Consultation response on fitness to practise guidance and policy

• Introduction
• What we consulted on
• How we consulted
• Consultation methodology
• Who responded?
• What you said
• What we did
• What happens next?
• Equality Impact Assessment

Introduction

The first 3 years of our regulation have involved a period of intense activity in unexpectedly challenging circumstances. In this time, we have learned and reflected on our work and tested our legislative framework. We have collated learning where it relates to our regulations and rules and begun the process of proposing amendments to them.

We recently consulted on 2 different sets of changes to our rules in April and July 2022. You can read our response to those consultations in our publications section. Following the Department for Education’s consultation on our Regulations earlier this year, we consulted on a further third set of amendments to our rules that required amendments to our Regulations first.

Our regulations, the Social Workers Regulations 2018 (as amended), set out how we perform our regulatory functions. Our rules set out what people can expect from us across appointments, registration, education and training, and fitness to practise.

We updated a number of our supporting guidance documents that would be affected by the proposed changes to our regulations and the subsequent amendments required in our rules. This consultation sets out new guidance relating to remote fitness to practise hearings as well as changes to 3 of our other key guidance documents which are used by our case examiners and adjudicators. It also set out our policy position around the approach to be taken by decision makers for convictions for drink and drug driving related offences. 

What we consulted on

Remote hearings protocol

In April 2022, we amended our rules to permanently incorporate electronic service of documents and included a definition of ‘place’ as somewhere that could be a physical or virtual location. Further to these changes, this consultation set out a new guidance document called the ‘Remote hearings protocol’.

The remote hearings protocol sets out:

• the ways in which we are able to hold hearings – in-person, remote, as a hybrid (a mix of in-person and remote participants) or a blended approach of any format (for example, some days of the hearing are in-person and some days of the hearing are a hybrid or remote)
• what happens when there is disagreement about the format of a hearing
• what overarching factors will be considered when deciding the hearing format
• how the hearing format is decided and what criteria the adjudicators will consider
• other relevant information relating to how remote hearings operate

Drink and drug driving policy

This policy has been developed following a thematic review by our decision review group who provide scrutiny each month of a targeted sample of fitness to practise decisions. The document sets out our policy position around the approach to be taken by decision makers for convictions for drink and drug driving related offences. The document:

• identifies the relevant drink and drug driving offences
• sets out the relevant aggravating and mitigating factors that the case examiners and adjudicators should take into account when considering these offences

Changes to other key decision-making guidance

This consultation also set out changes to the following key guidance in fitness to practise:

• sanctions guidance
• case examiner guidance
• pre-hearing case management guidance

We made changes to these documents because:

• we needed to incorporate changes as a result of amendments to our regulations and rules
• we wanted to take the opportunity to ensure the documents reflect our processes and operational learning and experience over the last 3 years.

We summarised the key amendments in the consultation document as follows.

In the sanctions guidance, we made the following changes:

• full language review undertaken to make the language used as accessible and plain English as possible
• provided clearer information around impairment and the 2 limbs of the impairment test that decision makers must consider
• provided clearer information around advice and warnings after a finding of impairment
• provided clearer information around sexual misconduct and dishonesty
• provided clearer information around criminal convictions and cautions
• provided clearer information around mandatory and early reviews of final orders
• made changes to the document based on changes to our rules and regulations around:
  • when interim and final orders start and when they can be published
  • what affect appeals have on interim and final orders
  • the case examiners’ new power to agree to a removal order with the social worker via accepted disposal

In the case examiner guidance we made the following changes:

• full language review undertaken to make the language used as accessible and plain English as possible
• removed information from this document that duplicates information in our sanctions guidance
• provided clarity on the factors to be considered in relation to preliminary matters such as providing a reasonable opportunity for submissions, obtaining further information and making amendments to regulatory concerns
• provided further clarity on the application of the realistic prospect test as it applies to facts, grounds and impairment provided further to the process of proposing, reviewing and potentially amending an accepted disposal proposal
• made changes to the document based on proposed amendments to our regulations including the new power (in cases of accepted disposal) for the case examiners to remove a social worker from the register with the social worker’s agreement
• provided some information about the voluntary removal power and the power to review case examiner decisions in light of the proposed changes to our regulations
• provided clarity on the actions to be taken after a decision has been made, such as the notification of parties
• clarified the role of the case examiners with respect to interim orders in light of proposed changes to our regulations

In the pre-hearing case management guidance we made the following changes:

• full language review undertaken to make the language used as accessible and plain English as possible
• provided clearer information about the various stages of pre-hearing case management including what will happen and when
• provided clearer information about what Social Work England’s advocate and hearings team will do, and what the applicant or the social worker (or their representative) will need to do and by when
• provided clearer information about the content and purpose of all directions including standard and other directions
• restructured the document so it is easier to understand the content and purpose of standard directions
• made changes to the document based on proposed changes to our regulations and rules, such as the adjudicators shall take admission of facts by the social worker as conclusive proof of a fact being found proved
• changed Annex A (standard directions) from a narrative to templated version based on the standard directions we currently use so it better reflects the documents the applicant or social worker will receive

How we consulted

We wanted to hear from those who may be impacted by the new guidance and policy documents, as well as the proposed changes to our key guidance documents. We made the information accessible via our website and promoted the consultation on our social media channels.

We published links to the new Remote hearings protocol and Drink and drug driving policy as well as links to the other key guidance documents including the proposed amendments, and links to the existing guidance documents. We also published a proposal of the amendments on our website, explaining the changes we would make. People and organisations were able to provide feedback either via an online survey or via email to consultationresponses@socialworkengland.org.uk.

Consultation methodology

We counted, read and analysed all responses to the consultation. We asked for responses either via our consultation survey or to be sent via email to our dedicated consultations inbox.  

All of the responses that we received were considered and recorded, which helped us to review our proposed amendments to the guidance.

Who responded?

We received 5 organisational responses to our consultation. These were: UNISON, OfSTED, and Capsticks Solicitors LLP, as well as the British Association of Social Workers (BASW) and the Social Workers Union (SWU), who submitted a joint response. We also received a collective response from a group of our case examiners.

What you said

Respondents generally agreed that the changes proposed to our guidance were welcomed and provided increased clarity and understanding in many areas of our processes. This was echoed by stakeholders including BASW/SWU and Unison. Where guidance was not as clear to respondents, some (in particular Capsticks) made helpful suggested amendments to some of the language and structure of the guidance documents with the aim of further aiding clarity and understanding for readers.

Remote hearings protocol

Respondents including Unison and BASW/SWU fed back that the remote hearings protocol is clear and understandable and the rationale behind the introduction of the remote hearings protocol is understood. Unison also expressed their support for the use of remote hearings so that cases are dealt with in a timely manner. They did however also state that social workers should be able to request in person hearings, and that parties should be asked to indicate their preference as early as possible in the process. BASW also felt that, in cases where social workers are not represented, they will be at a disadvantage understanding the processes involved in determining the most suitable mode of hearing that will secure a fair outcome.

Drink and drug driving policy

BASW/SWU and Unison provided specific responses to the introduction of a policy on drink and drug driving cases. Both responded positively to the introduction of the policy, although BASW/SWU also suggested that further clarification or information may assist anyone using the policy in cases where the offences are indicative of an underlying addiction or other health related problem.

We also received detailed feedback on the draft policy from a group of our case examiners. They welcome the introduction of a specific document to support decision makers but felt that further detail could be added to provide clarity to decision makers, particularly around impairment and the factors to consider when assessing seriousness.

Sanctions guidance

Both BASW/SWU and Unison provided a response to the proposed amendments to the sanctions guidance and generally feedback was positive. Unison fed back that language used in the guidance uses plain English and is therefore easier to understand and more accessible. They also suggested that the guidance would benefit from clearer signposting to the relevant statutory provisions and caselaw underpinning it. They felt that, in its draft form, the guidance did not specify early enough that sanctions are not intended to be punitive.

In relation to the information provided about the 2 limbs of the impairment test both BASW/SWU and Unison welcomed the increased clarity on the issue within the guidance, and that distinguishing between the 2 limbs was helpful. However, BASW/SWU felt further clarity could be gained from a paragraph emphasising that significance is attached to both limbs, depending upon the facts of the case, in arriving at a decision. Alternately, they suggested consideration be given to including a fuller explanation under ‘public impairment’ to enhance clarity.

In relation to the guidance on cases relating to sexual misconduct and dishonesty BASW/SWU welcomed greater clarity around these issues, in particular paragraph 167 which acknowledges that dishonesty can be seen in a nuanced way.

Case examiner guidance

In relation to voluntary removal Ofsted fed back that the issue of applications for voluntary removal from the register seems only to be referenced in the case examiner’s guidance and not in any of the other guidance. They felt that it should be included in other fitness to practise guidance documents, and that it should set out how we will consider protecting the public and how this will feed into decisions around whether to accept voluntary removal.

BASW/SWU generally recognised the efficacy of the change to allow voluntary removal from the register during FTP proceedings, which they felt in many cases can be the right thing for both the social worker and the public. They did however express some concerns relating to cases where social workers are not represented, particularly around the amount of advice available to them in arriving at such a critical decision.

In relation to cases where suspension or removal will be the chosen sanction offered via accepted disposal BASW/SWU provided positive feedback relating to paragraph 196 which advises that social workers should be allowed the maximum consideration time of 28 days.

Pre-hearing case management guidance

BASW/SWU provided positive feedback around the greater detail in the amended pre-hearing case management guidance. They also fed back that, while recognising the need for the management and timetabling of the process to prevent ‘drift’, they would suggest that given bundle size and other commitments more than 28 days is allowed for parties to respond to directions made.

What we did

We have made the following changes to our proposals as a result of the consultation responses we received.

Remote hearings protocol

We received feedback asking for us to further clarify the factors to be considered when considering whether a remote hearing should be held for interim order hearings. We have added clarification into the protocol, to set out the process and factors to be considered for other hearings including interim order hearings.

In relation to unrepresented social workers concerns were raised by two respondents that they may not be able to identify whether or not a remote hearing was suitable. In response to this feedback we have further clarified that Social Work England will undertake our own assessment of whether a remote hearing may be appropriate and we will take into consideration whether a social worker is not represented.

We were also asked to consider including some additional information into the ‘witnesses’ section to remind parties that they should not discuss the case or evidence with anyone whilst under oath or affirmation. We have now added some content to confirm that, similarly to in-person hearings, witnesses attending remotely must not discuss the case or their evidence with anyone whilst under oath or affirmation.

Drink and drug driving policy

We received feedback asking us to clarify some of the language and terms in the document to improve accessibility. We have clarified some of the language in the document in particular providing further detail about the meaning of impairment.

We received feedback asking us to clarify some of the mitigating factors that can be taken into account, in particular the relevance of absence of relevant criminal convictions or adverse findings. We clarified that the relevant mitigating factor was whether the offence in question was not a repeat offence. We received feedback that some driving courses were court ordered so should not be considered as a mitigating factor. We clarified that it was the voluntary completion of these types of courses that are a relevant mitigating factor.

We received feedback questioning what type of health condition would potentially be a predominant reason for the offending. We clarified that the health conditions we envisioned being captured here included alcohol and drug dependence.

We received feedback that further guidance should be provided as to how the policy interacts with the health guidance. We provided some further information from the concerns guidance to clarify the interaction of the two policies and provide clarity about how decision makers should consider these matters.

We received feedback that the outcomes section of the document would be better set out at the beginning to make clear the purpose of the policy. We moved the content to the beginning of the document to make clear what the purpose and potential outcome of implementing the policy was.

Sanctions guidance

We received feedback suggesting that the guidance would benefit from clearer signposting to the relevant statutory provisions and case law. We have reviewed the guidance and added the references to the relevant statutory provisions and some relevant case law where appropriate. In relation to the feedback received around the 2 limbs of the impairment test we have also amended the guidance to make it clear that both tests need to be given equal consideration.

We have also added further detail to a number of sections of the guidance, including reference to financial hardship in the section relating to mitigating factors to be taken into account when considering sanctions and further detail in relation to social workers engaging in personal relationships with former services users as requested by those that fed back. We have also added additional content to the section of the guidance concerned with the potential mitigating factors that decision makers can take into account when considering sanction as requested by those that fed back.

We also considered feedback relating to the role of the case review team and have reviewed the guidance to provide clarification of their role and the extent to which they can have input in the sanctions process as it was clear this section as originally drafted was leading to misunderstanding.

Following feedback, we have also changed the name of the guidance to better reflect its new broader scope to ‘Impairment and sanctions guidance’.

Case examiner guidance

We received feedback from one respondent who raised concerns about the use of the phrase ‘reference to credible evidence’ contained within the fact-finding section of the case examiner guidance. On consideration of this feedback we decided to remove the relevant sentence in the guidance to avoid confusion that the case examiners are not finding facts proven but rather, making a finding of a realistic prospect of facts being found proved.

We have also added some content to clarify that we encourage case examiners to identify the appropriate ground but also that there may be circumstances where grounds are pleaded in the alternative and that that can also be appropriate. This is based on feedback received from one respondent who suggested the case examiners should be encouraged to choose an appropriate ground rather than considering allegations pleaded in the alternative.

There was also concern raised by one respondent that social workers are not provided with sufficient time to provide a response to an accepted disposal decision. In response to this we have confirmed in the guidance that in addition to suspension and removal orders, the default time for social workers to respond to accepted disposal conditions of practice orders should also be 28 days.

Pre-hearing case management guidance

We received feedback inviting us to include reference to postponement applications as a type of application that could be considered at a case management meeting. In response to this we have amended the guidance to include reference to these types of applications in the relevant section.

One respondent was concerned by reference in our guidance that adjudicators who sit on case management meetings may also sit on the final hearing panel of adjudicators. While adjudicators do not always have to be different from the case management meeting, we do note that there may be occasions where it is not appropriate to have the same adjudicators sit on both proceedings. This has been further clarified in our guidance.

We also received feedback from one respondent who raised concerns that the case management questionnaire is sent out prior to the case having a full legal review. In response to this we have added further clarification to the guidance which confirms that our external legal providers do undertake a review before the case management questionnaire is sent to the social worker.

One respondent also raised concerns that social workers are only allowed a 28 day window to respond to cases in the current standard directions. We have added clarification to the guidance that variation to standard directions can be sought if further time is needed to any deadlines, which will include the social worker responding to the case.

What happens next?

The consultation closed on 12 October 2022. The final guidance and policy documents can be found in our concerns section. We’ll continue to work with social workers, employers, people with lived experience and other people with an interest in social work to ensure our guidance remains useful, relevant and easy to understand.

Equality impact assessment

Introduction

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.

Social Work England is the specialist regulator for social workers in England. Between 3 August 2022 and 12 October 2022, we held a public consultation on new guidance relating to remote fitness to practise hearings, proposed changes to 3 key guidance documents, as well as a new drink and drug driving policy. We received 5 organisational responses to our consultation including a joint response from the British Association of Social Workers (BASW) and the Social Workers Union (SWU). We also received a collective response from a group of our case examiners.

This equality impact assessment sits alongside our consultation response. It is a written record showing how we’ve taken care to eliminate unlawful discrimination and promote equal opportunities. As part of the equality impact assessment, we found that people from some protected characteristic groups could be impacted both positively and negatively. We also considered how the changes could impact a person’s socio-economic status or health and wellbeing.

Consultation responses

Through our consultation, we asked respondents if they thought our proposed changes would have a positive, negative or no impact on people in different protected characteristics groups, and in what way. The responses have helped us to understand which groups respondents thought would be most impacted and consider areas for change and improvement.

What people said

Respondents to the consultation did not identify any specific potential impacts based on a person’s protected characteristic. Where stakeholders stated that they thought there would be a negative impact, the feedback either did not relate directly to the proposed changes, or commented on the proposed changes as a whole and that they may lead to an unforeseen impact upon those with protected characteristics. 

Remote hearings protocol

Positive

Our remote hearings guidance states that in the first instance, our hearings will be listed as remote hearings. A remote hearing is where all parties attend via a video conferencing platform. In relation to final hearings the guidance provides information on proceedings being public, and the timings of hearings. Final hearings take place in public but the regulator or adjudicators may, where appropriate, decide to hear some, or all, of a hearing in private session. A hearing, or part of it, will be heard in private where proceedings relate to the making or reviewing of an interim order, or the physical or mental health of the social worker. Remote hearings will usually be scheduled from 9.30am to 5pm. This provides the adjudicators and parties the flexibility to manage the hearing day according to individual circumstances.

In the above cases, the use of remote hearings, having the option for part or all of a hearing to be held in private and providing clear timescales for hearing days may positively impact the following groups with protected characteristics:

• those with protected characteristics relating to physical disability and mental health related issues, for example anxiety.
• those who are pregnant or on maternity leave (health issues relating to their pregnancy or childcare considerations up to the baby being 26 weeks old).
• people with childcare responsibilities.
• those who need to attend appointments relating to disability, pregnancy and maternity, gender reassignment and religious holidays.

The use of remote hearings may also positively impact individuals with lower incomes, who may otherwise struggle to finance travel and accommodation to attend an in-person hearing.

Negative

The guidance provides detailed information of the remote hearings process. In relation to documents and bundles these are shared with the relevant parties electronically via secure methods prior to the hearing. If a party needs to provide additional documents on the day of the hearing, they must send them electronically to the other party and the hearings officer. This may impact individuals with visual or other physical disabilities who may find accessing documents via electronic means difficult, particularly when navigating them during a live hearing. The mitigation to this potential impact is the option for documents in advance to be requested in hard copy via post. There is also the option for social workers to be supported during the hearing, and for witnesses to access support through the hearings team.

For some people with protected characteristics the use of remote hearings has the potential to cause a negative impact. For instance, someone with a hearing impairment may struggle to engage in a hearing remotely where they would otherwise be able to in-person. The guidance acknowledges that in some cases remote hearings will not be suitable and this will be dealt with as part of the pre-hearing case management process. The guidance also acknowledges that the video conferencing platform has accessibility features such as closed captioning (live transcription of what is being said) that may actively assist someone with a hearing impairment, which would not be available for an in-person hearing.

The use of hybrid hearings (where part of the hearing is in person and part remote) may also negatively impact individuals with disabilities relating to their hearing or vision as they may find it difficult to engage fully due to the environment of the hearing. This impact can be mitigated through the use of assistive technology, and also through the management of the hearing by the adjudicators, ensuring that the pace of the hearing is appropriate to meet the needs of those with protected characteristics.

In relation to the hearing timetables the guidance stipulates that remote hearings will usually be scheduled from 9.30am to 5pm. Those with protected characteristics relating to disability or pregnancy and maternity (if experiencing health issues relating to this) may struggle to engage at particular times of the day. The mitigation for this is the flexibility that the adjudicators and parties have to manage the hearing day according to individual circumstances.

Support and representation

Positive impacts

The guidance states that a social worker is permitted to have someone with them during the hearing. This person could be formally representing them (speaking on their behalf) or there as a form of practical or emotional support with the social worker remaining self-represented. This may positively impact those with a disability who without support may struggle to engage with the hearing process.

Drink and drug driving policy

The drink and drug driving policy sets out the factors our decision makers (adjudicators and case examiners) should take into account when considering:

• the seriousness of the offending
• the question of whether a social worker’s fitness to practise can or should be found impaired when convicted of such an offence

The policy itself does not present any potential positive or negative impacts to individuals with protected characteristics. However, the application of the policy could present impacts that we will consider in an Equality Impact Assessment when developing guidance relating to this policy.

Sanctions and case examiner guidance

Risk of repetition, insight and remediation

Positive

The impairment and sanctions guidance and case examiner guidance includes the requirement for decision makers to be aware that a person’s culture or background may sometimes affect how insight is expressed. This may have a positive impact on individuals with protected characteristics relating to race, and religion or belief as it places a requirement on decision makers to consider how a person’s culture, or beliefs may impact how they demonstrate insight.

Negative

The impairment and sanctions guidance and case examiner guidance provides information about the risk of repetition, and insight. Social workers can demonstrate their insight through (any of the following):

• their engagement with the process
• their submissions during the investigation and prior to a hearing
• any remediation or reflection they have done regarding the concerns and anything they may say at a hearing

Demonstrating complete insight will help to assure decision makers that there is minimal risk of repetition. According to the guidance, remediation is best shown by objective evidence. For example, the successful completion of education or training courses or satisfactory performance appraisals or other positive feedback in relation to their professional practice.

The above may impact people with a protected characteristic relating to disability, gender reassignment, or pregnancy or maternity as they may struggle to engage at times with the process, provide submissions, or demonstrate remediation. Demonstrating insight and remediation is necessary to satisfy decision makers that a social workers fitness to practise is no longer impaired and is a necessary part of the decision-making process. The potential negative impacts could be mitigated through the support of a representative for the social worker. We are able to signpost social workers to representative organisations, and as the regulator we can take into consideration any extenuating circumstances the social worker might have because of their protected characteristic(s).

Publication of decisions

Positive

The impairment and sanctions guidance and case examiner guidance provide information about the publication of fitness to practise decisions. Published decisions in health cases must not include any information that identifies the precise nature of the social worker’s health condition. The adjudicators should produce a private version of the decision which sets out the specific health condition and any health information that was discussed in private at the hearing. Case examiners should produce a private version of the decision which sets out the specific health condition and any health information. In both cases, private decisions will be provided to the social worker but will not be published.

Producing private versions of decisions where there is information pertaining to a social worker’s health condition may positively impact the following:

• those with protected characteristics relating to physical disability and mental health related issues.
• those who are pregnant or on maternity leave (health issues relating to their pregnancy or post-pregnancy).
• those who are undergoing (or were undergoing) gender reassignment.

Accepted disposal

Positive

The case examiner guidance outlines the process for the use of accepted disposal. Where it is appropriate to do so, the use of accepted disposal may speed up the conclusion of a fitness to practise case. When using accepted disposal, the case examiners will need to provide a timeframe for the social worker to decide whether they consent to the proposed disposal. This is normally between 14 and 28 days. When determining the timeframe, the case examiners should not delay the case longer than necessary.

In the above cases, the use of accepted disposal as a means of concluding a fitness to practise case, and the provision of clear timeframes may positively impact the following groups as they would not be required to attend a full hearing, and would be provided with clear timeframes:

• those with protected characteristics relating to physical disability and mental health related issues, for example anxiety.
• those who are pregnant or on maternity leave (health issues relating to their pregnancy or childcare considerations up to the baby being 26 weeks old).
• people with childcare responsibilities.
• those who need to attend appointments relating to disability, pregnancy and maternity, gender reassignment and religious holidays.

Negative

The timeframes outlined above in relation to accepted disposal could also potentially negatively impact on those with protected characteristics relating to certain physical and mental disabilities, gender reassignment, pregnancy and maternity, as it may make it difficult to respond within specified timeframes. However, including a deadline of 14-28 days ensures our processes are efficient and streamlined, and this negative impact is mitigated by including scope for this timeframe to be extended by the regulator where it may be appropriate to do so. 

The case examiner guidance details the timescales relating to submissions. The case examiners should be satisfied that the social worker has had a reasonable opportunity to respond to the case against them. In accordance with the rules, the investigators are required to provide the social worker with least 14 calendar days (after notification has been served) to make written submissions and, if the investigators ask the complainant to comment, they must give them at least 7 calendar days to make their written submissions.

These timeframes could potentially negatively impact on those with protected characteristics relating to certain physical and mental disabilities, gender reassignment, pregnancy and maternity, as it may make it difficult to respond within shorter timeframes. However, including deadlines is necessary to ensure our processes are efficient and streamlined. The impact is mitigated by allowing for this to be not less than 14 calendar days and could therefore be longer if appropriate. The guidance also states that the case examiners should consider adjourning the case if they are not satisfied that the social worker and/or the complainant has had reasonable opportunity to comment.

Early review

Positive

The case examiner guidance also includes a section relating to early reviews of final orders. There is an opportunity under schedule 2, paragraph 15(2) of the regulations for Social Work England to conduct an early review of a final order where there is new evidence available, relevant to the order that suggests the order may no longer be appropriate. It is also possible for the social worker to request an early review if they do so within the first 28 days of the final order being made. We refer to these reviews as ‘early reviews’. This could have a positive impact for individuals , as they may be able to have their order reviewed early should new evidence come to light which was relevant to the order and was not available at the time of the decision, which means the order may no longer be appropriate.

Negative

As with the accepted disposal process, the timeframe the social worker has  to request an early review of their final order within the first 28 days could potentially negatively impact on those with protected characteristics relating to certain physical and mental disabilities, gender reassignment, pregnancy and maternity, as it may make it difficult to respond within this specified timeframe. However, including a deadline of 28 days ensures our processes are efficient and streamlined, and is necessary to ensure public protection. Should the need for an early review arise after this time, Social Work England can decide to exercise its discretion to call an early review at any time on behalf of the social worker.

Pre-hearing case management guidance

Positive

The pre-hearing case management guidance includes information relating to the drafting of hearing timetables. Our external legal provider will prepare the timetable, which will set out the proposed elements of the hearing by each hearing day. Providing a timetable in advance may positively impact the following people with protected characteristics:

• those with protected characteristics relating to physical disability and mental health related issues, for example anxiety.
• those who are pregnant or on maternity leave (health issues relating to their pregnancy or childcare considerations up to the baby being 26 weeks old).
• people with childcare responsibilities.
• those who need to attend appointments relating to disability, pregnancy and maternity, gender reassignment and religious holidays.

Negative

The pre-hearing case management guidance also provides information on participation in the process. If the social worker does not participate, they will still be subject to the case management directions. These directions may restrict how the social worker can present their case at the hearing. The adjudicators may also take a social worker’s failure to engage into account when assessing their current fitness to practise. For example, the adjudicators may draw a negative conclusion from the social worker’s failure to comply with directions. This is called ‘drawing adverse inferences’.

This could have a negative impact on those with protected characteristics relating to certain physical and mental disabilities, gender reassignment, and pregnancy and maternity, as they may find it difficult to engage with the pre-hearing case management process. This potential impact can be mitigated by the social worker nominating someone to represent them.

When preparing their case, the social worker has 28 days from the date that Social Work England discloses its case to provide their response to the case, all witness statements and evidence (to include any media files) they intend to rely on at the hearing, an updated draft hearing bundle index and an updated draft hearing timetable. Any witness statements they wish to rely on in support of their case should include a statement of truth.

This could have a negative impact on those with protected characteristics relating to certain physical and mental disabilities, gender reassignment, and pregnancy and maternity, as they may find it difficult to respond within specified timeframes. However, including a deadline of 28 days ensures our processes are efficient and streamlined, and this negative impact is mitigated by including scope for this timeframe to be extended by the regulator or the adjudicators where it may be appropriate to do so. It is also possible for the social worker to nominate someone to represent (and support them) through the process.

The guidance also includes detailed information about case management meetings. The guidance states that the hearings case manager will issue 7 calendar days’ notice of the case management meeting, and that it may be necessary to have several case management conferences or meetings. The 7 day notice of case management meetings, and potential for multiple meetings, could have a negative impact on those with protected characteristics relating to certain physical and mental disabilities, gender reassignment, and pregnancy and maternity, as they may find it difficult to attend meetings at short notice, and may struggle to attend multiple meetings. A 7 day timeframe is considered necessary to ensure we have an efficient hearing process. The potential impacts are mitigated by the requirement of "not less than 7 days", which means that where appropriate the regulator can extend the timeframe. Additionally, a social worker will be able to raise if they have difficulty attending on a specific day and we will look for an alternative date wherever possible.

Sign off

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: Philip Hallam

Title: Executive Director - Regulation

Date approved: 16 December 2022