Your browser is no longer supported

For the best possible experience using our website we recommend you upgrade to a newer version or another browser.


Your browser appears to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of this website, please enable cookies in your browser

We'll assume we have your consent to use cookies, for example so you won't need to log in each time you visit our site.
Learn more

RCN to end indemnity cover for majority of members


Members of the Royal College of Nursing who work for the NHS, private sector or independently in aesthetics will no longer be covered by the union’s indemnity scheme from July.

The RCN described the change as “small” and said it was in order to close a loophole that allowed employers to shift the costs of cover onto the college.

Under NHS indemnity arrangements for clinical negligence claims, health service bodies are vicariously liable for their employees.

But the RCN argued that some employers were passing on claims relating to its members to the college, rather than meeting them themselves.

As a result of the RCN change, which comes into force on 1 July 2014, work undertaken by RCN members who are employed – for example by the health service or a private provider – will be excluded from its scheme’s coverage.

Most self-employed members will remain covered by the RCN scheme, but aesthetic practice will also be excluded from 1 July because of the high claims risk associated with this area of practice.

“Good Samaritan” work will continue to be covered by the scheme and £3m cover is still available for voluntary work and education placements.

The change will stop the college from “inadvertently subsidising under-performing employers”, the RCN said in a statement announcing the change. It said the change was expected to achieve “big savings” over time.

The RCN said it currently worked on about 50 indemnity cases a year where an employer had passed on the claim, costing it about £5m.

Peter Carter

Peter Carter, RCN chief executive and general secretary, said: “This [change] ensures the responsibility for claims rests with those who should be paying – namely the employer – so we can focus on protecting, representing and supporting members in other work-related and professional legal areas.”

He added: “The RCN will continue to represent and support all members in the workplace and at the Nursing and Midwifery Council.”

The college advised self-employed members to check the terms of the RCN scheme regularly and to ask for advice from RCN Direct, if they were unsure their practice is covered.

However, the RCN was heavily criticised over a similar decision to withdraw its indemnity cover for members working in general practice from January 2012.

Announcing the move at its 2011 annual congress, the college said the change was to prevent medical defence organisations, which provide indemnity cover to GPs, from being able to recover costs from the RCN where one its members was at fault.

But many RCN members were unconvinced. One speaker said it was an “own goal for the RCN,” warning that practice nurses could leave the college as a matter of principle.


Are you able to Speak out Safely?

Sign our petition to put pressure on your trust to support an open and transparent NHS



Readers' comments (27)

  • Well, I'm sure that the RCN will lose a lot of members over this. If the indemnity cover is lost, then there is very little they will have left to offer us. As it is now, they aren't that helpful if you have a problem and need help.They are also very expensive.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Well that's decided it for me. After 13 years as a nurse with RCN I am off to Unison.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I can't understand why anyone would want to be in RCN. They seem like a spineless bunch. Come on over to Unison!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • The RCN always made a big deal about their indemnity cover and as a non-RCN member I always said it was useless if you were in the NHS. If you are going to switch, Unite would be a better choice. The only union to oppose the watering-down of the Agenda for Change contract. Many interesting articles in Private Eye about Unison if you need more evidence.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • eileen shepherd

    I remember back in the 1980s being sold RCN membership on the basis of the indemnity cover. While aware of vicarious liability I always kept my RCN membership when I was in practice as a safety net. I suppose like many nurses I felt reassure by it.
    This change in policy will confuse alot of nurses and create some anxiety. It raises the question why offer cover if it is not needed?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Why remove Gail Adams' comment? She wasn't offensive.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • We should all defect to another union that will truly protect our interests. If the RCN see that there is going to be a mass exodus they may back down.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • A large part of the benefit which I have until now paid for with my subscription is shortly to be removed, so would the RCN kindly tell me by how much my subscription will now be reduced? As Eileen says above, the indemnity cover was the main reason for many of us joining the RCN, and was promoted as essential. Now we are told it never was. Will we now have compensation for this mis-selling, as we would for PPI?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Without the indemnity, really what is the point of being in the RCN?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I bet they don't reduce the union dues.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

View results 10 per page20 per page50 per page

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

Please remember that the submission of any material is governed by our Terms and Conditions and by submitting material you confirm your agreement to these Terms and Conditions. Links may be included in your comments but HTML is not permitted.