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

Economists claim there will be a 6% drop in student numbers after bursary scrapped


Economists have estimated that demand for healthcare courses will drop by at least 6% following the removal of bursaries next year, leading to thousands fewer nurses being trained in 2017.

They also predicted that universities would lose at least £57m next year, largely due to smaller student intakes, under the new arrangements that will see nursing, midwifery and allied health professional students in England having to take out loans to fund their tuition fees and living costs.

“Fewer nurses qualifying in 2020 will have disastrous consequences for patient safety and exacerbate the current recruitment crisis”

Christina McAnea

Meanwhile, the report – titled The Impact of the 2015 Comprehensive Spending Review on Higher Education Fees and Funding Arrangements in Subjects Allied to Medicine – estimated the government would fail to make the vast majority of savings it expects from the move because a large proportion of student loans would have to be written off.

According to the analysis, carried out by consultants London Economics for Unison and the National Union of Students, the cost to healthcare students to study at university would increase by 71% under the government reforms.

Current arrangements mean the average cost to a student on a healthcare course is around £21,000 for a three-year degree, based on the assumption that although they receive bursaries, the student is potentially losing out on a full-time salary in that time.

When the reforms are brought in, the economists predicted this cost to students would jump to around £36,000 – taking into consideration loan write-offs – representing an increase of 71%.

“The changes will mean greater volatility and uncertainty for universities’ future funding”

Christina McAnea

They said trends over the past 20 years had shown increasing the cost of university education to students was linked to a negative effect on the number studying. Applying this effect to nursing would lead to a 6% drop in healthcare students, equal to a loss of 2,100 nurses per cohort from autumn 2017 when the reforms are introduced.

The report also noted trusts could expect to spend an additional £100m a year on agency staff to fill the gaps emerging from the smaller number of graduates.

In their introduction to the report, Unison head of health Christina McAnea and NUS national president Megan Dunn said the drop in student numbers would have “disastrous” consequences for patient safety.

“The increased cost to students will deter people from becoming a nurse, midwife or allied health professional,” they said. “Far from creating 10,000 extra additional training places as claimed by the government, the changes will reduce current participation levels by 2,000 students.”

“Fewer nurses qualifying in 2020 will have disastrous consequences for patient safety and exacerbate the current recruitment crisis in the health and care sector,” they said.

“The government is drinking in the last chance saloons and sleepwalking into this disaster”

Norman Lamb

Meanwhile, the report authors said they expected universities to see their overall income from healthcare students reduced from £851m in 2015-16 to £795m in 2017-18.

This was based on the expected 6% reduction in student numbers, plus the fact that universities will be subject to rules under the loans system that mean they have to pay back around 15% of tuition fees for improving access.

“Instead of creating a sustainable funding system for universities, as promised by the government, the changes will mean greater volatility and uncertainty for universities’ future funding,” said Ms McAnea and Ms Dunn, who warned that it could lead to some courses being stopped altogether.

Government savings would also in reality be far less than originally expected, added the report.

Liberal Democrats

Care minister Norman Lamb

Norman Lamb

It said the £534m per student cohort the government planned to save was based on the assumption nurses would earn similar salaries to other graduates.

In reality, the government would only save around £88m because it would have to write off a large proportion of loans, it said.

At the launch of the report, shadow health secretary Heidi Alexander and former health ministers Norman Lamb and Dr Dan Poulter urged the government to reconsider the reforms in light of the findings.

Mr Lamb warned that unless the government found more money for both NHS services and for training the workforce the system would “crash” by 2020.

“They [the government] are drinking in the last chance saloons and are sleepwalking into this disaster,” he said.

“To just take this money from student nurses and allied health professionals in order to seek to prop up the system, which is crumbling before our eyes, is wrong-headed and needs thorough review,” he said.

Heidi Alexander

Heidi Alexander

Heidi Alexander

Ms Alexander said the report reinforced concerns that the government was taking a “huge gamble” on the future NHS workforce and patient safety.

“We can’t afford to train 2,000 fewer student nurses and other allied health professionals in the next year or so, because we’ve got a desperate shortage,” said Ms Alexander.

“This whole policy has been designed to save money but when you look at the extra spend on agency staff, overseas staff, the costs being put off to the future, you’re all but wiping out those supposed savings,” she added.

The Department of Health said it disagreed with the findings and the figures calculated in the report.

It said the report failed to recognise the demand for student nurse training places outstripped demand, with two thirds of applicants turned away. 

It also said the analysis did not take account of further money that will be supplied to universities under the loans system from the Higher Education Funding Council for England, which allocates government funding.

A Department of Health spokeswoman said: ”We don’t agree with the findings of this report or recognise the figures quoted. We need more home-grown nurses so the NHS doesn’t have to rely on expensive agency staff or overseas nurses.

“Currently two thirds of people who apply to become a nurse aren’t accepted for training and our plans mean up to 10,000 more training places by the end of this parliament, with student nurses getting around 25% more financial support whilst they study,” she said.


Related files

Readers' comments (5)

  • I think we'll find the figures will be much greater than 6%. But who are we to speculate?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I agree with anon above, 6% is a bit low. I estimate around 1/3 fewer places will be taken up within nursing and midwifery, not too sure about AHP courses. We can't speculate, it'll only be another year before we get a better understanding of how many applications are made, but I bet it will be bleak

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • The bigger issue, I feel, is that as a whole student finance has failed to save money and costs the government more. As a nation we have to decide to fund, for free, the cost of a university education, but linked directly to outcomes. To me there seems to be too many degrees, by too many institutions, that has been identified as not providing the skills that businesses and the public sector require.

    Nursing and all health science subjects are essential to the public. Furthermore, we need to link finance for these directly with jobs, following education and then provide funds to develop staff with post-registration education funding to ensure staff can progress and get the best value-for-money from their skills, abilities and aspirations. Supported staff are retained staff.

    Finally, if this scrapping of bursaries goes through, which seems inevitable, we need to ensure that the damage is minimized. To this end I feel that we need to stop the rhetoric of "people coming out with x thousands of pounds in debt", because ultimately it isn't within the normal definition of 'proper' debt, e.g. doesn't affect credit ratings, pay back relatively small amounts, gets cancelled after X years. This doesn't, of course, make it right, but the reality is we cannot afford to dissuade a single potential nurse.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • @ James Lee
    It's not rhetoric, in fact it's worse than "proper debt" (whatever that is) because the government aren't bound by statute and civil law when it comes to contracts, so they get to change the terms of repayment any time they like. They've done it once already and are unashamedly committed to continuing to make repayment terms worse any time the Treasury demands it. Once you enter the system you've written a blank cheque. Nurse or otherwise, I wouldn't wish that on anyone.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Read the stories on the intro of the nursing associate and you'll see that there won't be any reduction in the numbers of 'nurses' being 'trained'. If your wish is to have a funded work-based training, you're going to get your wish. But at what cost to the profession?

    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.