University of St Andrews (Postgraduate Medical Degrees) Bill
We will take evidence this morning on the University of St Andrews (Postgraduate Medical Degrees) Bill. I welcome first Ann Scott, who is from the Scottish Executive's higher education and science division. This is not the first time that she has been before the committee and I am sure that it will not be the last. There is nothing ominous in that.
It is fair to say that the bill is not particularly controversial. I believe that an important amendment will be lodged at stage 2, but we can cover that in the evidence that we will take this morning. I ask Ann Scott to lead off and give us the Executive's view.
Ann Scott (Scottish Executive Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Department):
I can add very little to the Executive's memorandum. The bill has no financial consequences for the public. If the University of St Andrews is happy with the bill, the Executive sees no reason not to support it.
No members want to ask questions.
I welcome Iain Smith, who is the sponsor of the bill and the local MSP, and Dr Andrew Riches, who is head of medical science at the University of St Andrews. Ian Wright from the University of St Andrews is not here. I ask Iain Smith to kick off and to keep what he says as short as possible.
Thank you for those words of welcome, convener. I forward apologies from Ian Wright, who is dealing with a small family problem and is unable to be here this morning.
I thank the non-Executive bills unit for its work on the bill. Although the bill is small, the unit has spent a considerable time working on it and has been extremely helpful throughout the process from when I first considered the proposal.
I will start by saying a few words by way of background to the bill and ask Dr Riches to explain the university's position and why it wishes the bill to be passed. I will finish off by explaining the probable amendment at stage 2.
The proposal for the bill was made a couple of years ago when I was still a minister. Professor Michael Steel from the University of St Andrews approached me to ask whether it would be possible for the university to award postgraduate degrees for medical research. At that time, I investigated with the Executive what would be required and it emerged that primary legislation would be required. Although the Executive indicated that it would be prepared to consider the matter if a suitable vehicle came along, it did not think that it was sufficient in itself to merit an Executive bill. When I ceased being a minister, the opportunity arose for me to introduce a member's bill and it seemed appropriate to do so.
The bill is straightforward. The intention is simply to allow the University of St Andrews to award medical research degrees to people who are suitably qualified. It is important to stress that the bill will not result in the award of a qualification in medicine. It is simply to allow people who are qualified in medicine to conduct research. As such, it will be a useful addition to the university's portfolio. Dr Riches will explain more about the purposes of the degree and why the university is keen to promote it.
Dr Andrew Riches (University of St Andrews):
I emphasise that the bill refers to a postgraduate qualification for which medically qualified graduates will be eligible. The MD qualification is not registrable.
We would like to reintroduce the qualification because it is an important part of research training and it will contribute to the lifelong learning experience. In particular, it will attract good medically qualified graduates to the Fife area, who will be able to take a research degree in association with the university. The MD is a research qualification that is aimed at medical graduates as part of their continuing medical experience. It is important to the university because it will enhance our research profile. We think that it is important to new medical graduates because it will attract them to the region to study at a more advanced level.
In summary, we have held probing consultation within the university and with the other Scottish universities. If the bill is passed, we will go ahead and award the MD.
The aim of the bill is to amend the Universities (Scotland) Act 1966 to allow the University of St Andrews to award the degrees in medicine that it is unable to award at present. The intention is that the university will be able to award those degrees to anyone who is suitably qualified.
We examined the bill after it was introduced and discovered that the terms in section 1(2) might be drawn too narrowly in that they might exclude people with certain overseas qualifications. We intended that those people should be able to apply for the degree under section 19 of the Medical Act 1983. It is my intention to lodge an amendment at stage 2 to rectify that omission.
I have nothing else to say, but I am happy to answer questions.
As a fellow Fife MSP, I welcome the bill and the fact that it will allow more medical graduates to study in Fife. Iain Smith and I attended a meeting with Fife NHS Board at which it said that it welcomes the opportunity that the bill will present. I fully support the bill.
The policy memorandum talks about the possibility of introducing a medical PhD at the university in future years, which would be worth while. How likely is that?
We want to keep the legislation open. As in any university, our patterns of research training are evolving. We would like to introduce the straightforward MD initially, but perhaps follow on with PhDs.
It seems that the committee is the 2002 equivalent of a papal bull. We are simply asked to validate the proposal.
I have one technical question. I noticed that in responding to Professor Steel, the dean of the faculty of medicine at the University of Dundee expressed the hope that a viva examination might be part of the assessment of a thesis. I do not know what a viva examination is, but I would like to know whether it is a worthwhile suggestion and whether the University of St Andrews proposes to take the dean's advice.
Yes. In essence, a viva is what we are doing now—you are quizzing me and getting information. Hopefully, I have got my facts right. As part of a research qualification, people submit a thesis, which is examined by experts from another university. The experts read the thesis and write a report, but they also meet the candidate. The candidate has an oral examination, which we call a viva. It is an essential part of the process—it is an auditing process to ensure that the candidate has undertaken the work and also provides an opportunity to discuss the candidate's research, which is supposed to be at the cutting edge. We have to stretch the candidate and ensure that the degree can be awarded. It is a valuable suggestion and we will certainly incorporate it.
So it is a metaphorical rather than a physical dissection of the candidate.
Thank you, Dr Riches. We will now hear from Professor Colin Bird, who is speaking on behalf of the other universities.
Professor Colin Bird (University of Edinburgh):
I have consulted my fellow deans in the medical schools in Dundee, Glasgow and Aberdeen. We all agree that we support the proposal, so I can be relatively brief.
So can we.
Is it true to say that the bill is non-controversial?
Absolutely. There is no controversy at all. The proposed regulations are standard and the procedures involved are common to all the other medical schools and universities in Scotland.
Thank you.
We must consider the contents of our report at stage 1 on the general principles of the bill. Do we authorise the clerks to prepare a report for stage 1 saying that the committee agrees with the principles of the bill?
Members indicated agreement.
Are members happy with the consultation? It has been more than adequate this morning.
Members indicated agreement.
I pay tribute to the non-Executive bills unit and reinforce Iain Smith's comments. I have personal experience of lodging a member's bill—one that Iain Smith opposed—and I know that the unit is one of the Parliament's biggest assets. The unit provides an excellent service and its assistance is extremely helpful.
When I was a member of another committee, I dealt with the non-Executive bills unit and we would not have achieved all that we did without the unit's help.