SSSC Revised Fitness to Practise Rules Consultation 2025, SASW's response

Revisions to the Fitness to Practise Rules

We want to issue the revised rules as a single new set of rules which includes these proposed changes and all previous changes made to the 2016 Rules, rather than as a third set of updates to those Rules. 

8.Do you think this will make the document easier to use?

Yes

Revisions to the Fitness to Practise Rules

We want to define ‘vulnerable witness’ in a broader and more flexible way, rather than listing specific groups of people. This means people won’t have to fit into a particular category to get support. We also want to use a different term instead of ‘vulnerable witness’.

9.Do you think a more flexible definition of vulnerable witnesses would help those who need support when giving evidence?

Yes

10.Do you believe that the term ‘vulnerable witness’ could be stigmatising and should be avoided?

Yes

11.If you want to say more in relation to your answers to these questions, including any suggestion about an alternative phrase for ‘vulnerable witness’, please do so here.

SASW welcomes a more flexible definition of vulnerable witnesses. However, it would have been helpful to see such definition to determine whether we deem it sufficiently flexible, not flexible enough or too flexible. For example, we would like victims of domestic violence and/or coercive control to be considered to fall into this definition amongst others.

You may want to consider the terms ‘protected witness’ or ‘safeguarded witness’ as alternatives.

The NIHR Witness To Harm report (2025) goes further in their recommendations:

For regulators and employers

Regulators and employers in health and social care should review and extend informational, well-being and emotional support to people known to their services, for example, patients, members of the public, registrants and colleague witnesses involved in FtP processes.

Independent advocacy

Regulators and employers should signpost public referrers to sources of independent advocacy and advice across the various processes, including inquests, civil proceedings, NHS complaints, social services complaints and criminal cases.

For regulators

Recognise the key role public referrers have in FtP processes.
Develop a holistic understanding of how FtP processes can be experienced by public referrers: their motivations for making a complaint, the impact of the unfamiliarity of these processes, the work involved for the referrer and harm caused by communications that may be experienced as overly legalistic or disrespectful.
Recognise that public referrers may be distressed, or retraumatised by all stages of FtP processes, and as such that they should:
6.1. minimise the need for public referrers to retell their story and ensure that all staff/lawyers are aware of their communication preferences, communicate deadlines and adhere to them
6.2. take all efforts to consider how fairness, kindness, respect and humanity can be demonstrated in all interactions with people.
Consider how good practices and guidelines from other areas of law may be used in FtP processes to:
7.1. support all witnesses to give their best evidence
7.2. recognise the different ways in which people may be made vulnerable in and by FtP processes
7.3. expand the opportunities for witnesses to explain to regulators and hearing panels about the personal impact of the case, for example, using victim personal or impact statements.
Establish feedback mechanisms or review current approaches to ensure continuous feedback from people who have raised concerns (including those whose cases do not proceed to hearings) to assess their experience and use that to improve FtP processes.

SASW fully supports all recommendations outlined in the report, including, but not limited to, those referenced above. We wish to emphasise the importance of incorporating the use of advocates, as well as reviewing and expanding access to informational, well-being, and emotional support services. Additionally, we strongly advocate for embedding trauma-informed practice across all processes.

We believe this approach should also extend to workers whose fitness to practise is under review, as the FtP process can be highly distressing and may have significant personal and professional implications, even in cases where the individual is ultimately deemed fit to practise. To this end, we recommend that these considerations be explicitly reflected in the Revised Fitness to Practise Rules.

Revisions to the Fitness to Practise Rules

We want to set out a maximum length for Temporary Orders where we have been waiting for the results of investigations by another body. This is so that workers in these cases are not subject to Temporary Orders for excessive periods of time.

16.Do you think this would better balance the interests of workers with those of the SSSC and the public?

Yes

17.If you want to say more in relation to your answers to this question, please do so here.

Based on our experience supporting social workers through Fitness to Practise (FtP) processes, we have observed instances of procedural ‘drift.’ While workers are required to adhere to strict timescales, these same standards do not always appear to apply consistently to other parties, including the regulator. We strongly recommend minimising such delays wherever possible, given the significant distress these processes can cause for those involved.

Additionally, we advocate for the provision of regular updates throughout the process, even where no substantive progress has been made. This practice would help ensure that all parties remain informed and reassured that no critical information has been missed.

Revisions to the Fitness to Practise Rules

We want to introduce a definition of workers who are unfit to plead. We also want to set out that where a worker who has applied for registration or restoration is unfit to plead, their application shall be treated as withdrawn. There should be no restriction on future applications because of this.

18.Do you think that it would be helpful for those involved in our hearings to provide a definition of people who are unfit to plead?

Yes

19.Do you agree that applications by people who are unfit to plead should be treated as withdrawn, with no restriction on future applications?

Yes

20.If you want to say more in relation to your answers to these questions, please do so here.

We would have liked to see the suggested definition of workers who are unfit to plead. As a result our agreement given for Question 18 can only be conditional depending on whether we would deem the definition as appropriate and sufficient.

The regulator might want to consider the involvement of an Occupational Health advisor in such cases.

Revisions to the Fitness to Practise Rules

We want to set out when we can review decisions to not open an investigation or to take no further action following an investigation.

21.Do you think setting out when we can review these decisions will strike a better balance between the rights of the worker and the goals of public protection and upholding the public interest?

Yes

22.If such a power is introduced, do you agree it should be triggered where either new evidence is obtained or where the original decision was materially flawed?

Yes

23.If you want to say more in relation to your answers to these questions, please do so here.

We would welcome greater clarity regarding the circumstances under which a decision can be reviewed by the regulator, as the current approach can appear arbitrary.

We have concerns about the potential increase in complaints against individual social workers, particularly in the context of ongoing budget pressures. Social workers are often the bearers of difficult news, for example, reductions in care packages, despite these decisions being driven by organisational eligibility criteria rather than individual discretion. While complaints from people, carers, or family members are understandable, targeting individual practitioners is not a solution.

This situation places social workers under considerable stress, as they may personally disagree with the decisions yet remain obliged to implement them, which already puts them at risk of moral injury. They risk being drawn into Fitness to Practise (FtP) proceedings as a direct result. Although the regulator may decide to take no further action following an initial complaint, there is a concern that repeated complaints of a similar nature could lead to ongoing reviews. We would therefore welcome clarification on what safeguards are in place to prevent social workers from becoming subject to repeated and unwarranted investigations in such circumstances.

On another note, we are unsure what is meant by new evidence. Does this mean new evidence of another incidence since the first complaint was made? Or could it relate to evidence relating to the initial incident/concern but was not submitted in time? How long do employers and other parties have to provide evidence? It would be unfair to review a decision and extend the distress for the worker due to untimely submission of evidence which could have been available at the time of the investigation.

Revisions to the Fitness to Practise Rules

We want to make various administrative changes to the rules as set out in the appendix.

24.Do you have anything you want to say about the proposed amendments?

We would welcome further clarification regarding the proposed amendments to Rule 9.1. In our response to Question 23, we provided case examples and scenarios that are relevant to this context. The Rule 9.1 states: “Provide that the extent of an investigation should be determined by the SSSC.” The reason for change is provided as: “The proportionality of any investigations should be a decision for the SSSC, and an objective standard should be avoided.”

While we support the principle of proportionality in investigations, we are concerned that, without clear guidance beyond stating that the extent of an investigation is at the discretion of the SSSC, there is no assurance that proportionality will consistently be applied. This is particularly important in cases where allegations arise primarily because individuals are dissatisfied with decisions made in their cases, rather than due to professional misconduct. We would therefore welcome explicit guidance or safeguards to ensure proportionality is maintained in practice.

General

25.Do you foresee any equalities issues arising as a result of the changes proposed in the revised Fitness to Practise Rules, which have not been addressed in the previous questions?

Yes

General

26.Please explain what issues you are concerned about here.

We are aware that, in other UK regulatory bodies, individuals from ethnic minority backgrounds are disproportionately represented in Fitness to Practise (FtP) processes. While this does not currently appear to be the case for the SSSC, we would welcome clarification on what specific safeguards are in place to prevent such discrimination. Although we do not believe the proposed changes themselves create direct equality concerns, we do not consider this to be an adequate baseline for assurance.

Given the current political climate, there is a risk that allegations relating to racism may increase. We therefore ask: what measures has the SSSC implemented, or plans to implement, to ensure it does not replicate the mistakes of other regulators? The key question should be: how can we guarantee that equality issues do not arise within FtP processes?

Similar concerns apply to social workers with disabilities. We seek assurance that FtP processes include consideration of whether appropriate support and reasonable adjustments were provided by the employer before assessing a worker’s fitness to practise. Furthermore, what reasonable adjustments does the regulator itself provide to ensure the process is accessible and fair for workers with disabilities?

General

27.Are there any other areas not covered by the changes currently proposed that you feel need to be amended, added to or removed from the revised Fitness to Practise Rules?

Yes

General

28.What do you think needs to be amended, added to or removed from the revised Fitness to Practise Rules? 

We note that there does not appear to be a specific question relating to the proposed changes listed under section (c) of the summary: “To change the rules that allow us to remove a worker if they do not engage with us about a health issue that may impair their fitness to practise.”

While we broadly agree with the intent of these changes, we strongly recommend the implementation of safeguards to ensure that Fitness to Practise (FtP) rules do not inadvertently penalise individuals experiencing mental health issues. We welcome the proposed expansion of possible outcomes in such cases, as reliance on a single option, such as a removal order, would be unfair and risk penalising mental health conditions.

We wish to emphasise that a diagnosis of a mental health condition does not, in itself, indicate that a worker is unfit to practise. We therefore recommend that the involvement of an Occupational Health advisor be considered as standard practice in such cases to ensure a fair and informed assessment.