First-tier Tribunal (Health Education and Social Care Chamber)

 

 

 

CASE NUMBER [2010] 1854.SW

BEFORE the Health, Education and Social Care Chamber of the First Tier Tribunal

 

BETWEEN

SALLY WEST

Appellant

-and-

 

GENERAL SOCIAL CARE COUNCIL

Respondent

 

-Before-

 

Mrs. Carolyn Singleton

(Tribunal Judge)

Mrs. Carol Caporn

Mrs Claire Trencher

 

Heard at Cambridge County Court on 7^th March 2011

 

The Appeal

 

1. Mrs. West appeals against the decision of the General Social Care Council (“the Council”) dated 6/09/2010 refusing her application for registration as a social worker.

 

Representation

 

2. The Appellant appeared in person. The Respondent was represented by Mr. Steel, solicitor.

 

Burden of Proof

 

3. The burden of proof lies with the Appellant.

 

Facts of the Case

 

4. The facts of the case are not disputed.

 

5. The Appellant is an Australian national. She has been resident in the UK since January 2010. She has been employed in the social welfare sector in Australia for approximately 15 years. She has lived in the UK before and worked here as a social worker without being registered during her period of residence here from September 2004 to June 2006. She holds a Bachelor of Social Science (Psychology) Degree and an Associate Diploma in Social Welfare. Social work in Australia is not a regulated profession. It is up to the employer to decide whether or not the individual is suitable to carry out the job.

 

6. In July 2010 the Appellant submitted an application for registration as a social worker to the Council which has a duty to maintain a register of social workers established under S. 56(1) of the Care Standards Act (“the Act”).

7. On 6^th September 2010, the Appellant’s application was refused.

 

The Law

 

8. Under S. 54(2) of the Act the Council has a duty to promote high standards of conduct and practice amongst social workers and high standards in their training in England.

 

9. S.57(1) of the Act provides that an application for registration must be made in accordance with the rules made by the Council

 

10. S. 58(1) of the Act provides that if the Council is satisfied that an applicant for registration is of good character, physically and mentally fit to perform relevant work (social work) and complies with specified conditions, it must grant the application for registration. If it is not so satisfied it must refuse it.

 

11. The conditions specified in S.58(2) are that for registration as a social worker, the applicant must have completed a course approved by the Council under S.63 of the Act for persons wishing to become social workers, satisfy the requirements of s.64 which deals with qualifications gained outside the Council’s area or satisfy any requirements as to training which the Council may by rules impose in relation to social workers.

 

12. S.63 of the Act states that it is for the Council, in accordance with rules made by it, to approve courses in relevant social work for persons who are or wish to become social workers.

 

13. S. 64 of the Act deals with qualifications obtained outside the Council’s area. Subsection(1) states:

An applicant for registration in the principal part of 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.

 

Evidence for the Respondent

 

14. Evidence was heard from Sue Pinkham. Her witness statement is at page 143 of the bundle. She is the Business Manager - International Qualifications for the Council and part of her role is responsibility for the assessment and registration process for social workers qualifying outside the UK. She drafted the final assessment report on the Appellant’s application for registration dated 6/09/10 which appears at page 35 of the documents.

 

15. She gave evidence that in preparation for the change in the UK from requiring a diploma in social work to a degree in social work in 2008, research was undertaken to compare standards, practice learning, educational standards and quality control with the top 10 countries from which applicants for registration came. Australia was one of those countries. Amongst other criteria, the Council requires qualifications to be accredited by a recognised social work accrediting body in the country of training, where such an accreditation system exists. In Australia the appropriate body is the Australian Association of Social workers (“the AASW”). Comparisons were done with the AASW accreditation and it fully met the requirements of the Council. Consequently the decision made by the Council was that only social work qualifications accredited by the AASW would be recognised for people applying with Australian qualifications, that is the Bachelor of Social Work or the Master of Social Work, neither of which the Appellant holds.

 

16. In cross examination Mrs. Pinkham confirmed that a detailed assessment of the Appellant’s post qualification experience had not been carried out. Quite simply, all applications from Australia are considered purely on the basis as to whether the qualifications required for accreditation by the AASW are held by the applicant because that is the sole basis on which the Council will allow registration from applicants from Australia. The same process applies to applicants from the Philippines and the Republic of Ireland, both of which fully met the standards required by the Council. That is the level at which the Council has set the test for Australia and post qualification experience is not considered. The same would apply to applicants from the UK with a degree in social work. Whether or not they had ever practiced as a social worker would be irrelevant for registration. The fact that they had a degree in social work is what would satisfy the criteria for registration.

 

Evidence for the Appellant

 

17.The Appellant’s statement appears at page 123 of the bundle. She gave evidence in person. She accepted that she did not have a qualification in specific social work but stated that her qualifications were in relevant social work. She disputed the value of the accreditation system adopted by the AASW explaining that social work in Australia is not regulated and what matters is not the degree you hold but your expertise. She accepted that the Council publishes guidance for applicants from abroad. She accepted that she had been provided with the official guidance for applicants from Australia which appears at page 148 of the bundle which sets out the assessment criteria.

 

18. In answer to questions from the Tribunal, the Appellant confirmed that, during her work in Australia, people she supervised were members of the AASW and she had been responsible for the content and quality of their work. No concerns were ever raised by her employers. She, herself, had been subject to supervision for 2 to 3 years during which time any deficits in her training were identified. When asked if any courses were identified as appropriate which carried any accreditation, she told the Tribunal that if she had wanted any further qualifications, that would have been a matter for her, but she had not felt that she needed it. She had known that on her return to the UK she would require to be registered in order to work as a social worker but the decision to return to the UK in 2010 was made fairly swiftly. With the benefit of hindsight she should have done a further course in Australia. The bulk of her experience lies in the field of child protection but in her early employment she had been a general caseworker dealing with disabilities, young offenders, elderly people and mental health issues. She had also worked as a part-time teacher and considered that to be relevant social work. She had taught theory and skills relating to social welfare. She felt very strongly that she had the skills and expertise to perform the role of social worker.

 

Tribunal’s Decision

 

19. Under s. 64 (1)(b) of the Act as set out above, it is for the Council to determine what training it will recognize or require of applicants to the register. The training has to be in relevant social work and, in the case of applicants from Australia, the Council has determined that the requirements set out by the AASW for eligibility for membership with them are the requirements which the Council will adopt, for the reasons set out earlier in this decision. The Appellant does not hold a degree in social work and, therefore, is not eligible for membership of the AASW. In those circumstances it cannot be said that she satisfies the requirements for registration as set out in s. 64.

 

20. The content of the qualifications she holds are not the equivalent of a degree in social work, although certain components may be the same. It cannot be said, without a detailed assessment of her, that her post qualification experience and any subsequent training courses make up the deficit and it is on this point that the Tribunal feels considerable disquiet about the process undertaken in this case.

 

21. It is manifestly obvious to all parties that there is a chronic shortage of social workers in the UK. Whilst the Appellant appeared on the face of it to have a wealth of post qualification experience which could make her a valuable asset, the rigid response adopted by the Council to applications from Australia means that her application must fail. Indeed, Mrs. Pinkham appeared to acknowledge this in part when she agreed that there was a fear that they were missing out on experienced people.

 

22. The Tribunal understands that the approach to applicants from Australia has been set out in an attempt  not only to maintain high standards but also to fast track applications. However there are bound to be cases where anomalies arise and a rigid application of the policy produces an unfair result. The Tribunal cannot say whether or not the Appellant’s registration would have been successful had a detailed assessment of her CV been conducted by the Council. However, the fact that no such assessment has ever been carried out leaves the Appellant with no idea where the supposed deficits in her training lie. It is too simplistic of the Council to suggest that she should approach a university with a social work course accredited by the Council and make application for accreditation of prior experiential learning. This is a point which has been addressed by the Tribunal before. In Karen Anne McElroy -v- GSCC  the Tribunal stated, inter alia, “the Respondent should………identify the shortfall and impose an additional training requirement accordingly…” In a case such as the Appellant’s it seems essential that the deficit should be identified to her so that, if she wishes and she is able to do so, she can take the appropriate steps to remedy it. However if no assessment is even undertaken, how can progress be made? A more flexible approach to applications for registration may have the result of producing fairer conclusions and fewer opportunities for good people to “slip through the net”. The Tribunal considered, therefore, that a review of the Council’s policies in these matters would not only be appropriate but, in some cases could prove to be to the benefit of all.

 

23. The appeal was dismissed

 

24. The decision is unanimous.

 

 

 

 

Carolyn Singleton (Tribunal Judge)

Carol Caporn

Claire Trencher