The Social Workers Union (SWU) submitted the following member feedback regarding the “Consultation on proposals to make changes to our fees” to Social Work England (SWE) on 13th May 2025. This feedback was collected by a joint BASW England and SWU member survey run in April and additional direct consultations with SWU members. SWU General Secretary John McGowan met with SWE Chief Executive Colum Conway to personally deliver a copy of this feedback.
Provide your feedback on the proposed initial increase to fees in 2025:
SWU member engagement identified strong objections.
A 33% fee increase and additional annual 1.85% is felt unreasonable.
Social Workers (SWs) have the lowest wage since 2010 and struggle with cost of living and for work: registration fees, vehicle use, stationery, unpaid overtime, training for CPD, increased utilities (hybrid working). Some members worry about affording registration and potential impact on recruitment and retention, with consequences to diversity. Flat application of fees and increases disadvantage part-time workers, NQSWs on lower wages, and international SWs.
Majority feel the fee increase is being sought to finance services for a minority – for example: Fitness to Practice (FtP). While important to improve timescales, this streaming of funds is viewed as disproportionate.
Members want Social Work England (SWE) to provide greater transparency and accountability on operational spending, clarification on budgets for staffing, premises, costs associated with FtP (Capstix, court), and other projects.
Members feel lack of value for money with current fees and seek for SWE to do more to support the profession (public image and targeted work with employers), actively review CPD and offer free training / peer forums to support this requirement, access to support for registrants subject to referral / investigation / sanctions (professional, counselling, mental health, financial).
Attaining more income from registrant fees, whilst demonstrating an underspend of the previous budget, risks SWE’s overall government funding.
Incremental increase (1.85% PA)
Generally, registrants feel they currently have poor value for money and that the initial increase and the incremental increase proposed is unjustifiable without greater transparency over current spending and concrete plans to improve performance, structure and function as a regulator.
It is felt that this proposal does not adequately provide clarity over future plans. Registrants need SWE to set out strategic plans and demonstrate how spending will improve the experiences of registrants, who often feel that they are subject to punitive and adversarial treatment and processes when referred in.
Members have asked why this substantial fee is not being scaled incrementally over 5 years. SW wages have stagnated since 2010, pay increases have fallen behind inflation, and increasing professional / work-related costs. Many members are conscientious of the increasing burdens on employers, struggling Local Authorities, and there is a significant impact on the services provided to the public, and the ramifications for public safety and the safety of staff. It is felt that SWE might better mandate expectations of employers for H&S of staff and the public.
Do you think that the proposed changes to the fees could have a positive or negative impact on people with any of the following protected characteristics?
Age – potentially negative as NQSWs are often younger and on a lower wage. Potential consequences for older SWs nearing retirement or returning to practice.
Disability – potentially negative, people with chronic / enduring health conditions more likely to require flexibility/adjustments/ work fewer hours / be part-time.
Race – Potentially disadvantaging international SWs who already struggle to save the scrutiny fee at £495 PA; it can take 12-24 months for some to save this in their local currencies. Diaspora qualified SWs who arrive on a visa linked to carer/support worker roles pay a lot of money to agencies for that sponsorship but then discover they cannot convert to qualified roles if they cannot find an alternative sponsor. There are concerns that the reduced lifespan of the language test will also increase costs and further disadvantage ISWs.
Religion / Belief – No concerns were raised by members regarding the potential impact on people with this protected characteristic.
Sex – Yes, in a workforce that is 89% women it is probable women will be most disadvantaged as they are more often carers (child / adult) or single parents who may need to work reduced hours (PT) and therefore this increase will be significant.
Sexual Orientation and Gender Reassignment – Potential negative impact on LGBTQ+ people as they earn less on average and are more likely to be carers – 16% of people who identified themselves in the 2021 Census as being part of the LGBTQ+ community also identified as being a carer.
Marriage and Civil Partnership – No concerns were raised by members regarding potential impact on people with this protected characteristic.
Pregnancy and Maternity – Yes, people who take maternity/paternity leave are required to remain registered and pay the required fees; however might have a reduced wage for a proportion of their leave. Regardless of the view sometimes expressed that taking maternity / paternity leave is a personal choice, requiring SWs to pay registration fees while they are not working is unbalanced and unjust.