In a landmark decision, the General Social Care Council has finally agreed to implement the decision of the Care Standards Tribunal that Lisa Arthurworrey can be placed on the professional social work register.

The decision overturns a ten year long injustice in which Lisa Arthurworrey, who lost her job and ten years of her career in the wake of the tragic death of Victoria Climbié, has twice had her character and competence upheld by the Care Standards Tribunal.

The Care Standards Tribunal, a specialist court in these matters, has on two separate occasions, supported Lisa’s request to be allowed to practice. It is deplorable that she has had to wait ten years to be able to start practicing again whilst some of those responsible for the shortcomings in training, staffing and management culture, so heavily criticised at the time, went on to advance their careers.

Aspect represented Lisa, who is an Aspect member, at the last two hearings of the Registration Committee of the GSCC. Our thanks to Lisa for her determination to be able to practice again.

It remains too easy for employers to try to blame individual social workers when things go wrong rather than scrutinise the decisions on staffing levels, workloads, training, management culture and changes in government child protection policy which are often the real reasons for tragedies.

We welcome the Registration Committee’s eventual decision. Over the next months we will be following up the case by:

• Making formal representations to the GSCC to try to ensure that the way social workers are treated is fairer and more timely that the treatment afforded Lisa
• Working within the Social Work reform Board, on which aspect is represented, to ensure that the employer’s Standards eventually agreed make it easier for staff to raise concerns, better protect those who do raise concerns, and stop the culture whereby it is too easy to blame staff for any shortcomings instead of looking at the underlying resources, management culture, training, supervision and procedures which are generally the real cause of shortcomings in individual practice.

The full press statement from Aspect, including the statement from Lisa Arthurworrey herself, and from Mor Dioum, Director of the Victoria Climbié Foundation below

You can also read the Community Care report at

http://www.communitycare.co.uk/Articles/2010/03/08/113989/arthurworrey-wins-10-year-battle-for-registration.htm

————————————————————————————————————————————————–

PRESS STATEMENT

GSCC finally agrees Lisa Arthurworrey can practice

In a landmark decision, the General Social Care Council has finally agreed to implement the decision of the Care Standards Tribunal that Ms Lisa Arthurworrey can be placed on the professional social work register.

The decision overturns a ten year long injustice in which Ms Arthurworrey, who lost her job and ten years of her career in the wake of the tragic death of Victoria Climbié, has twice had her character and competence upheld by the Care Standards Tribunal.

Welcoming the decision, Roger Kline, social care spokesperson for Aspect, Lisa’s trade union, who represented Lisa in her final hearing with the GSCC, said:

“The Care Standards Tribunal, a specialist court in these matters, has on two separate occasions, supported Lisa’s request to be allowed to practice. It is deplorable that she has had to wait ten years to be able to start practicing again whilst some of those responsible for the shortcomings in training, staffing and management culture, so heavily criticised at the time, went on to advance their careers.”

Lisa Arthurworrey said today:

“I am naturally pleased that this decision has finally come. The last ten years have been incredibly difficult ones and I now want to start rebuilding my career”.

Roger Kline added:

“It is too easy for employers to try to blame individual social workers when things go wrong rather than scrutinise the decisions on staffing levels, workloads, training, management culture and changes in government child protection policy which are often the real reasons for tragedies.”

“We welcome the Registration Committee’s decision and hope the case will cause the GSCC to reflect on, and change, the culture which subjected Lisa to incorrect decisions and long delays.”

Ends

Note to editors.

1 The Victoria Climbie Foundation has long campaigned against inherent failings in cases where children are abused, and failed by the system. Since the tragic death of Victoria ten years ago, VCF has repeatedly expressed its concerns about the need for frontline staff to be effectively supported.
2            Aspect is the only professional association and trade union exclusively representing professionals working in educational improvement, social care and children’s services. It maintains an autonomous section for social care professionals.

Aspect members include social care professionals, advisory head teachers, directors and managers of children’s services, school improvement and early years advisers, education welfare officers, 14-19 coordinators, heads of Sure Start, Ofsted inspectors, Early Years Professionals, parent partnership staff and self-employed consultants. Over the past five years, membership has doubled and Aspect now represents over 4,000 professionals working in the field.

Association of Professionals in Education and Children’s Trusts
Woolley Hall, Woolley, Wakefield,
West Yorkshire, WF4 2JR

info@aspect.org.uk
www.aspect.org.uk

Background information

Extracts from the two Care Standards Tribunal decisions that upheld Lisa Arthurworrey’s claims are reprinted below.

1. CST [2004] 286.PC wrote (at para 143)

“Sadly, there has been another victim of the failures in Haringey in 1999 and early 2000, and we see Ms Arthurworrey as such a victim. She has certainly been traumatised by Victoria’s death, and we heard her father bravely provide us with details of her health since the events of February 2000. We agree with much of what Lord Laming had to say about where the responsibility should be when allocating blame for Victoria’s death.”

2. CST [2007] 985.SW (at Para 49) when considering whether a finding of misconduct should be found against Ms Arthurworrey said that:

“The key issue is whether, if registered, Ms Arthurworrey has the potential to grow professionally and overcome what she has been through (our emphasis). This is not easy to determine. It is not a situation where an individual’s conduct had been exemplary except for a one-off incident. However, we also need to bear in mind the professional environment in which Ms Arthurworrey was operating: from what we read and heard the department was chaotic; she had no detailed supervision; there was no obvious benchmark against which she could self-assess and we assume that there was no appraisal scheme in place in the department. Whilst we acknowledge that carrying more cases than expected is often an indication of good competence, in this department it was just a question of cases being handed out and the staff being told to close them. In addition, we also need to bear in mind that there was no apparent criticism of LA’s work in other cases, which suggests that she was not totally incompetent and must have been doing something right.

3. CST [2007] 985.SW (at Paras 106 and 108) stated:

“We can think of no instance throughout the entire period when Ms Arthurworrey was given real help and support from her managers. Likewise, we can think of no instance when her handling of the case had ever been criticised by a manager, and no instance of her ever attempting to conceal or dissemble any errors she may have unwittingly been making.”

“We have formed the opinion that the office environment was chaotic, the reference tool was totally inadequate, and that mistakes made by Ms Arthurworrey in dealing with Victoria’s case must be considered within that context as well as her inexperience, lack of training and lack of any effective supervision.”

“The key issue is whether, if registered, Ms Arthurworrey has the potential to grow professionally and overcome what she has been through (our emphasis). This is not easy to determine. It is not a situation where an individual’s conduct had been exemplary except for a one-off incident. However, we also need to bear in mind the professional environment in which Ms Arthurworrey was operating: from what we read and heard the department was chaotic; she had no detailed supervision; there was no obvious benchmark against which she could self-assess and we assume that there was no appraisal scheme in place in the department. Whilst we acknowledge that carrying more cases than expected is often an indication of good competence, in this department it was just a question of cases being handed out and the staff being told to close them. In addition, we also need to bear in mind that there was no apparent criticism of LA’s work in other cases, which suggests that she was not totally incompetent and must have been doing something right.

4. CST [2004] 268.PC stated (at Para 141):

“It is our view that the Secretary of State has wholly failed to satisfy us that Ms Arthurworrey is unsuitable to work with children. Indeed, the opposite is the case. Ms Arthurworrey came over to us in her evidence as a straightforward and caring individual who has fully acknowledged the mistakes she made in connection with this case. She told us that she failed in her responsibility towards Victoria. She was frank in her assessment of herself. (our emphasis)

144. Accordingly ……… we would have had no hesitation in deciding that notwithstanding, Ms Arthurworrey is today suitable to work with children. (our emphasis)

5. In a recent judgement by the First Tier Tribunal of Wales [2009] UKFTT 213 (HESC), that Tribunal upheld an appeal by social worker Eleni Cordingley, and concluded with a statement that might equally apply to this case:

The Tribunal, having also taken note of Eleni Cordingley’s own suffering and remorse, stated (at Para 42) that:

“It is important that those charged with the regulation of the professions remain vigilant not only in rooting out dangerous practice but to the necessity not to be swayed by apparent calls for retribution towards professionals.”

6. Finally, the Care Standards Tribunal in Sonia West V General Social Care Council [2009] 1614.SW-SUS at Para 4 made a statement in respect of a different GSCC function (the imposition of ISOs) which might reasonably be considered pertinent to this case:

“The committee should bear in mind the effects of any sanction on the registrant and whether it would be proportionate. The need for the protection of the public, particularly service users, and the maintenance of the public’s confidence in social care provision must be balanced against the consequences of an ISO for the registrant.”