Today we have written to the Health Select Committee as well as MP's to inform them of our concerns about the ongoing failings of the NMC
Here is what we said...
The Chair and Members Health and Social Care Committee House of Commons
London SW1A 0AA
Dear Chair and Members,
Submission: The case for urgent government intervention in the Nursing and
Midwifery Council
NMCWatch CIC is a Community Interest Company supporting more than 900 nurses
and midwives who have engaged with the NMC's fitness to practise (FtP) and
registration processes. We meet quarterly with the NMC, including its safeguarding
and wellbeing teams, and we maintain an independent dataset of NMC decisions
overturned on appeal. We have been working in support of Registrants facing fitness
to practice and other issues for nearly 10 years , work as advocates for individual
Registrants and also as an active voice for a better, fairer system of Regulation.
We write to urge the Committee to recommend that the Government take immediate
steps to place the NMC into special measures and to begin the orderly transfer or
restructuring of its regulatory functions. We set out our evidence below.
1. The 2024/25 PSA Performance Review
On 28 May 2026 the Professional Standards Authority (PSA) published its annual
performance review of the NMC. The trajectory is stark:
• 2022/23: 17 of 18 Standards met
• 2023/24: 11 of 18 met
• 2024/25: 9 of 18 met
NMCWatch: Registrant Care CIC
www.nmcwatch.org.uk | support@nmcwatch.org.uk
Company no. 12383189
Standard
Issue identified by the PSA
2 — Clear about
purpose
No clear evidence that policies are applied consistently or
that learning is shared between functions.
3 — Equality, Diversity
and Inclusion
Limited evidence of impact; disparities in FtP outcomes
persist.
4 — Reports on itself
and addresses
concerns
Failure to address previously identified issues, including
education quality assurance; transparency falls short of
regulator standards.
9 — Quality assures
education providers
A long-standing high-risk area; very limited action taken.
10 & 11 — Accurate
register; fair and
effective registration
NMC admitted that, over a sustained period, its
registrations team did not follow its own processes for
referring high-risk health and conviction declarations to an
Assistant Registrar.
15, 16 & 18 — Fitness
to practise
Improvements at screening have not been replicated at
investigation and adjudication; cases continue to take too
long; the PSA could take only limited assurance from its
screening audit.
The NMC's published response attributes the decline to a new leadership team and
insufficient time to deliver improvement. In our view this response does not
adequately reflect the seriousness of the PSA's findings, particularly given that the
decline has occurred despite the work of the Advisory Group established after the
Independent Culture Review (July 2024) and substantial external consultancy spend.
The PSA found the NMC did not meet the following Standards:
2. NMCWatch members' lived experience aligns with the PSA findings
Our members' experience reflects and corroborates the PSA's conclusions in four
specific areas:
(a) Engagement and transparency. Our quarterly meetings with the NMC and our
FOI engagement frequently produce partial responses to questions perceived as
reputationally sensitive. We invite the Committee to require the NMC to disclose its
FOI refusal and partial-response rates.
(b) Fitness to practise listing patterns. We are observing the NMC list substantive
hearings for shorter periods (5–7 days where 21+ days would previously have been
listed). This is producing more adjournments and part-heard outcomes. This may
improve headline throughput metrics while worsening real-world delay. We invite the
NMCWatch: Registrant Care CIC
www.nmcwatch.org.uk | support@nmcwatch.org.uk
Company no. 12383189Committee to seek independent analysis of listing length, adjournment rates and
part-heard outcomes over the last 36 months.
(c) Education and standards. Without effective quality assurance of education
providers, registrants cannot be assured they are practising to a defined standard,
nor can the public be assured of consistent professional preparation. This is
foundational regulatory work.
(d) Safeguarding and experience of registrants going through FtP: since 2019
20 registrants have died by suicide prior to closure of case. The NMC state they
have made improvements across safeguarding and wellbeing and yet our members
lived experience shows no robust efforts are made to ensure risk to life is minimised.
A study carried out by Professor Nancy Fontaine, during her time seconded to work
at the NMC, examined suicidal risk and mental health impact. Over 30 registrants
were interviewed and all demonstrated psychological impact that caused detriment
despite case closure. This research was given minimal review by the council and
senior exec teams and facilitated no robust changes in the way they addressed the
important factors raised. This year a coroner is examining the death of registrant
Amelia Morten Scott to establish if delays in proceedings and communication by the
NMC contributed to her death.
3. The register: a twelve-year systemic failure
The NMC has acknowledged that, following a whistleblower disclosure and internal
review of over 18,000 applications, a number of registrants who had declared
serious health or criminal-conviction matters were not referred for proper
assessment over a period of approximately twelve years. We understand a small
number of those registrants posed potential risk to patient safety.
This matter was raised with the PSA in February 2026 by the NMC and we
understand the Chief Nursing Officers were briefed shortly before the most recent
PSA report. We note with concern that the matter did not appear in the published
Council papers. The PSA comment about the need for more transparency within
Council papers.
The NMC has commissioned external providers to review the affected cases. We
invite the Committee to seek assurance regarding (i) the scope and methodology of
those reviews, (ii) the independence of the reviewing organisations, and (iii) how
affected registrants and patients will be informed.
NMCWatch: Registrant Care CIC
www.nmcwatch.org.uk | support@nmcwatch.org.uk
Company no. 123831894. Use of registrant fees and procurement
Registration is a statutory requirement and the recent fee increase was approved
despite significant consultation opposition. The Committee may wish to ask the NMC
to provide:
• A full schedule of contracts above £100,000 awarded to external consultants
and law firms in the last five financial years, with the procurement route used
in each case;
• The value-for-money assessment underpinning each award;
• A breakdown of expenditure on the recent consultation exercise and the
rationale for proceeding with the fee increase despite the consultation
response.
We do not allege any breach of procurement law. We do say that the Committee,
registrants and the public are entitled to transparency about how mandatory fees
have been spent.
5. High Court appeals: an independent evidence base
NMCWatch maintains an independent tracker of successful High Court appeals
against NMC FtP panel decisions. Since 2009 we have identified 53 cases in which
the courts intervened. In the last 12 months alone there have been 10 such cases,
many supported by trade unions. Recurring judicial criticisms include:
• Theme 1: Disproportionate Sanctions and proportionality
• Theme 2: Procedural Unfairness and Panel Process Errors
• Theme 3: Evidential and Factual Assessment Errors
• Theme 4: lack of transparency over evidence disclosure]
• Theme 5: failure to consider evidence of safe current practice
• Theme 6: failure to consider evidence which shows potential risk caused by
other registrants and organisations
Our membership can attest to these themes running through their cases, both past
and present. A full annex of cases with citations is attached to this email
6. Wider sector concern
The Royal College of Nursing, the Royal College of Midwives and UNISON have
each issued public statements of serious concern within the last week. At RCN
Congress, members voted to challenge the NMC fee increase. We are not aware of
NMCWatch: Registrant Care CIC
www.nmcwatch.org.uk | support@nmcwatch.org.uk
Company no. 123831893. a comparable convergence of professional opinion against any other UK healthcare
regulator in recent memory.
Recommendations
We respectfully invite the Committee to recommend that Government:
1. Place the NMC into special measures with clear, time-bound improvement
milestones overseen by an independent body.
2. Commission an independent options appraisal for the future of nursing
and midwifery regulation, including the transfer of functions to an existing
regulator or the creation of a successor body. This should be government-
funded, not registrant-funded.
Commission an independent investigation into governance and leadership
decisions over the period covered by the register failure and the deterioration
in PSA performance, with appropriate accountability measures.
4. Ensure proportionate redress for registrants and members of the public
affected by identified failings.
We would welcome the opportunity to give oral evidence and to provide our High
Court appeals dataset and anonymised case studies (with consent) in support of the
Committee's inquiry.
Yours sincerely,
The Directors, NMCWatch CIC
Director 1 — Mr Peter Bates, Finance Director
Director 2 — Mr Simon Holborn, Director for HR, employment and regulation -
Director 3 — Mrs Naledi Kline, Director for International and BME nurses
Director 4 — Mrs Cathryn Watters, Director for Healthcare Professionals
cc.
Denis Campbell – reporter The Guardian (denis.campbell@theguardian.com), Andy
MacNae – MP (andy.macnae.mp@parliament.uk), David Martin – Professional
Standards Authority (David Martin (David.Martin@professionalstandards.org.uk ),
Charlotte Rowles – reporter BBC (charlotte.rowles.ext@bbc.co.uk ) , Nursing Times
Journal (steve.ford@emap.com ), Shrutti Sheth – reporter The Nursing Standard
Journal (Shruti.Sheth@rcn.org.uk) , Karin Smyth – Dept of Health and Social Care
(karin.smyth.mp@parliament.uk ), Rebecca Thomas – reporter The Independent
(Rebecca.Thomas@independent.co.uk)
NMCWatch: Registrant Care CIC
www.nmcwatch.org.uk | support@nmcwatch.org.uk
Company no. 12383189Sources and references
1. PSA, Performance Review of the NMC 2024/25 —
https://www.professionalstandards.org.uk/news-and-updates/news/psa
publishes-its-review-nursing-and-midwifery-councils-performance-202425
2. NMC response, 28 May 2026 — https://www.nmc.org.uk/news/news-and
updates/new-nmc-accelerates-change-and-improvement-five-months-on-
from-202425-psa-performance-review/
3. NMC Independent Culture Review, July 2024 —
https://www.nmc.org.uk/globalassets/sitedocuments/independent
reviews/2024/nmc-independent-culture-review-july-2024.pdf
4. The Guardian, 27 May 2026 —
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2026/may/27/uk-nurses-midwives-not
banned-worked-12-years-nursing-and-midwifery-council
5. NMC fee increase consultation outcome — [add link / verify £82k consultation
spend figure before submission]
6. RCN statement, 27 May 2026 — https://www.rcn.org.uk/news-and
events/news/uk-rcn-condemns-astounding-failure-of-nmc-270526
7. RCM statement, May 2026 — https://rcm.org.uk/media
releases/2026/05/nmc-failing-midwives-the-nhs-and-the-public-according-to-
latest-report/
8. UNISON statement, May 2026 —
https://www.unison.org.uk/news/2026/05/nmc-failings-will-let-down-staff-and
undermine-patient-confidence/
9. Nursing Standard, RCN Congress vote — https://rcni.com/nursing
standard/newsroom/news/nurses-vote-to-challenge-soul-destroying-nmc-fee-
increase-222651
10. Nursing Times — https://www.nursingtimes.net/professional-regulation/super
regulator-warns-of-serious-issues-in-nmcs-performance-19-06-2025/
11. Nursing in Practice — https://www.nursinginpractice.com/latest-news/nmc
performance-of-considerable-concern-finds-super-regulator/
12. AOL/PA — https://www.aol.com/articles/scandal-hit-nursing-regulator-still
230100000.html