Social Work England is consulting on removing the requirement for practitioners to report their gender identity when registering with the regulator.
It is also proposing to change its registration rules to tighten English language requirements for social workers applying to register from overseas, in line with standards applied by other regulators.
The plan to cease collecting data on gender identity is designed to align with 2023 government guidance on public bodies’ duties under the Equality Act 2010, which states that organisations should not use concepts that are not referenced in the act.
Mandatory collection of gender identity data
Since its inception in 2019, Social Work England has required applicants to register to provide their gender identity – whether “male”, “female”, “prefer to self-describe” or “prefer not to say” – along with their name, date of birth, contact details and nationality.
Prior to its launch, it had proposed to record applicants’ gender, as was then required by its predecessor regulator, the Health and Care Professions Council. But this was changed to “gender identity” in response to feedback from respondents to a consultation on its initial rules.
Social Work England says the reason for the current requirement is to enable it to distinguish between practitioners with different names – for example, when concerns are raised – though the information is not available on the public register.
Disproportionate representation of men in fitness to practise
It has also used it to report on the demographics of the profession in England, alongside voluntarily collected data on ethnicity, disability, religion or belief, sexual orientation and whether social workers’ gender identities are different to their sex registered at birth.
As of 30 November 2022, 82.9% of social workers recorded their gender identity as female and 16.9% as male, 0.05% preferred not to say and 0.04% self-described.
The data is also the basis for its analysis of the interaction of social worker characteristics with fitness to practise cases, which has found that men are disproportionately represented at all stages of the process, along with black social workers and those aged over 40.
Celebrate those who’ve inspired you
Photo by Daniel Laflor/peopleimages.com/ AdobeStock
Do you have a colleague, mentor, or social work figure you can’t help but gush about?
Our My Brilliant Colleague series invites you to celebrate anyone within social work who has inspired you – whether current or former colleagues, managers, students, lecturers, mentors or prominent past or present sector figures whom you have admired from afar.
Nominate your colleague or social work inspiration by filling in our nominations form with a few paragraphs (100-250 words) explaining how and why the person has inspired you.
*Please note that, despite the need to provide your name and role, you or the nominee can be anonymous in the published entry*
If you have any questions, email our community journalist, Anastasia Koutsounia, at anastasia.koutsounia@markallengroup.com
Public bodies ‘should not use gender identity’
However, the 2023 government guidance on the public sector equality duty (PSED), under section 149 of the Equality Act, states that bodies should “not use concepts such as gender or gender identity, which are not encoded in the act and can be understood in different ways”.
The PSED requires public bodies to have due regard to the need to eliminate discrimination, harassment and victimisation and to advance equality of opportunity, and foster good relations, between people who do and do not share a relevant protected characteristic.
However, gender identity – which is generally understood to mean a person’s internal sense of their own gender – is not one of the Equality Act’s protected characteristics. Instead, it protects gender reassignment, which obtains when someone is proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process or part of a process to reassign their sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex.
The guidance states that authorities authorities should assess their fulfilment of the PSED with reference to the Equality Act’s nine protected characteristics. The collection of data on other attributes will not help them comply with the duty “unless there is a clear correlation with a protected characteristic”, it adds.
Voluntary collection of data on sex and gender reassignment
Social Work England is not proposing to mandatorily collect data on a replacement characteristic. Instead, it is proposing to ask questions about sex and gender reassignment through a revised version of its voluntary diversity monitoring data collection that aligns with the PSED guidance.
This change would not be subject to consultation as it does not involve mandatory data collection and so does not fall under the regulator’s rules.
This reform would imply a shift from monitoring the demographics of the profession based on gender identity to doing so on the basis of sex. Such a move raises questions about whether the terms “male” and “female” could be seen as continuing to have the same meaning, for example, in relation to assessing disproportionality in fitness to practise cases.
Regulator ‘to maintain ability to monitor social worker trends’
On this point, the regulator said: “We remain committed to understanding the diversity of our profession. The changes will realign how we collect data, not reduce our commitment to equality monitoring.
“We will review how voluntary data is collected in a way that maintains our ability to monitor trends across the social work sector (including in fitness to practise) and assess the impact of our processes on the protected characteristics defined in the Equality Act.”
The other rule change would reduce the time limit for the validity of an International English Language Testing System (IELTS) certificate from five to two years for overseas social workers applying to register to work in England.
The IELTS is the standard system for demonstrating English language knowledge.
Reducing validity period for English language certificates
An IELTS review in 2023 found that a two-year validity period was “overwhelmingly the norm” and Social Work England said reducing its limit would bring its practice into line with that of similar regulators, such as the HCPC and the Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC).
- Being registered and practising for at least one year within the past five years in a country where English is the first and native language and an English language assessment was required for registration.
- Obtaining a recognised qualification within the past five years that was awarded in a country where English is the first and native language and the qualification was entirely taught and examined in English.
Fall in number of overseas applications to register
The number of applications from overseas social workers applying to register in England annually almost trebled from 2020-23, from 659 to 1,866, triggering a sharp rise, from less than 10 days to over 50 days, in the regulator’s average processing time per case.
The number of overseas applications fell by 19% to 1,520 in 2024, and, after peaking at 75 days in March 2024, the average handling time fell to less than 25 days in every month from August to December of last year.
Social Work England was praised for this reduction in processing time in the latest monitoring report on its performance from its watchdog, the Professional Standards Authority.
The regulator said it did not hold data on the proportion of successful overseas applications to register that were based on IELTS certificates that were over two years old.
Responding to the consultation
As part of the consultation, which runs until 5pm on Thursday 12 June, Social Work England is asking whether its proposed new rules are clear and whether, and how, the changes would affect anyone with a protected characteristic.
You can respond by answering this survey.
The proposed rule changes – which must be approved by the Department for Education – are due to come into force at the beginning of the next registration renewal period, starting on 1 September 2025.
Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole 
Hampshire County Council 
Oxfordshire County Council 
South Gloucestershire Council 
Wokingham Borough Council 
Providing a lifeline for social workers who want to get back into the sector 
The highs and lows of a children’s services’ transformation journey 
Embedding learning in social work teams through a multi-agency approach 
The family safeguarding approach: 5 years on 
Harnessing social work values to shape your career pathway 
Workforce Insights – showcasing a selection of the sector’s top recruiters 
Join our team to help technology enabled care transform lives in Nottinghamshire 
Free CPD on Parkinson’s for health and social care staff 
Facebook
X
LinkedIn
Instagram
All SWE has to do is comply with the Law. That it hasn’t and has used self defined ‘gender’ affirmations to persecute and sanction sex identified social workers is the issue it is trying to hide and slide away from. SWE is a disreputable regulator because it sanctions mostly on ideology not conduct. I know because I was one who they victimised on the basis of one complaint that I was “transphobic” for not putting pronouns under my email details. Cowards and aggressive authoritarians don’t fool with their head nodding self certainty.
Sorry to hear that. You’ve been treated disgracefully. And you’re absolutely right, of course.
Oh my goodness, this is wrong. People can choose not to adhere to this, and should be able to opt out. I refuse to use pronouns for myself, but I would for others based upon respect and tolerance. So wrong
Given recent Supreme Court ruling one wonders what SWE is trying to. Plus, shouldnt a female victim of domestic abuse be made aware if their worker is a biological woman or not?
Everybody is either male or female-its calked our sex.
Identity is not sex, what a babbling semi coherent article.
Sex is important for data collection. We need to know how many women, how many men we have in the profession etc.
Supreme court has been fundamental for clarity. People wanted clarity, it has been given and because tbey dont like it they complain.
How people identify is up to them.
I am very concerned about childrens social workers validating ‘trans’ children- there is no such thing. Nobody can be born in the wrong body. Please, would social workers start to speak up.
I was investigated and took @cambscc to court- and won. They treated me appallingly and there was no support from the social work ‘community’.
I was investigated because I said I thought there were only 2 sexes. The supreme court clarity means they would not act the same way now? -I did advise them of the Forstater ruling and was duly ignored-look it up-and my case Elizabeth Pitt vCambridge County Council
Using gender identity rather than sex as means of collecting data fails completely in recording either sex based data or recording how many people choose to identify as other than their sex. It renders data meaningless.
I object to being asked for my gender identity as I haven’t got one. I was told I was a boy as a child, this was confirmed by experience and the idea that I could be anything else feels ridiculous to me. Many other people disagree and have embraced the concept of gender identity and I respect their choices. To me, this is akin to having a religious or philosophical belief.
It is possible to not believe in gender ideology yet respect people who do in the same way that one can be an atheist and respect people of faith, be they Christian, Muslim or anything else.
When we are asked in equal opportunities for our religion there is the option to say – no religion. We don’t have to tick a box which says “don’t want to say”. The failure to ask a question about biological sex or to give people the option of saying they don’t have a gender identity means that the survey is firmly rooted in gender ideology. There is no option, as in the case of the religion question to simply state that we do not conform to a category within this concept.
The insidious way that language has been used to replace sex with gender identity has had serious consequences for the reliability of public data. It has also had dangerous consequences for the accessibility of public health education and detrimentally influenced the care of vulnerable young people-as revealed by the Cass Review.
I would recommend that people read the full proposal on SWE’s website. Instead of replacing the question on gender identity with a question about sex and a follow-up question on gender reassignment they have removed all reference to sex or gender. Sex related stats are important data. We will no longer be able to measure changes on the ratio of male/ female social workers in the workforce. Do SWE think that asking people for the biological sex is somehow oppressive? Is the recognition that biology exists a step too far for them.
There is a rewriting of history attempt going on here but there are enough of us who were bullied, suffered, were threatened with disciplinaries or worse to allow SWE and our ‘leaders’ to erase facts and memories. We were told our role was “automatic affirmation of gender” even when some of us pointed out child protection concerns. We were told were were bigots if we said sex was a biological fact. We were told that pronouns were more important than violent language against women. Were were re-educated by ideologues to cleanse our “harmful” beliefs. The list is long, the persecution, the bullying, the threats against livelihoods, the sanctioning, happened, nobody imagined it. We are the memory that it happened and that it is still happening now. Our LA isn’t the only one sending out emails telling us “we” will not comply with the Supreme Court ruling. So don’t let SWE and their lackeys bully you again. If SWE was serious about any of this it would publicly and unreservedly apologies for how it persecuted Rachel Meade along with their chums in Westminster Council. Which by the way is where I work. Always remember, never forget and never forgive. These bullies haven’t earned redemption yet.
That a social worker has had to write this heart breaking account says all that needs to be said about how social work regulation and leadership has become a self serving rotten ideology with little regard to justice and empathy and all too happy to deny users of services dignity too.
I wouldn’t describe calling out transphobia a rotten ideology actually. In my experience social workers are some of the most judgemental verging on bigoted professionals I know. One persons bullying is another person’s being held to account to treat others with respect. Those of you shouting the Law the Law needs to reflect that we are not obliged to accept laws that discriminate against us. That’s what civil disobedience is. SWE was right to insist on holding to account transphobes and employers were/are right to hold their staff to that standard. An anti-scientific definition of biology doesn’t determine who evare, what we feel, how we deserve respect, how we should be treated with respect. Cis people make me uncomfortable every day, if my being who I am and what they demand I believe makes them uncomfortable than it’s an equal win sum. No apologies from me. Hopefully Community Care will respect free speech and publish this to counter balance the prejudice that runs through comments here.
Hi Suzie. I am sorry to hear that you have been mistreated, but the people who have been persecuted by SWE and their employers haven’t been found to be guilty of this. In fact, Rachael Meade was praised as an inclusive practitioner. Stating that women should have single sex based spaces in prisons, for example, is a valid opinion which, if expressed in a polite and courteous way, is not harmful to anyone. These are debates that should be heard, and decisions should be made via the democratic processes. Change should not happen by institutions and advocacy groups making up and applying their own version of what they think the law ought to be.
Acceptance of trans people within our society has actually reduced since Stonewall became involved in campaigning for trans rights. By taking a very extreme position and not taking the public with them, they have set back the very cause they are supposedly supporting.
By all means, campaign to change the law, and good luck to you, but please don’t accuse people of bigotry for wanting to have their existing rights correctly upheld.
What some people call debates to be heard some experience as denying space for the marginalised to say what they want to say about their own experiences in their own language. Debate isn’t always about opinions, it’s often about erasing minorities. So no, we know what bigotry is and we won’t validate it by pretend politeness.
Talking of “erasing minorities” I wonder what being hectored as a Lesbian that I should accept a biological man self identifying as a Lesbian is a Lesbian and reframing my objecting as transphobic means now? Of course Stonewall had a “no debate” policy and sold that as a legitimate no compromise to our employers and SWE. If we were to debate honestly than the edifice of bullying us into accepting evident untruths would come apart wouldn’t it? Forgive me if I am as strident as Suzie but I have had my working life made miserable by the arguments they have made here. Lesbians are lesbians and men claiming to be Lesbians are still men. That’s not erasing trans identified people, it’s just stating a fact. We love and live with women because we love women not an idea of a woman. Every word Anonymous wrote is our reality. We do not forget let alone forgive the zealots who have willfully and perhaps even gleefully persecuted us. The Supreme Court isn’t the plaything of self appointed civil libertarians however much they fulminate about ignoring its judgement. Our boss tried to tell us that nothing had changed but this time he didn’t get far because of the confidence and the protection the clarification and restatement of the scope of the law gives us. We are not intimidated anymore and those of us who never were rejoice in our vindication. My CPD to SWE will be on the application of legislation in social work practice with particular reference to the Equality Act and the Supreme Court. Let them dare to bully me now.
As a former BASW member who resigned over it forcing members to accept Stonewalls ideology as being the actual law and their cowardice over treatment of Rachel Meade by SWE I can say that BASW thinks argument Suzie makes is way more valid than that of Anonymous and Natalie or the nuance Jim Greer articulates. More shamefully BASW would downplay the experience of Victimised. I remain pessimistic that the zeal with which the “no debate” advocates pursued us for wrong think is going away anytime soon. The ideologues had one riff and not being able to play a full chord they have nothing left but to double down. Our Unions are no better so we have to rely on our own solidarity to protect ourselves and use the Law if necessary.
Instead of placing any importance on gender pronouns etc (arguably and singularly the most divisive and corrosive social phenomenon in recent history), social work as a whole should be asking why so few men bother to consider social work as a career option. The sheer lack of diversity in this respect is more of an embarrassment for social work than any other profession I can imagine and yet it arouses zero debate.