Select Committee on Health Written Evidence


APPENDIX 30

Supplementary letter from Stephen Ladyman MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health to Chairperson, National Care Standards Commission (21C)

  Thank you for your letter dated 24 February.

  I am sorry to hear that the Committee was left confused by the evidence given by Ms Berry, the Chief Executive of the General Social Care Council (GSCC) and myself. Hopefully I will be able to bring some clarity to the matter.

  I do not believe there was anything contradictory about what we both said. As Ms Berry rightly pointed out in her evidence, the establishment of the GSCC was a direct result of a long-running campaign by the profession to regulate social workers. It was only as policy developed that it came to encompass a much wider definition of people under the umbrella title of social care worker. However, this widening of the definition did not detract from the fact that the largest and most easily identifiable section of this workforce remained qualified social workers. For this reason, it was agreed that this group would be the most appropriate place to start. It is not, as you state in your letter, on the face of the Care Standards Act 2000 that this group is given priority as the Act does not state any preference when prioritising groups. It is true, however, that the explanatory notes to the Act did refer to incremental registration of occupational groups and, I believe, this statement reflects that which I have stated above. It is the case, therefore, that social workers were given first priority as a group because the profession demanded it and the Government listened and acted upon those demands. The only determination of such groups by the Government was in reaction to this and to the extensive consultation undertaken in developing the Act.

  This situation also relates to your second query regarding domiciliary care workers. Firstly, however, I wish to make clear an important point about the rules for registration on the Social Care Register, which the GSCC have put in place and which are agreed by the Department of Health. The Act requires the GSCC to satisfy itself that the applicant is of good character. Part of the application process is the verification from a senior manager that the applicant is fit to practice. This would include any necessary checks the employer is required to enforce. Staff CRB Disclosures are a regulated responsibility of the employer that must be carried out before the person can work in the sector. A CRB Disclosure is not, therefore, an obligatory, stand-alone piece of evidence currently required in order to register. These are the rules as they now stand for social workers and it is likely that similar rules will apply to domiciliary care workers when they are invited to register. However, the drafting of any such rules will be a matter for the GSCC and agreed through the usual channels.

  Secondly, as was the case with social workers, what priority is to be given to the various staff groups to be registered by the GSCC will be decided after full consultation with the profession and other stakeholders. The GSCC will then offer advice to the appropriate Minister on how this work should be taken forward. There is tremendous weight given to such advice by both myself and my officials in the Department. As part of this advice, the GSCC will propose rules of registration that will lay down the necessary prerequisites.

  It has been and remains the Department's opinion that, as part of our drive to raise standards, NVQ level 2 should be attained before an applicant can register. However, I am aware that there is a considerable body of opinion that believes that, in the first instance, given the low level of qualifications in the workforce, a lesser level of attainment should suffice; for example, proof of completion of an induction programme. This, I believe, is based on the recognition that applying a level of qualification, even at NVQ level 2, might prove to be a barrier to the rapidity of registration and therefore detrimental to our work to improve service user protection. This debate continues and no decision has yet been taken. As with previous matters regarding registration of occupational groups by the GSCC, any decisions will only be made after consultation with stakeholders and after advice has been received from the GSCC. I hope that this provides the clarity the Committee requires on these two points.

12 March 2004




 
previous page contents

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2004
Prepared 20 April 2004