Guskov v General Social Care Council [2005] EWCST 0600(SW) (30 April 2007)
DR DMITRI GUSKOV

V

THE GENERAL SOCIAL CARE COUNCIL
[2005] 0600.SW

Before:
His Honour Judge David Pearl (President)
Ms Margaret Halstead (specialist member)
Mr. Simon Oliver (legal member)

Sitting at the Care Standards Tribunal, Pocock Street, London
On 2nd April 2007 

DECISION
Appeal 

This is an appeal by Dr. Dmitri Guskov under Section 68(1) of the Care Standards Act 2000 against the decision of the General Care Council (‘GSCC’) made on 7th November 2005 to refuse his application for inclusion on the register of social workers. The tribunal comprised two legal members and one specialist member, with the express agreement of both parties.

Representation

At the hearing Dr. Guskov represented himself and Ms Eleanor Grey of Counsel, instructed by Field Fisher Waterhouse LLP, represented the Respondent.

Evidence

The Tribunal read the witness statement, dated 20th March 2007, and heard oral evidence from Mr. Andrew Skidmore, the Head of Quality and Business Efficiency of the GSCC.   The Tribunal also read the undated witness statement of the Appellant together with his position statement; his comments on the witness statement of Andrew Skidmore and additional comments on the witness statement of Andrew Skidmore.  We also heard oral evidence from Dr. Guskov.

Facts

The material facts found by the Tribunal were as follows:

1.	In 1994 Dr. Guskov commenced an MPhil programme in Social Work and Administration at the London School of Economics.  On enrolling on the programme he was not informed about any options to register his studies with CCETSW.   According to the rules of the programme, by the end of the second semester he submitted his social work research proposal and was transferred to the level of Ph.D.  In 1996 he received a letter from the LSE informing him that he had completed the minimum requirements of the programme.  Dr. Guskov’s doctoral studies were then transferred to the School of Community Health and Social Studies at Anglia Polytechnic University (APU), the School of Community Health and Social Studies and in 2004 he was awarded a Ph.D. in social work studies by that university. The university is now known as Anglia Ruskin University (ARU).

2. 	The GSCC came into existence in 2001 and took over the work of the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work (CCETSW). That body had operated since 1971 and approved courses for training and registering students. When a student successfully completed the approved training they were awarded a certificate of professional qualification in social work (CQSW) that was often in addition to any academic award they may have received. 

3.	In 2004, Dr. Guskov started working as a care manager for the Cambridgeshire Social Services and later, after reorganisation, for the NHS Cambridge City PCT.  By the end of 2004 he had to submit his application to GSCC for registration as a social worker on the basis of a ‘… course leading to a degree or postgraduate award in social work approved by one of the social care councils in the UK`.  When Dr. Guskov submitted his application, he was sure that his PhD programme started at the LSE and finished at APU was certainly approved by one of the social care councils and that he would not be allowed to work as a social worker in the UK otherwise.

4.	On 20th November 2004, the GSCC received Dr. Guskov’s application for registration.  On page 3 of the application, Dr. Guskov ticked the box signifying that he had undertaken ‘A course or qualification leading to a degree or postgraduate award in social work approved by one of the social care councils in the UK’.  He stated that the awarding body was Anglia Polytechnic University and that he had also studied at the London School of Economics.  The stated date of his award was 13th April 2004.

5.	On 22nd April 2005, the GSCC wrote to Dr. Guskov stating that it had not been able to continue processing his application as it had a query on the qualification section of his form and had been unable to obtain confirmation of his qualification from its Student Records Office.   The Council asked Dr. Guskov to provide a copy of his certificate.

6.	On 28th April 2005, Dr. Guskov sent an email to the GSCC stating that he initially registered with the London School of Economics under the French spelling of his surname (Gouskov).  After the transfer to Anglia Polytechnic University, he was known under this name until the end of his study and graduation, when he changed the spelling of his surname to the English version – Guskov.  He stated that he was the first ever PhD student of the School of Community Health and Social Studies and he was not sure that at the time he enrolled it was registered with all the relevant bodies.  Dr. Guskov attached an electronic copy of his qualification certificate: a degree of Doctor of Philosophy from the Anglia Polytechnic University dated January 2004, having submitted a thesis entitled: ‘Investigating the paradigms societal response to the AIDS-challenge and projecting an anti-orthodox AIDS social practice in Ukraine: A postmodernist research in action’.

7.	On 15th June 2005, the GSCC wrote to Dr. Guskov providing an update on his application.  In this letter, the Council stated that it had not been able to complete the processing of his application as it needed further information regarding his professional qualification.  It continued that, under section 58 of the Care Standards Act 2000, it could only register workers who had satisfied “any requirements as to training which the Council may by rules impose in relation to social workers”.  The Council had decided to impose a training requirement in the 2003 Registration Rules that such workers should have completed one of the courses listed in Schedule 1 of the Rules and a Doctorate of Philosophy obtained at Anglia Polytechnic University in January 2004 was not so listed.

8.	On 11th July 2005, Dr. Guskov sent the Council an e-mail/letter stating that he thought his degree corresponded to the definition 10 in Schedule 1 – a course leading to a degree or post-graduate award in social work approved by the Council or by a Care Council.  If this was not the case, he said he would like to have a detailed explanation why.  The appellant stated that he received his degree from the School of Community Health and Social Studies which was certainly on the list of establishments producing qualified social workers.  Also, his PhD was about social work and reported extensive social work practices he had to undertake for his doctoral project.  He stated that he had an equivalent Ukrainian degree in sociology before enrolling in the programme which he started as MPhil at the LSE in 1994 and was transferred to PhD on the merit of his dissertation proposal and study progress during the first year.  It was hard for him to imagine that having spent more than 10 years on studying social work (and even teaching it), he could not be regarded as qualified.  Now, even if he wished, he could not enrol on any diploma or BA programme because of being already qualified at a higher level.  He also asked some questions about the registration process.

9.	On 18th July 2005, the General Social Care Council (Registration) Rules 2005 (“the 2005 Rules”) came into force.

10.	On 5th August 2005, the Council wrote to the appellant and stated that his qualification was not listed in Schedule 1.  It explained that his qualification was an academic award and it was only an applicant who held a professional social work qualification which the Council recognised as being eligible for registration.  In order to be professionally qualified at the time of his study, the appellant would have had to receive the Diploma in Social Work (DipSW) awarded by the GSCC in addition to the academic award. He could also have received a CQSW if he had studied previously in the UK on a course approved either by CCETSW or GSCC.

11.	On 10th August 2005 the Appellant wrote to the Council.  In his letter, Dr Guskov said he had never been aware of any PhD programme in social work or any other field which would grant an undergraduate level qualification along with the top university degree, and asked for clarification.  He also stated that the concept of differentiation between an academic and professional university degree was new to him and he believed that his qualification fell within the definition of “a course leading to a degree or post-graduate award in social work, and asked for further details.

12.	On 16th August 2005, the Council acknowledged the appellant’s letter.  It responded to his letter substantively by a letter dated 1st September 2005.  In its response, the Council stated that it was not suggesting that a doctorate might also include a Diploma in Social Work, but was emphasising that his doctorate was specifically not a basic professional qualification but rather a high level academic award.  Professional training in social work in the UK was for many years validated by CCETSW and that role had been filled by the GSCC and its three sister councils since 2001.  There was a requirement for a person to have a relevant award made by one of these Councils and since the early 1990s this had been the Diploma in Social Work issued by CCETSW/GSCC (though this had recently been replaced by a new three-year degree awarded by universities and accredited by the GSCC).  Schedule 1 listed professional courses validated or approved since 1971 by CCETSW/GSCC and certain predecessor awards.

13.	On 6th September 2005, the appellant wrote to the Council.  In his letter, the appellant stated that he still did not comprehend why he would have had to receive the Diploma in Social Work awarded by the GSCC in addition to the academic award.  This had not been a requirement for his admission to the postgraduate programme of the LSE, which had acknowledged different pathways into postgraduate social work education.  He stated that the CCETSW/GSCC social work course validation appeared to apply to undergraduate courses – diploma or BA level – and so he assumed that the highest university degrees in social work either simply did not need a validation or such validation was given to the university prior to their running a PhD programme.  The appellant also referred to the list of professional courses validated or approved since 1971 by CCETSW/GSCC which included the “MSc in Social Admin and Social Work obtained from the LSE” and stated that this was precisely the programme with which he started his social work studies.  After the first year he had an option, either to complete it within one more year and get a master degree or to transfer to PhD level and he chose the latter option.  He continued that he now wondered whether the completion of this validated programme could be a sufficient ground for his registration, even though he finally obtained a degree higher than MSc and from another university.

14.	On 7th October 2005, the Council wrote to the appellant.  In its letter, the Council responded to various points made by the appellant.  Amongst other things it stated that the GSCC (and formerly CCETSW) approved professional training courses in social work at undergraduate and postgraduate level.  The only courses that were approved were those that met the GSCC (CCETSW) criteria, irrespective of whether they were at undergraduate or postgraduate level.  There were no PhD courses approved by the GSCC.  It continued that the Council recognised certain specific courses where the qualification was obtained before 1971, i.e. before CCETSW came into being.  However, since 1971, it was necessary to have a professional qualification awarded by CCETSW or the GSCC.  It confirmed that the appellant did not hold a professional qualification in social work as he did not have a DipSW.  At the time he studied, in order to have gained the professional qualification, he would have had to have been on a course that included registration with CCETSW, and on completion of training he would have gained the Diploma in Social Work in addition to any academic degree awarded by the university.

15.	On 7th November 2005, the Council issued its decision notice.  This stated that as the appellant had been unable to provide the further factual information requested, it considered all the information available to it and had reached a decision to refuse his application for registration.  It stated its reasons as being the following:
“(a)	The Council has refused your application for registration in the part of the social care register relating to social workers, because you do not have one of the qualifications set out in Schedule 1 of the 2005 Rules.
(b)	The Care Standards Act 2000 and the General Social Care Council (Registration) Rules 2005 (“the Rules”) specify the qualifications required for registration.  Under Section 58 of the Care Standards Act 2000, the Council can only register workers “in relevant social work” who have satisfied “any requirements as to training which the Council may by rules impose in relation to social workers”.  The Council decided to impose a training requirement in the 2005 Registration Rules that such workers should have completed one of the courses listed in Schedule 1 of the Rules.
(c)	The qualification which you hold, Doctor of Philosophy awarded by Anglia Polytechnic University, is not a qualification listed in Schedule 1 of the Rules.  Details of eligible qualifications under Schedule 1 of the Rules can be found on our website www.gscc.org.uk.”

16.	The Appellant’s Notice of Appeal to this Tribunal against the decision of GSCC is dated 25th November 2005.

17.	The issues in this case are similar to, although not identical with, the case of JS v GSCC [2005] 0553.SW.  Indeed, the conduct of this appeal has been linked to the progress of the JS appeal and to understand why it has taken from November 2005 to April 2007 to have a hearing, it is appropriate to set out, briefly, the history of the JS appeal. The first step was that a Direction was made on 20th December 2005 in Dr. Guskov’s case, that any further procedural steps in this appeal, including the application to strike out the appeal, be stayed until after the oral hearing of the application to strike out the appeals of JS (and RH).  The application to strike out the JS appeal was dismissed.  This was because the President decided that the points raised by JS on the interpretation of the 2005 Rules compared to the 2003 Rules were arguable and that it would not be appropriate to use the strike out provisions in this context and that a decision on the interpretation of the relevant paragraphs of the Rules should be made by a full Tribunal after hearing full legal argument.

18.	 By Direction dated 11th January 2006, the President stayed further steps in this current appeal until the Tribunal hearing the JS appeal had issued a decision after the oral hearing in that case, which took place on 6th April 2006.  The JS decision was issued on 26th April 2006 and the Tribunal dismissed the appeal.  The decision is reported on the CST website as JS v GSCC  [2005] 553.SW.

19.	By letter dated 5th June 2006 from solicitors acting on behalf of the GSCC, the Tribunal was informed that the Respondent had been served with an appeal to the High Court by solicitors acting for JS against the Tribunal’s decision in that case.  It was submitted that “In those circumstances, the Tribunal may wish to stay this [Guskov] appeal pending the High Court’s decision in that case.”   By Order dated 6th June 2006, the President stayed proceedings in this appeal (and five other appeals) “until after the High Court proceedings are concluded.”

20.	The JS proceedings in the High Court have taken a lengthy and somewhat circuitous route.  The JS Appeal was entered on the Administrative Court Warned List on 15th June 2006 to be heard by a single Judge.  On 9th August 2006, the General Social Care Council applied to strike out two of JS’s grounds of appeal.  This application was heard by Mr. Justice Mitting on 22nd November 2006.  He granted the strike out application but indicated that it might be open to JS to raise the grounds struck out by way of an application for Judicial Review.  On 1st December 2006, JS filed an application for permission to apply for judicial review of the Tribunal’s decision.  In the light of this situation, solicitors for the Respondent by e-mail dated 6th December 2006 sought a stay of this appeal for a further period of six months pending the Administrative Court’s decision.

21.	Accordingly an oral hearing was held on 15th February 2007, to deal further with the application for a stay.

22.	At the February hearing Mr. Smith (on behalf of the GSCC) said that it was likely that the JS case would be heard in July 2007 but he frankly admitted that, whatever the result, there could well be further proceedings before the Court of Appeal.  Accordingly, the JS litigation has many months still to run.

23.	The Appellant in this case opposed a stay.  The President decided that the stay would be lifted in this case as not only was it possible for the appeal to be heard relatively quickly but also, in addition to the issue of the interpretation of the Registration Rules, there is the discrete question of the LSE qualification.   In giving his decision in February, the President determined that the Tribunal, of course, must construe the Registration Rules in conformity with the European Convention on Human Rights and a decision by the Tribunal in this case may well be of assistance to the Administrative Court when it comes to deal with the case of JS.  Thus, in fairness to Dr Guskov, as well as the possibility of another specialist Tribunal decision providing some assistance to the Administrative Court, the President was persuaded that the stay should be lifted.

The Law

24.	Section 58(1) of the Care Standards Act 2000 provides that if the GSCC is satisfied that the applicant is of good character; is physically and mentally fit to perform the whole or part of the work of persons registered in any part of the register to which his application relates; and satisfies certain conditions set out in S.58(2) and (3) of the Act, then it shall grant the application for registration, either unconditionally or subject to certain conditions as it thinks fit.  In any other case, the council shall refuse the application.

25.	The relevant conditions in this appeal are set out in section 58(2) of the Act.  This section sets out that the applicant must either (i) have successfully completed a course for persons wishing to become social workers approved by the Council under S.63 of the 2000 Act; or (ii) satisfy the requirements of S.64 of the Act (relating to overseas qualifications) or (iii) satisfy any requirements as to training which the Council may by rules impose in relation to social workers.  The applicant must also satisfy any requirements as to conduct and competence which the Council may by rules impose.

26.	Section 60 of the 2000 Act gives the Council the power to make rules about the registration of applicants. The General Social Care Council (Registration) Rules 2005 (which came into force on 18th July 2005) replaced the General Social Care Council (Registration) Rules 2003.  Rule 4(10)(c)(ii)(bb) of the 2005 Rules provides that the Council shall grant an application for registration if the applicant has “successfully completed a course or possesses a certificate or similar documentation, as set out in Schedule 1” to the Rules.

27.	Schedule 1 to the General Social Care Council (Registration) Rules 2005 is headed “Courses and Training” and has several parts.  The first part contains a list of the social work degree courses approved by the Council for the purposes of Section 63 of the 2000 Act.  The second part contains a list of university qualifications obtained prior to 1971 which are regarded by the Council as satisfactory evidence of training.  The third part contains a list of the courses which were approved for the purposes of membership of the constituent organisations of the Standing Conference of Organisations of Social Workers in March 1970, which are also regarded by the Council as satisfactory evidence of training.   The final part of the Schedule is headed “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) of the Act”.  Under this heading there is a list of certificates, letters of recognition and other evidence of completion of a recognised course.

Issues

28.	These have been identified in the written submission of Ms Grey and we adopt them. They are:
(a)	Does the Appellant possess one of the qualifications listed in Schedule 1 of the GSCC’s Registration Rules 2005;
(b)	If he does, is that a qualification which only ‘counts’ for registration purposes if obtained prior to 1971;
(c)	Should the GSCC have referred the Appellant’s case to the Registration Committee;
(d)	Is the refusal to recognise the Appellant’s qualifications (especially his PhD) and experience in Social Work discriminatory and unlawful;
(e)	Is the refusal to recognise the Appellant’s qualifications (especially his PhD) and experience in Social Work contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights (the ECHR) and the Human Rights Act (the HRA);
(f)	Is the distinction drawn by the GSCC between ‘academic’ and ‘professional’ qualifications irrational and/or unlawful;
(g)	Is the distinction drawn by employers between registered and unregistered social workers unlawful.	

Conclusions, with reasons

29.	We will deal with the list of issues in the order set out above.

Does the Appellant possess a Schedule 1 qualification?

30.	Dr. Guskov informed us that as part of his studies he shadowed a social worker.  It is clear to us, therefore, that he did no social work practice on either his MPhil course or as part of his PhD studies.  Whilst he shadowed a social worker, that does not equate to social work practice.  For example, he did not undertake any studying in relation to child care or human growth and development.  In the circumstances we can easily distinguish Dr. Guskov’s case from the case of JS on the facts alone.  They are very different and it was for this reason that this case was not stayed to await the outcome of the JS litigation.

31.	Whilst the MSc course at LSE may have been recognised if obtained before 1971, the 1994 MPhil course is not so recognised and does not appear in Schedule 1.  In addition, the letter dated 20th December 2005 from Kate Atherton, Associate Dean at the Anglia Ruskin University makes it clear that the doctorate Dr. Guskov obtained at that university was based on academic theory and research and not competence assessed in practice.  As a result, the letter continued, it did not meet the validation regulations laid down by the GSCC for a professional qualification in social work.  The ARU PhD was not recognised by either CCTESW or GSCC as meeting the criteria for validation.

32.	In the letter of 11th July 2005 that Dr. Guskov sent to the GSCC he stated that he had an equivalent degree in sociology.  We explored this with him in evidence because it is possible for degrees from other countries to fulfil the regulations of British professional associations.  The National Recognition Information Centre for the United Kingdom (NARIC) is an agency of the DfES and is the official information provider on the comparability of international qualifications.  Had Dr. Guskov obtained a degree in sociology in the Ukraine, NARIC would have been able to determine what, if any part of it fulfilled the criteria set out by the GSCC.  In evidence, however, Dr. Guskov stated that he did not have such a degree so no comparisons were able to be made and the only degree we could consider is the ARU PhD.

33.	We were referred to the case of JS. That case considered the 2003 registration rules.  They are different from the 2005 registration rules in that whereas the 2003 rules were absolute in their requirements, the 2005 rules (rule 4(10)(c)(ii)(bb)) states that the council shall grant an application for registration if the applicant, inter alia,  has successfully completed a course or possesses a certificate or similar documentation, as set out in Schedule 1 to these Rules (our emphasis added) .  

34   It is our view that the words “or similar documentation” relate to evidence that an applicant may produce “similar to a certificate” to satisfy the council that the applicant has successfully completed a course as set out in Schedule 1. The words do not widen the scope of Schedule 1 so as to include other courses not set out in the schedule. We agree therefore with the conclusions of the Tribunal in the JS case.

35.	In these circumstances, we conclude that Dr. Guskov does not possess any of the qualifications set out in Schedule 1 of the GSCC Registration Rules 2005.  We do not need to proceed further but, in fairness to Dr. Guskov, we will deal with the other points raised.

The LSE Course

36.	The only possible way Dr. Guskov could have argued that he had a qualification was to rely upon his MPhil course at LSE.  However, the insurmountable problems he has with that are first he was not awarded the MPhil because he transferred both onto the PhD course and to ARU.   Second, even if he had been awarded an MSc it was not awarded before 1971.  Any MPhil awarded by the LSE after 1971 does not qualify under Schedule 1 and so it is not possible for that degree course to count. Third, Dr. Guskov enrolled on the LSE’s "Social Science and Social Administration" course. This is not the same as "Social Administration and Social Work" and so would not have been counted at any time as a social work qualification before or after 1971.

Should the GSCC have referred Dr. Guskov’s case to the Registration Committee?

37.	This point is made by Dr. Guskov because he compares his case with what happened in the JS case.  The 2005 registration rules came into force on 18th July 2005 and so were the ones to be applied when Dr. Guskov’s application for registration was determined.  Although his application was received in November 2004, the GSCC were in lengthy correspondence with Dr. Guskov trying to ascertain exactly what qualification he was relying on to fulfil the requirement of “a course or qualification leading to a degree or post graduate award in social work approved by one of the social care councils in the U.K.”

38.	The procedure set out in the 2003 Regulations Rules required a potentially unsuccessful application for registration to be referred to the Registration Committee.  This happened in the JS case.  JS submitted her application for registration on 21st November 2004 (a day after Dr. Guskov) and the Registration Committee met on 30th June 2005 to consider her case as it had all the relevant information to make a decision at that time.  By contrast, Dr. Guskov was still sending detailed replies as to why he thought his degree qualified under Schedule 1 on 11th July 2005, just a week before the new Rules came into force.

39.	The 2005 Registration Rules have no transitional arrangements contained in them so as to provide for the way to handle/process an application already lodged.  There is nothing to state that anything lodged before the 2005 rules came into force must be considered under the 2003 procedures.  Quite simply, therefore, on the day that Dr. Guskov’s application was considered, the only rules in existence were the 2005 rules and they did not provide for the matter to be referred to the Registration Committee.   It is hard to see how a referral to the Registration Committee would have made any difference in any event since the issue in Dr Guskov’s case is whether or not the degree meets the criteria.  The rules did not require a referral and so the non-referral was not unlawful.

Is the GSCC refusal to recognise Dr. Guskov’s qualification and experience in social work discriminatory and unlawful?

40.	We do not regard the decision as either discriminatory or unlawful.  Dr. Guskov’s doctoral thesis had no taught element, being all done by research.  There was no practice element either supervised or showing how the competencies required to be qualified as a social worker were met.  There was no element linking theory with practice; Dr. Guskov had no workload of his own and, in evidence to us, he admitted that he had done neither theory nor practice.

41.	Dr. Guskov seems to suggest that the GSCC has a discretion to allow individuals to be registered as social workers even if they do not meet the criteria set out in S.58(2)(a) of the Care Standards Act 200.  There is no express discretionary power contained in the 2005 Rules.  

42.	However, even if there is an inherent discretion to permit registration it must follow that it has to be exercised fairly and appropriately – and not be regarded as an easy back-door entry procedure.  It must also follow that the person for whom the discretion is being exercised needs to show, for example, that they fulfil other features of the registration requirement – such as having experience, case load, equivalent qualification and otherwise fulfil the required equivalence but for the institution from which the qualification was obtained. Given what we have said about this case, and on the assumption that there is a discretion within the rules, we do not believe that the refusal to exercise the discretion in Dr Guskov’s application, was either unfair or inappropriate.

Is the refusal to recognise Dr. Guskov’s qualifications contrary to ECHR and Human Rights Act?

43.	Article 14 of the ECHR is the Article which prohibits discrimination but this article can be relied upon only in connection with another Article.  The only Article of relevance in the context of Dr. Guskov’s case is Article 2 of  Protocol 1, the right to education.  The action of GSCC was a refusal to regard a certain degree as fulfilling their criteria.  This is not a breach of right to education.  GSCC are not preventing Dr. Guskov from obtaining a suitable qualification, just determining that his qualification does not fulfil the criterion for registration as a social worker.  We conclude therefore, that there has been no breach of either the ECHR or the Human Rights Act 1998

Is the distinction drawn by GSCC between ‘academic’ and ‘professional’ unlawful or irrational?

44.	Social work is a practice-based profession.  It is for the GSCC to determine what components are required for CQSW, DipSW or the new degree qualification.  It is not for this tribunal to determine the lawfulness or irrationality of a decision taken, just whether or not the qualifications obtained fulfil the criteria set.  With his doctorate, Dr. Guskov is in the same position as an individual with (say) a history degree wanting to be registered:  academically able but not in possession of the relevant practice-based qualification.

Is the distinction drawn by employers between registered and unregistered social workers unlawful?

45.	Again, this is not a matter for this tribunal.  Our remit is to determine whether Dr. Guskov should or should not have been registered as a social worker.  We can understand that Dr. Guskov may have a sense of injustice that he, with a doctorate, may be paid less than a newly-qualified social worker.  However, that is not a matter for us.  The issue for us to determine is whether or not Dr. Guskov fulfilled the criteria for registration as a social worker (or not) and whether the GSCC should have registered him.  That we have determined.  The issue of the lawfulness of a distinction between registered and unregistered social workers does not fall within our jurisdiction. . A distinction between the “academic” and the “professional” qualification is well known in other professions, for example a postgraduate degree in Law does not entitle the holder to practice law as either a barrister or a solicitor.  He or she will have to obtain professional qualifications as well.

Order

The appeal is dismissed. Our decision is unanimous.

H.H.J. David Pearl (President)
Ms Margaret Halstead (specialist member)
Mr Simon Oliver (legal member)

Date:  30th April 2007