Social Work England consultation on amendments to its fitness to practise rules
Social Work England is consulting on changes to its fitness to practise rules. We look at the proposed changes and what they mean for social workers.
Social Work England is consulting on changes to its fitness to practise rules. We look at the proposed changes and what they mean for social workers.
Social Work England
It has been 2 years since SWE became the specialist regulator for Social Workers (previously regulated by the HCPC). SWE says this period “have involved a period of intense activity in unexpectedly challenging circumstances” in which it “learned and reflected on our work and tested our legislative framework.” This consultation reflects the outcome of this learning and experience, according to SWE.
Proposed fitness to practise changes
- Increase the time period for investigators to notify social workers they are under investigation from 7 to 14 calendar days (rule 8(a))
- Include a requirement as to when notice of a review hearing (when an existing interim or final conditions of practice or suspension order is reviewed to ensure it is still appropriate) should be served on a social worker (not less than 28 calendar days) (rule 16(b))
- Provide provisions that set out the details of the hearing process and what the applicant and regulator may or may not do when restoration to the register is sought after a removal order (rule 20(2))
- Enable both the regulator and the adjudicators to decide whether an application for restoration after a removal order can be determined by way of a meeting (instead of a hearing) (rule 22)
- Extend the current 56 day timeframe for adjudicators to determine restoration applications to 84 days (rule 23)
- Add new rules to provide a method to close a case, or part of a case, following the determination of the case examiners when new information becomes available which means that there is no longer a realistic prospect of those allegations being found proved (rules 27(j) and 52)
- Allow the regulator to set and publish eligibility criteria for legal advisers outside of the rules, instead of the requirements being in the rules (rule 33)
- Enable the regulator to take account of previous criminal convictions when considering a social worker’s previous history (rule 35(a))
- Add new rules confirming the evidence that may be presented to prove a criminal conviction (rule 35A)
- Extend the provision for the social worker to have legal representation to include chartered legal executives (rule 40A)
- Extend the provisions for service of documents to include courier and personal service (rule 40)
- Add new rules to set out the procedure to be followed in respect of a social worker’s duty to provide information to the regulator under Regulation 16 of the Social Workers Regulations 2018, including the procedure for suspending or removing a social worker who fails to comply (rules 35A, 51 and 52)
Registration rules
In the registration rules, we propose to:
- Remove the prohibition on registration for offences committed outside England or Wales (rule 13), to ensure it is compliant with our regulations
- Harmonise the requirements for restoration and registration after a period away from practice or education, by adding a requirement to demonstrate relevant additional education or training (30 days of updating skills, knowledge and experience) where qualifications were awarded 2 to 5 years before application to the register, or where it has been 2 to 5 years since the applicant was last registered (rules 14(2)(b) and 59(1)(e))
- Impose a timeframe of 28 calendar days within which an applicant must provide any further information or evidence requested by the regulator in support of a registration application (rule 24(2))
- Allow an application to be closed upon expiry of the relevant timeline (28 calendar days) if an applicant has failed to provide relevant information (rule 26A)
- Allow annotations on a social worker’s entry in the register to be removed at the social worker’s request (rule 44(b))
- Provide more detailed rules for restoration applications (rules 59(1)(d) to 59(1A) and 60A to 60E)
- Place a time limit of 12 months within which updating skills, knowledge and experience prior to an application to join the register must have been completed, in order to ensure an applicant’s knowledge and training is reasonably recent and up to date (rule 59(1A))
- Allow the regulator to set and publish eligibility criteria for legal advisers outside of the rules, instead of the requirements being in the Rules (rule 14A)
- Reduce the 28 day objection period (to an application being decided by meeting instead of hearing) to 14 calendar days to avoid unnecessary delays to the process (rule 15(4))
- Increase the decision outcome period from 60 to 80 working days, to provide a more realistic timeframe for scheduling or determining appeals (rule 20(1))
- Add new rules confirming the evidence that may be presented to prove or rebut a criminal conviction (rule 22A)
- Extend the provisions for service of documents to include courier and personal service (rule 23)
These proposed changes related to SWE’s rules and do not require amendments to the Social Workers Regulations 2018. The proposed changes are a mix of relaxing certain existing requirements but also adding new ones on social workers facing fitness to practise proceedings.
Ultimately, these changes will have an impact on social workers facing a fitness to practise investigation and proceedings. Social Workers should take time to consider the proposed changes and respond accordingly. The consultation is open until 26 May 2022.
More News & Articles
General Dental Council close case with no further action
The General Dental Council has closed its investigation into our clients fitness to practise with no further action.
GMC’s duty of care. Is legal representation the answer?
The position on the GMC’s duty of care is now unquestionably clear. We look at the value of legal representation to assist doctors with the stress and anxiety associated with investigations.
Does the GMC have a duty of care to doctors under investigation?
In Suresh & Ors v GMC, the Court examined the GMC’s duty of care and Human Rights Act obligations for doctors under investigation.