Consultation response on amendments to our registration rules

Introduction

On 3 April 2025 we launched a 10-week public consultation on proposed amendments to our registration rules. The consultation closed on Thursday 12 June at 5pm. The consultation sought views on 2 specific changes that we proposed would take effect from September 2025. The following is an overview of the consultation, including a summary of our activity, who responded and the feedback we received.

What we consulted on

This consultation proposed 2 changes to our registration rules, as below.

1. Reducing International English Language Testing System (IELTS) certificate validity from 5 years to 2 years.

This was to ensure consistency with other health and care regulators in England following an IELTS publication (2023) that found its recommended 2-year validity period is the norm.

2. Removing gender identity from our mandatory data collection in line with Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) guidance.

This was in response to new Government PSED guidance (2023) which states: “Authorities should take care to undertake their assessment by reference to the protected characteristics set out in the act. They should not use concepts such as gender or gender identity, which are not encoded in the act and can be understood in different ways.”

How we consulted

We are committed to making sure our work is informed by everyone who has an interest in social work. We believe in the power of collaboration and co-production, which is why we consult on proposals that may impact those who use social work services, the social work profession, and the wider social work sector. Our regulations require us to consult when we make substantive amendments to our rules (Social Workers Regulations, regulation 3(5)).

We wanted to hear from those who might be impacted by any proposed changes and made information available on our website and by promoting the consultation through our communication channels.

When launching our public consultation in April 2025, we shared details of the amendments we were proposing to make on our website. This was accompanied by further details explaining why we were proposing these changes. 

We asked respondents to provide their feedback on these proposals by either:

• completing a consultation survey made available on our website
• emailing our consultation email address directly

We recorded, read and analysed all responses to the consultation. As well as producing data on how many responses thought the proposals were clear or not clear, we recorded the themes in the free text responses and noted key suggestions made by respondents.

Who responded

We received 58 responses to the consultation, including 25 social workers, 8 people with lived experience of social work and 4 who were responding on behalf of an organisation. 

What you said

In the consultation survey, we asked people a number of questions, detailed below. Respondents could indicate whether the new proposed wording was clear or not and gave space to write the reason for their views and any additional comments.

Below is an overview of the views shared by respondents. 

Clarity of rule 16: proposal to reduce International English Language Testing System (IELTS) certificate validity from 5 years to 2 years

Respondents were asked: “To what extent is the proposed wording for rule 16 clear?”. Most respondents (86%) felt the proposed wording was clear, with only a minority (11%) selecting not clear.

Open text responses emphasised that this change would bring Social Work England’s rules in line with other public bodies. The importance of clear communication from social workers was highlighted by several respondents, and more frequent testing seen to support this. A small number queried whether more frequent testing is required, and whether evidence regarding language retention beyond 2 years is robust, although a larger number agreed with the rationale for change.

Clarity of rule 22: proposal removing gender identity from our mandatory data collection in line with Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) guidance

Respondents were asked: “To what extent is the proposed wording for rule 22 clear?”. Most respondents (72%) felt the proposed wording was clear. Where people felt it wasn’t clear, all except one welcomed the removal of gender identity collection but felt that we should collect data on a person’s sex instead. 

What we will do

Changes to our rules

Following the consultation, we analysed all responses and considered the feedback. Based on the feedback, we will proceed with the proposed changes to rule 16 and rule 22 as set out in the consultation. These changes will take effect from 1 September 2025, to coincide with the next renewals period.

In addition to the changes related to rule 22, we will also make changes to the voluntary questions we add as part of our equality and diversity data collection process. We have considered the recently published independent review of data, statistics and research on sex and gender, led by Professor Alice Sullivan, and used the recommended wording in the changes outlined below.

Our voluntary equality and diversity questions about sex and gender reassignment relate directly to protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010 and will enable us to continue observing trends across the social work sector.

Additional changes to our processes

Following the change to rule 22, the below mandatory question will be removed from our registration, renewals and restoration journeys:

1. Gender identity

• Female 
• Male 
• Prefer to self-describe 
• Prefer not to say 

We will also remove gender identity data from the back end register so that Social Work England colleagues also do not have access to it.

We will also remove the following voluntary question from our EDI form:

2. Is your gender identity the same as the sex you were assigned at birth? 

• Yes 
• No 
• Prefer not to say

The following voluntary questions will be added to the existing EDI form:

1. What is your sex?

‘This question is about your sex at birth.’

• Female
• Male
• Prefer not to say

2. Do you have the protected characteristic of gender reassignment?

‘A person has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment if the person is proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of reassigning the person’s sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex.'

• Yes
• No
• Don’t know
• Prefer not to say

Equality Impact Assessment

We’re committed to monitoring the impact, and enhancing the accessibility and content, of all our services to meet our equality duties and objectives. We’ve reflected on the feedback from our consultation to assess the potential positive and negative impacts of our proposals. This equality impact assessment sits alongside our consultation response. It is a written record that shows how we’ve taken care to eliminate unlawful discrimination, advance equality of opportunity and foster good relations.

Consultation responses

Within the consultation, we asked respondents “Do you think that the proposed changes to the registration rules could have a positive or negative impact on people with any of the following protected characteristics?”. Respondents could share views on each of the 9 protected characteristics. We then asked people to explain why they thought that was the case. The responses have helped us to understand which groups could be impacted and consider areas for change and improvement. This has also helped us to understand which groups respondents thought would be most impacted and consider areas for change and improvement.

What you said and what we will do

Rule 16: proposal to reduce International English Language Testing System (IELTS) certificate validity from 5 years to 2 years

When asked if the proposed change to rule 16 might have an impact on people with protected characteristics, most respondents selected ‘don’t know’. Of the remaining responses, most felt there would be a positive impact across all protected characteristics. Only a small proportion of respondents felt there would be a negative impact.

A small number of responses noted that older or younger applicants may have less access to resources to take the test multiple times, as there is a financial cost to taking the test. The financial implications of more frequent testing were also raised alongside concerns that this may fall disproportionately on ethnic minority and overseas social workers.

Some responses highlighted that any delays in the registration process for overseas workers may overlap with the two-year period, meaning that testing is required sooner upon registration. However, the date of certificate validity is calculated to the date the application is submitted, not to the date it is processed. 

A small number of respondents highlighted potential barriers to recruitment of overseas workers if more frequent testing is required. Very few applications to join our register have included an IELTS certificate awarded more than 2 but less than 5 years ago, so we expect this impact to be minimal.

Rule 22: proposal removing gender identity from our mandatory data collection in line with Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) guidance 

When asked whether the proposed changes to rule 22 would have an impact on people with protected characteristics, most people selected ‘positive’, or ‘don’t know’, for all categories. A smaller number across all protected characteristics indicated they felt there would be a negative impact. 

Some respondents agreed with collecting sex data voluntarily rather than mandating collection of gender identity. Around a third of respondents explicitly supported this, compared to a very small number (less than 5) explicitly in support of collecting gender identity. The reasons for this were varied without strong themes emerging. Responses included:

• Support for the change because they felt it is in line with legislation such as the Equality Act 2010.
• Support of the change because it aligned with their beliefs.
• Sentiment that collecting sex data was important for effective service delivery or that conflating gender and sex may create risk for vulnerable service users.
• Others still felt that the language around sex promoted greater clarity than that around gender, allowing for the collection of high-quality data.
• A small number of respondents felt that questions regarding sex should be mandatory in order to ensure Social Work England holds complete demographic data for the register. 

A small number of respondents also highlighted that removing a focus on gender may lead to people with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment feeling underrepresented. It may also negatively impact EDI monitoring in relation to this group.

To address these concerns, we have written our new voluntary questions (one on sex and one on gender reassignment) using the recommended approach from the Sullivan review. The questions directly relate to two protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010 and will allow us to examine our processes in relation to them.

This equality impact assessment has been undertaken and signed off in accordance with Social Work England’s responsibilities under the Public Sector Equality Duty, as set out in the Equality Act 2010.

Name: Sarah Blackmore
Title: Executive Director of Professional Practice and External Engagement
Date approved: 14 August 2025

What happens next?

We will publish new rules and implement the related changes to our processes outlined above from the start of the next registration renewal period on 1 September 2025.