MKN v The General Social Care Council [2006] EWCST 774(SW) (19 January 2007) 

MKN
Appellant
-v-

GENERAL SOCIAL CARE COUNCIL 
[2006] 774.SW
Respondent

Before:
Miss Gillian Irving QC (Chairman)
Ms Susan Gilhespie
Ms Gillian MacGregor

DECISION

The Application

1.	On the 22nd day of August, 2006, the Appellant, MKN lodged an appeal pursuant to Section 68 of the Care Standards Act, 2000, against the General Social Care Council, hereinafter referred to as the GSCC. The Appeal related to the decision of the Registration Committee of the GSCC to refuse his application for registration as a Social worker. The ground given for the refusal of registration is that the Appellant had not met the requirements set out in Section 64 of the Care Standards Act 2000, specifically, the qualifications that he had obtained elsewhere than in England did not equate to a diploma in Social Work and, the experience/training he had obtained whilst in this country and elsewhere were not of a standard sufficient for registration and did not compensate for the deficits in his academic studies. The Appellant in his grounds of appeal asserts that the decision was biased and grossly unfair. He objects to the refusal by the Registration Committee to grant him an oral hearing. He concedes the need for further training but sought to persuade the Tribunal to rescind the decision and to impose conditions as to training which would enable him to obtain employment. 
An initial directions hearing took place before the President on the 8th of November 2006 and despite the absence of the Appellant at that hearing and the content of the further information form dated the 2nd of October 2006, the matter was listed for an oral hearing which subsequently took place in the Appellant’s absence in Sheffield on Monday 15th January 2007. In the further information document provided by the Appellant he had indicated that he did not intend to be present at the hearing to consider his Appeal and that he did not require an oral hearing. His written requests for a restricted reporting order and for the matter to be conducted in private were acceded to. Given the absence of the Appellant from the hearing, this Tribunal did not interfere with those decisions but expressed some concern about them given the purpose of the legislation. 

2.	By an e-mail received by the Secretariat on 9.1.07, the Appellant confirmed that he was not going to attend the hearing and wished it to proceed in his absence. He informed the Tribunal that he was out of the country staying in Oslo.    

Representation

3.	We were assisted by Ms Grey of Counsel who appeared on behalf of the GSCC. We had before us an abundance of documentation including detailed written submissions from the Appellant. There was a witness statement from Ms Catherine Clarke, who is the Education Standards and Information manager of the social work education group of the GSCC dated 15th December 2006. Although Ms Clarke was in attendance at the hearing we determined that in the absence of any challenge to her evidence it was not necessary to hear from her. No adverse inferences were drawn by us from the failure of the Appellant to attend the hearing.  

4.	We were referred to and considered the decisions of Pearl Seipone K Ebadiretse v GSCC [2005] 0483.SW and Maureen Joanne Convey v GSCC [2006] 758.SW. 

The Law

5.	(a)	The GSCC was established by virtue of Part IV of the Care Standards Act 2000 and it is part of its function to maintain a register of social workers and social care workers (Section 56). 
(b)	The process of registration is governed by the General Social Care Council (Registration) Rules now 2005 which set out in detail what information is required for registration and establishes a Registration Committee which considers, as part of its function, specified applications for registration which the GSCC is not minded to grant. 
(c)	Section 58(i) of the Care Standard Act 2000 establishes that a person may be registered as a social worker only if he or she is of good character; is physically and mentally fit to perform the whole or part of the work to which the application relates, satisfies the provisions of Section 58(2)(a) in relation to training and satisfies certain requirements as to conduct and competence. 
Section 58(2)(a) makes it a condition for registration that an applicant: 
(i)	has successfully completed a course approved by the Council under Section 63;
(ii)	satisfies the requirements of Section 64 or 
(iii)	satisfies requirements as to training.
(d)	Section 64 deals with those who have gained qualifications outside the United Kingdom, both in EEA States and elsewhere. Only Section 64(1)(b) is relevant here, that provides that the requirements of the Section are met if the Applicant has undergone training in relevant social work elsewhere than in England and either: 
(i)	that training is recognised by the Council as being to a standard sufficient for 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.
(e)	The Council can grant the application for registration either unconditionally or subject to conditions as it thinks fit, or it can refuse it. 

Factual Background

6.	The backcloth to the Appeal is as follows. The Appellant studied for 2 years and obtained a diploma in social work in Botswana, Africa, between the 13th of September 1987 and the 14th of October 1989. On the 22nd of September, 1992, the South African Council for Social Work had registered the Appellant as a social auxiliary worker. He had undertaken a 3 year BA in social sciences in Cape Town between 1994 and 1997, majoring in public affairs and administration and, upon coming to England, he had obtained a post graduate qualification in the field of economics. 
On the 25th of November 1999, the now defunct Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work, hereinafter referred to as CCETSW, provided the Appellant with a letter verifying the status of his Social Work qualification in Botswana and which letter confirmed that he was now eligible to be considered for employment as a qualified Social Worker in the United Kingdom. The letter however points out that the final decision concerning his appointment rested with those who wished to employ him who were entitled to take into account a range of issues including his experience and the nature of his qualification. 

7.	Pursuant to the provision of Part IV of for the Care Standards Act, the Appellant on the 23rd day of November 2004 completed and signed his application for registration with the GSCC. Annexed to the application was the certificate from Botswana together with the letter from the CCETSW. His application also set out the social work experience and training he had gained both in the United Kingdom and elsewhere. It was clear from the papers that the Appellant had enjoyed a number of short agency placements and had begun work with Barnsley social services department in November 2003.

8.	Part II of his Application, which is designed for social workers who trained and qualified outside the United Kingdom to show they meet the requirements of the diploma in social work was processed by the International Recognition Service (IRS). An independent assessor was appointed to evaluate the information therein. Part of the role of the IRS is to ascertain the comparable level of the overseas qualification with qualifications in the United Kingdom. This work is undertaken by the National Recognition Information Centre for the United Kingdom (UK NARIC) an organisation established by,  but independent of, the Department for Education and Skills. The assessor completed his assessment on the 3rd of March 2005 and given the assessment by UK NARIC he concluded that he did not feel that the Appellant had demonstrated competency through relevant training and experience. His advice was that the Appellant would have to undertake a Diploma in Social Work in the United Kingdom. UK NARIC had determined that the diploma obtained in Botswana equated to A level/B Tec National Diploma Standard. 

9.	In accordance with usual practice the IRS asked a second independent assessor to review the Part II application. The second assessor also recommended that the Appellant did not meet the requirements of the Diploma in Social Work and needed to qualify as a Social Worker in the United Kingdom. The second assessor considered that the Appellant’s training was at a substantially lower level than the Diploma of Social Work in the United Kingdom. He considered that although there was relevant social work employment, because the Appellant’s basic training was substantially in deficit, this could not be made up through work experience. 

10.	On the 13th of April 2005 the GSCC wrote to the Appellant and asked for further clarification of information he had provided before it finalised its assessment. The information sought related to a description of the Appellant’s roles and responsibilities as a Social Worker in the period between January 2000 and October 2003. He was also asked to provide a letter from his current line manager detailing his roles and responsibilities. The information had to be supplied within 28 days and in the absence of such the GSCC indicated that it would be unable to continue with the application. The papers before us suggest that there was no communication received from the Appellant until on or about the 11th of October 2005. During the period between April and October the GSCC had endeavoured to contact him both by post, email and telephone without success. It transpired that he had left his employment with Barnsley Social Services Department and had been out of the country for some time. 

11.	On the 11th day of October 2005 a letter was received by the GSCC from Barnsley MBC Social Services. Suffice to say that the letter raised issues which went to the good conduct and character of the Appellant. Given that the Registration Committee determined that it was not necessary for it to investigate or take into account those matters when reaching its decision to refuse registration those issues have not been considered by this Tribunal. The concerns expressed on behalf of Barnsley social services department have not influenced or been taken into account by us at all when reaching our decision. 

12.	Suffice it to say that the papers before us reveal that the GSCC attempted to communicate with the Appellant with some partial success between October 2005 and July 2006. Further information was provided by him in relation to his diploma from Botswana in that the academic transcript was disclosed. On the 9.11.05 the IRS manager prepared an addendum report following a review of this evidence, the conclusion remained the same. The Registration Committee subsequently met on the 26th of July 2006 and despite the detailed personal statement provided by the Appellant to it in which he sought to explain how his experience fitted with the core competencies of the Diploma in Social Work, the Committee refused the Appellant’s application for registration. 

The Decision

13.	The Tribunal is unanimous in confirming the decision to refuse registration. Given the UK NARIC report as to the level of the Botswanan Diploma in Social Work and the obvious gaps in experience and training identified by the two independent assessors appointed by the International Recognition Service, we are entirely satisfied that the decision to refuse registration is appropriate in the circumstances. Hence, we dismiss this Appeal. 

14.	Despite the inevitable costs which the GSCC incurred which included attendance of Counsel and Solicitor from London at a hearing which the Appellant never intended to be present at, the Respondents took a pragmatic approach to the question of costs and made no application. Given that the Appellant is out of the jurisdiction and his employment status is uncertain, that was clearly an appropriate response to the circumstances in which the Respondents found themselves.   

The Decision of the Tribunal is unanimous.

APPEAL DISMISSED

Gillian Irving QC
(Nominated Chairman)
Susan Gilhespie
Gillian MacGregor
Date: 19th January 2007