Subordinate Legislation
Student Fees (Specification) (Scotland) Order 2006 (draft)
We reconvene for agenda item 2. I welcome Fiona Hyslop, who has joined us for the item, the Deputy Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning, Allan Wilson, and his officials, whom I am sure he will introduce before he explains the draft order.
Thank you very much, Presiding Officer—I mean convener.
That would be an unlikely elevation.
I should say that I am not a well man. That might explain my momentary lapse.
On my left is Gill Troup and on my right is Hugh McAloon. I am sure that they will be happy to help by supplementing what I say.
I welcome the opportunity to discuss our higher education tuition fees proposals and the draft Student Fees (Specification) (Scotland) Order 2006, which we intend to lay on 11 May. First, I will run through our proposals, which will probably take a wee bit longer than doing so normally takes. However, I am sure that members will bear with me.
The proposals relate to tuition fees for 2006-07. We propose to increase the annual tuition fee for new entrants to full-time degree courses and initial teacher training courses from just under £1,200 to £1,700 and to introduce a separate, higher fee of £2,700 for entrants to full-time medical degree courses. I will explain how doing so will affect the various groups of students that are involved.
Students who are already on courses, including students who are transferring from another institution, will not experience the proposed increase—their fee will be set at £1,200. Students articulating with advanced standing from a full-time sub-degree course, such as a higher national certificate or a higher national diploma course, to a full-time degree course will not experience the increase either—their fee will also be set at £1,200. Students who have decided to defer their studies for a year and agreed to do so with their institution before 1 August 2005 will likewise not experience the increase—their fee when they enter the course will be set at £1,200.
New and existing Scotland-domiciled students will be unaffected by the changes. Those who are currently eligible for full tuition fee support from the Student Awards Agency for Scotland will continue to be eligible for full support. Self-supporting Scotland-domiciled entrants, including those who have previously received support from SAAS, will have to pay only what they would have paid under the previous fee regime. The difference between the £1,200 that will have to be paid and the higher fee will be paid on their behalf by SAAS. Non-United Kingdom European Union-domiciled students will receive the same support as Scotland-domiciled students receive. The only students who will have to pay the new, higher fee will be entrants to full-time courses that are covered in the order who are domiciled in the rest of the UK. Those students will not have to pay up-front fees, as they can choose to defer their fees by means of a student loan.
I will outline the thinking behind our proposals. From 2006-07, a new fee regime will begin to emerge in the rest of the UK with the introduction of variable fees. That regime will allow institutions to charge fees of up to £3,000 a year on the proviso that at least £300 of that fee is spent on student bursaries. As members know, we are not going down that path in Scotland. The Executive is committed to not introducing variable fees in Scotland and to providing full fee support for the majority of Scotland-domiciled students who are studying in Scotland.
However, the higher education market is UK-wide—indeed, it is an international market. Students move freely around the UK and more widely within the EU. Many students from around the UK and the EU choose Scottish institutions because of the excellence of teaching that they offer—we can proudly boast of the international research reputations of Scottish institutions. We are immensely proud of our institutions and regard their being able to attract the best students from throughout the UK as a good thing for them and for Scotland more generally. Even with the changes that are taking place elsewhere in the UK, Scottish institutions will remain a good choice for students from throughout the UK.
Our overriding interests are in maintaining our institutions' ability to attract the best students from throughout the UK, while protecting the interests of Scottish students. That is a balance that we are keen to strike. Generally speaking, those interests coincide, as Scottish students are best served by institutions that are internationally competitive and capable of attracting the best. That feeds into the teaching input and ensures that Scotland-domiciled students are in receipt of the best possible teaching. However, there must be some equilibrium in cross-border student flows.
We have no evidence that suitably qualified Scotland-domiciled students are currently unable to obtain places at Scottish higher education institutions. However, if the current fee regime for students from the rest of the UK who come to Scotland were to be maintained, for a degree course, a gap of up to £5,400 would open up between the cost of tuition at Scottish higher education institutions and the cost at higher education institutions elsewhere in the UK. Therefore, in crude terms, the cost of a degree in Scotland could be 40 per cent of the cost of a degree in the rest of the UK. Of itself, that would not necessarily be a problem because, as I have stated, we will not enter the fee regime that will emerge in the rest of the UK. However, the concern is that that fee differential between Scotland and the rest of the UK could create a temptation for students from the rest of the UK to make decisions on the basis of cost alone. That would be against Scottish students' interests, if they were subsequently displaced from our institutions in significant numbers. On that basis alone, we propose to increase general tuition fees to £1,700 a year. We do not want to exclude students from the rest of the UK; in fact, we welcome them and offer them opportunities to study at some of the best universities anywhere.
Even with fees of £1,700 a year, for a degree course, we will still offer an average saving of £1,300 compared with the cost in the rest of the UK. The proposed fee takes account of the cost of an extra year's study and gets us as close as possible to a level playing field on overall study costs with the rest of British higher education. At this early stage, evidence is emerging that our approach has been successful. The earliest indications are from the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service applications data for 2006-07 entry, which show a 1.1 per cent increase in the number of applications to Scottish higher education institutions from students who are domiciled in the rest of the UK. That figure is well within the historic fluctuation for the data, so I am encouraged that we are on our way to achieving the objective of maintaining the equilibrium in cross-border flows. In the coming few years, we will continue to monitor closely data from UCAS and the Higher Education Statistics Authority as changes throughout the UK bed in.
We propose a significantly higher fee for medicine than for other subjects, for the simple reason that the situation in our medical schools is significantly different. If I may, I will take some time to explain in detail the rationale behind our proposal for medical fees. Medical degrees generally last for five years, whether they are undertaken at Scottish medical schools or at medical schools elsewhere in the UK. Therefore, an increase in fees in the rest of the UK without a response in Scotland would lead automatically to deeper disparities in the costs of study for medicine than the disparities in other areas of study.
Although some other degree courses do not follow the general degree model, we have chosen to leave the fees for them at the same level as those for other courses, but we believe that medicine is different. The ratio of applications to places at Scottish medical schools stands at 10:1. The costs of provision are significant and fall on NHS Scotland and our HEIs. More than 40 per cent of entrants to our medical schools already come from the rest of the UK. Research that was published as part of the Calman review of basic medical education shows that Scotland-domiciled entrants to our medical schools are 2.25 times more likely to be working in NHS Scotland 10 years after graduation. All those factors make medical training an issue of national importance that moves beyond the interests of higher education and into the realm of long-term public health provision in Scotland. That is why we will treat medicine differently.
From an early stage in our deliberations on cross-border flows, we knew that medical fees in the rest of the UK were likely to attract the maximum fee possible. That was predictable, given the high demand for places, and our prediction has been borne out by subsequent decisions. Similarly, it was predictable that any bursaries that were made available to attract students from disadvantaged backgrounds to HEIs in the rest of the United Kingdom would not be directed specifically at high-demand subjects such as medicine.
From an early stage, it was apparent that the average fee for medical courses in the rest of the UK would tend to be no less than £2,700. A five-year course with a fee of £2,700 a year will cost the student £13,500 in fees over the course of their studies. If fees remained unaltered in Scotland, the cost advantage for students who chose to study in Scotland would be £7,500. Even if medical fees were raised to £1,700 a year, the cost advantage would come to £5,000. The only conceivable outcome of either approach would be more pressure on places at Scottish medical schools, which would be likely to result in a reduction in Scottish entrants to the profession in the short term and a possible shortage of doctors in NHS Scotland in the long term.
The consultation on the draft order has been useful for tightening the order up. In the draft order that the Scottish Executive will lay before the Scottish Parliament on 11 May, there will be some significant technical changes. First, we will define the courses to which tuition fees for the 2006-07 academic year relate. Previously, those have been defined as courses that commence before the end of the calendar year 2006. However, as Universities Scotland pointed out in its response, many of our institutions offer flexible start points for their courses throughout the academic year. Therefore, for the purposes of the order, we have defined the academic year as running from 1 August until 31 July.
We will also be much clearer on deferring students than in the previous version of the order. Universities Scotland made some useful comments on that matter, and we have acted on them.
We also plan to tighten up the definition of the postgraduate courses that will have their fees regulated by order. Those will be only the initial teacher education courses, which have traditionally been charged at the undergraduate rate and are of national significance.
Another matter on which we will introduce greater clarity is the distinction between full-time and part-time courses. Fees for part-time courses have never been regulated, and there are no plans to change that. The documentation that accompanies the order will be much clearer on that than it was in the previous draft. Again, Universities Scotland made a valuable contribution to our thinking on that.
Apart from making technical comments on the draft order and accompanying documentation, a range of respondents have restated their positions on our proposals. The National Union of Students Scotland and other student representative bodies have restated their principled opposition to tuition fees in general and variable fees in particular. As I stated earlier, the Executive is committed to paying tuition fees for Scotland-domiciled students and will not introduce variable fees in Scotland. That position is similar to that of NUS Scotland, but we differ in our position on fees for students from the rest of the UK. Our position on tuition fees for Scotland-domiciled students is delivered through the student support system and each Administration in the UK is responsible for student support irrespective of where in the UK the students study. We are not in a position to provide fee support for rest-of-the-UK students who study in Scotland and, for the reasons that I have outlined, it would be counter to the interests of Scottish students to do so.
The NUS Scotland makes a good case about the cost of an extra year's study in Scotland. If we accept the data that the NUS uses in its consultation response—I have no reason to doubt them—under the current system, the extra cost of studying in Scotland relative to the rest of the UK stands at £3,190. Under our proposals, the gap narrows to £990.
Were the Executive to maintain its current fees regime, according to the NUS's figures, it would be £2,210 cheaper for rest-of-the-UK students to study in Scotland than at an institution in the rest of the UK. That would be a turnaround of £5,400 in favour of rest-of-the-UK students on the current situation. That would present clear risks to the interests of Scottish students, and we would rightly be accused of inaction at their expense if we did not respond appropriately—indeed, my former boss, Jim Wallace, said that that was not an alternative.
The NUS also made some good points on medical students. The mix of socioeconomic backgrounds of students who enter Scotland's medical schools does not reflect the mix of society. That situation does not benefit our students, medical schools or the national health service. However, it would not be in the interests of Scots applicants to medical schools, whatever their background, if we were inactive in the face of significant change in the rest of the UK. Increases in applications from the rest of the UK if a gap were to open up of up to £7,500 between the cost of studying in Scotland and the cost of studying elsewhere would further reduce opportunities for Scotland-domiciled students from disadvantaged and non-traditional backgrounds to enter our medical schools. We should not undermine the good work that is going on in our medical schools to widen access to medicine by making an illogical decision on fees.
The response from Universities Scotland makes many useful points, but we disagree on the timing of the proposed changes. Universities Scotland argues for a year's delay on the ground that there is a need for more evidence and more time to introduce such complex changes. We all agree that the move towards the introduction of variable fees in the rest of the UK is generating uncertainty throughout the British higher education system. Risks will be attached to any change amid such uncertainty but, as I said, doing nothing would carry much greater risk. We have outlined what we believe are moderate proposals and, even at this early stage, UCAS data appear to show that we have maintained historic levels of applications from the rest of the UK. There is a suggestion that there is a drop in the number of applicants from the rest of the UK to our medical schools, but I have not yet seen those data and, as far as I am aware, UCAS has not published them. However, even if there is such a drop in applicants for 2006-07, there will be no shortage of suitably qualified Scotland-domiciled applicants who are desperate to take up medical school places and—dare I say it—are perhaps keener to work in the NHS in Scotland in the long term. There will be no shortage of high-calibre applicants to our medical schools.
I have sympathy with the institutions, in that it is impossible to make changes to fees such as we have proposed without additional operational complexity during the transitional phase. However, I am reassured that the Scottish Further and Higher Education Funding Council, SAAS and the Student Loans Company have been working closely with the Executive to minimise disruption to institutions.
I thank the committee for its indulgence in giving me the time to explain fully our proposals on fees. I look forward to hearing members' comments and to the debate in the Parliament that will take place when the order is laid. I remind the committee that our overriding motivation is to protect the interests of Scottish students and to ensure that our institutions can continue to attract the best students from throughout the UK. That is a balanced judgment and the measured proposals that I have outlined will achieve both aims.
Thank you for your comprehensive explanation. I invite members' questions.
I tried as hard as I could to follow your explanation, minister. You mentioned many figures, which I tried to jot down.
Fees for medical students are perhaps the most controversial aspect of the proposals. You said that Universities Scotland argued that the introduction of the increased fee for medical students should be deferred for a year. I have sympathy with Universities Scotland's position. You said that doing nothing carries risks; will you expand on that? You propose to introduce increased fees in the academic year 2006-07, in other words, for students who arrive at university in September this year. Applications for places in 2006-07 will have closed a long time ago—at least last autumn—and I presume that most places have been awarded, so where does the risk lie? How can more people apply for places, given that all the places have already been awarded?
As I have mentioned, there are two levels of risk—short-term risk and long-term risk. When the former Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning, Jim Wallace, said that doing nothing was not an option, that sent out a clear signal that we intended to balance cross-border flows. Subsequent UCAS data show that we have been largely successful in doing that, albeit that there has been a 1 per cent plus increase in the number of applications from students in the rest of the UK to Scottish institutions at the same time as there has been a decline in the number of applications from England-domiciled students to English universities. If we had not acted, there was a genuine risk that, in the short term, that disparity would lead to our getting out of kilter with our intention to maintain a balance in cross-border flows. That statistic shows that our action was correct.
In the longer term, there is a clear risk that doing nothing—and thereby opening up a gap of £7,500 in the cost of studying for the category of student that you mentioned—could mean that Scotland-domiciled students would be displaced from Scottish medical schools. We were not prepared to take that risk with the interests of those students. As you know, there is an argument about the knock-on effect that says that Scotland-domiciled students who qualify in Scottish medical schools are 2.25 times more likely to practise in the NHS here in Scotland. The displacement of Scottish students presents a longer-term risk that we might not have a sufficient flow of medical graduates into Scottish hospitals to meet our current or future requirements for doctors in our health service. I think that you will appreciate that someone in my position would not wish to take a risk either with the future of the NHS in Scotland or with the interests of Scotland-domiciled students.
With respect, I do not follow your argument. Let us consider Universities Scotland's proposal, which was to defer the change for a year and to see what happened. If all the places at Scottish university medical schools have already been awarded, how could Scotland-domiciled students be deterred from applying and England-domiciled students be given an incentive to apply? If all the places have been awarded, there will be no impact on applications for 2006-07. What would be the risk in delaying the change for a year?
We had no intention of introducing a measure that would deter Scotland-domiciled students from applying this year.
I am sorry; that was probably the wrong way to put it.
We were intent on maintaining a balance in cross-border flows. The statement that we made in advance of the closure date for applications to Scottish universities made clear our intention to introduce the order. We believe that that has had the effect of maintaining a manageable balance in the cross-border flows, albeit that the number of applications from prospective students in England for places in Scottish medical schools is still on the increase at a time when the number of applications to English institutions is decreasing. However, the disparity is within the historical margins for the flows and we believe that it is manageable.
What risk would be created by delaying for a year?
There would have been a risk if we had not indicated our intention to introduce the order.
I appreciate that, but we are where we are. If you were to take Universities Scotland's advice and to delay for a year the introduction of the additional fees, surely there would be no risk attached to that.
In the longer term, there would be the risk of a much more substantial increase in the number of applications that were made to Scottish institutions by England-domiciled students.
We may have to agree to disagree on that point.
Do you not think that a difference of £7,500 between the cost of studying medicine here and the cost of studying it in England would serve to increase the cross-border flow of students from England?
If you were to take the advice of Universities Scotland and to defer for a year the introduction of the additional fee for medical students, what possible damage could that do? If you signalled that you were going to bring it in a year later than is proposed, what effect could that have on the number of applications from students in England to study medicine here in 2006-07?
If we were to defer it, it would only delay the prospective increase.
Which is what Universities Scotland proposes.
And we have said that we are not prepared to take that risk with the supply of doctors into the Scottish NHS.
I have to say that you have not made the case that there is a risk, but we will agree to disagree.
At a number of events that I have attended, NUS Scotland in particular has expressed the fear that by introducing the fee increase, a strong signal is being given that a door is open to implementing fees and fee increases across the board. What can you say to further reassure folk such as NUS Scotland that that is not the case?
I thought that I went to some lengths in my opening statement to point out that the only increase in fees beyond that which we propose would apply to medical students for specific reasons to address the issues about which I have just spoken. There are no plans to replicate that increase for any other group of students. I have reiterated that yet again. Special circumstances prevail in the medical schools that have to be addressed.
My second question relates to higher education courses that are delivered in further education colleges—I have raised the matter before. Will the increase in support apply to those as well as to courses that are being delivered in universities?
Hugh McAloon (Scottish Executive Enterprise, Transport and Lifelong Learning Department):
When you say "increase in support", do you mean the higher fee?
The higher fee.
It will be higher if colleges offer full-time degree courses. For HND and HNC courses, which make up the overwhelming number, the fee will be set at £1,200, which is an increase of just below inflation. We are resetting that level.
Will colleges in which elements of university courses are delivered, but which are currently not supported at the same level as universities, get the same support?
The fee level will be the same for the same level of provision. If a degree course is delivered in a college, the fee level will be £1,700, which would come from SAAS.
That will be reflected in what is paid back to the college.
It is a small proportion of the HE that colleges offer.
I recognise that.
I return to Murdo Fraser's point. I agree with him that the evidence you offer is not logical. Turning that on its head, the situation seems grossly unfair to people who have already applied for medical courses this year. Because they do not know what fees they will be asked to pay, it will be much harder for them to plan their course.
I am concerned that the need to ensure that there is an adequate number of Scottish students to fill NHS places is not being best served by the proposed method. There was a suggestion that one of the reasons we do not have enough Scottish doctors is that we simply do not have enough registrar posts. Quotas were also discussed—and then dismissed without being fully investigated. I would like to know a wee bit about that.
My third question concerns the additional £7,500 of debt that would accrue to other UK students. I gather that that money is not being ring fenced at the moment to provide bursaries. Would it not serve the medical students and your inclusion agenda better to ensure that the money is ring fenced to provide bursaries to medical students?
The extra money that comes in goes towards student support more generally. The interesting statistic in terms of broadening out access to students from disadvantaged backgrounds and areas is that there is more likelihood of that happening to people who are domiciled in Scotland than those who are domiciled in England. We believe that measuring both circumstances helps to broaden access in general and helps to broaden access to medical school to disadvantaged students, albeit that that happens at the margins of the statistical base.
There are undoubtedly issues of supply and demand. We know that the ratio of demand to supply in terms of places is somewhere around 10:1. Of course, that is a reflection of wider demand in the NHS in Scotland. Calman examined that issue and, to a certain extent, that is why we are where we are.
The measures that we have proposed are directly related to Calman's recommendations about the need to maintain a supply of Scotland-domiciled students to Scottish medical schools to provide for the future needs of the NHS. If a Scotland-domiciled student is 2.25 times more likely to remain in Scotland after they have qualified than an England-domiciled one, it is important that we ensure that Scotland-domiciled students have a good chance of studying here. Undoubtedly, despite what Murdo Fraser said, if we did nothing, there would be a great risk that that figure would decrease.
We made it clear in statements during the consultation process that was carried out in advance of this order that it was our intention to regulate cross-border flow to protect the interests of Scottish students. Undoubtedly, that regulation will impact on the decisions of students and others. That is an inevitable consequence of the situation that we find ourselves in, which we are in through no fault of our own. Inevitably, there is a degree of uncertainty.
Had Jim Wallace not said that doing nothing was not an option, the demand from potential England-domiciled medical students would have been greatly exacerbated and there would have been a much bigger increase than 1 per cent in the number of applications from England-domiciled students to Scottish institutions. As I said, the rise is manageable, even though it has happened when the number of applications from England-domiciled students to English institutions has decreased by more than 3 per cent.
We will just have to agree to differ on this point. On the delay issue, if the consultation document responses suggest that a delay would be beneficial, we must ask why a decision is being taken that ignores that view. I do not think we have been given a clear answer to that question.
We did not ignore that response. In fact, I have said that I wholly appreciate the operational difficulties that these changes impose on higher education institutions in Scotland in the midst of their preparation for their next intake. I entirely appreciate that and hope that agencies and institutions will co-operate to ensure that the process is managed as effectively as possible. That was the primary reason behind the view that the proposals should be deferred for a year. We could not introduce quotas because of the constraints that that would place on academic freedom.
Will increasing student fees not have a similar effect on academic freedom? It seems to me that the aim will just be achieved in a different way.
No. I believe that the increase will protect the interests of Scotland-domiciled students who wish to enter medical school. In the longer term, it will also protect the interests of our national health service, which will undoubtedly continue to demand a supply of qualified medical personnel to practise in Scottish hospitals. That is a legitimate interest that is devolved to the Administration.
We will need to watch our time as we still need to take evidence from the minister on the Bankruptcy and Diligence etc (Scotland) Bill.
I will end by saying that I see quotas as a more positive measure and the top-up fees as a negative measure. That is my interpretation of the matter, but I will leave it there.
We are not introducing top-up fees.
Although the minister has said that no Scottish student will pay more under the proposed arrangements, NUS Scotland expressed concern that Scottish students who are studying a second degree might be affected. The Executive was asked to resolve that issue. Has it now been resolved?
I referred to that situation specifically. No one who is studying a second degree will pay more than they would have done under the previous regime.
It has been suggested, I think, that there has been a fall in the number of applications to study medicine in Scotland for the coming year. Is there any evidence on that?
No published evidence is available as yet. I have seen anecdotal evidence saying both that there has been an increase and that there has been a decrease. UCAS figures on applications for medical schools have not yet been published, so no definitive evidence is available. However, even if the number of applications has gone down, we have an imbalance between supply of and demand for those places, as Richard Baker will know. The Executive would be irresponsible if it did not seek to match supply and demand to protect the interests of Scotland-domiciled students. That is what I believe I am here to do.
Finally, I know that there has been a debate over whether places should have been offered by now, but some of those places will not yet have been accepted or achieved. I presume that that issue will also feature in the minister's thinking.
Obviously, there is a difference between applications and acceptances.
I am conscious of the fact that many of the wider issues have already been subject to considerable debate in the committee, in the full Parliament and through consultation. Therefore, I will confine my question to a practical point of detail concerning the implementation date of the draft order. If the order as drafted secures the necessary parliamentary approval, what will be the practical timescale for its implementation and what are the administrative implications of that? What communications will need to be put in place to implement the order?
If the order as drafted is approved, it will come into force on 3 July. The people in Scotland's higher education institutions who would implement the changes have already been involved in discussions with us at a Universities Scotland seminar, at which representatives of the Executive, the funding council, the Student Awards Agency for Scotland and the Student Loans Company were able to speak. The seminar took place on, I think, 13 February this year and was fairly well received.
There has been a flow of information about what will happen in the institutions if the Parliament accepts our proposals and approves the order. The process has already started and the response has generally been pretty positive. So that people could see their own part of the process, various people who will be affected, including student finance officers and people who work in registry departments, came to the event. All the higher education institutions in Scotland were represented.
In simple terms, are you saying that the Executive can convey an instruction—in whatever shape or form that would take—to the institutions fairly quickly and that the institutions have the machinery in place to implement and communicate the revised arrangements?
To students or within those organisations?
Both.
We have liaised widely with the Student Awards Agency for Scotland, the Student Loans Company, the Department for Education and Skills and other organisations that are involved in the provision of information, advice and guidance to students around the UK. We have been doing that since we made our original proposals public, last July. We think that there has been sufficient information, advice and guidance for students.
In terms of communication with institutions, there has been regular liaison with Universities Scotland, which has been involved in the process since 2004, when we set up the implementation advisory group. A seminar was held in February at which all institutions were represented, and there will be discussions as and when issues come up. If institutions have specific issues or problems relating to students from elsewhere in the UK that they want to discuss with us, with the Scottish Further and Higher Education Funding Council, with the Student Awards Agency for Scotland or with the Student Loans Company, that is possible.
The minister said in his statement that there is no evidence that Scottish students are unable to obtain places in higher education institutions. We believe that there should be evidence-based policy making in the Parliament and the Executive. If there is no evidence that Scottish students are unable to obtain places, on what evidence are your proposals based? The increase in applications will result in only about 50 extra students, at most, coming across the border. There is not going to be a flood of fee refugees, yet you are moving the balance in higher education funding from grant-based funding to student fee-based funding. That is a fairly fundamental shift to make simply because 50 extra students will be coming from England to Scotland.
As I explained, applications are not the same as acceptances. The most recently published figures from UCAS show that the number of applications to Scottish higher education institutions from students in the rest of the UK is 1.1 per cent higher than the figure for the previous year, that the number of applications from Scotland-domiciled students dropped by 1.9 per cent, and that the number of applications to higher education institutions in the rest of the UK dropped by 3.7 per cent. UCAS figures on the number of applications to medical schools are yet to be published.
Had we done nothing—as, I presume, you are suggesting—those figures would have been further skewed by virtue of the fact that, instead of the difference to an English student of studying in Scotland being reduced to £990, it would have increased to £5,400. That would have acted as a further incentive and would have stimulated further applications from English students to Scottish universities.
I will try to follow your logic. Are you saying that the threat of your doing something was enough to make a change this year? That relates to Murdo Fraser's question about the threat of something. Was the threat of increasing the fees for English students communicated to every school in England? Did those students understand that there was that threat in Scotland, and was that part and parcel of their considering whether to apply this year for a place at a higher education institution in Scotland?
The de facto position is that it is cheaper to study in Scotland. I am sure that in some, although not all, instances that will influence the decision making of English students. Were we to maintain that position and increase the benefits to English students of studying in Scotland, not only would we lose much-needed revenue for wider Scottish student support; we would increase the incentive for English students to apply to study in Scotland. Even with the proposed increase in tuition fees, there is a difference between the cost to English students of studying at Scottish universities and the cost to their Scotland-domiciled counterparts, which benefits English students.
As I have said, the process remains within the limits of sound management—that has been proven—but it is a fact that there is still an increase. Fiona Hyslop mentioned a perceived threat. Jim Wallace made a clear statement of intent that we would seek to balance cross-border flows to maintain stability.
I am still not clear about what you actually did. You claim that an equilibrium was kept, but what was done to achieve that equilibrium?
I have said that taking no action to address the potential imbalance was not an option.
I want to ask about medical students. You have talked about having to ensure that there is no reduction in the flow of medical graduates into our hospitals. Are you aware of answers to parliamentary questions that Bristow Muldoon has been given that show that we lose English students not at the point of graduation, but later on, as a result of job opportunities and people wanting experience elsewhere?
You have stated that, regardless of whether there are variable fees in England, there might be a case for arguing for increasing fees for English students. Do you stand by the claim that the problem of the percentage of English students who are studying medicine is such that you would be prepared, regardless of variable and top-up fees in England, to increase their fees? The Calman report said that we have to expand the number of medical school places for Scottish students, but where does it point to increasing fees for English medical students as a solution?
We said that we would maintain the supply into the NHS in Scotland of Scottish doctors. Doing so is important in the context of our wider aspirations for the NHS of reducing waiting times, improving the quality of service and so on.
On the basis of the evidence that we have from Calman and elsewhere, we know that Scotland-domiciled medical students are 2.25 times more likely to remain in Scottish hospitals for the critical period of 10 years. Therefore, to maintain that supply and ensure that Scottish hospitals can continue to attract and retain doctors in an increasingly competitive medical environment, it is important to regulate the cross-border flow of medical students and ensure that Scotland-domiciled medical students—who, as I have said, are 2.25 times more likely to remain in Scotland—are not inadvertently or otherwise disadvantaged in the process. That is a logical and credible approach that will protect the interests of the national health service and of Scotland-domiciled applicants to Scottish medical schools, bearing in mind that the ratio of applications to places at Scottish medical schools is in the region of 10 to one.
May I ask a final, quick question on teaching, convener?
If you make it quick.
Will students who want to go on to an initial teacher training course as a second degree pay £1,200 or the increased fee of £1,700?
Fees will be paid for Scotland-domiciled students. Students domiciled elsewhere in the UK will be charged £1,700, which compares with £3,000 for students in the rest of the UK.
Do you want to add to that, minister?
No. The matter has been covered.
Thank you. The evidence has been helpful.
The committee must now decide what recommendations, if any, it wants to make to the Executive before the Scottish statutory instrument is laid—it is due to be laid on 11 May. Do members have any recommendations or comments to make?
I have previously made the point that while I understand the need to address cross-border flows and do not object to the general principle of bringing in additional fees, I do have a particular difficulty with additional fees for medical students. In particular, I have not heard from the minister today a justification for bringing in additional fees for medical students from the academic year 2006-07. In line with submissions that we received in evidence, I cannot see any risk in delaying the implementation of that for a further year. My view is that the committee should say that to the Executive.
Are there any other comments? Shiona, you obviously agree with Murdo Fraser.
Yes, I do, but I am concerned about the timescale because we do not have much time. Trying to change the established thinking of the Executive is asking a lot, but if we feel that we should do so, we should stand on our principles.
I appreciate that committee members hold genuine concerns, but the minister is genuinely concerned that if a pre-emptive measure is not taken, there could be an uplift of applications that could exclude Scottish students from places in medical schools that they could take up with the benefit of bursaries—which I for one campaigned for. I have to say that on this occasion I do not agree in essence with the concern expressed by other committee members.
Are there any other comments?
I agree with Richard Baker.
Okay. Given the number of times we have been through this argument, I suspect that it falls down party lines. I suspect that the non-Executive parties take a different line from the Executive parties. Would it be fair to say that?
I do not think that it is fair to make assumptions about people falling down on party lines. We have been through this matter repeatedly, but I am assured by some of what I heard in response to my question about the amount of work that has been done on a week-to-week basis, which we have not tracked, to set up the situation for the future. I am happy for us to go ahead and support the Executive's position, but I do not think that you should make assumptions, convener, about the basis on which people reach their views.
Do you want to come in on this, Fiona?
Obviously, I do not get to vote on this committee, but the issue is whether to proceed on the basis of speculation and projection or on the basis of evidence.
The consultation proposals were made last July, but the Executive's case has been weakened by the latest UCAS figures, because we do not know what the medical application figures are—although there is speculation about them. We heard from NUS Scotland that they may have gone down, but that there is no evidence of that—the minister confirmed that. We either proceed on an evidence-based policy or we do not. Whether we agree with increasing fees is a point of principle, anyway. Obviously, as Susan Deacon said, people have taken a position on that.
Now that we have the evidence—or the lack of it—we must make a decision. We must decide whether we agree with the Executive and whether there is any justification whatsoever for increasing fees for medical students.
I think that I am known to colleagues as not being an automatic Government-ticket man. Speaking as a parent of two students who are at Scottish universities, I think that the interests of our Scottish students are paramount. We already see considerable cross-border flow. On the balance of risk, I would rather err on the side of our students.
I agree with what Jamie Stone and Susan Deacon said. Like them, my view is held genuinely and not because of party lines. We are equalising the position for English students who wish to study in Scotland or England. I hope that by doing that we are protecting university places that could be taken up by Scottish students.
Fiona Hyslop referred to a lack of evidence. The committee heard that although there might be a drop in the number of applications from English students to study medicine here, there is no evidence from UCAS about that. What we do know is that there was a big increase the previous year, so I do not think we can say that applications from English students to study medicine have fallen. Someone may take that line, but the evidence for it does not exist. I will maintain the position that I expressed earlier.
Would it be fair to ask the clerks to draft a letter to the Executive that reflects the different views held by the committee? Or does the committee want to push this to a vote?
We have the Official Report for that purpose. That is the device that is normally used in these circumstances to make ministers and the wider Parliament aware of our views.
I am happy to do it that way, but the issue is whether the Official Report will be ready in time: the order is being laid next Tuesday. Is everybody happy either to use the Official Report or to have a letter drafted if the Official Report will not be ready in time?
There is no consensus around the issue and there is little point pressing the matter to a vote. If we cannot get the Official Report in time, we need to communicate the different views that have been expressed to the Executive.
Okay. Is everybody happy with that?
Did Murdo Fraser say that he did not want to press the matter to a vote?
That is correct.
I am inclined to press it to a vote—or do we not need one?
We do not need a vote today, I am advised.
I suggest that this is quite important. This is a new procedure.
Remember that the actual order will come before the committee, and we can make a recommendation to the Parliament. That might be the best time to vote on it. I suspect that the Executive is fairly well aware of the views around the table, as its officials have been sitting listening. Are we agreed on that?
Members indicated agreement.
Okay—we agree not to agree.