[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales Care Standards Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Care Standards Tribunal >> Kahl v GSCC [2007] EWCST 880(SW) (10 July 2007) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCST/2007/880(SW).html Cite as: [2007] EWCST 880(SW)

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

Kahl v GSCC [2007] EWCST 880(SW) (10 July 2007)

Christian KAHL

-v-

GSCC

[2007] 880.SW

-Before-

Mr Simon Oliver

(Nominated Chairman)

Ms Janice Funnell

Ms Caroline Joffe

Decision

Heard on 22nd June 2007 at the Care Standards Tribunal, Pocock Street, London.

Representation

This was a paper-only hearing. Neither party attended nor was represented. A bundle of papers had been produced by the Respondent which the panel members read, considered and discussed.

Appeal

This is an appeal by Mr. Kahl pursuant to section 68 of the Care Standards Act 2000 and Schedule 6 of the Protection of Children and Vulnerable Adults and Care Standards Tribunal Regulations 2002 against the decision of the General Social Care Council dated 4th December 2006 to refuse to register him as a social worker.


 


The Law

1. The GSCC was established pursuant to section 54 of the Care Standards Act 2000 ("the 2000 Act"). Under section 54(2) the GSCC has a duty to promote high standards of conduct and practice among social care workers and high standards in their training in England.
2. Section 56(1) of the 2000 Act imposes a duty on the GSCC to maintain a register of social workers. Section 57(1) of the 2000 Act provides that an application for registration must be made to the GSCC in accordance with the rules it has made. The relevant rules in this case were the GSCC (Registration) Rules 2005 ("the "2005 Rules").
3. Section 58(1) of the 2000 Act provides that if the GSCC 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. Further it provides that if it is not so satisfied, the GSCC must refuse the application. The first condition specified in Section 58(2) of the 2000 Act relates to qualifications and training. The second is that the applicant must satisfy any requirements as to conduct and competence which the Council may, by rules, impose.
4. Section 60 of the 2000 Act provides a power for the GSCC to make rules relating to registration of persons and in particular as to the documentary and other evidence to be produced by those applying for registration (section 60(b). There are two ways in which an individual's qualifications gained outside England can be considered for registration purposes. First, section 64(1)(a) of the 2000 Act provides that if an applicant in an EEA state has a professional qualification obtained in an EEA state other than the United Kingdom which has been designated as having equivalence for the purposes of registration, and he satisfies any other requirements which the Council may impose by rules, he satisfies the requirements for registration as a social worker in the English register. The second way to qualify is set out in section 64(1)(b) which states that if an applicant, elsewhere than in England, has undergone training in relevant social work, they fulfil the requirements of the section (for registration) if either:

a. that training is recognised by the council as being to a standard sufficient for registration: or

b. it is not so recognised but the applicant has undergone such additional training in England or elsewhere as the Council may require.

5. Rule 4 of the 2005 Rules sets out, pursuant to Section 57(1) of the 2000 Act, which information, documents and other evidence must be supplied by a person seeking registration.
6. The GSCC requires applicants who have obtained their qualifications and training abroad to complete Part 1 (a form where applicants are asked to provide general information about themselves) and Part II (a form where applicants are asked to provide information about their qualifications, education and experience).
7. Part II includes a personal statement in which the applicant is asked to demonstrate how they have met the six core competences of the Diploma in Social Work. Applicants must attach evidence in support and cross reference their personal statement to this evidence. This evidence might include academic and professional certificates and transcripts, witness testimonies, details from assessed practice placements and direct or indirect evidence of outcomes of work.
8. Although students in the UK now follow a three year BA (Honours) degree course in social work, the standard which the Council applies when considering whether a qualification gained abroad is of a sufficient standard to merit registration is whether their training and experience is equivalent to the requirements of the UK qualification, the Diploma in Social Work ("DipSW").
9. In assessing whether a worker has undergone training in social work elsewhere than in England that is equivalent to the requirements of the DipSW, the Council relies upon its International Recognition Service. The IRS assesses workers' Part II qualifications and provides a recommendation on the equivalency of their training to the DipSW.
10. The IRS appoints independent assessors for their knowledge and expertise in social work education and assessment, to examine each Part II application, taking into account all the evidence submitted by the applicant including whether or not the applicant holds a recognised social work qualification from their country of training and also the academic level of their qualification. They recommend whether the worker has met the requirements of the DipSW on the basis of their qualification alone or on the basis of their qualification, training and work experience; whether there is a substantial shortfall to be made up by additional training; or whether the applicant has not met the requirements and needs to undertake social work training in the UK in order to register. Assessors' judgments need to be evidence-based and put in writing to the IRS team.

The Evidence considered

11. On 3^rd January 2006, the Appellant completed his Part 1 application to join the Social Care Register. In his application, he stated that his most recent period of employment, study or sabbatical had been spent studying as a student of the Friedrich-Schiller-Universitat, Jena, Germany between 1^st October 1999 and 30^th September 2005. He had been studying for the Master of Social Pedagogy. His main major had been in Education, with a sub-major in Psychology and Sociology, particularly in Social and Historical Education. The appellant also stated that between 1^st September 2002 and 30^th September 2003, he had been studying as a member of the Socrates Erasmus programme of the European Union at the University of Essex, Colchester. His main major had been in Sociology and his sub-major in Psychology and Philosophy.
12. At the request of the GSCC, the appellant gave further details about his employment and study background. On 30^th March 2006, the GSCC wrote to the appellant. In its letter, the GSCC stated that it had passed his application to its International Recognition Service ("IRS"). It continued that he had referred to being awarded the Magister Erziehungswissenschaft from the Friderich-Schiller-Universitat, Jena in 2005 but he did not seem to have enclosed official confirmation of this, only his study achievements document. It stated that to progress his application, he needed to provide an original translation of his degree certificate, attached to a copy of the certification in German. As an alternative, the GSCC would accept an original letter from his university.
13. The IRS asked an external assessor to provide an opinion on the equivalency of the appellant's qualifications and training to the requirements of the DipSW. The assessor did so and concluded that the appellant had not met the requirements and there was a mismatch between their professional activities and the DipSW.
14. The assessor stated that the appellant had gained an MA in Education Science at the Freidrich Schiller University in September 2005 following a four year period of full time study. He had majored in Educational science and minored in psychology and sociology. He had been registered with the education department. The academic equivalency was not relevant and the application had been processed in accordance with guidelines for EEA trained applicants. The appellant had enclosed a transcript of his course, which showed a diverse range of subject matter. Most of the curriculum in relation to his major subject was not, in the assessor's opinion, relevant to the DipSW, although this could not be said with regard to the two lesser subjects of psychology and sociology.
15. The assessor stated that she had referred to a background report on Germany, which stated that, upon completion of a social work/care qualification, an applicant had to complete a state exam in order to obtain a licence to practice and also a "professional title". She had reviewed the supporting evidence and could confirm that such documents were not a feature of the application. She referred to the three placements relied upon by the appellant.
16. The assessor's view was that the appellant's personal statement was somewhat inadequate. A lack of social work experience had led to a reliance upon placement learning in an attempt to evidence competence. The assessor considered that these experiences were inadequate and did not meet the equivalency requirements. Furthermore, there was no reference to social work methods, theory, reflective practice, professional values and so on. Course transcripts supported the application and also brief references from the placements. The evidence was not substantial and the assessor considered that the appellant did not have any experience of professional social work practice.
17. The assessor stated that she had consulted the guidance in relation to EEA trained applicants. This stated that the registration might be refused where there were substantial differences in education and training. She considered this to be the case here. In essence, the appellant held a qualification in education, not social work. Furthermore, as there was no evidence to suggest that he was licensed to practice as a social worker in his own country, she was recommending that he be required to undertake professional social work training in the UK to satisfy the requirements for registration. She considered that the significant differences in training could not be compensated for by way of substantial periods of work experience; indeed the appellant had only gained his qualification in September 2005.
18. On 21^st July 2006, the IRS Manager received an e-mail from the Secretariat of the German Culture Ministry. The Ministry stated that the following were three academic qualifications which led to the profession of "Sozialarbeiter" (social worker) in Germany; Diplom-Sozialarbeiter (Fachlochschule); Diplom-Sozialpadagoge (Fachlochschule or University) and Diplom-Pedagoge (University), with specialisation in social pedagogics and social work. As to the appellant's academic degree of "Magister Artium", it could not find a specialisation in social work or social pedagogics. The appellant had studied (general) education as the main subject and psychology and sociology as subsidiary subjects. He might be employed in different posts in these fields at higher/managerial positions, but he was not directly qualified as a social worker. In this case, immediate registration by the GSCC was not compulsory and additional requirements might be demanded.
19. On 25^th July 2006, the IRS made her final recommendation on the appellant's application. She recommended that the appellant had not met the requirements of the UK DipSW, as there was a mismatch between his professional activities and those of the DipSW. She understood that the appellant was not entitled to pursue the regulated professional activities in the field of social work in Germany and there was no evidence that he had studied social work or worked as a social worker. However, if he were successfully to complete qualifying social work training in the UK, it would be possible for him to reapply for registration on the basis that he had completed required training under section 58 of the Care Standards Act.
20. On 24^th August 2006, the GSCC wrote to the appellant. In its letter the GSCC stated that it had now been able to process his application in full and was considering refusing it on grounds that he did not meet the training criteria set out in section 64(1)(b) of the Care Standards Act 2000. It enclosed a copy of the IRS' initial report and referred to the recommendations that he completed required training in the UK. It stated that its decision to refuse would only be reviewed if he could provide significant new factual evidence of competence in social work which demonstrated how he had met the identified shortfall. He might also provide information that his original application had been wrongly assessed, if he believed this to be the case. He was asked to reply within 28 days.
21. On 14^th September 2006, the appellant sent an e-mail to the GSCC. He stated that he did not agree with the GSCC's preliminary view. First, he said that in Germany the Magister der Erziehungswissenschaft (Master of Education Science) was the same as the Diplom Sozialpadagoge (Social Pedagogy). He stated that both titles had the same standard and entitled the holder to work as a social worker in Germany. Furthermore, all the lectures he had taken had given him more than general information about social work. All classes had given him detailed information and several skills, e.g. communication skills, crisis management, knowledge about German Social law and social work. He referred in particular to the courses he took in Domain of social education, Educational counselling and Systematic work in schools and family, all of which gave him theoretical and practical experience of social work. Second, he stated that the internship time was always so short. This did not mean that he could not get enough experience in practical work.
22. On 6^th November 2006, the IRS Manager reviewed the additional Diploma Supplement provided by the appellant. She concluded that the appellant had not met the requirements of the DipSW and there was no evidence that he had trained as a professionally qualified social worker in Germany. The Diploma Supplement confirmed that the appellant's main subject was educational science with minor subjects in psychology and sociology; there was no evidence of a specialisation in social work or social pedagogics. Further, in neither section 9 (function of the qualification) or section 10 (fields of work/possible fields of activity) did the Diploma Supplement specify that the appellant was entitled to work as a social worker in Germany. Consequently, there was a mismatch between his professional activities and the requirements of the DipSW as there was no evidence that he had trained as a professionally qualified social worker in Germany.
23. On 4^th December 2006, the GSCC wrote to the appellant. In its letter, the GSCC stated that it had now had an opportunity to consider all the information he had supplied and had reached its final decision. This was to refuse his application. It enclosed a copy of the updated IRS Manager's report and referred to the recommendation that if he were successfully to complete social work training in the UK, it would be possible for him to reapply for registration.

The findings of the Tribunal on the evidence

24. Germany is an EEA member state and so the provisions of Section 64 of the 2000 Act apply. We need to consider, therefore, whether the degree that Mr. Kahl was awarded from the German university fulfils the registration requirements of the British GSCC as required by section 64(1)(a). The degree awarded in Germany was considered by the GSCC's International Recognition Service. The Assessor considered that the degree awarded did not fulfil the requirements set down. We agree. For example, to obtain a British DipSW, an individual was required to undertake 130 days of assessed social work practice – Mr. Kahl had not done this. Although he had undertaken various work-based activities these are not the same as assessed social work practice.
25. In addition, the DipSW sets out 6 competences that an applicant needs to demonstrate that he has met in practice and knowledge. We cannot find sufficient evidence to satisfy us that Mr. Kahl has met these competencies.
26. We have looked at Mr. Kahl's Diploma Supplement in detail and are satisfied that there is nothing in that to suggest that his degree has the components required to meet the DipSW requirements.
27. In addition, we have read the e-mail from F. Oelmann dated 21^st July 2006. This makes it clear that the German Culture Ministry is satisfied that Mr. Kahl's degree would not entitle him to work as a social worker in Germany. That letter refers to two applicants. The first (a female) appears to have obtained a 'Diplom-Padagoge' from the University of Tubingen and, as she had chosen Social Pedagogics as a major subject, she was entitled to pursue the regulated professional activity of a social worker in Germany and so was entitled to direct recognition as a social worker in Great Britain. By contrast, that e-mail makes it equally clear that Mr. Kahl's degree is such that he is not directly qualified as a 'Sozialarbeiter' and that additional requirements may be demanded by GSCC before he could be registered.

Conclusions

28. We are satisfied on the evidence that we have read that Mr. Kahl does not hold a professional qualification of social work in Germany and is not entitled to practice as a social worker there. If the German Cultural Ministry is of the opinion that Mr. Kahl is not qualified to practice as a social worker in that country, we cannot contradict that both because the German Ministry is more conversant with the processes required in their country than we are and because there is no evidence before us that was not known to the Ministry to suggest to us that their view was based on wrong, incomplete or inaccurate information. In those circumstances Mr. Kahl cannot be registered according to section 64(1)(a) of the 2000 Act.
29. Mr. Kahl has not provided any further evidence of relevant training in social work since completing his Magister Erziehungswissenschaft to satisfy both the GSCC and this Tribunal that he has undergone relevant training in social work outside England to qualify for registration according to section 64(1)(b) of the 2000 Act. In those circumstances the GSCC were right to refuse registration.

Accordingly, our Unanimous decision is:

APPEAL DISMISSED

Mr. Simon Oliver (Nominated Chairman)

Ms Janice Funnell

Ms Caroline Joffe

Date: 10^th July 2007