IN THE FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL (HEALTH, EDUCATION AND SOCIAL CARE)
GERARD PAUL LAWRENCE
-v-
THE GENERAL SOCIAL CARE COUNCIL
-Before-
MR IAN ROBERTSON
(Nominated Tribunal Judge)
MR JEFF COHEN
(Specialist Member)
DR KEITH WHITE
(Specialist Member)
Decision
Heard on 17 September 2010
At Nottingham Crown Court
Representation
The Appellant in person
Ms Felix (counsel) for the Respondent
THE APPEAL
BACKGROUND
THE LAW
(c) It has received satisfactory evidence that an Applicant has completed the post registration training and learning requirements set out in Schedule 3.
7. Schedule
3 to the Rules provides as follows:
(I)
Every social worker registered with the Council shall, within the period of registration,
complete either 90 hours or 15 days of study, training, courses, seminars,
reading, teaching or other activities which could reasonably be expected to
advance the social worker’s professional development or contribute
to the development of the profession as a whole.
(2) Every social worker registered with the Council shall keep a
record of post registration training and learning undertaken.
(3) Failure to meet the foregoing post registration training and
learning requirements may be considered misconduct by the
Council.
8. The GSCC provides Advice and Guidance on PRTL in a booklet entitled “Post Registration Training and Learning (PRTL) requirements for registered social workers – Advice and Guidance on good practice. This is a 27 page booklet which is clearly written and if we may say, a model of clarity and helpfulness.
9. The guidance makes clear that the 90 hours PTRL can be demonstrated through a variety of means from formal training courses to informal self education through reading and private research. What is clear is that the records submitted have to illustrate the nature and purpose of the training the time involved, and the benefit gained. The Guidance makes clear that certain team meetings and supervision will count towards meeting the training requirements. Such meetings have to be identified specifically and the teaching goal achieved demonstrated.
THE APPLICATION
10. We heard submissions from Ms Felix for the GSCC who spoke to the carefully formulated and helpful written response provided by the GSCC. We then heard at length from Mr Lawrence. He told us that training courses were few and far between and a scarce resource. He had applied for some but had been overlooked in favour of others in his team. He felt from discussion with colleagues that it was sufficient to show supervision and Team meetings had helped him meet the requirements. It was clear during the course of his submissions that undoubtedly some Team meetings had done this particularly given their multi disciplinary character, but he had not identified such meetings nor elaborated upon the training gains. We explored with him the other opportunities to demonstrate PTRL through reading self learning and so forth but it appeared that he was not again able to be specific about this. We were left with the picture of a dedicated a social worker who had become overwhelmed by many issues in his professional and personal life and to whom the process of renewal had become a personal nightmare. We felt very sorry for the position he found himself in and were left with the picture of a man who would be a useful member of the profession if provided with help and guidance which appeared to have deserted him at his time of need.
11. Nonetheless the requirements of Rule 7(1)(c ) are mandatory. They are there for good purpose. The public must have faith that those persons using the title of social work are properly qualified for their roles. That qualification includes a proper requirement that they stay up to date with practice including legislative and regulatory changes. In Mr Lawrence’s field over the years in question these were particularly significant. Mr Lawrence failed to demonstrate or evidence the necessary level of PRTL and accordingly his appeal must fail.
12. We are very conscious however that our decision is not based upon any issue of conduct or fitness. It is in essence a technical issue. It should be noted that there are no pre-conditions with regard to PTRL at the point of registration and so Mr Lawrence’s failure to satisfy these conditions at the renewal of registration would not be a bar to him making a new application. We therefore see no block to Mr Lawrence applying afresh to be registered. We have no doubt that the GSCC will take steps to ensure that Mr Lawrence fully understands the need to keep PRTL to the forefront of his mind when considering his application and it is of course a matter for them to decide upon the application.
APPEAL DISMISSED
Judge Ian Robertson
24 September 2010