BASW surprise at solitary instance of restoration

BASW has expressed its surprise that just one of 167 social workers banned from practising by social care regulators across the UK has reapplied to join the social care register, restating its belief that “rehabilitation is a vital tool in the social work armoury”.

Under current care council rules, practitioners who have been removed for misconduct can apply again to rejoin the register after three years. They will then face a committee and must show evidence that they addressed the causes of their misconduct and are of good character.

Across the UK, 120 social workers have been told then can no longer practise in England, while 29 have been removed from the register in Scotland, 15 in Wales and three in Northern Ireland. To date, however, just one has reapplied to join the register.

Commenting on the findings, the head of BASW’s Advice and Representation Service Marcia Lawrence-Russell said: “It is a vital that the chance to rehabilitate and demonstrate improved training, remorse and awareness of one’s mistakes is incorporated into our regulatory system.

“It is vital in all four parts of the UK but with the advent of the Health Professions Council (HPC) in England this year it is a principle that must be carried forward into the new HPC framework.”

A restoration committee of the General Social Care Council heard a case in May involving Solomon Beckford, who was removed from the register in 2007 after he had been found to have breached the confidentiality of a victim of domestic violence, lied to his manager, made false claims to his manager regarding the extent of his experience in the field of domestic violence and provided false information in applications for jobs and on his GSCC registration form.

Mr Solomon’s restoration appeal faltered after it emerged that he had not gained sufficient credits for the course he claimed to have taken during his absence from the profession. Separately, although he had claimed that he had voluntarily given up his role as a school governor, the school in question later revealed it had disqualified him because he had not attended meetings for six months.

The restoration decided that he was not suitable or competent to return to the register and he could put the public at risk.