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

MPs criticise NMC for 'ignoring nurses' in debate on fee rise


The Nursing and Midwifery Council has been accused by politicians of “completely ignoring” the views of hard-pressed nurses and midwives in its decision to increase registration fees.

In a debate in Parliament on the fee rise, MPs described the increase as “appalling” and accused the regulator of “holding nurses to ransom”.

“It is a double whammy, to put it mildly, for hard-working nurses and midwives”

David Anderson

The registration fee increased from £100 to £120 in February – a move opposed by the overwhelming majority of nurses and midwives.

It follows a recent increase from £76 to £100 – amounting to a near 60% increase in two years

The debate was secured by David Anderson, Labour MP for Blaydon. It was prompted by a petition calling on the government to review the fee increase and the way the decision had been made.

The online petition, set up by Stephen Iwasyk, a mental health liaison nurse at Hertfordshire Partnership University Foundation Trust, attracted just under 114,000 signatures.

Mr Anderson said the petition demonstrated nurses’ anger and the sheer strength of feeling against the fee rise, which has come at a time of pay freezes and increased living costs.

Many felt their views had been “completely ignored” by the NMC, he added.

“It is a double whammy, to put it mildly, for hard-working nurses and midwives to be told ‘You are going to be worse off – and by the way, why don’t you pay more for your registration?’,” he said.

He added: “Although the NMC recognised the economic difficulties nurses and midwives face in its consultation paper, it proposed the fee increase regardless. Effectively it ignored the reality of how those people are struggling.”

He pointed out that nurses did not have choice when it came to paying the sum, because they could not work without being on the register.

“It [the NMC] can hold people to ransom and, unfortunately, that is what it is surely doing,” he said during the debate last week in Westminster Hall.

He warned that increasing fees could prompt nurses to leave the profession, deter people from joining or returning after a career break – amid a widespread shortage of nurses. He called on the NMC to look at reduced fees for new registrants, part-time staff and those nearing retirement age.

Meanwhile, he warned there was no guarantee fees would not continue to rise to cover costs such as the introduction of revalidation.

Responding for the government, life sciences minister George Freeman said he was aware of the strong opposition to the fee increase, but added the NMC was an independent body and responsible for setting its own fees.

“The government has made it clear that they expect the NMC council to have clear justification for, and to consider nurses and midwives’ financial constraints when making, decisions on fees,” he said.

“The NMC says it has not taken this decision lightly and it has considered the responses to the consultation in detail and carefully listened to the issues raised and I have no reason to doubt that.

“However, the NMC’s first duty must be to deliver its core regulatory functions and to fulfil its statutory duties to ensure public protection,” he added.

“The only way for us to significantly reduce our costs is to change the existing legislation”

NMC spokeswoman

The NMC has insists it has been prevented from reducing costs due to a delay in legislation that would help its streamline its work.

Meanwhile, it says it has been disproportionately hit by a fundamental change to the funding of the Professional Standards Authority (PSA), which regulates bodies like the NMC.

Instead of being funded by government, the cost of running the PSA will now be met by the nine regulators it oversees with the NMC, as the largest, paying nearly half.

However, Mr Freeman said the extra cost was likely to be just £3 extra per registrant or 2.5% of the £120 fee.

“The NMC exists to protect the public,” said an NMC spokeswoman. “Our legal framework means that we are currently obliged to spend 77% of our income on fitness to practise.

“The only way for us to significantly reduce our costs is to change the existing legislation. We have been calling for changes to our legislative framework, and will continue to do so,” she said.

“We have expressed our significant concern about the PSA levy, which would see nurses and midwives paying a disproportionate amount of the cost,” she said. “We are disappointed that our concerns have not been fully addressed.”

She added the NMC was taking steps to make paying the registration fee more manageable including enabling nurse to pay in instalments from next year.


Readers' comments (15)

  • MPs queuing up to support nurses in complaints about being financially disadvantaged? It can only be one of two things - a general election is imminent or this is April Fool's Day. Wait a minute...

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Totally agree Phil!!!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Similar increases in Ireland were avoided because of a boycott of payment co-ordinated by the nursing unions. The Irish Nursing Board capitulated and fees remain at their current level and unions have now agreed to negotiate with them regarding future rises. A similar boycott should be arranged in the U.K. although in the 11 years I worked in the NHS I found the nursing unions did little to defend their members

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • The problem is as stated in the article - The NMC uses our money to pay to regulate us and it charges what it sees fit to do so. If it was a gas company or a supermarket we could choose to go to another regulator who offered a better deal. I realise that the profession needs to be regulated but it hurts at a time of downbanding, pay freezes, pension cost increases, to be told that "you have to pay what we tell you and there's nothing you can do about it."

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Hypothetically:
    1. can't pay / won't pay = no registration = cannot work as a registrants
    2. when / where is the tipping point of not enough staff registered to deliver safe levels of care?
    3. would cost of administration of the register rise again, due to ongoing costs of the regulatory body needing to be met with fewer and fewer registrants?
    4. ex-registrants would have to find alternative work, probably as 'advanced healthcare support assistants!' with suitable matching remuneration according to skills needed (due to lack of actual registered staff working) or alternative jobs/careers entirely.

    Think it's patients who will ultimately suffer instead of being protected by the actions of this regulatory body.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • The debate live

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • just working my way through the long list of articles commented on today wondering which one was the April Fool. It is easy to get taken in!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Its all lovely that now the politicians are backing us. Where were they when this was being done - Andys bullet points are spot on

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Paying in instalments just means that we are paying the same amount (if not more due to administration fees etc.) - how is that better?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • stage 1. threaten increase.
    stage 2. wait for petition to reach the right number.
    stage 3. MPs moan at NMC.
    stage 4. NMC ignore and raise anyway.
    stage 5. repeat.

    Dont even get a card anymore. I liked my card :(

    NMC can save cash in loads of ways. Move london HQ out of W1B where a 1 bed flat is 600K to say..... Falklands? They would get a porta cabin out there dirt cheap too. If porta cabin wards are acceptable for patients then its good enough for the NMC.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

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.