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

Government 'persuaded' by calls for stronger duties to promote training

  • 15 Comments

The government has said it is “extremely sympathetic” to proposed amendments to the health bill that would compel national bodies to promote training for nurses and other healthcare staff.

Labour and crossbench peers have proposed a series of amendments to enshrine education and training duties in legislation. Currently the health bill contains scant reference to either.

The amendments would place a duty on the health secretary to ensure an effective system was in place for the planning and delivery of education and training for the healthcare workforce.

They would also place a duty on the new NHS Commissioning Board to promote education and training. In addition, Health Education England – the body being set up to allocate and oversee training funding – would set minimum training numbers for each profession.

Speaking in a debate last week, health minister Earl Howe said the government was “extremely sympathetic to this group of amendments” – strongly suggesting some aspects are likely to be added to the bill.

“The government has listened carefully and we are persuaded by the intent behind these proposals,” he said, noting their focus on how the new NHS structures could “foster high quality education and training”. 

Although he did not specify which of the amendments he was referring to, Nursing Times understands they include the specific duty on education and training for the NHS Commissioning Board. However, they are less likely to include setting minimum training placements.

Baroness Finlay, one of the crossbench peers behind the amendments, told Nursing Times she hoped the proposals would ensure a “commitment” to education and training was embedded “right through the bill” and that “every lever” was being used to ensure training was not neglected.

The government was due to publish separate detailed plans for education and training this autumn but these are now expected early next year.

  • 15 Comments

Readers' comments (15)

  • michael stone

    Proper training is always good, but it 'costs money and time' - and 'sympathetic' probably won't 'cut it'.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I agree with you. Although who in their right mind would opt to train as a nurse? I have steered my daughters away from nursing. After all who would want to/be able to work in this profession till they're 67 years old? And for a pittance? It'll be interesting to see how much the nursing numbers fall once all the universities have moved to a degree only profession next September.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • tinkerbell

    As usual another statement that doesn't actually state anything, totally ambiguous and as clear as mud.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I couldn't agree more guys, 'sympathetic' won't cut it at all.

    And Anonymous | 5-Dec-2011 1:18 pm, I wouldn't recommend anyone become a Nurse either. The profession will be in ruins in a decades time because as you say, who in their right mind will come into Nursing? Talk about brain drain.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • tinkerbell

    mike | 5-Dec-2011 1:48 pm

    Mike bless you for being such an optimist but i don't think it will take a 'decades' time but more like a couple/few years sadly at this rate.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • tinkerbell

    Having re read the above spin i think i have managed to decode its meaning.

    'The government(also known as 'the total bullshit department') are extremely sympathetic (read as apathetic, but that wouldn't go down too well and need to appear half decent) are hell bent on destroying the principles of the NHS and are strongly suggesting that we 'might' (read as 'if we can be arsed') delay any detailed plans (hopefully forget) until early next year as we hope most of the nursing profession will soon be leaving and save us the bother'.

    It all makes so much more sense now that i have this decoding device.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • michael stone

    tinkerbell | 5-Dec-2011 2:35 pm

    The problem is allowing ministers, etc, to get away with 'vague waffle' - that was exactly how they 'escaped' from the furore over the new 'NHS commissioning arrangements', by making 'vague promises' which can be distorted/wriggled-out-of at a later date.

    You do need to pin people down to specific answers to specific questions - it isn't easy, but you need to do it !

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Steve Williams

    This comment has been removed

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • This comment has been removed for using offensive language and not adhering to community standards

  • michael stone

    Steve Williams | 5-Dec-2011 9:25 pm

    For information.

    I joined this site, after asking NT if its magazine had a discussion page, because I wanted to understand how nurses would typically answer certain technical EoLC-related questions, which I am discussing with DoH, etc. NT told me to register with the 'site, and to try the Forum pages.

    I am only online, from public libraries and that is on a 'booked time' basis - if I have spare time and no e-mails to fill it, I sometimes post comments here (and, sometimes they have been typed up at home in advance). I can't 're-use' unused time during a 60 minute session - if I have lots of other stuff happening NT gets neglected, if it turns out that I don't have other e-mails to deal with, NT gets some attention (and the ludicrous level of bickering, is mildly distracting).

    I am not a goverment infiltrator - and there isn't much in-depth discussion to 'spoil', although I am genuinely attempting to contribute (but from a different perspective - seems valid, until the nursing profession can exist without patients).

    This comment of yours:

    'He/she/they seem deliberately seem to to abusing the English language in a quasi Afro-Carribrean tone'

    perplexes me.

    And Geeze is right - lots of nurses, seem unable to accept/handle positions contrary to their own.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • michael stone

    Dear moderator, re the 'Steve Williams | 5-Dec-2011 9:25 pm' post.

    Please DO NOT remove it - it is factually ill-founded, but if anyone ought to be offended by it, that person would be me, and I am not bothered by it, I approve of free discussion and Steve Williams has just as much right to post nonsense as anybody else.

    So be so kind as to leave it alone, please.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Thanks for your comment michael, this comment has been removed for using offensive language and not adhering to community standards.

Show 1020results 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.