NHS: Staff Numbers after Covid-19

Debate between Baroness Watkins of Tavistock and Lord Clark of Windermere

Thursday 4th March 2021 Grand Committee

[Lord Clark of Windermere]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have for the number of National Health Service staff after the COVID-19 pandemic.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Watkins of Tavistock) (CB)]

The time limit for this debate is one hour.

[Lord Clark of Windermere (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I count myself very fortunate to be introducing this Question. This is an invaluable parliamentary means whereby questions can be asked in a more discursive manner than usual and the Minister will listen and, we hope, provide answers. I shall make a couple of obvious general points.

The people of Britain love the NHS, as has been seen during the Covid-19 pandemic, but there were problems prior to the pandemic. I shall make three basic points to set the scene. The NHS is the fifth-largest employer in the world, yet we spend less on health as a percentage of our GDP than almost every other developed country in the world. To compound the situation domestically, there was a shortage of hospital beds prior to the pandemic. Indeed, we are bottom of the Euro league for intensive care beds, with 7.3 beds per 100,000 of population, compared with the best, Germany, with 33.8 beds—what a difference. Thus, prior to the previous cuts we were ill-prepared, and there have been too many cuts under the austerity measures of the early 21st century.

I am certain in my own mind that it was due only to the dedication, brilliance and sacrifice of NHS staff that we got through—and I mean all staff, from the top consultant to the most junior worker. And it has been at tremendous cost to many of them in stress, burnout and mental health challenges. We owe them a tremendous amount and I hope that, in his summing up, the Minister will confirm that this will be recognised when we have won the battle with Covid-19.

I will begin with nurses. Over the years, the Minister must have become tired of me pursuing him on the issue of nurses. I remain concerned. Currently, we are at least 40,000 nurses short. Over the next seven years we will face a shortfall of 108,000 nurses. I must ask the Minister very bluntly: will HMG drastically increase the training of fully qualified nurses? What discussions has he had to ensure the provision of the educational means to do so?

The Royal College of Nursing has conducted surveys and expressed deep concern about the exodus of qualified staff following the pandemic. I share that concern. Will the Minister push ahead and prepare plans to deliver what is necessary to persuade staff that they are valued, and to retain them in the NHS? According to the RCN survey, 35% of nurses are contemplating leaving the profession within the year. Will HMG also provide the NHS with the means to fund occupational health and psychological support, and, if necessary, breaks beyond annual leave?

Nurses are due a pay rise. They are currently worse off than they were a decade ago. Will HMG ensure that the upcoming pay settlement is really meaningful and commensurate with the ever-rising skills of nurses?

I turn now to GPs. If we are to meet the demands and expectations of the general public, we will have to increase the number of doctors, especially GPs. Does the Minister accept that we are still suffering in the training of doctors from the austerity years, over which his party presided? In spite of the modest increases of late to close the gap, does he accept that we face a shortfall of 7,000 GPs in the next two years? As a starter, we need to double the number of medical school places from 7,500 to 15,000 by the end of the decade.

I will move on from numbers to talk about processes. I am concerned about the reluctance of younger practitioners to enter general practice in many parts of the country, leaving it often to only elderly GPs to carry on as single practitioners, supplemented by agencies and bank locums. Do the Government really feel that that is satisfactory and sustainable?

I have a personal problem with this in Windermere at the surgery I am registered with. It operates from a fine purpose-built building but has been without a permanent GP for a number of years. It functions largely due to the skill, experience, training and commitment of nurse practitioners and other staff with specialist skills. Their work is supplemented by local doctors—if they can be persuaded to come. Five years ago, the practice was leased to a private company, OneMedical Group, 80 miles away in Leeds. Last autumn it took advantage of a break clause in its lease and surrendered it, and we are back to square one; it is far from a satisfactory situation.

The key issue is that younger GPs do not wish to buy into practices which might involve hundreds of thousands of pounds. I know a number of practices in Cumbria have had to undertake severe reorganisation and mergers simply to survive. In a letter to the Guardian on 1 March, a GP who has worked in the NHS for over 30 years made the same point, that younger GPs will not buy in to practices. I ask the Minister the most critical question that I am asking today: is this model, requiring such large financial commitments by individuals, suitable to the 21st century? Would the department do a preliminary examination of this problem?

The pandemic has changed so much, and we were found wanting. The years of austerity caused serious damage to our NHS. Only because of the beliefs of our NHS staff are we getting through it. One thing is clear: there is increased demand on our health service. There will have to be much change, including permanently increasing spending. The Government will have to recognise that what may have worked in the past may not do so in future. Models which have been sacrosanct may need to be examined and, if necessary, changed. All this is essential, with a radical White Paper bringing health and social care together. I ask the Minister: are the Government up to it?

Nursing and Midwifery (Amendment) Order 2018

Debate between Baroness Watkins of Tavistock and Lord Clark of Windermere

Monday 25th June 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)]

My Lords, I support the Minister and the Motion to approve the Nursing and Midwifery (Amendment) Order 2018. I acknowledge the challenges that the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, has raised, in particular those that the Royal College of Nursing is concerned about, but believe that they are capable of resolution. I believe that the registered nurses who stand today will ensure that substitution does not happen for the roles that they really must undertake themselves.

I qualified as a nurse in 1976, when we still had enrolled nurses. For some time, I led a team that included enrolled nurses, but I was very clear, both as a district nursing sister and as a ward sister, that I was accountable for the elements that I delegated. That did not mean that enrolled nurses were not able to undertake routine care by themselves unsupervised, but rather that they were very aware of how to get help when they needed it. I believe that, if we get the nursing associate role right, a similar structure will occur.

I applaud the fact that nursing associates will have a clear ladder—probably through the apprenticeship route, as the noble Lord has just raised—to enable those who want to and who are capable to get university-level associated registration as a nurse. I do, however, regret that we have not called this new role a “healthcare associate”, because I believe that some of the work they will do will be undertaken in social care as well as in routine nursing care. We may need to reflect on that in years to come.

I also want to make it clear that this route should enable people to come relatively young into an adjunct profession that is associated, without them necessarily having A-levels on entry. That is important, because we know that a lot of young people would like to go into nursing or associated healthcare roles but are not able at that point to enter a three-year degree course. This is why I am so supportive of the structure.

The order makes provision for the new role of nursing associate to be subject to professional regulation by the Nursing and Midwifery Council. As has been explained, the first cohort should qualify in January 2019 and it is important for this legislation to be approved in sufficient time for the Nursing and Midwifery Council to open the register and put in place safe and effective standards and requirements for new staff entering the workforce. By regulating the role, the Nursing and Midwifery Council will contribute to the protection of the public by ensuring that nursing associates have high standards of education, will be required to keep their skills and knowledge up to date, and will be held accountable to a code of conduct.

As others have said, this new role has been rapidly developed as the result of successful work between employers and educational providers, with leadership from the CNO for England, Professor Jane Cummings, and the lead nurse at Health Education England, Professor Lisa Bayliss-Pratt, both of whom should be commended for their tenacity and work to achieve this end despite reluctance in some areas of the profession.

To reiterate an issue recently raised by the noble Lord, Lord Willis, many overseas applicants will want their qualifications recognised in relation to the nursing associate qualification, particularly licensed vocational nurses from a variety of Commonwealth countries. I urge the Government to ensure that proper funding is made available to map similar qualifications across the world so that we can make sure that we protect our own public if we allow overseas registrants to apply for this kind of qualification. It may be that they will need some kind of top-up, depending on the final standards that are agreed for nursing associates here.

I am aware that there have been challenges at the NMC recently but I echo the point of the noble Lord, Lord Willis, and acknowledge the commitment of the Chief Executive and Registrar, Jackie Smith, which has ensured that nursing associates will be registered at the NMC in order not only to protect the public but to achieve a proper career route for nursing associates if they wish to proceed to study for registration as a nurse in the future. In the longer term, I hope the nursing associate route may provide a successful apprenticeship approach for some members of the public to become registered nurses, without necessarily having to enter graduate-level study at a time that is not suitable for all.

[Lord Clark of Windermere (Lab)]

My Lords, I too welcome the order; I am struck by the knowledge of the noble Lord, Lord Willis, obviously, and of the noble Baroness, Lady Watkins, from her own practical experience. It is right and proper that we have this debate because a number of questions ought to be raised. To be fair to the Government, they have not been able to answer all the questions beforehand because, as we all know, this order is somewhat rushed. I understand the reason why and I concur with it.

As the Minister mentioned, the order was laid on 17 May; that is absolutely right, but it was first laid on 11 May and had to be withdrawn because it was inaccurate. That is an example of how the legislation has been rushed. It is therefore important that we, as a legislature, challenge the Executive on a number of issues. As has been indicated—the Minister understands this—the Government have consulted widely to try to get the feeling that, if the report by the noble Lord, Lord Willis, was implemented, it would be done in a sensible and correct manner. However, there has been a problem in that a number of the consultees have a vested interest. For example, the local commissioning trusts have an interest about who is going to pay for this. Will the funding come from the centre or from them? I shall come back to that point in a moment. Obviously the providers—the universities—have an interest because they need the income from running these courses. But of course I now see, and this is slightly worrying, that it is not only higher education institutions which are involved—further education institutions are too. The noble Lord, Lord Willis, possibly referred to this point when he said that he was “slightly concerned”—I emphasise the word “slightly”—that there could be some downgrading of the teaching input.

However, one group has not really been represented in these consultations: the nurses themselves. People will refer immediately to the Royal College of Nursing and its equivalent for midwives. But the trouble is that that organisation, in terms of this area, also has a vested interest. It is a registration body for nurses, yet at the same time it is a member organisation and there can be a conflict of views which I have come across quite often. I have no problem with the RCN registering nurses because it is both right and sensible, but we must recognise that there is a potential difficulty. I have talked to a number of nurses who are concerned about nursing associates. However, they can be reassured by this order. As the noble Baroness, Lady Watkins, and the noble Lord, Lord Willis, have both said, nurses are professionals. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Willis, made a very wise point. The pivotal role of caring in hospitals ought to rest with registered nurses. That is where we ought to begin because they are professional people.

Even so, nurses are concerned that their views have not always been represented in this consultation. I am therefore pleased to note that paragraph 7.20 of the draft Explanatory Memorandum makes that clear. I shall repeat that because it is important that it is on the record and nurses can see what the position is. The Government say, quite rightly:

“Nursing Associates are identified as a separate profession with different qualifications and education and training to nurses and midwives”.


Nursing associates are not nurses. They are not fully qualified and registered so in that sense they do not represent a challenge to nurses. That point must be rung out aloud because we need to ensure that a profession which is under pressure and suffering from low morale is reassured.

Paragraph 7.9 provides even more reassurance when it makes it clear that nursing associates will not be capable of,

“providing, supplying and administering medicines”.

That too needs to be shouted out. Moreover, I assume—perhaps the Minister can confirm this—that this includes giving injections. I should think it does because it refers to “administering medicines”, but we need clarification. The point is reinforced where the draft memorandum talks about situations of national emergency, when nurses and midwives can be empowered to prescribe. A flu pandemic is cited as an example. That is very sensible because we need the hands and brains of these people to do the job. Nurses help doctors, but it is made quite clear that the education and training of nursing associates is not of the same high standard as that of registered nurses. They will not be allowed to prescribe medicines in a national emergency situation or even a hospital emergency situation. I have spoken at some length, more than I would normally, but this House perhaps needs to help the Government to reassure qualified nurses that their status is not under threat.

I will deal with one or two other points. Paragraphs 7.14 to 7.16 talk about the two-year pilot courses. We understand why they were brought in, and I hope that we have learned a lot from them. Perhaps I might press the Minister on the number of people pursuing nursing associate courses at the moment. The Health Education England plan is for 5,000 nursing associates in training this year. I recollect a debate not long ago in this House in which the number of nurse associates in training was given not as 5,000 but 30—not 30,000 but 30. The Minister said, “I’m pretty sure those figures are wrong—they are too low—but the figure is disappointing”. I wonder whether he has up-to-date figures for the number of students expected to be on NA courses this year, because the projection is important in planning ahead for the workforce.

Education (Student Support) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2018

Debate between Baroness Watkins of Tavistock and Lord Clark of Windermere

Monday 21st May 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)]

My Lords, I draw the House’s attention to my interests as listed in the register and I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, on securing this debate.

I should like to put my contribution in context. At lunchtime I came back from Geneva, where I had been at the World Health Organization working with the International Council of Nurses, representatives from the Nursing Now campaign and the Chief Nursing Officer of the WHO in looking at the future of the profession. One of the big discussions was on the need to increase the number of nurses worldwide and to ensure that we have health security across the globe. A major topic of discussion was, not surprisingly, the re-emergence of Ebola in the Congo. At least one Health Minister asked me how, as a country, we could really justify a recent advertisement from, I believe, the Home Office, encouraging nurses with a two-year graduate qualification to come to this country.

The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has outlined the key concerns over extending the normal student maintenance regime to nursing students undertaking programmes at postgraduate level. As others have said, these programmes take two years, including theory and practice, and enable successful students to register as nurses with the NMC. I do not need to remind noble Lords that this is an intensive programme with significant periods of work in a practical setting.

The aim of introducing new systems of funding was to increase the number of nursing students, yet on undergraduate programmes this was not achieved in the 2017 intake, where a fall took place, particularly in applications for mental health and learning disability nursing courses. Why should there not be a similar fall in the number of students entering the postgraduate programmes this year if the change takes place? In effect, this would result in an even more significant drop in the number of nurses qualifying in 2020, in that the undergraduate numbers due to qualify in 2020 will be much lower than originally planned. If we could boost the postgraduate intake numbers for 2018, this could provide additional nurses ready for registration in 2020—just as they will be so desperately needed according to the NHS Five Year Forward View.

Therefore, does it not make sense to delay the implementation of the regulations while a systematic review of post-18 education funding is undertaken and retain the current system of funding for the group due to commence in 2018? This would provide us with an opportunity to run a campaign to increase the numbers for this year in the way that campaigns have been conducted to attract people to social work and teaching programmes in areas where there are similar staffing challenges.

We know that sufficient levels of registered nurses are critical for the health and social care system to ensure patient and client safety. The sombre reading of both the Francis report and the learning disabilities mortality review reminds us that not only do we need to retain our current staff but that we must train new nurses to further enhance the quality of our provision.

Graduates who enter postgraduate nursing programmes add value to our workforce, bringing a range of life skills. In particular, many mature entrants come into mental health nursing through the postgraduate route, and yet we know we are not meeting the numbers required to meet mental health services workforce demands.

I recognise that the Government have offered a new pay deal for nurses that may improve retention and recruitment and plan to offer golden hellos in some hard-to-recruit areas for nurses entering the profession, both of which I have expressed my support for and hope will be effective. However, until the new degree apprenticeship routes into nursing at both undergraduate and postgraduate level are properly designed and funded through the apprenticeship levy, I urge the Government to think again and to wait to introduce the reform we are discussing today.

NHS Providers reminds us that plans to boost the NHS workforce will take years to deliver, but to change this decision for at least one year would result in a larger cadre of nurses qualifying in only two years. I urge this because society expects us as policymakers to ensure safe healthcare in the NHS. This, I argue, cannot be achieved without a sufficient supply of newly qualified nurses and allied healthcare professionals.

[Lord Clark of Windermere (Lab)]

My Lords, I find the Government’s approach to NHS staff very perplexing indeed. They continually pay tribute to them, and I think they do understand the commitment of the workforce, yet repeatedly they take action that makes the life of nurses and other staff even more difficult than it is at the moment. At the same time, they make it more difficult for those nurses to guarantee the safety of patients in our NHS.

I congratulate my noble friend on drawing this SI to the attention of the House and allowing us an opportunity to debate this critical issue. In making my case today, I accept the points made by the noble Baronesses from the Liberals and the Cross Benches—they were absolutely right in the points that they made. But let us remind ourselves of the serious situation we are in. The points I am going to make now are agreed right across the National Health Service; points which every royal college and every responsible organisation in the health service agrees with.

The first point has been raised already: we are 40,000 nurses short, and the Government have a real responsibility for that. The number of nurses and midwives leaving the profession is greater than the number of those entering the profession—that is a recipe for disaster. We have critically relied not only on nurses from the far ends of the globe but especially on nurses from the European Union. Since the Brexit vote, they are deserting the National Health Service, and who can blame them?

Let me go right back to 2010, when this Government assumed office. That is when they started making massive errors, from which they have not recovered. Neither, critically, has the National Health Service. In an Answer to me, the noble Viscount, Lord Younger, pointed out that, when they assumed office, there were more than 97,000 entrants to nursing courses. The coalition Government’s first response was cut, cut, cut, and by 2012 the figure had dropped from over 97,000 to 75,000, a drop of 22,000 nurses entering the profession in one year alone. The figure improves marginally but does not get much better for many years. When I say the Government are 40,000 nurses short, it is because of their mistake in 2012 in cutting the numbers of young people and older students entering the nursing profession. We have never recovered from that.

I accept the point that the Government want to widen the area of recruitment—I will come back to that—but, having made the mistake in 2012, only two years ago they scored another own goal by abolishing the bursary scheme and introducing a charge of over £9,000 a year for people training for the nursing profession. Last year that led to a drop of 705 students. I admit that is not the same as the 22,000 drop the Government were responsible for in 2012 but we cannot afford any drop whatever. Now, having created a serious recruitment policy, they are introducing even more costs into the system by this SI we are discussing today. It is affecting older graduate entrants, those who do postgraduate courses and usually graduate after about 18 months or two years, which is the quickest way to get qualified nurses, as we have already heard.

However, the Government do not seem to have learned anything. The point from the Liberal Front Bench was well made when the noble Baroness pointed out that the cost of training a postgraduate student was £33,500—a lot of money—but we should not forget the cost of the agency nurses needed to fill that vacancy. That £33,500 cost is less than the average annual premium paid by trusts for a full-time equivalent nurse filling a post that is vacant because of shortages. It is a false economy and yet the Government do not seem able to see the picture in the round, which is the position we should be looking at.

There are other ways in which the Government could ease the nursing situation. Instead of bringing forward SIs such as those we are discussing at the moment, if they have got a bursary scheme, as they have, why do they not write off the cost of repaying the student loan for nurses who have spent a number of years in the National Health Service? One of the Minister’s predecessors said that the Government were looking at a similar proposal for doctors but I never saw whether it materialised. However, that would be one way of equalising the situation.

Many nurses from European Union countries and other National Health Service workers have got permanent residence status to live in Britain. After five or six years, they were entitled to apply for permanent residency, and they got it. To me, and to most nurses, permanent residency means just that: you have residence in this country which is permanent, but the Government will not admit that. They say that the permanency may not be honoured after Brexit. That is a terrible thing to say. A British Government are breaking their word to people who work in the health service and give so much. Why not say that those people who have permanent residency can remain in this country permanently? That would do a lot to retain the confidence of EU nurses.

I shall finish with a word about financing nursing apprenticeships. As we have heard, the Government’s target of 1,000 apprentices in nursing has not only fallen short, it has fallen ridiculously short. The Minister may have more up-to-date information than either I or the Royal College of Nursing have, but its figures show that there are not 1,000 apprentice nurses, there are 30. Of course, one of the difficulties lies in the whole concept. An apprenticeship requires a mix of work on the ward and work in the classroom at university, but that is exactly what undergraduate nurses do at the moment. Over the three-year period, 50% of their time is spent working—I emphasise that word—on the wards. Why should they pay more than £9,000 when apprentices may get that for nothing—or is it nothing? The universities which provide the classroom opportunities for these apprenticeships tell me that they have no alternative but to charge for them. I do not think that the apprenticeship levy will cover it because they are talking in terms of £7,000 a year for apprentices to do the university courses for their apprenticeship. I wonder who is going to pay that £7,000. Is it to be the student, or is it the trusts which are already hard pressed, or is it the Government? Most of us would agree that it ought to be the Government. It is their baby, their scheme and how they see the gap being filled—their salvation to ease the nursing shortage. It is the Government’s responsibility.

We are debating a statutory instrument which shows how ill thought through and chaotic the Government’s policies are when it comes to nurse training in this country.

NHS: Winter Funding

Debate between Baroness Watkins of Tavistock and Lord Clark of Windermere

Thursday 11th January 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Clark of Windermere (Lab)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)]

My Lords—