University of St Andrews (Postgraduate Medical Degrees) Bill: Stage 1
The next item of business is a stage 1 debate on motion S1M-3087, in the name of Iain Smith, on the general principles of the University of St Andrews (Postgraduate Medical Degrees) Bill.
It is an honour to be able to present my member's bill to the Scottish Parliament for stage 1 approval. The University of St Andrews (Postgraduate Medical Degrees) Bill is a small bill with the specific objective of enabling the University of St Andrews to award postgraduate research degrees in medicine.
The University of St Andrews is now in its 592nd year. It is Scotland's oldest university and one of the world's oldest universities. It has a long and distinguished academic record in both teaching and research, not just in the classical subjects, such as history of art, but in the sciences. The school of biology, which includes the medical sciences department, recently achieved the highest grading for its research and is at the cutting edge in many fields.
Prior to 1966, the University of St Andrews, which included Queen's College, Dundee, was renowned for its achievements in medical and applied science. Following the Universities (Scotland) Act 1966, which established Dundee University, St Andrews University was no longer entitled to award degrees in medicine. The clinical part of the medical degrees that St Andrews awarded was transferred to Dundee, although St Andrews continued to provide a pre-clinical degree in medical sciences, which gives an entry to the clinical element. That is now provided in conjunction with the University of Manchester.
Despite no longer being able to offer a qualifying degree in medicine, the University of St Andrews has retained an interest in the teaching of and research into medical sciences. However, as a consequence of the 1966 act, the university has been prevented from awarding postgraduate medical degrees, in particular the medical postgraduate degree of medicinae doctor or MD. The university feels that that restricts its ability to attract candidates for postgraduate research in medical sciences, as other, non-medical postgraduate degrees are less attractive to qualified medical practitioners, in terms of the qualification received and of the length, time and methods of study employed.
The university first approached me about the matter in 1999, when I was Deputy Minister for Parliament, through someone whom you might know, Presiding Officer—Professor Michael Steel. I established that primary legislation would be needed to amend the 1996 act so that the university could award the MD. That required an appropriate legislative vehicle, but at the time no suitable Executive bill was anticipated.
Following my retirement from ministerial responsibilities, I was again approached by Professor Steel. That was last year. I decided that it might be appropriate to explore the option of a member's bill. I pay tribute at this point to the Scottish Parliament non-Executive bills unit for assisting me to make a proposal for the bill and to introduce the bill with the explanatory notes and policy memorandum that go with it. The bill is very short, but members should not underestimate the amount of work that NEBU has to put into bills even of that short length. I am extremely grateful to the unit for all its help.
The bill's purpose is simple. Its substantive section is divided into two subsections. Section 1(1) qualifies the provisions of the Universities (Scotland) Act 1966, which abolished the right of the University of St Andrews to hold qualifying examinations and award degrees in medicine. The bill amends the 1966 act in such a way as to allow the university to hold examinations and award degrees for research in medicine. Subsection (2) makes it clear that that applies only to those who are already qualified as medical practitioners.
The bill in no way entitles the university to award qualifying degrees in medicine again. The bill also does not specify that the degree must be an MD, although that is the degree that the university wishes to introduce, as the power to grant a particular degree and establish a new degree course lies with the university court on the recommendation of the university's senatus academicus. The bill gives the university the power to grant that particular type of degree qualification.
The university has consulted the four medical schools in Scotland and the University of Manchester on its proposals to re-establish the MD and has received no objections from those institutions. I am grateful to the Scottish Executive, which has also indicated that it sees no reason not to support the bill.
I thank the convener and members of the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee for their co-operation in taking stage 1 evidence so expeditiously and for their support for the general principles of the bill.
The bill is small, but it should not be seen as irrelevant or unimportant. It is significant not only to the University of St Andrews, which will be able to expand and improve on the range of research in medical sciences that it can offer, but to the wider community in Fife. I am sure that the availability of the MD course at St Andrews will help to attract to Fife highly qualified medical practitioners who wish to undertake a research-based postgraduate course while working in hospitals and communities in Fife. I know that the national health service in Fife welcomes the proposal. That is why so many colleagues across Mid Scotland and Fife—the Fife constituency MSPs and the MSPs for the region of Mid Scotland and Fife—have supported the bill. I thank them for that and I commend the bill.
I move,
That the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the University of St Andrews (Postgraduate Medical Degrees) Bill.
It is nice to be home. However, the transition is gradual, as in the bill we are still dealing with one of Scotland's ancient universities—not Aberdeen, but St Andrews.
As Mr Smith explained, the bill would allow the University of St Andrews to award research degrees in medicine to candidates who are already qualified medical practitioners. As the member made clear, the bill would not give St Andrews the power to offer qualifying exams. Regulation of the health professions, including those regulated by the Medical Act 1983, is a reserved power under the Scotland Act 1998, so any proposal for the introduction of a qualifying examination would have to be considered by the Westminster Parliament.
The University of St Andrews is not seeking the power to reinstate qualifications for admission to a career as a medical practitioner. The university offers degrees in medical sciences, which are valued and important stand-alone qualifications from a distinguished university with a track record of excellence that dates back 600 years. Those degrees double as qualifications for entry to the clinical part of a Bachelor of Medicine and Surgery—or MB ChB—programme at other universities. It is clear that for many students the experience of three or four years at St Andrews, followed by three years at an urban university to complete a degree in medicine, is an attractive option.
The university already offers postgraduate qualifications in medical science, but it believes that the opportunity to study for a postgraduate medical degree at St Andrews would be an attractive option for qualified doctors.
We submitted an Executive memorandum to the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee to assist it with its consideration of the evidence. The memorandum set out the supportive view that the Executive takes of the proposal contained in the bill. That proposal is fully consistent with the principle of making available opportunities for lifelong learning and does not have public expenditure implications. I am happy to reiterate the Executive's support and welcome for the bill.
I put on record the SNP's support for the bill. With great joy, I say that this will be the shortest speech that I have given or am likely to give in the chamber.
The University of St Andrews is to be congratulated on accessing the new legislative system in Scotland in such an efficient and—as Iain Smith indicated—persistent way. St Andrews is an ancient university at which I was privileged to study. It has shown itself to be responsive to the market, has identified a need and has brought its proposal to the national Parliament. That illustrates the benefits of power being closer to the people and of passing low-cost—or in this case, no-cost—laws that are right and appropriate. We would wait for centuries for Westminster to get round to passing such pieces of legislation.
If through small measures such as the bill we can show in a limited way—with our limited powers—the benefits of good, efficient government that is closer to the people, imagine what we will be able to do once the Parliament has complete powers.
I am pleased to welcome the bill on behalf of the Conservative party. We think that it is only proper that the University of St Andrews should have the right to award postgraduate degrees for research in medicine.
As has been said, St Andrews is one of the world's oldest universities. However, according to Cant's "History of St Andrews University", its record in medicine is rather chequered. In 1668, the university rejected the establishment of a chair in medicine—I notice that the word "chair" was used even back then, so it is obviously not just a politically correct term. Two centuries ago, it was possible to buy a degree in medicine at St Andrews without having studied the subject.
Thankfully, times have changed. Although it is possible to study for a pre-clinical degree in medicine—a course that St Andrews offers jointly with the University of Manchester—the role of research should not be forgotten. It is entirely appropriate that the university should seek a way of resolving the difficulty that it faces through having the member for North-East Fife introduce this bill.
The one point on which I want to remark, given that Andrew Wilson thinks it important to get points across, is that, although we talk a lot in the Parliament about new regulations, I am very much in favour of deregulation. Given that the bill will give the university more power, rather than introducing more regulation, I particularly welcome it. I am happy to give the bill our group's support.
I, too, will make a short speech. The University of St Andrews was founded by papal bull in 1411. As well as producing some first-class economists, such as Alex Salmond and Andrew Wilson—
And polemicists such as Michael Forsyth.
There is a downside to everything.
Given that I am a graduate of the University of St Andrews, does Alex Neil agree that I, too, am a fine economist?
Absolutely, and the member's cheeses are wonderful as well.
The image of the university is still one of an old-fashioned institution that perhaps belongs more to the early part of the 20th century than to the 21st century. That image is unfair. I was up there two months ago and went on a guided tour with the principal, Dr Brian Lang. One of the most impressive things that I saw was the new centre for biomolecular sciences. The university's research record in biomedicine and bioengineering shows that it is a first-class institution and its centre of excellence is of world renown. We should use the debate to try to update the image of the university among the general populace in Scotland, because St Andrews is one of the finest education institutions not just in Scotland, but in Europe.
The Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee took evidence on the bill from Iain Smith and from representatives of the University of St Andrews, as well as from the other universities in Scotland. There is universal support for the bill. As the policy memorandum points out, there will have to be one or two technical amendments at stage 2, but I do not anticipate that those will be controversial. We are satisfied that the level of consultation on the bill was more than satisfactory and I join the Executive, Iain Smith and others in commending the bill to the Parliament.
My speech will be short. It gives me great pleasure to contribute to the stage 1 debate on the University of St Andrews (Postgraduate Medical Degrees) Bill, both as the constituency member for Kirkcaldy and as a member of the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee. I add my support to the bill and urge the Parliament to support it, too.
The bill seeks to reinstate the right of the University of St Andrews to award postgraduate degrees for research in medicine and would give the university the authority to issue the postgraduate degree of MD. The university believes that the course will be attractive to medical students who wish to gain a research-based award and it is hoped that the availability of the qualification will also attract highly qualified doctors who wish to conduct research.
It is also hoped that the University of St Andrews will, in future, consider PhD opportunities. When the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee took evidence, I asked Dr Andrew Riches of the university about the possibility of medical PhDs in future. Dr Riches stated:
"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."—[Official Report, Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee, 8 May 2002;
c 2610.]
It is important for Fife that we have PhD placements in the area.
The Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee took evidence from other universities and found no opposition to the bill. The committee was informed that the proposed regulations would be in line with those of other medical schools. After listening to evidence, the committee welcomed the bill.
The bill is in line with the Executive's priorities in relation to the importance of research and continuous professional development. Fife NHS Board has also welcomed the bill and we hope that the medical graduates whom the bill will attract to Fife will stay within Fife's health service and work with the people of Fife.
My party welcomes the bill and hopes that it will find unanimous support in the Parliament at decision time today.
As a member for the Mid Scotland and Fife region, I am delighted to support the bill and my colleague Iain Smith.
The history of the bill goes back to 1966 and the division of Dundee University from the University of St Andrews after a merger that had lasted 69 years. Pre-clinical medical training continues at St Andrews, with most of the clinical training taking place at the University of Manchester. I am delighted that the Parliament is reinstating the opportunity for St Andrews to award a postgraduate degree for research in medicine.
As members have said, medical schools at the University of Glasgow, the University of Aberdeen, the University of Edinburgh and Dundee University—the other medical schools in Scotland—all responded positively to the move. I draw attention also to the comments from the University of Manchester—I am sure that it was being objective and non-partisan—which said that the outline of the new MD was
"comparable with the best practice in England".
My final point follows on from Mr Neil's speech. The only thing that is ancient about the University of St Andrews is its long history. Those of us who represent the university know, just as anyone who is acquainted with it knows, that it is very much in the present century. Two years ago, the university organised an excellent familiarisation visit for regional and constituency members, during which we saw the commercial application of much of the research that was being carried out at the university. The university's research is at the cutting edge in many fields.
I share the university's wish—it is also the wish of Sir Michael Steel—
Careful.
I meant to say Professor Michael Steel—I am sure that it is just a matter of time before he follows his brother. That might get me an extra minute.
I share the university's wish for the degree to have a positive effect on the local area. As those of us who know Fife NHS Board well are aware, the board faces a problem in that it does not have a teaching hospital and is pulled between two health boards that do: Lothian NHS Board and Tayside NHS Board. I hope that there will now be an opportunity for local medical practitioners and consultants within the Fife NHS Board area to carry out medical research and work for the degree at St Andrews without having to go to either Dundee or Edinburgh. The bill is an important move in the right direction and will have a beneficial effect not just on St Andrews but on the whole of the kingdom of Fife.
I welcome the bill and congratulate Iain Smith on its introduction. Although the bill is modest, it is nonetheless important for the University of St Andrews and for the wider Fife community.
The bill will allow the university to offer a new postgraduate degree for research in medicine. As Alex Neil said, the University of St Andrews was established in 1411. Over the centuries, it has contributed significantly to Scotland and the rest of the world. The postgraduate degree course will give qualified medical practitioners the opportunity to take up research and will be particularly beneficial for those who choose not to undertake the alternative PhD course, which takes three years to complete. Some discussion has taken place on whether St Andrews is old-fashioned. That has never been my view, although some of the university's practices may be a little old-fashioned. I refer in particular to the Kate Kennedy pageant, but boys will be boys, or rather boys will be girls—it is up to them.
NHS Fife has welcomed the bill, as have the other universities in Scotland. I am sure that the bill will pass speedily through the next two parliamentary stages.
I tried hard not to mention the connection between Professor Steel and the Presiding Officer, lest I was perceived to be seeking favours. However, Keith Raffan blew that out of the water. I assure members that I sought no favours, although I certainly welcome the assistance that I received from the Parliamentary Bureau in ensuring that the bill was introduced quickly.
I thank all the members who contributed to this good, short debate on the bill. In particular, I thank Alex Neil for his speech, which highlighted the important fact that the University of St Andrews is a modern university that is at the cutting edge of technology. I, too, visited the centre for biomolecular sciences, which is an excellent establishment that does a lot of valuable work. Other universities could certainly follow the centre's example.
Andrew Wilson was right to draw members' attention to the fact that it would not have been possible to find time to deal with the bill at Westminster. An important aspect of the work of the Parliament is that we can introduce small measures that are important to the institutions involved but are fairly minor in the greater scheme of things.
The proposal is an appropriate measure for a member's bill, which I am pleased to have the opportunity to put forward today. I hope that members will support the general principles of the bill at 5 o'clock.
That concludes this short debate, in which, of course, I had a strong fraternal interest. I hasten to assure members that I was not lobbied in any way. We will decide on the motion at decision time, which is at 5 o'clock.