CHMS takes the following position

1. Medicine is an international discipline, and CHMS would regret any funding decisions that reduce mobility of students across national borders within the UK, distort patterns of application between the four administrations of the United Kingdom, or damage the ability of Schools to recruit and retain high quality staff.

2. Medical schools in England support the introduction of higher tuition fees. It is essential that universities have access to additional funds if the quality of education is to be maintained. It is critical that the introduction of fees is matched by adequate bursary support for students from low-income families so that they are not disadvantaged by the new system. Continued support for student support schemes will only be possible if the additional income from fees reaches the Schools directly. CHMS would like to see increased transparency regarding the use of fees in the provision of education.

3. However, CHMS does not believe the freedom to set higher tuition fees will solve the funding shortfall. It is essential that the level of recurrent public funding be at least maintained, because the additional student fee income is needed to enhance, not replace, public funding. If fees are necessary then they have to be adequate to meet the needs of the sector.

4. Medical education in the UK is successful, flexible, responsive to the needs of the healthcare system, and is internationally recognised for its high quality. UK academic medicine has made a huge contribution to both the National Health Service and to the UK economy, as well as to global health. Medical education has been responsive to pressure for change (e.g. in responding to Tomorrow’s Doctors, General Medical Council, 2002), and has been innovative, for example in the development of new undergraduate medical curricula. Biomedical research in UK medical schools has provided the basis for healthcare innovation, better health and greater longevity in the UK and beyond.

5. However, maintenance of excellence requires adequate funding. It is essential that adequate, sustained funding methodologies are developed so as to continue to strengthen UK medicine. It is also essential that the increasing support offered by the Government for higher education is applied in such a way as to enhance existing success, and not to destabilise key elements of academic medicine.

6. Medical Schools have been adversely affected by recent funding decisions, for example, they are practically ineligible for the widening participation premium, which has resulted in approximately five per cent loss from the teaching grant. Medical Schools are committed to widening access and are actively involved in a large number of widening access programmes, which are not recognised in the existing widening participation premium. It is desirable that OFFA examines widening participation activity on a course by course basis so that in future this work will be recognised. It is hoped that new money to fund widening participation initiatives will be found as soon as possible. It is essential that higher fees do not counter the Government’s widening participation agenda.

1. The decision to study medicine is often made at age 14; it is therefore critical that schemes to raise awareness and aspirations are in place in secondary schools. A number of Medical Schools are already involved in school-outreach schemes and these need to be continued and supported. Longer term evaluation of the effect of these changes will be invaluable.

2. Medical Students already graduate with high levels of debt. Medical Schools are concerned that the present student support arrangements, including NHS bursaries and payment of tuition fees from the fifth year are extended so that medical students are not disadvantaged relative to other students and that the efforts by medical schools to widen access are not put at risk. CHMS accepts that as yet there is insufficient evidence as to the effect of debt aversion on university applications.