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

Cost of vetting to be transferred to nurses

A new vetting and barring scheme to protect vulnerable adults will require all nurses to pay an extra £64 on top of their NMC registration fee in order to practise.

The scheme, to be run by the newly created Independent Safeguarding Authority (ISA), has been delayed for a year and is due to come into effect in October 2009. It replaces the old Protection of Vulnerable Adults (POVA) system.

The ISA scheme will apply to people working with children and vulnerable adults in the NHS, as well as independent social care settings. It will combine List 99 – a list of people barred from working with children – with the old POVA register.

From 12 October 2009, professionals will need to pay the one-off £64 fee to join the ISA register. The authority will use this fee to meet the cost of checking police records, via the Criminal Records Bureau, for previous convictions as well as its own barring lists.

‘The new vetting and barring scheme will replace POVA and will extend to the NHS – its regulator and other bodies will also be able to make referrals,’ said a Department of Health spokesperson.

Unions have criticised the new scheme because the cost of vetting is currently covered by the employer as a legal requirement of the recruitment process. They argue that it is unfair to transfer the cost to the employee and that nurses should not have to pay for this on top of the annual £76 charge to remain on the NMC register.

Gail Adams, Unison’s head of nursing, said: ‘They will be paying NMC registration and £64 to the ISA to be on their register. There is some question about the requirement to be on two registers.’

Julie Fagan, founder member of the Campaign Against Unnecessary Suspensions, added: ‘Why should people pay to establish that they are innocent, not guilty – especially in the light of the increased cost of [the NMC register]?’

See news analysis


Readers' comments (3)

  • Totally outrageous. Do you know, when I qualified in 1974, I was told that having paid the registration fee I would never have to pay again. How untrue that comment proved to be. I have worked full time since then, so have paid quite a lot,most recently to the NMC who are now accused of irregular practice. I would absolutely refuse to pay for this latest check to be carried out.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • i agree it's rediculous to charge nurses again and is there a need to pay for 2 registers???? Nurses are forever hit the hardest!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • The vetting plan is Blairism, in relation to schools, they're spending half a billion dollars on something that doesn't ban sex offenders. So one is getting less than something which costs nothing. In relation to nursing, there are issues, and a general tax on nurses certainly isn't going to fix them. Britain, has a haut de la Garenne culture dating to the 1880s. The vetting system for British teachers, has made them unemployable in the USA. I don't think next year, they will be allowed to work in Summer Camps. I think Britain blew it last chance with Neil Challis.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

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.