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

NMC claims fee hike business case is 'sound'


The Nursing and Midwifery Council has insisted the business case for its proposed fee hike is “sound”, following news that the health secretary has told it to carry out an independent audit of the plans.

The troubled nursing regulator also warned in a statement that any delay in the implementation of the unpopular 58% rise in the registration fee will have a “negative impact” on the public protection.

The comments from the NMC’s council come in response to revelations on Monday that Andrew Lansley had ordered the regulator to “explore all possible options to avoid” the proposed hike in annual fees from £76 to £120.

Nursing Times understands the new NMC chair Mark Addison, whose appointment was unveiled by the DH last week, will also be keen to assure himself that the fee rise is necessary when he joins the NMC in September.

But the regulator said it had already received “external assurance” about its business case for the fee rise, and had actively kept the Department of Health informed of its parlous financial position.

Consultants KPMG are understood to have previously reviewed the calculations used by the NMC to produce the fitness to practise budget upon which the case for the fee rise is based.

The response from the NMC council represents further defiance from the regulator, which is already angry that the government has intervened in the appointments process of its chair and chief executive.

In its statement, a spokesman said: “The NMC’s council has sought and received external assurance that the business case for the fee rise is financially sound, and this advice was taken into account in the proposals set out in the fee rise consultation document, published on 1 June.

“We have actively shared and continue to share information about the NMC’s financial position and the proposed fee rise with the Department of Health, the Council for Healthcare Regulatory Excellence, and the unions.”

He added: “Council remains concerned that further delays in implementing a fee rise will have a negative impact on public protection.”


Readers' comments (26)

  • I wonder how much of our registration fees they used to pay KPMG to review the calculations? they have paid an 'external' company to tell them what they want to hear.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Sign the petition here:

    Together We are STRONG

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • doesn't matter how sound it is from the business point of view. surely that argument could be used to justify anything under the sun, moon and stars, but is this not also an ethico-moral and solidarity issue of standing by their 'customers' who they are there to serve by supporting them during times of austerity and frozen salaries?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • 1.55 pm

    I am not too good at accounts but I would have happily downloaded the account sheets available on the NMC website or passed on the link for somebody here who is and lent them my pocket calculator!

    I am sure one our good readers could have worked out their sums for them for free!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • In additon to employing a top (and therefore very expensive), firm of Accountants, they also paid an external company to design their recent questionnaire - which seemed to pay more importance to sexual orientation than professional matters. All of it a complete waste of money. They pay a fortune in rent and no doubt enjoy a very comfortable office lifestyle. Why don't they start acting as though they have little money and make some economies - instead to spending more to prove how parlous their financial situation is?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • 3.33 pm

    the questionnaire surely served no purpose except to satisfy demands from nurses for a consultation.

    it will be interesting to see the results and how many were completed.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Sadly over the past many years they have proven themselves unfit as a regulator. How many lives would have been saved if they had functioned effectively and efficiently. If we had functioned as poorly as they have as an organisation we SHOULD have been removed from the register. However because they have been so ineffectual they have allowed many unstable people to continue to work as nurses. Bringing in a non-nurse to head up the organisation shows that it is just a fee collection exercise with no interest in PROFESSIONAL nursing. Thus all the organisation serves no useful purpose. Abolish them and maintain the Electronic Staff Register effectively across the NHS and charge a service fee to non-NHS nurses to be maintained on this. This type of approach will need to be applied anyway for smart card access to patient records so why duplicate the record keeping (except as part of resilience measures).

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Bul**hit!!! Bul**hit!!! Bul**hit!!! Bul**hit!!! Bul**hit!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • You are dead right. The NMC is full of mistakes, yet if a nurse is reported for similar thing, then NMC opens the Policy and Procedure to punish the Nurse. I had experience of gross inefficiency by NMC, when Documents recorded delivered for hearing was not received by the panel.The documents were sitting in the post room, while decision was taken to suction me, and one of the reasons was that ;registrant was not communicating with NMC. When I provided the prove of postage, the decision was immediately reversed. NMC never had the decent manners to apologize. The post keeper at NMC was free to continue. A recent case , letter for hearing was sent to a wrong address . ARE THEY SERIOUS, do they understand what they do. If this in competencies are managed effectively , we will not need to pay any increase in fees. It is unfortunate NMC has monopolized the regulation of Nurses, hence they threat Nurses as objects. SAD. l know of a nurse who appeared twice before the NMC, and the end result was that NMC didn't do their initial screening well, hence the waste of funds fand the nurses time. NMC got away with it. They need Nurses to rise up and put a strong challenge to their mis management.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I don't think any nurse is interested in what the NMC have to say on this matter, no-one trusts them to be honest and transparent.

    What does the Health Secretary, the CHRE and the unions say about it as they demanded the independent audit. The fact that the Health Secretary wanted an independent audit carried out in the first place tells us how shoddy the NMC are.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Show 102050results 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.

Related Jobs