DECISION

 

Appeal No [2010] 1764.SW

 

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

 

1. Mr Lawrence is a registered Social Worker. He was registered on 21 June 2005 and his registration ran out on 21 June 2008. On 25 June 2008 Mr Lawrence applied on the appropriate form for renewal of his registration. On 22 April 2010 the GSCC decided not to renew his registration on the basis that he had not demonstrated that he had fulfilled the requirements regarding Post Registration Training and Learning. It is this decision that Mr Lawrence has appealed by Notice dated 5 May 2010.

 

BACKGROUND

 

2. Mr Lawrence worked as a social worker in a Forensic Mental Health Team. It is common ground that he felt extremely stressed by his job and the expectations placed upon him. Matters came to such a head that by 2007 he was so ill that he took long term sick leave culminating in his dismissal in late 2008. Mr Lawrence was very candid with us regarding the deep seated psychological nature of his difficulties at that time. It is of significance that his application was made at this point.

 

3. Mr Lawrence’s application form has attached to it the standard form “Record of Achievement” This records The  32.5 hours of formal training between 20 September 2006 and 10 January 2008. However, amongst these hours are the following:
   • 21 November 2007: 1 hour fire safety training.
   • 21 November 2007: I hour smoking cessation training.
   • 30 November 2007: 2 hours back care training.
   • 18 December 2007: 3 hours basic skills IT training.
   • 18 December 2007: 3 hours introduction to keyboarding and word processing.
   • 18 December 2007: 3 hours internet and email training.
   • I0 January 2008: 2 1/2 hours basic life support training.
   
   

 

4. The document then sets out 12 hours of supervision sessions with a senior practitioner and manager. The only information provided as to the content of these sessions repeated for all, is: “Supported/informed work practice/identified work / training needs/development.”
   Lastly, the document sets out around 60 hours of Community Forensic Team meetings. The only information provided as to the content of these is stated as “multi-disciplinary team working/practice/allocations/work issues”

 

5. In the bundle before us are copies of E mail and letter correspondence between the GSCC and Mr Lawrence. There is no doubt in our mind that the GSCC were trying their level best to be helpful to Mr Lawrence and to assist him in demonstrating that he could fulfil the statutory requirements for renewal of registration (see below). The net effect however was to create a degree of obfuscation and in the end we got the feeling that Mr Lawrence, because of his difficulties saw the efforts to assist as bureaucratic and ultimately confusing

 

THE LAW

 

6. The General Social Care Council (Registration) Rules 2008 set out the application process, the considerations for the GSCC and the Committee, and the requirements of Post Registration Training and Learning (PRTL)
   Rule 7(4) states that the GSCC shall only grant an application to renew registration where:
   (a) It is satisfied that the Applicant has satisfactorily fulfilled any condition or conditions attached to the Applicant’s registration; and
   (b) It has received satisfactory evidence of an Applicant’s —
   i) Good character;
   ii) Good conduct;
   iii) Physical and mental fitness to perform the whole or part of the work of a social worker; and
   iv) Competence

(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