Skip to main content

Day: 7 October 2016

Cap on medical students to be raised but at a cost

Written by Mancunion on . Posted in News.

In a bid to make the UK self-sufficient in its numbers of doctors, Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt has revealed plans to lift the cap on the number of medical school places, which is currently set at 6,000 per year, and to fund an extra 1,500 places. These extra places will cost the government £100million.

Hunt reasoned this change with the claim that Britain has never before trained enough doctors, and that we must do so in order to “prepare the NHS for the future”. He also pointed out that employing doctors trained outside of the UK undermines the ability of all the British students who don’t get the chance to study medicine because of the caps.

Between 2007 and 2012 the numbers of practising doctors under the age of thirty who trained outside of the UK and Europe shrank from one in seven to one in twenty, which will have been in part due to tighter immigration laws put in place under Theresa May as home secretary.

Now that Britain has left the European Union, the government has a greater ability to limit the number of doctors coming in from Europe to both train and practice inside the UK.

However, the shortage of doctors will have to be tackled from both the training and qualifying ends, as numbers of NHS doctors are shrinking. Many newly qualified doctors are choosing to enter into the private sector instead of working for the NHS or even leaving the UK all together in order to seek out better working conditions.

In fact, it is estimated that up to 5,000 doctors are opting to leave the UK every year, with higher pay, lower cost of living and no out-of-hours work being key factors in their decision.

Hunt’s way of ‘tackling’ the issue will be to penalize those who move abroad or into the private sector straight after qualifying.

New recruits will be punished for fleeing to countries such as Australia, Canada and New Zealand; they will be required to work for the NHS for at least four years after graduating or be forced to repay some of the £220,000 cost of their training.

The British Medical Association (BMA) have criticised the move, claiming that the underlying reasons for doctors opting to move abroad need to be dealt with instead. This would include addressing that many staff shortages are a direct result of the anger at the imposition of the new junior doctor’s contract.

“Demotivated, burnt-out doctors who don’t want to be in their jobs will not be good for patients” said Dr Mark Porter, the BMA’s council chair.

Nigel Edwards, chief executive of the Nuffield Trust also commented: “We need to be looking closely at why we are losing skilled doctors to other countries, rather than compelling them to stay.”

The punishment on newly graduated doctors will be based on the “return of service” model of commitment of the armed forces, whereby fighter pilots must serve 12 years before pursuing private-sector posts.

 

New security incites feelings of unease amongst Fallowfield students

Written by Len Cotton on . Posted in News.

Fallowfield student houses have been visited 64 times since September for noise complaints. This comes in light of the news earlier in the summer that both Manchester Metropolitan and the University of Manchester were to employ notorious security company G4S to patrol Fallowfield.

This controversial move came about after disruption was caused to non-student Fallowfield residents last year, with police making over 400 visits to houses on the basis of excessive noise. The Universities’ executives claimed that they had initiated this plan as a way of maintaining “positive relationships between students and residents”.

There is now growing concern about the choice of security made by university officials.

The company employed to patrol the streets of Fallowfield, G4S, is an organisation who have been accused of many breaches of power and unprofessionalism.

This choice of client for the university has already resulted in a number of Fallowfield students reporting what they felt were both intimidating and unfair experiences with G4S.

A second year student stated that G4S had sent uniformed employees to their household, asking for the personal details of all current residents. The security guards justified this on the grounds that the previous tenants had caused multiple noise complaints, further enforcing that if similar events were to occur this year immediate sanctions would be taken. Importantly, this visit occurred before any such noise complaints, parties, or indeed altercations with neighbours had occurred with the house’s current inhabitants.

This is not an isolated case. Other students have reported receiving the same visits, with officials emphasising that if the current students caused any disruption they could face expulsion from the university.

Second year Lara experienced one of these visits and explained her objections to the tactics enforced by the university: “I think this whole thing is totally ridiculous and I hate being treated like a criminal when neither I, nor my housemates, have done anything wrong. I think it’s important that people know that if the police come to their door they don’t have to give them any personal details. This is a really short-sighted policy and its accusatory approach is doing nothing but alienating students.”

Indeed, other examples have arisen where students have felt that Fallowfield security had behaved unfairly. Just last week an incident occurred on the border of Fallowfield and Rusholme where a student house party was being held. On this occasion, the host claimed that she received complaints from the residents next door, but had acted quickly to reduce noise levels throughout the rest of the night.

No visits from security were made on the night, but the next day the house received a visit from the police. They reported receiving multiple complaints from neighbours the previous night, eventually issuing the house with an official warning.

They further added that if similar events occurred in the future, the student residents could be removed from their courses and property.

All these threats were made despite the fact that the party had received no direct warnings from police on the night. The student source in question said that she had felt “unfairly penalised” as, had she known about the scale of the disruption caused, she would have acted to close the party immediately.

The University of Manchester’s Students’ Union, in a statement to The Mancunion, said: “We are uncomfortable with the decision that has been made to use G4S for this pilot scheme, we have a number of conversations from the beginning with the university and council on this topic and have voiced our concerns about the use of G4S to them. We have posed a series of questions to the university regarding this pilot scheme which have now all been answered.

“We have been told there will be two officers whose roles will be to; ‘manage noise nuisance and anti-social behaviour either by attempting early interventions or through professional witnessing’ we have also been assured that the officers will have gone through a variety of training including but not limited to: Incident Response Officers Licencing and Training, Front Line SIA Licenced, SIA CCTV Licenced, Enhanced DBS check.

“We hope to monitor the pilot scheme throughout its 8 week period to make sure students are safe and protected and if you have any concerns please do not hesitate to get in contact with us”.

A spokesperson for The University of Manchester and Manchester Metropolitan University told The Mancunion the “Universities are committed to maintaining positive relationships between students and residents.

A patrol operating under the recently introduced night-time response pilot scheme in partnership with Manchester City Council identified some issues at a property which resulted in a noise abatement notice being served by Manchester City Council.”

What seems clear by the responses from students The Mancunion spoke to is that they are deeply angered that the university are prioritising their reputation over ensuring the best student experience possible for those enrolled at their institutions.

“Wait and See” if Erasmus+ will last

Written by Barney Weston on . Posted in News.

The future of the Erasmus+ exchange programme appears to be at risk as a result of Brexit, following the Conservative Party Conference in Birmingham, which took place from the 2nd–5th October.

In response to whether the Erasmus+ exchange programme was to remain an option for students in post-Brexit Britain, Justine Greening, Secretary of State for Education, replied: “Well… wait and see but I think it’s been a fantastic chance for our students to be able to get opportunities around Europe and to get all the experiences that brings.”

When asked why its future was in doubt, Greening replied: “Well people have had a vote on Brexit haven’t they?”

Jacob Rees-Mogg, Conservative MP and prominent Brexiteer, claimed: “The Erasmus exchange includes non-EU countries already, and that’s whether or not we wish to make a financial contribution and that just becomes a normal political decision. It’s not dependent on the EU.”

According to the Erasmus+ website, “Erasmus+ aims to modernise education, training and youth work across Europe. It is open to education, training, youth and sport organisations across all sectors of lifelong learning, including school education, further and higher education, adult education and the youth sector. It offers exciting opportunities for UK participants to then study, work, volunteer, teach and train abroad in Europe.”

In response to the threat to the Erasmus+ programme, the Liberal Democrats have begun a petition to save it—which now has over 9,400 signatures. The party’s youth organisation, Liberal Youth, will send 20 students to Brussels in order to present the petition to the European Parliament.

The Mancunion approached Angela Rayner, Shadow Secretary of State for Education, for her reaction to the uncertainty. She described the prospect of the UK losing the Erasmus+ programme as “really scary”. “We’ve asked those questions, we’ve raised those concerns. […] We’re trying to do our best.” However, Mrs. Rayner admitted that, characteristic of everything Brexit, “nobody knows”. She in fact suggested that UK universities could perhaps organise the programme themselves, saying: “Universities are better at it than politicians.”

Peter Aldous, MP for Waverney, has described how Erasmus+ “widens people’s horizons, gives them greater experiences, and in an era when I know there is some skepticism of globalisation, and I expect it is a tide that we can’t keep back, we’ve got to shape it to suit ourselves rather than adopting a canoe approach. I think we need to assure that our students can continue to have that diverse, international education experience.”

A Department for Education spokesperson said: “EU students make an important contribution to our world-class universities, and we want that to continue. While the UK remains a member of the EU, UK and EU students will continue to access exchange opportunities through Erasmus. The UK’s future access to the Erasmus programme will be determined as part of wider discussions with the EU.”

The Erasmus+ programme is often lauded by those who have benefitted from it. Felix Peckitt, who spent a year abroad at Ruprecht-Karls Universitat Heidelberg in Germany, said that to him, Erasmus+ “meant complete intellectual freedom. I could study things I wouldn’t be able to in Manchester, and I’ve bought them back to expand on them in the UK.”

If the UK was to pull out of the Erasmus+ programme, they could end up either not participating at all, or possibly taking an approach similar to Switzerland, which is classed as a partner country within the Erasmus+ programme. This has been the case since 2014, when Switzerland approved a referendum on immigration quotas, and therefore couldn’t take part within the Erasmus+ programme.

Since then, Switzerland has taken part in the Erasmus+ programme as a partner country via the Swiss-European Mobility Programme (SEMP). This has, however, proven to be extremely expensive. The country spent 25.1 million CHF, the equivalent of £20.1 million, on it in 2016. This funding only covered the higher education and further education aspects of the Erasmus+ programme, more similar to its Erasmus predecessor in nature. Similarly, a Norwegian approach would not be possible unless the UK took part in the European principle of free movement.

Moreover, after having spoken to Erasmus+, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, and the Department for Education, it became clear that no one was confidently able to to confirm which department was responsible for the programme.

After much discussion, it was eventually confirmed that in the UK, Erasmus+ will now be managed by the UK National Agency, in a partnership between the British Council and Ecorys UK. This will be overseen by the Department for Education and Justine Greening, as the UK’s National Authority for the Erasmus+ programme.

This is a recent development as the Erasmus+ website still claims that the UK’s National Authority is the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. However, following the disbandment of the department in July, the responsibility was shifted to the Department for Education.

The National Agency for Erasmus+ in the UK commented: “We hope that the UK can continue to be a full member of the programme, so that at least 250,000 people across the UK have the chance to study, train, or volunteer abroad from 2014 to 2020. Organisations and participants should continue to prepare for the application deadlines in 2016/17 as usual. We are continuing to manage the Erasmus+ programme in the UK and cannot speculate on any possible post-Brexit scenarios.”

Either way, the uncertainty surrounding the Erasmus+ programme in its current form suggests it may not be considered as a red line by the government within its negotiation plans.