The BMA considers there is much to welcome in principle in the Government White Paper. However, we do have significant concerns that the proposal to increase tuition fees will discourage access to longer courses like medicine and affect recruitment of the medical workforce.

THE BMA WELCOMES THE FOLLOWING PROPOSALS IN THE WHITE PAPER

—  Increased central funding to universities—although much of the extra money could be via special initiatives, so delivery of extra funding may not be guaranteed.

—  Increased funding for science and research. Science research has suffered from chronic under funding for many years and we welcome moves to address this. However, even more funding will be necessary to match that available to European competitors.

—  Increased rewards for excellent teaching. We look forward to appropriate reward mechanisms being developed for excellent teachers and educators.

—  Restoration of limited maintenance grants. However, the BMA is disappointed this is proposed for only the very poorest students, and not guaranteed beyond 2006.

—  Continuing help with tuition fees beyond 2006—albeit only for poor students and only for the first £1,100 per annum.

—  Abolition of up-front tuition fees—although this will not help students until 2006.

—  Deferred payment of fees rather than a graduate tax. Nevertheless top-up fees will represent a greater debt burden to students from 2006 onwards, especially for medical students and others on longer courses.

—  Increased threshold for the repayment of student loans. However, this threshold is still too low.

THE BMA MAKES THE FOLLOWING INTERIM RECOMMENDATIONS

These are provisional recommendations and may require modification following more extensive consultation with Government and other parties

  1.  The proposed increased central funding to universities should be transparent and give proper recognition to both research and education excellence.

  2.  Increased funding for science should ensure that pay and conditions of scientists are put on a more equal footing with our competitors.

  3.  Medical schools should retain both a research and an education function as the existence of one is of benefit to the other.

  4.  Clinical academics' pay should at least be on a par with their NHS colleagues; their contribution to NHS leadership, education and research suggests that further recognition should be available to clinical academic staff over and above standard NHS salaries.

  5.  Maintenance grants should reflect the actual living costs of students and incorporate a London weighting if they are to facilitate entry to have the desired effect of widening participation. The social mix of doctors should be representative of the society they serve. Medicine already over represents students from professional or managerial backgrounds.

  6.  If maintenance grants are to facilitate access, thresholds need to be set at realistic levels. Full grants should be available to those first-born students whose parental income is under £20,000 with a sliding scale of partial grants to £30,000. There should also be a different assessment of parental income for subsequent siblings entering HE so that a formula is used to raise this suggested lower limit.

  7.  Maintenance grants should be guaranteed to new students beyond 2006.