Curtain closes on the General Social Care Council

A review of the history and achievements of the GSCC, as social work regulation transfers to the Health Professions Council

The demise of the General Social Care Council (GSCC) a few months prior to its 11th birthday has not come as a great shock – the terminal condition of the regulator was clear two years ago in the report from the arm’s length body review – but it is a time for a minute’s silence.

I am part of the family left behind; from 2002-10 I was a council member, and vice chair for the final 18 months of my tenure. There is a personal sadness in seeing the GSCC slip quietly away, but that experience also gives me some insight to understand the strengths and weaknesses of the organisation.

The GSCC has taken the opportunity of the long goodbye to undertake some important reflective practice of its own. A series of learning reports have been produced to ensure that the organisation’s learning is not lost. This is an invaluable legacy that the HCPC among others will do well to respect and draw on.

It is a surprise to remember that before the GSCC came into being there was no regulation of the social work profession. The opening of a register of social workers; the upgrading of the accreditation requirements of social workers to degree level; the introduction of a code of practice and the establishment of conduct proceedings to respond to people in breach of the code, are all major landmarks.

The central purpose of all this endeavour was always to raise standards and increase public protection. The fact that such a small proportion of people on the social care register are referred because of concerns about their conduct (1.1% in the last year), and only 8% of referrals lead to a conduct hearing (0.3% over the past eight years are found to have committed misconduct), is reassuring but not grounds for complacency.

Indeed, the GSCC rightly recognised the significance of inappropriate relationships which were identified in around 20% of misconduct cases and issued guidance on professional boundaries which can be especially difficult in the “grey areas” of practice.

Involving people who use services in the development of the GSCC is another important part of the legacy. The GSCC undertook innovative work in involving people who use services and their carers in numerous aspects of its work – from developing the codes of practice, to inspecting social work degree courses and developing the post-qualifying framework.

The impact of such activity was evident “both on the culture of the organisation as well as how social workers have been trained and regulated.” The development of common principles for participation agreed by the GSCC and the Joint Participation Steering Group that it established should be embedded in the practice of any organisation that works with people who use social care services.

Recognising the importance of the contribution made by service users by paying them for their input was also a significant symbolic step. The stumbling block often created by the benefits system which could mean loss of benefit entitlement for people paid for their input was the focus of considerable work by the GSCC and other social care organisations. The eventual change in legislation to allow DWP to disregard reimbursement of expenses is a vital step forward.

The GSCC’s unfinished business concerns the regulation of the wider social care workforce – the care workers and personal assistants that have day-to-day contact with people in their own homes. The government decided three years ago not to take this agenda forward in England (although social care workforce regulation is progressing elsewhere in the UK).

Certainly the logistics of registering this workforce would be considerable, and questions of proportionality of response have been raised as objections. Balancing choice and control against public protection would require a flexible and responsive model of regulation and one that fits the changed social care landscape and the role of people using direct payments to employ their own care staff, but the need for some model of regulation remains.

The last decade has seen some significant progress and the emergence of both strong regulation and a separate body to represent the voice of the profession in the College of Social Work is an important distinction. The GSCC can take comfort that it leaves public protection and high standards of social work practice firmly established in social care. This is a precious inheritance and its value should endure.