That's the allegation coming from BASW in a pretty all out attack on the GSCC's handling of the conduct process, particularly its efforts to clear the backlog of cases identified last month.
BASW said its advice and representation service had been receiving bundles of papers for cases only two or three working days before a preliminary hearing, which can lead to social workers being suspended for months. This has left BASW officials with not enough time to prepare adequately.
It also claims that its experience of the GSCC is worse - in terms of due process - than its experience of the other three UK care councils: the Scottish Social Services Council, Care Council for Wales and Northern Irish Social Care Council?
The GSCC's line is that it is doing its best to balance public protection and fairness to social workers at a time of increasing referrals (which led to the backlog).
The more I hear about the GSCC the more annoyed I become in general. Who's fault is it that they had a backlog? It isn't those who are waiting who are suffering from being rushed through the system..
A seemingly minor complaint was made against my partner over 2 years ago by a client - at the time he was working as an agency Social Worker. This complaint was referred by the Local Authority to GSCC . Two years on the investigation of this complaint continues and there is still no indication as to when it might possibly be concluded. In the meantime my partner has been unable to obtain any other work in Social Work - he has no other qualifications and cannot resort to physical employment because of his disability - he has effectively been denied the right to work for the past 2 years. This has had huge reprecussions on our family life and most particularly on our children. As far as I am concerned this is an issue of an infringement of his and our Human Rights.
This from the current Health Professions Council newsletter
The HPC’s Fitness to Practise Department is responsible for handling allegations made about the fitness to practise of the professionals we register. The Fitness to practise annual report 2009, which covers the period 1 April 2008 to 31 March 2009, has recently been published and is now available on our website at www.hpc-uk.org/publications, or in hard copy from our Communications Department. The report outlines the measures we have in place to protect the public. It also provides statistical information about the complaints we received and the ways in which our fitness to practise panels have dealt with cases brought before them. In 2008–09 we received 483 new cases, which equates to just 0.26 per cent of the Register. Panels of the Investigating Committee considered 363 cases over the course of the year. We held a total of 396 public hearings which included interim orders, reviews of conditions of practice orders and suspension orders and final hearings. One area of the fitness to practise process we are always looking to improve is the length of time cases take to reach a final hearing. So far this financial year (1 April 2009 – 31 August 2009), 93 cases have concluded at a final hearing. The average length of time taken to conclude cases – from the date an allegation was made – is 18 months. This is when calculated as the mean and median. This does not include cases that do not proceed to a final hearing and are closed earlier in the process. Before a case reaches a final hearing it is investigated and the Investigating Committee decides that there is a case to answer. Formal statements are then taken from witnesses and the case prepared for final hearing. We set a date for hearings about four months in advance of them taking place to ensure that all parties are able to attend and the registrant has the opportunity to prepare their defence. In cases that take the longest amount of time there are often factors outside our control that affect the investigation or hearing process. For example, an adjournment may have been granted at a previous hearing at the registrant’s request, or we may have been advised of a police investigation at the early stages and cannot forward our investigation until the conclusion of the criminal trial which can take a number of months. We are always looking at ways to improve our processes and reduce the length of time cases take to conclude. We use the information we gather to make improvements to the investigation of cases and the process of listing and conducting hearings.
The HPC’s Fitness to Practise Department is responsible for handling allegations made about the fitness to practise of the professionals we register.
The Fitness to practise annual report 2009, which covers the period 1 April 2008 to 31 March 2009, has recently been published and is now available on our website at www.hpc-uk.org/publications, or in hard copy from our Communications Department. The report outlines the measures we have in place to protect the public. It also provides statistical information about the complaints we received and the ways in which our fitness to practise panels have dealt with cases brought before them.
In 2008–09 we received 483 new cases, which equates to just 0.26 per cent of the Register. Panels of the Investigating Committee considered 363 cases over the course of the year. We held a total of 396 public hearings which included interim orders, reviews of conditions of practice orders and suspension orders and final hearings.
One area of the fitness to practise process we are always looking to improve is the length of time cases take to reach a final hearing. So far this financial year (1 April 2009 – 31 August 2009), 93 cases have concluded at a final hearing. The average length of time taken to conclude cases – from the date an allegation was made – is 18 months. This is when calculated as the mean and median. This does not include cases that do not proceed to a final hearing and are closed earlier in the process. Before a case reaches a final hearing it is investigated and the Investigating Committee decides that there is a case to answer. Formal statements are then taken from witnesses and the case prepared for final hearing. We set a date for hearings about four months in advance of them taking place to ensure that all parties are able to attend and the registrant has the opportunity to prepare their defence. In cases that take the longest amount of time there are often factors outside our control that affect the investigation or hearing process. For example, an adjournment may have been granted at a previous hearing at the registrant’s request, or we may have been advised of a police investigation at the early stages and cannot forward our investigation until the conclusion of the criminal trial which can take a number of months. We are always looking at ways to improve our processes and reduce the length of time cases take to conclude. We use the information we gather to make improvements to the investigation of cases and the process of listing and conducting hearings.
One area of the fitness to practise process we are always looking to improve is the length of time cases take to reach a final hearing. So far this financial year (1 April 2009 – 31 August 2009), 93 cases have concluded at a final hearing. The average length of time taken to conclude cases – from the date an allegation was made – is 18 months. This is when calculated as the mean and median. This does not include cases that do not proceed to a final hearing and are closed earlier in the process.
Before a case reaches a final hearing it is investigated and the Investigating Committee decides that there is a case to answer. Formal statements are then taken from witnesses and the case prepared for final hearing. We set a date for hearings about four months in advance of them taking place to ensure that all parties are able to attend and the registrant has the opportunity to prepare their defence. In cases that take the longest amount of time there are often factors outside our control that affect the investigation or hearing process. For example, an adjournment may have been granted at a previous hearing at the registrant’s request, or we may have been advised of a police investigation at the early stages and cannot forward our investigation until the conclusion of the criminal trial which can take a number of months.
We are always looking at ways to improve our processes and reduce the length of time cases take to conclude. We use the information we gather to make improvements to the investigation of cases and the process of listing and conducting hearings.
Compare and contrast...
This is a strategy reminiscent of social services disciplinary proceedings where the odds are stacked against the alleged wrongdoer by the wonderfully unfair wheeze of releasing documents for the prosecution under the discovery process as late as possible, usually to ensure that they arrive at the weekend when the hapless social worker has no access to trade union advice until the next week with the hearing looming ever closer and less time to prepare. Of course all of this charade is aided and abetted by the human resources personnel who are there to ensure that management get their man, whatever it takes. And they like to tell you that they arethere to ensure fairness!