expressed was that the course was more education then social work based. The evidence from the Ghana Association of Social Workers indicated that in relation to specific social work training in Ghana this was offered principally by the School of Social Work in Accra and the University of Ghana in Legon

The qualification obtained by the Appellant was considered by two IRS assessors, the first expressing the view that although there was some overlap between education and social work in such areas as "Individual Growth and Development", "Communicative Skills", "Principles of Guidance and Counselling" nevertheless it was predominantly an education course, with no consideration of social work theory and methods of working within the framework of the law and no input relating to values. The second assessor also decided that it was a course of an educational nature.

The Appellant in her evidence maintained that the course did cover the core competencies of the Diploma in Social Work and set out in her Personal Statement how she met the competencies. However, having looked at the information from the University of Cape Coast, in particular the programme structure and the various courses studied, we concur with the IRS assessors that whilst there was some overlap of social work the course was predominantly to do with education and was not taught in a social work context.

The other issue in relation to the course was the placements undertaken by the Appellant there were three in total, one was with the Ghana National College which the Appellant accepted in her evidence was a teaching placement, there was also one with the Community Water and Sanitation agency in respect of which the Appellant confirmed that there had been no assessment by an external assessor although information had been submitted direct to the university. The third placement was with the Needy Foundation where the Appellant was working a placement team supporting young people who had suffered abuse. Although the GSCC accepted that the total length of the placements was in excess of the length that would have been required under the Diploma of Social Work they were concerned about the context in which the placement work had been carried out. Whilst there were elements of social care in the appellants placement with both the Community Water and Sanitation project and the Needy Foundation there appears to have been little direct supervision of the Appellant on the placement nor was the placement conducted in a social work context.

The appellant also relied on the fact that she is a member of the Ghana Association of Social Workers and the evidence from that body that membership was open to her because she had a degree which was substantially social work orientated. Whilst we clearly take into account the comments from the Association we also note that they are not and indeed there is not a regulatory body for social workers in Ghana.

31. After completing her degree the Appellant obtained employment with Ghana Breweries carrying out a range of social work tasks with staff and their families much of the work being focused on HIV/Aids.

The Appellant then came to the UK where she worked as a residential social worker for 5 months with the elderly and subsequently worked for over 2 years as a key worker for adults with learning disabilities.

The Appellant's work contains an element of social care, however it is not focused or supervised in the same way that a social work placement undertaken as part of the Diploma in Social Work would have been. Although there may have been an element of supervision in all of the work undertaken by the Appellant it is the fact that it is not in the context of assessed social work practice that is important and therefore cannot in our view fill the gaps which we have identified in the Appellant's degree.

32. The Appellant has also obtained an MA in International Social Work and Community Development from the University of East London. Whilst this covered important topics and will have no doubt added to the Appellant's knowledge and expertise, again it is not taught in the context of social work practice, but rather more from an academic study perspective. The details supplied about the course indicate that it does not include any element of assessed social work or in any way seeks to prepare students to undertake the role of a social worker and the wide range of duties that social workers are prepared to cover. Therefore again we do not consider that it makes up for the short fall in the Appellant's earlier studies, particularly given the lack of assessed practice that we have identified.

We do take into account the admission criteria set by the University of East London for students wishing to take the MA, however it seems probable that previous qualifications are used to determine whether a candidate has the necessary academic grounding and skills to complete an MA course, rather than necessarily considering whether it is equivalent to a Diploma in Social Work.

33. In conclusion we find on a balance of probabilities that whilst the Appellant's MA and degree covered various social care issues it was predominantly an education based degree and not one aimed primarily at training social workers. This is partly evidence by the course content, but also by the nature of the placements that the appellant undertook, one of which was in teaching. The placements did not take place in the context of an assessed social work practice. Neither the work that the Appellant has done since, both in Ghana and in this country nor her MA are in our view able to fill that shortfall. It is for these reasons we find the Appellant's qualification and experience do not meet the requirements for registration as a social worker.
34. However the Appellant has in her studies covered some aspects of social work and has considerable experience in her employment of social care situations. The two IRS assessors who looked at the Appellant's background in detail, whilst both concluding that the Appellant had not demonstrated equivalency with the DipSW, did express the view that if she completed a number of days placement in a mainstream social work setting, as well as completed various designated modules then she would in effect be eligible for registration. Ms Clarke gave evidence that the assessors made recommendations for consideration by IRS managers and it was still the view of the IRS that the Appellant should complete a full social work course. Whilst it is not for the Tribunal to instruct the GSCC as to the circumstances in which the Appellant might gain registration in the future, we would urge the GSCC to look again at what the Appellant needs to do to put herself in a position where she could successfully re-apply for registration. We are of the view that an applicant of high calibre and commitment, as undoubtedly exists in this case, who has a great deal to offer to social work, should be assisted in being able to enter the social work profession.

Accordingly our unanimous decision is confirm the GSCC's decision and dismiss the appeal.

Order

The appeal is dismissed.

Mr Stewart Hunter (Nominated Chairman)

Mrs Lydia Gladwin

Ms Margaret Williams

Date: 11 December 2007