Consultation response on further amendments to our rules

• 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 began the process of proposing amendments to them. This consultation sets out some of those amendments.

We recently consulted on 2 different sets of changes to our rules:

1. Read our response to the consultation on amendments to our rules, electronic communication and remote hearings, dated 19 April 2022.
2. Read our response to the consultation on amendments to our rules, dated 29 July 2022.

This consultation sets out further amendments to our rules following the Department for Education’s consultation on our regulations, the Social Workers Regulations 2018 (as amended),[1] earlier this year.

Our regulations 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 also consulted on some of the supporting guidance that would be affected by the proposed rule changes, to reflect these changes and make additional changes to language and content as a result of learning over the last 3 years. As set out in that consultation, those guidance documents required amendments to reflect those made to the rules as a result of this consultation. You can read the response to this consultation in our fitness to practise guidance consultation page.

[1] This version of the regulations has previously been updated to reflect the UK's departure from the European Union and to incorporate a temporary register during the Covid-19 pandemic. However, these changes do not affect this consultation.

What we consulted on

This consultation proposed changes to our:

• Fitness to Practise Rules
• Registration Rules
• Removal from the Register and Registration Appeals Rules.

Any minor amendments (amendments proposed simply to make the rules clearer or ensure that they better align with our other rules and our regulations), have not been included in the summary list set out below. However, a list of all the proposed changes were included in tables at the end of the consultation page, which provided more detail on why we were proposing the amendments and what they would do.

We summarised the key amendments on the consultation page as follows.

In the Fitness to Practise Rules, we proposed to:

• Amend the rule to provide for automatic removal to take effect immediately following the removal decision, notwithstanding the appeal period, to align with corresponding changes to the regulations (rule 7(1)).
• Amend the rules around obtaining further information, and inviting the social worker or complainant to comment on further information, to include ‘the regulator’ in addition to the investigators, as a party that can require, obtain or receive further information (rules 10(a) and 11(a)). The regulator in this instance will include the triage team. This aligns with corresponding changes to the regulations.
• Add new rules to set out the procedure for voluntary removal from the register when a social worker is subject to fitness to practise proceedings (rules 12A-F). Previously a social worker undergoing fitness to practise proceedings had to stay on the register until those proceedings were resolved. The changes to the regulations allow for a social worker to request to be removed from the register while they are subject to fitness to practise proceedings and for the regulator to agree to this request, and these rules set out the procedure for doing this. In particular, they allow the regulator to ask for further information about a request for voluntary removal (rule 12C(1)), and specify the form in which a request must be made (rule 12B).
• Add new rules to enable the regulator to review part or the whole of case examiner decisions under certain circumstances (rule 12G). The changes to the Regulations allow for this type of review, and these rules contain more detail about how this review would work. In particular:
  • The case examiner decisions that could be reviewed include decisions to close the fitness to practise case (a finding of no realistic prospect of impairment, including a decision to take no further action or to give a warning or advice) or to impose an accepted disposal outcome with the social worker, but do not include decisions to refer the case to the adjudications (rule 12G(1)).
  • Where a case examiner decision relates to a number of concerns about the social worker, the review may cover either all of the concerns or only some of them. The inclusion of ‘part of a decision’ in the review power is intended to allow Social Work England to review a broader set of decisions and therefore better meet the overarching objective of the protection of the public.
  • A request for a review may come from Social Work England, the social worker in question, the complainant (if there was one) or someone we consider has an interest in the decision. Each of these people may normally only request a review once in relation to the same decision (rule 12G(2) and (7)). We have included examples of who may have an interest in the decision (rule 12G(3)). This list does not mean someone included on the list would automatically be considered to have an interest, or that others not on the list would be excluded.
  • A case examiner decision may only be reviewed where the regulator believes that the decision is materially flawed or there is new information which may have led to a different decision. The review must also be necessary for the protection of the public, necessary for the prevention of injustice to the social worker, or otherwise necessary in the public interest (rule 12G(2) and (5)).
  • A review can only be started within three months of the case examiner decision, unless there are exceptional circumstances (rule 12G(6)).

• Social Work England may request further information or representations to allow it to make a decision about a review (rule 12G(8)).
• Where the regulator does decide that the case examiners should make a new decision, the original case examiner decision will remain in place until the new decision is made (rule 12G(10)). For instance, where a social worker had a conditions of practice order imposed under the accepted disposal provisions and a decision is made on review to send it to case examiners for a new decision, then the conditions of practice order will remain in place until a new case examiner decision is made.

• Amend our rules around notifying the social worker of fitness to practise and restoration after removal hearings to clarify that the regulator will do this (rules 14 and 20(1)).
• Add to the rule around determining any disputed facts to clarify that any facts that are agreed between the parties shall be treated as proved. This is already suggested by the provision that the adjudicators must first deal with disputed facts, but we are proposing to clarify this as in some cases the adjudicators have considered facts that are already agreed between the parties (rule 32(c)(i)(aa)).
• Amend the rules around a hearing proceeding in the absence of a party and service to be explicit that these include applicants for restoration (after a previous removal by a fitness to practise process) as well as registered social workers (rules 43-46(b)).
• Amend the provisions on service so that service of a notice of hearing by courier is deemed to take place on the day after it was sent, instead of two days (rule 45).

In the Registration Rules, we proposed to:

• Add a new rule to require the regulator to record and publish a social worker’s voluntary removal during fitness to practise proceedings and the regulator may publish the particulars of it, from the register, but make clear that this cannot include information about the social worker’s health (rule 10(1A)).
• Add a new rule to require an applicant applying to have their entry in the register restored to disclose whether they have ever been voluntarily removed from the register while subject to fitness to practise proceedings (rule 59(1)(f)).

In the Removal from the Register and Registration Appeals Rules, we proposed to:

• Make an amendment to clarify that reference to a failure to comply with a direction applies to any direction given under these rules, rather than only to directions given under rule 15 of these rules (rule 15(3)).
• Amend the provisions on service so that service of a notice of hearing by courier is deemed to take place on the day after it was sent, instead of two days (rule 23(2)).
• Add new rules on case management, which sets out the detail of how and when case management meetings can be held. These are based on the case management provisions that are already in the Fitness to Practise Rules (rules 24 to 29).

How we consulted

Our regulations require us to consult when we make substantive amendments to our rules (Social Workers Regulations 2018 (as amended), regulation 3(5)). We also wanted to hear from those who may be impacted by the amendments.

We made this information accessible via our website and promoted the consultation on our social media channels.

We published a proposal of the amendments on our website, explaining the changes we would make. We also included a link to the Department for Education’s consultation on the proposed changes to the Social Workers Regulations 2018.

People and organisations were able to provide feedback 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 our rules.

Who responded?

We received 3 individual responses to our online consultation survey. We also received responses from 6 organisations. These were:

• Professional Standards Authority
• UNISON
• OfSTED
• Capsticks Solicitors LLP
• The British Association of Social Workers (BASW) and the Social Workers Union (SWU), who submitted a joint response.

What you said

Respondents generally agreed that many of the changes proposed to our rules were simple consequential amendments which broadly reflected the changes being made to the Social Workers Regulations 2018 (as amended).

Most of the feedback we received related to 2 new powers proposed under the Fitness to Practise Rules:

1. Rules 12A-12F – voluntary removal (when subject to fitness to practise proceedings).
2. Rule 12G - regulator review of case examiner decisions.

In relation to the proposal to enable the regulator to allow a social worker to be voluntarily removed from the register under rules 12A-12F, respondents noted that this process must protect the public from social workers whose fitness to practise could be impaired. However, respondents also felt there was limited information within the rules to confirm how this would be achieved.

In relation to the proposal to allow the regulator to review decisions made by case examiners under rule 12G, feedback was generally positive. For cases where multiple regulatory concerns about the social worker were considered, respondents felt the proposal under rule 12G(2) to allow for the regulator to review part of a case examiners’ decision rather than all of it was proportionate and would strengthen the investigatory process. However, some respondents sought further clarity regarding the practical application and implications of the process.

We also received several suggestions regarding our rules and processes which were outside of the scope of this consultation. They include the funding of medical assessments and a wider question around our approach to publishing documents. We are grateful for this feedback and will give consideration to these comments and the issues they raise. However, we will not be making any changes to our rules based on this feedback at this time.

What we did

Fitness to Practise Rules

Rules 12A-12F

In relation to the proposed new powers for voluntary removal in rules 12A-12F of the Fitness to Practise Rules, we received feedback which requested further clarity on how this process would operate. Whilst we concluded that the rules did not require amendments to address these concerns, we can confirm that public guidance is being prepared in relation to this process.

The guidance will provide further information including, but not limited to, when applications will be considered, what factors will be taken into account, who will make the decisions and what information will be published.

Rule 12G

In relation to the proposed new powers allowing the regulator to review some decisions made by the case examiners, again we received feedback which requested further clarity in relation to how this process would operate.

Some of the questions and further information to clarify the process are as follows:

When is the original case examiner decision revoked?

In our consultation, we explained that where Social Work England decides that a fresh decision by the case examiners is required, the original case examiner decision would remain in place until a fresh decision is made (previously proposed as rule 12G(10)). For example, a social worker had a conditions of practice order imposed under the accepted disposal provisions. On review, it was decided to send it to case examiners for a new decision. The conditions of practice order would remain in place until a new case examiner decision is made.

However, questions were raised about this approach within a consultation response. A respondent asked about the legal status of an existing case examiner decision where a rule 12G review has commenced and/or where a decision is made to refer the case back to the case examiners for a fresh decision, and what this would mean for a final order which had been imposed. We sought further legal advice in relation to this query and, as a result, we now consider that our previous interpretation of when the original case examiner decision, and any final order where applicable, is revoked may not have been the logical approach.

Instead, where a rule 12G decision is made to refer a case back to the case examiners for a fresh decision on part or on the whole of the case, the original case examiner decision in relation to those matters will at that point be revoked.

Final orders

The above approach will include any final order imposed. For instance, where a social worker had a conditions of practice order imposed under the accepted disposal provisions and a decision is made on review to refer the whole decision back to case examiners for a fresh decision, then the conditions of practice order would be revoked at the time of the rule 12G decision, not when the case examiners make a fresh decision.

Any final order imposed will remain in force and retain legal effect unless a rule 12G decision revokes the original case examiner decision and refers the case for a fresh decision. This means a final order will continue to be reviewed by a panel of adjudicators under paragraph 15(1) and (2) unless the decision is revoked.

Where a final order is revoked or varied on paragraph 15 review, the original case examiner decision can nevertheless still be reviewed under rule 12G. This means that where a rule 12G decision is made to revoke the original decision and to refer the case back to the case examiners for a fresh decision, any final order imposed will also be revoked. When making a fresh decision, the case examiners will have all of the same powers as they usually do when making a decision including being able to recommend a (new and different) final order or they can refer the case to the adjudicators.

However, where the final order has already been reviewed by a panel of the adjudicators prior to a rule 12G decision being made, the panel’s decision will be considered as part of the rule 12G review. The decision taken on a paragraph 15 review would likely be relevant to the question of whether it was necessary and in the public interest to remit the original case examiner decision for a fresh determination. It will also likely be relevant to any fresh decision made by the case examiners in determining impairment and the outcome of a case.

At each stage of our process, we will continue to assess whether there is any risk to the public and take appropriate steps to ensure the public are protected, including applying for an interim order where necessary.

Part of a decision

Where only part of the original decision is referred back to the case examiners for a fresh decision, those parts of the decision will be revoked when the rule 12G decision is made, and the remaining parts of the original decision will remain in place.

For instance, where a case consists of 4 regulatory concerns, and the original decision refers regulatory concerns 1 and 2 through to the adjudicators and the remaining regulatory concerns (3 and 4) are closed, where a decision is made on review to refer the closed regulatory concerns (3 and 4) back to case examiners for a fresh decision, then the decision on those  specific regulatory concerns will be revoked at the time of the rule 12G decision. The case examiners decision on regulatory concerns 1 and 2 will remain in force and only regulatory concerns 3 and 4 will be referred back to the case examiners for a fresh decision. When making a decision on regulatory concerns 3 and 4, on impairment and the outcome of the case, the case examiners will be able to take into consideration the original case examiner decision about regulatory concerns 1 and 2.

We do not believe that this requires amendments to the rules and will, instead, clarify this within our guidance documents. 

Technical drafting amendments

In the consultation responses, concerns were also raised about the technical drafting of some of the provisions. 

We concluded that rule 12G did require amendments to address these drafting concerns, and we have redrafted rule 12G(8)(b)(iii) and (10) to separate the process and statutory powers. We have also amended a spelling error at rule 12G(2)(b). These amendments do not change the substance of our powers, rather they are intended to provide greater clarity and to reflect what was intended.

Guidance

We can also confirm that public guidance is being prepared in relation to this process. This will provide further information including, but not limited to:

• the legal status of an existing case examiner decision if a rule 12G decision is considered and/or made
• who will make decisions under rule 12G
• the steps we will take to minimise any risk of potential conflicts of interest
• what happens when only part of a decision is returned for a fresh decision
• how the rule 12G process will interact with the requirement to review a final order under paragraph 15 of Schedule 2 of the Social Workers Regulations 2018 (as amended), and
• what information will be published.

Rule 16(aa)

Although we did not specifically consult on rule 16(aa), as part of the questions posed in our consultation, we asked the public to consider whether they thought any further changes to the Fitness to Practise Rules were necessary to reflect the changes to the Regulations.   

One respondent noted that the current wording of rule 16(aa) provides that the 28 day time period in which the social worker can request an early review of a final order (under paragraph 15 of Schedule 2 of the Social Workers Regulations 2018 (as amended)) commences on the day on which they are notified of the order.

Paragraph 15 allows a social worker to request a review of a final order where new evidence relevant to the order has become available after the making of the order. Some changes are being made to clarify and streamline this process under paragraph 15, which will come into effect on 16 December 2022.  

It was suggested that, in addition to the changes to paragraph 15, amending rule 16(aa) so that the 28 day time period for the social worker to request an early review begins on the date the final order takes effect (rather than the day that they are notified) would be to the advantage of the social worker.

It was noted that this will usually mean the social worker will have more time to request a review as, in most circumstances, the order will take effect after they have been notified.  We note that there may be some limited circumstances where the order takes effect earlier than the date the social worker is notified (being when a social worker requests a review of an order that was made at an early review under paragraph 15(2)). These will be rare circumstances. Although in these circumstances the social worker will not have additional time to request a further early review, they will continue to have a period of 28 days to request an early review and will have greater clarity on when this 28 day period begins. Further, if new information comes to light after this 28 day period ends, the regulator can consider undertaking an early review outside of these timeframes.

We therefore agree that, in most circumstances, this change would be in the best interests of the social worker, and that in all cases this will create greater certainty and be fair. As a result of this feedback, we have amended rule 16(aa) to reflect this proposal. We consider that it would be disproportionate to carry out a further public consultation on this specific amendment, particularly given the amendment has arisen out of feedback from the consultation about what other further changes to the Rules have been identified to reflect the changes to the Regulations. 

We confirm that a social worker requesting an early review of a final order under paragraph 15 of Schedule 2 must make the request within 28 days of the day on which the final order takes effect.

Rule 32I(i)(aa)

There was a suggestion that we should amend rule 32(c)(i)(aa) from “where facts have been admitted by the social worker, the adjudicators or regulator shall find these facts proved” to “where facts have been admitted by the social worker, the adjudicators or regulator shall find those facts proved”. We agree that this change will better reflect the intention of this provision, and so the change will be adopted.

Respondents also felt we should clarify at what stage in the proceedings the facts will be found proven if admitted and whether this would prevent the social worker from calling a witness at the factual stage to provide evidence to give context to the allegation or mitigating circumstances. This will be addressed in further detail in a number of external facing public guidance documents but, for the avoidance of doubt, this rule will be relevant at the facts stage of a fitness to practise hearing and will not prevent the social worker from calling a witness to give evidence which is relevant to later stages of the hearing (including providing context or mitigation).

What happens next?

The consultation closed on 12 October 2022. The final amendments to our rules can be found on our website. We’ll continue to work with social workers, employers, people with lived experience and other people/organisations with an interest in social work regulation as we consider how to apply these rules and to explain any changes to our work.

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 proposed changes to our rules relating to fitness to practise, registration and removal from the register and registration appeals. We received 6 responses to the consultation from key stakeholder organisations. We also received 3 individual responses to our online consultation survey.

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 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. 

Although our respondents didn’t give detailed input on the issue of equality impact, UNISON felt that until we have completed our work to collect a statistically robust dataset of demographic data from social workers registered with us, we are unable to carry out advanced analysis of the impact on social workers. We concur with this, which has been part of the motivation for our work to collect equality data in relation to social workers.

Timeframes

Positive impact

In relation to an application to the regulator to review a case examiner decision, Fitness to Practise rule 12G(9) requires the regulator to specify a period of not less than 14 calendar days within which the registered social worker or other person may make written representations. The provision to request the regulator review a decision is new, as is the addition of a 14 day timescale within which to make representations. This has been made to ensure fairness and consistency for all social workers, but may positively impact those groups listed below by providing clear timescales.

In relation to the pre-hearing case management of registration or restoration appeals, there is a proposed new provision that would require the regulator to serve on the parties a record of directions from concluded case management meetings as soon as possible and not more than 7 calendar days after its conclusion (Removal from the Register and Registration Appeals rule 27).

One respondent noted that the proposed wording of rule 16(aa) provided that the social worker’s 28 day period to request a review commenced on the day on which they were notified of the order. It was suggested that amending rule 16(aa) so that the 28 day time period for the social worker to request a review begins on the date the final order takes effect, which would usually be to the advantage of the social worker, providing some social workers with more than 28 days to request a review and provide greater clarity for both the regulator and social worker.

As a result of this feedback, we have amended rule 16(aa) to confirm that a registered social worker requesting a review of a final order under paragraph 15 of Schedule 2 must make the request within 28 days of the day on which the final order takes effect .

In the above cases, providing clear timescales 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.

Negative impact

Changes to a number of our Fitness to Practise rules include a requirement for information or documents to be produced to the regulator and/or investigators within 14 calendar days or such longer period as the regulator or the investigators may determine (Fitness to Practise rules 3(ba), 10(a), 12C(2)). If the information required under rule 3(ba) and 3(bb) is not provided within 14 days then this could be considered an offence.

These changes could have a negative 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 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.

In relation to an application to the regulator to review a case examiner decision, Fitness to Practise rule 12G(9) requires the regulator to specify a period of not less than 14 calendar days within which the registered social worker or other person may make written representations. 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.

14 calendar days to receive additional submissions is required to ensure the rule 12G review process is efficient, particularly in instances where the social worker may be subject to a warning, advice or final order that may be materially flawed (and therefore should be reviewed as soon as possible to minimise risks to public protection and prejudice to the social worker). The impact is mitigated by allowing for this to be not less than 14 calendar days and could therefore be longer if appropriate.

The change to rule 16(aa) may, in the very limited circumstances described above, result in social workers being notified of their 28 day period to request an early review under paragraph 15(2) of schedule 2 after this 28 day period has begun. This change is required to provide greater clarity to all social workers who may want to request an early review under paragraph 15(2). As with the rules above, 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.

This impact is mitigated by the fact that it will only occur in very limited circumstances (when the social worker requests an early review of an order that was imposed at an early review hearing, and was not in attendance at that hearing or notified of the order the same day), and that the regulator can hold an early review after this 28 day period where the social worker has provided new evidence that may impact the order.

Removal from the Register and Registration Appeals rule 25(b) places the same time requirement on the regulator in relation to notice of case management meetings. 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 attend hearings at short notice. 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.

Attendance at hearings

Positive impact

Changes to the Fitness to Practise rules include amendments relating to attendance at hearings. These changes enable the regulator or the adjudicators to decide whether to make an order by way of a meeting instead of a hearing, rather than this decision being limited to the adjudicators (Fitness to Practise Rules, rule 13c).

In the above case, allowing the regulator or adjudicators to decide whether to proceed by way of a meeting may positively impact the following groups, as they would not need to attend:

• 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.

Representation

Positive impact

Fitness to Practise rule 46(a) enables registered social workers or applicants to nominate a representative to accept service of any notice or communication on their behalf. Those with certain disabilities such as dyslexia, visual impairment or relating to mental health, may find nominating a representative to accept service on their behalf beneficial as it enables them to engage with the fitness to practise process easier. Those with protected characteristics relating to pregnancy/maternity may also be positively impacted as they can nominate someone to accept service on their behalf.

Additional information required by the regulator

Positive

We have proposed a new Fitness to Practise rules that enables the regulator, investigators or adjudicators to request the social worker undergoes a medical assessment of their fitness to practise conduct in cases being considered on the grounds of adverse physical or mental health (Fitness to Practise rule 36). 

This change may have a positive impact on social workers with protected characteristics as it allows the regulator to gather relevant information, such as a health assessment, at an early stage in the process. By gaining further relevant information early in the process, the regulator will be able to determine whether a concern has been addressed and no longer poses a risk without the need to progress the matter to case examiners.

Negative 

The change to the Fitness to Practise rule above (rule 36) could potentially negatively impact those with a health-related disability, as people of this protected group are proportionately more likely to receive a request to undergo a medical assessment.

This change is necessary to enable us to effectively protect the public, by investigating fitness to practise cases thoroughly and efficiently. This potential impact is mitigated by virtue of the above positive impact; in undergoing a medical assessment it is possible that cases could be resolved at an earlier stage in the process, thus minimising the impact on the social worker overall.

Voluntary Removal  

Negative

Under Registration rule 10(1A), if a social worker has been removed from the register under Regulation 14(1A) (voluntary removal), the regulator is required to record and publish the removal.

The nature of voluntary removal means that a social worker may want to apply for voluntary removal where they have retired from the profession and do not intend to return to practice. Alternatively, a social worker may want to apply where they are suffering from a very serious health condition or a health condition that will not improve, and they no longer want to continue practising or would not be able to practise as a social worker in the future or ever again.

Because we may receive a high proportion of applications under regulation 14(1A) from people with these characteristics, Registration rule 10(1A) could negatively impact those with the protected characteristics of age and disability (as they are proportionately more likely to be affected by this rule than social workers without these characteristics).

However, recording information under Registration rule 10(1A) is necessary to ensure transparency (as granting voluntary removal will result in ongoing fitness to practise proceedings ceasing) and public protection (being transparent about when voluntary removal is granted will give the public confidence in the profession and the regulator).

This is mitigated by the fact that this information will only be recorded following a successful application for voluntary removal (in most circumstances, it is likely this will be made by the social worker themselves) and the regulator will not include any information about a social worker's health.

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:

Title:

Date approved:

[1] This version of the regulations has previously been updated to reflect the UK's departure from the European Union and to incorporate a temporary register during the Covid-19 pandemic. However, these changes do not affect this consultation.