Thursday 12th February 2026
(2 days, 3 hours ago)
Lords ChamberMedical Training (Prioritisation) Bill 2024-26 View all Medical Training (Prioritisation) Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 165-I Marshalled list for Committee - (10 Feb 2026)
Lord Patel
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, and others in the name of Lord Patel, seeks to ensure that UK medical graduates are prioritised above other categories of eligible applicants.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, my name is also attached to Amendments 3, 6, 7, 8, 12, 13 and 14, which are consequential, so I will not speak to them. This may be the briefest of introductions to any amendment.
My amendment tries to prioritise—which is the main theme of the Bill—UK medical graduates for training in UK programmes. The Bill’s Long Title says it is to:
“Make provision about the prioritisation of graduates from medical schools in the United Kingdom and certain other persons for places on medical training programmes”.
In Clause 1, this therefore also includes
“persons in the priority group”.
In Clause 2, it includes person not only in the priority group but also, in subsection (2), persons who are
“a British citizen … a Commonwealth citizen who has the right of abode in the United Kingdom … an Irish citizen who does not require leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom … a person with indefinite leave to enter or remain … a person who has leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom”
and so on. Similarly, Clauses 3 and 4 describe the priority group as including not only UK medical school graduates but many others, including those from countries with which the UK has made a trade deal.
All those priority groups will be able to apply for the same jobs as UK medical graduates. Add to that—several amendments on this are coming later—that the graduates of UK universities that have overseas campuses will also be included in the priority group. They are not all in the amendments today, but if these amendments are accepted, there are other universities not listed which have overseas campuses, such as the two I know—Dundee, for instance—although I did not table an amendment on that.
My amendment is because of the enormous number of emails that we have had, both from UK graduates and overseas graduates who cannot find jobs. I know there are subsequent amendments coming later about those international graduates who are now stuck in a bottleneck for this year, but that is a separate issue. My amendment does not refer to that; it refers to UK medical graduates.
We heard a story on the BBC about Emma, who was one of the 1,000 graduates who cannot get a two-year foundation slot so she cannot progress at all. She cannot find a locum job because they are all full. We heard of people who cannot enter the specialty training programme at years 1 and 2 because the competition for the specialty training programme is four applications for one job. We have 50,000 international medical graduates applying for a job for 2025, for 10,000 slots. If we cannot get UK graduates to find jobs in training programmes, that is scandalous. We could cut the number of medical students—but on the other hand, we are going to increase the number of medical students, and that will compound the issue for future applications for training.
By the way, I am not saying that others in the priority group in these clauses are not to be considered for a job. All I am saying is that UK medical graduates should be prioritised. The definition says “UK medical graduates”, but there are international students who go to our medical schools and therefore they are UK medical school graduates, so we include them. They are about 7% of the total medical graduates of UK universities. My amendment only seeks to prioritise UK medical graduates, who should be considered first—not that the others will not be considered or get jobs in whatever they come to do. This includes the subsequent amendments about overseas campuses and other universities.
I hope that the Opposition Benches will agree that UK medical graduates ought to be the first priority. I doubt that the noble Baroness the Minister will accept my amendment—the Government want this Bill to go through as an emergency Bill and not to be held up because, otherwise, it will run out of time—but I hope that, at the Dispatch Box, while not accepting the amendment, she will recognise that UK medical graduates must have priority above others for training slots. I beg to move.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I have tabled Amendment 2. The clerks suggested changing the wording to what is now there. It is a probing amendment, and like those of the noble Lord, Lord Patel, it could be applied to other clauses as well. It is about the principle. My strong view is that we have opened up medical schools and made more placements because we want to make sure that we have an ongoing workforce. I am delighted to see the noble Lord, Lord Darzi, in his place. He will have done work not only for Health Secretary Wes Streeting recently but previously in making sure that we have a strong workforce pipeline.
I am conscious that many medical schools, by way of survival, by way of diversity, have opened up a number of places. Admittedly, this is still quite small compared with the number of UK citizens going to medical school. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Patel, said, we have a curious definition in this legislation—that a UK medical graduate is simply somebody who went to a UK medical school. I do not think that is what the public would think that this is about. From a lot of the emails, I do not think that it is what a lot of doctors appreciate either—although I appreciate that it is the position of the BMA, which does not want to differentiate in that regard.
We have young people taking on debt by investing in their own education and several billion pounds being put in by the UK Government, by the UK taxpayer, to have this pipeline. Therefore, it is vital to have what my amendment seeks—a set prioritisation in this legislation and not, as the Minister said the other day, a “just one group and then no more” kind of prioritisation. It is vital that UK citizens are given priority.
It is important to look at some of the analysis. It is not the case that all training posts could be filled by UK citizens who have trained to be doctors—far from it. We would not have GPs coming through. According to the 2024 analysis, only about half of the GPs going on the ST1 or CT1 were from UK medical schools. There is a whole series of issues, and we are seeing this in different elements including psychiatry and paediatrics—very few UK medical students, it seems, want to do paediatrics. I could go on with the series, but the point is clear: this is not about excluding people from the rest of the world coming to work in this country or to fill key roles in the NHS; it is about ensuring that our investment is prioritised on UK citizens.
There is a certain peculiarity, which will come up in other groups, about what then happens with the Republic of Ireland and similar. I am not seeking to get into that debate; perhaps we will a bit later.
I want to get a sense of this from the Minister. One thing that is clear in the statistics, and which the Minister and the Department of Health should be seeking to understand more, is that for quite a wide range of the training courses UK students are turning down the opportunity, once they have been offered placements. Why is that? For general practice, I think that only 57% are accepting. I am conscious that people might get posted around the country, but that needs careful scrutiny as well.
I do not wish to suggest in any way that we are not welcoming people from different parts of the world, but it should go back to trying to make sure that we are addressing particular gaps in our NHS workforce, now and in the future, not squeezing people out, and recognising the work that has been done to increase the potential numbers in home-grown talent.
Those of us who spoke at Second Reading have, in the last week, had a lot of emails coming in. I completely understand that there are different stories. For a brief time, when I was Health Secretary, a by-line suggested that I thought everybody should disappear to Australia—far from it. We cannot stop people leaving this country to go to Australia or elsewhere in the world, but we should be making sure that the reason they are choosing to go elsewhere is not because they cannot get a training place here when they have been deemed appointable. Ideally, they would be offered a role. That is something we can fix with this legislation. I hope the Government will rethink their approach to this during the passage of the Bill.
I apologise to the Committee that I will not be here to deal with my amendment later on, but I know that the Front Bench will do so. The time is pressing to get this right. I had not realised quite how soon a variety of decisions need to be made: I believe they need to be made before, or certainly within a few days of, Easter. It is critical that the Government think again. I am sure that, with encouragement from the Committee and from very distinguished medical practitioners, current and past, they will do so. That is why I commend my amendment to the Committee.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to have the opportunity to support my noble friend in her excellent amendment. Broadly speaking, this is a very welcome Bill. I congratulate the Government on bringing it forward to address what is becoming an acute issue, but it could be better. My remarks fall into two separate parts: there is the philosophical issue and there are the practical, evidence-based matters, which I will elucidate in the course of my remarks.
First, it has to be said that British taxpayers fund medical education through universities and the NHS, and we should be thinking much more about the value for money that those taxpayers receive. Prioritising British citizens would ensure that the investment benefits the domestic healthcare system and would, I think, reduce the risk of brain drain, where trained doctors emigrate after completing training. Training costs are substantial—estimated at £200,000 to £500,000 per doctor—and British citizens would be more likely to remain and practise in the UK long term. There is a case that they perhaps provide better value for public investment in medical education.
The wider philosophical issue, as alluded to by the Nuffield Trust, is around the fact that, in recruiting international medical graduates, the NHS has a negative impact on the domestic healthcare sector and staffing shortages in many countries abroad, particularly in Africa and Asia and poorer countries generally. That point has been made over many years. There were issues too about cultural familiarity, language proficiency, better understanding of local healthcare practices and patient expectations, and easier integration into multidisciplinary medical teams.
Specialty training, competition ratios and bottlenecks have reached breaking point. Preliminary information for the 2025 specialty training application cycle is concerning. This year, there are over 33,000 applicants for just under 13,000 training posts. This means that up to 20,000 doctors will be left out of specialty training this August. Even if you are not directly affected, that is a public health and public policy issue.
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
My Lords, I want to speak briefly to the amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Patel, and the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey. The noble Lord, Lord Patel, mentioned that 7% of undergraduates who take medical degrees in the UK are from overseas. I briefly mentioned last week my conversations with the head of admissions at a Russell group medical school. An important point that I did not have time to raise then, but is appropriate to raise now, is the significant amount of money that that 7% contribute not only to that medical school but in additional payments to the local trust.
I wanted to make your Lordships’ House aware of that, but I also want the Minister to talk about the consequences if we accepted the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, and just had British citizens as opposed to the British graduates the noble Lord Patel talked about. What impact would there be? We have held our tuition fees static for a while in this country, while those overseas students have been paying a phenomenal amount. I am just worried that we might throw the baby out with the bath water. The unintended consequence of making some of those courses unviable is a serious concern, and I think it appropriate to raise it at this point.
Lord Winston (Lab)
My Lords, I too am a little bit concerned about unintended consequences. It is a real pleasure to see my noble friend Lord Darzi in his place, because I hope he will have comments on this issue.
I trained as a clinical academic. Indeed, we know that clinical academics have had a unique value to the health service. They work part-time in the health service with a reduced salary and do research at the same time. I am very concerned that many of the clinical academics we have had at Imperial College, for example, have been from overseas. They were medically qualified elsewhere but had not yet been in Britain and were still junior doctors, in a sense. I am really concerned that there are many such people who come to Britain, do a postdoctoral degree such as a PhD and, in the meantime, keep their medical skills flowing, as I did myself. I was seven years in this situation with the Wellcome Trust. I remember it very well. I was overseas but at least knew that I could come back to Britain. But I was a British subject—that was easy.
There are so many of these people. To give just one example, Professor Jan Brosens at Warwick University is undoubtedly one of the key people who have contributed massively to female health, particularly on implantation of the ovum and in his magnificent work on endometriosis. He came as a junior doctor from Belgium, from Leuven University, to what was then Hammersmith Hospital, which is now, of course, Imperial College. Now, he is a very distinguished professor at Warwick University with a very large team. His recruitment made a very big difference to the whole field. His is not an isolated example; there are many such people I can think of. I hope the noble Baroness can suggest some way of dealing with this problem of unusually good graduates from elsewhere, who may not be British citizens, perhaps, in the current priorities, but who would really be deserving of serious consideration for certain specialty jobs. Not to do that would be a great loss to the health service.
Lord Darzi of Denham (Non-Afl)
My Lords, many of you will know that I did my medical training in Ireland. In fact, I exercised some of my skills in this Chamber back in 2007. Irish medical education is excellent, and many of its graduates have gone on to distinguished careers in the NHS. I speak today to ensure we strike the right balance in this Bill, specifically by securing fair treatment for doctors who hold degrees approved by the Irish Medical Council.
As drafted, the Bill would exclude graduates of the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland at its medical campus in Bahrain, for example—a campus that was established more than 20 years ago. Let me be clear about what that institution delivers: it has the same curriculum, the same examinations and the same quality assurance as Dublin, leading to a single national University of Ireland degree. Its programme and clinical training sites are also accredited under Irish regulatory oversight by the Irish Medical Council. I urge that, on Report, wording be introduced to bring graduates of this institution within the priority group. Such a clarification would sit squarely alongside the amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Gerada, and the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Mendelsohn. These seek to ensure that medical graduates of a UK university holding a GMC-approved degree and following the same curriculum and assessment, but studying outside the British Isles, are included in the priority group. It would also be consistent with the similar amendment tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Forbes and Lord Shipley, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Finlay and Lady Hollins.
I draw a further anomaly to your Lordships’ attention. The unamended Bill would place graduates of the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland’s campus in Penang, Malaysia—a joint programme with University College Dublin—within this priority group. These students study an Irish Medical Council-accredited, GMC-recognised degree, completing half their education in Ireland and half in Malaysia. Yet the well-intentioned clarifying amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, requiring at least 60% of the time to be spent in Ireland, would inadvertently exclude them.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, it has been many years since I last spoke in a health debate. There is a sense of déjà vu in seeing the noble Earl, Lord Howe, on the Opposition Front Bench. It is also an absolute pleasure to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Darzi, and to hear the arguments he has made, which are very consistent with those we will be making later in the group of amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Gerada.
I rise to speak to the amendments in this group, but particularly to Amendment 2, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, and the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Patel. On Amendment 2, while I understand the intent of the noble Baroness to protect the domestic workforce, we on these Benches cannot support the introduction of citizenship as a primary filter for medical training priority. To do so would undermine the central logic of this Bill, which is to protect the taxpayers’ investment in training, not to police the passport of the trainee. If a non-UK citizen comes to this country, trains in our medical school for five years, often paying significant international fees—my noble friend made an extremely good point about the value of that to our universities—they cross-subsidise our universities and then commit to the NHS. They are a UK medical graduate in every sense that matters to workforce planning. Their training is identical; their clinical exposure is identical. We on these Benches believe that to deprioritise them, based purely on nationality, would send a disastrous signal to the global talent pool that our NHS has always relied upon. It would also contradict the argument we will make later regarding the amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Gerada, on the Queen Mary University of London Malta Campus: that it is the content and quality of the qualification that matters, not the geography or the nationality.
Regarding the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Patel, I sympathise with his desire to ensure that UK graduates are prioritised. That is, after all, the purpose of the Bill, and while we can argue about the definition of a UK graduate, we must be careful not to make the legislation so rigid that it removes any flexibility for the Secretary of State to address shortages in specific specialties, or where international talent is essential. Several noble Lords have mentioned that we have all received correspondence from doctors in hard-to-fill areas who warn that absolute exclusion could leave rotas empty. Prioritisation must not constitute a blockade.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Patel, deserves our thanks for opening our Committee debate in a cogent and powerful way. He is absolutely right: in this country, we train some of the very best doctors in the world—at great expense to them and to the taxpayer—but too many are choosing to leave the training process because in the now expanded competitive scrum they cannot access the training places they require. Each year many remain unemployed. That is a serious policy challenge, and Ministers are right to seek to address it. We need a long-term and fair solution.
The noble Lord, Lord Patel, is seeking to ensure that UK medical graduates are prioritised for training places first before those in the priority group are offered places. There would then be a third tier of prioritisation for any other eligible applicants. This would put UK medical graduates, as defined by Clause 4, ahead in the queue for training places. I do not think we can fault the noble Lord for his logic. If we believe there is currently a massive and disproportionate injustice being meted out to UK medical graduates, we owe them the best chance we can give them to enter further training pathways in this country.
However, I have two questions for the Minister. First, the Explanatory Notes confirm that those who have trained in Ireland, Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway have been included in the priority group because
“existing agreements require us to recognise their qualifications and offer parity in access to the profession”.
Can the Minister please confirm whether the reordering of prioritisation, as proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Patel, would cut across the existing agreements that the UK Government are bound by?
Secondly, I think many of us agree that emergency legislation should be avoided as far as possible, but where it is necessary, it should be simple and straightforward. On the face of it, the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Patel, would make the Bill a bit more complicated by adding a further tier of prioritisation. If that is so, I am sure he would argue that the extra complexity is well worth it. It would be helpful if the Minister could tell us whether such an additional tier of prioritisation would make the process more complex to manage.
Amendment 2 in the name of my noble friend Lady Coffey would prioritise UK medical graduates who are British citizens first, then those persons in the priority group and then UK medical graduates who are not British citizens. The category of other eligible applicants is not included. Perhaps it is an inadvertent omission; I do not know. Again, this would create a three-tier prioritisation process, where the Government are currently proposing two tiers, with the added dimension of drawing a distinction between different categories of UK medical graduates. Like the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, I am uncomfortable with that as a matter of policy. On the face of it, the amendment presents a more complex set of arrangements than those proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Patel, so it would be helpful to hear from the Minister how the Government view my noble friend’s suggestions, including their ready workability.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
My Lords, I am most grateful to all noble Lords for their helpful contributions to this debate. Amendments 1, 3, 6 to 8 and 12 to 14, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Patel, seek to create tiered categories of prioritisation for the UK foundation programme and specialty programmes. Taken together, they would require places to be allocated to UK medical graduates in the first instance, and then to applicants in the other prioritised categories specified in the Bill. As noble Lords have observed, the Bill sets clear priority groups, but it does not make rankings within these groups, and that is what we are looking at.
I welcome my noble friend Lord Darzi, not least because the review that he undertook for the Government in 2024 recommended that we should prioritise medical training, for all the reasons given by the noble Lords who support it. I will return to this whole area when we debate a later group, but on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Darzi—this will perhaps also be helpful to the noble Earl, Lord Howe—alongside UK graduates, we are prioritising in the Bill graduates from Ireland and the EFTA countries. This reflects the special nature of our relationship with Ireland—specifically, our reciprocal rights of movement and employment—and our obligations under international trade agreements with the EFTA countries, which the noble Earl, Lord Howe, referred to, that require consistent treatment of these graduates in access to medical training. The amendments that we are looking at would mean that we could not honour these agreements. That, by its nature and definition, would create huge difficulties.
On specialty training, these amendments would also mean that we could not effectively deliver on our policy intention to prioritise applicants with significant NHS experience who understand how the health service works and how to meet the needs of the UK population. It might be helpful if I summarise this by saying that the Bill sets out what I would regard as a binary system where applicants are either prioritised or not. Clearly, once that prioritisation has happened, the normal processes will apply to establish who the appointable applicants are, to fill the posts, and so on.
Amendment 2, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, seeks to create tiered categories of prioritisation for the UK foundation programme and to prioritise UK medical graduates who are British citizens above all other applicants. The Bill as drafted prioritises all UK medical graduates who meet the criteria, regardless of their citizenship status. It might be helpful to the noble Lords, Lord Mohammed and Lord Clement-Jones, to restate that what matters is where a doctor is trained, not where they are born. UK-trained medical graduates have undertaken curricula, clinical placements and assessment standards aligned to the NHS, and are therefore best prepared to move directly into NHS practice.
The Government are committed to prioritising those doctors who have already spent a significant part of their education within the NHS and understand how the health service works and how to meet the needs of the UK population, not least because—this is an issue that we have discussed many times—these doctors are more likely to remain in the NHS for longer, supporting the sustainable medical workforce for the future that we are all looking at.
As I set out in relation to the previous set of amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Patel, this amendment would also mean that we would not be honouring the special nature of our relationship with Ireland and obligations under trade agreements with EFTA countries. I emphasise again in the Chamber today that prioritisation does not mean exclusion. All eligible applicants will still be able to apply and will be offered places if vacancies remain after prioritised applicants have received offers, which we expect to be the case particularly in certain areas.
My noble friend Lord Winston raised a question about the Bill in respect of highly skilled overseas doctors and particularly referenced clinical academics. As I have said, it is not exclusion from applying—it is prioritisation. It may be helpful more broadly for me to emphasise that there are likely to be opportunities in specialties such as general practice, core psychiatry and internal medicine, because historically they attract fewer applicants from the groups that we are prioritising for 2026. I understand the point that my noble friend is making, but we have to focus on the core purpose of the Bill. With that, I hope that noble Lords will feel able not to press their amendments.
Lord Patel (CB)
Obviously, the Minister is not accepting my amendment, but she makes the point that all the priority groups will be treated in the same way—whatever the definition is of people in the priority group, they will all be grouped together as a priority, and that would include UK medical graduates. What assessment have the Government made of the effect that it will have on UK medical school graduates to include all the others in the priority group? What disadvantage will that put UK medical graduates to? Will it be minimal, medium or a lot?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
We do not anticipate that that is going to cause a problem. The noble Lord did not specifically refer to the EFTA countries, but I should like to. Some of them will not produce any suitable people who are likely to be included, so in our modelling we do not anticipate that there will be a problem. What matters is patient care and getting people with the right training who understand what the NHS is about, understand the culture of the NHS and provide as best as they can. That is what the whole Bill is directed at doing and prioritising.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
I accept that the Minister is not predisposed to accept the amendment from my noble friend Lady Coffey, and she has made a clear case for that, but is she in a position to reassure the House that the issues raised by my noble friend and others about the relative take-up of specialty training places in less popular disciplines, such as anaesthetics or paediatrics, will be looked at by the department? I did not get the opportunity to make this point, but one point was that prioritising British medical students—not excluding others—would have a positive impact on those particularly hard-to-fill disciplines. Is the department taking that into account generally in its workforce planning?
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
Can I ask about applications from overseas? I know from the paperwork that has been shared online that everybody has been grouped together as the rest of the world. With the applications that we have had this time and last year, it might be helpful to share the data of the breakdown by each country rather than just lumping it all together as the rest of the world. Then we could see how many applications there are from the nations that we have an international agreement with.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken today, no matter which amendment they spoke to, and I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for his strong support for my amendment. More importantly, he said that UK medical graduates need to be prioritised and should not have to enter into competition with others whose graduation is not from this country. I know that the Minister was not able to say that UK graduates would be seen to be prioritised; I understand that. Of course, these debates help, because the outside world is interested in what is said here. I hope that particularly those who make decisions about interviewing or selecting for interview for training programmes will get the message, take note of this debate and bear in mind what it was all about. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
“(2) Nothing in this section shall be taken to negate or override a confirmed offer of a place on a UK Foundation Programme where the offer was made prior to the date on which this Act was first laid as a Bill before Parliament.(3) In this section “confirmed offer” means an offer in writing made by a person who has a function of deciding offers of places on a UK Foundation Programme.”
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I begin by making it clear that this is very much a probing amendment, for reasons which I shall explain. Across all the many representations I have received on the provisions of this Bill—from UK medical graduates; UK citizens studying medicine abroad; non-UK citizens studying abroad; some in the middle of their degree course; some who have finished their degrees, and some who have commenced but not completed a UK foundation programme—there is one issue that rises to the surface. It is an issue that is most easily encapsulated in the phrase “legitimate expectations”.
Quite justifiably, in my view, individuals who have embarked on the long and costly journey that is required of them in order to gain a GMC-approved medical qualification and who have found themselves suddenly deprioritised by one or other provision within this Bill have questioned the fairness of the dividing lines that the Government have chosen to draw in such summary fashion. Medical graduates—many of them British citizens—who have demonstrated both commitment and excellence and who have adhered in good faith to every step of the process laid down under existing rules are now being told that their trust in the system counts for nothing and that, all of a sudden, their legitimate expectations have been overridden.
Noble Lords will note that my amendment relates specifically to the 2026 UK foundation programme. It suggests that a graduate who has already received a written offer of a place on a foundation programme should be able to rely on the validity of that offer. In reality, I understand that, with very few exceptions if any, applicants to the 2026 UK foundation programme have not yet received formal written offers of employment. However, the formal process began last summer. Eligibility applications were completed last July and foundation programme applications in September. Since then, there have been mandatory UKFP-related deadlines, including the national clinical assessment—NCA—in November and PLAB 1 in December. In other words, the process is active, sequential and consequential, notwithstanding as yet the absence of formal written offers.
To take the case of a medical graduate in February 2026 who finds themselves prospectively deprioritised in the way that I have described, in the Government’s view, at what point on that graduate’s journey does the principle of legitimate expectations kick in? How fair is it to say to a talented and high-achieving graduate that, despite their passing through all the existing procedural hoops, they now need to lower their expectations quite dramatically and accept that they are no longer in that part of the queue for a medical qualification which, in good faith, they previously worked to join?
In summary, my amendment is intended to pose a somewhat broader question than its literal wording would suggest. What do the Government have to say to that cohort of soon-to-be deprioritised graduates who have committed time, effort and money to pursuing their goal? Is there any room for movement? I beg to move.
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
My Lords, I speak to the amendments in this group in my name—Amendments 5 and 10—and to Amendments 9, 11, 24 and 25 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Birmingham, which I have also signed.
I follow up the point that the noble Earl, Lord Howe, talked about in terms of the fairness for those people who went into the application process last summer. They started this process with the expectation of getting a confirmation any time now and being able to prepare. That is why my Amendment 5 proposes to postpone the implementation of this speciality training prioritisation for this year’s intake, so that those people who are applying for 2027 know that we are changing the rules, rather than telling those people who applied last summer that we have changed the rules. Let me be clear from the outset: this amendment does not seek to undermine the principle of the objectives of this Bill on medical training; rather, it seeks to ensure that these objectives are implemented fairly, coherently and without unintended harm to the very trainees upon whom our healthcare system depends.
The central issue for us here has always been timing. As the Bill currently stands, these changes would be introduced during an active application cycle. This raises serious concerns about procedural fairness and legitimate expectations. Applicants have made life-altering decisions—academic, financial and personal—based on a set of rules that existed last summer when they applied. To change these rules mid-cycle, in my opinion, is not merely inconvenient but fundamentally unjust. Like many others, I have been contacted by affected medical students who have articulated their concerns around the criteria. They noted that they had complied fully with all the requirements enforced at the time of application, only to find themselves potentially excluded by the change that has now been imposed. Without transitional protections, the Bill would disadvantage applicants who acted in good faith, followed the guidance provided and had every reasonable expectation that the rules would not be rewritten half way through the process. This is not about isolated grievance; it reflects a systematic risk inherent in rushed implementation.
Medicine is a profession that demands long-term planning, with years of study, examination, placement and significant personal sacrifice. When Parliament alters the conditions of progression without adequate notice or transition, it destabilises that planning and erodes trust in the system. My amendment therefore offers a modest but proportionate and sensible solution: a one-year delay that would allow for clarity in communications and proper preparation. It would give institutions time to adjust their process, regulators time to issue clear guidance and applicants time to make informed decisions so that people who will be applying this summer know what the criteria are. Crucially it would also align with the principles of this House, which has long upheld fairness, legal certainty and an avoidance of disadvantage. We should be especially mindful of these principles when legislating in areas that directly affect access to professional training and career progression.
There is also the practical consideration. Disruption of the current application cycle risks creating gaps, appeals and bottlenecks that could ultimately harm workforce planning in the NHS. At a time when staffing pressures are already acute, we should really be wary of reforms that may have unintended consequences and might deter capable candidates. My amendment would not delay the reforms indefinitely, but simply ensure that reforms are done properly. By supporting this amendment, we would send a clear message that, while we are committed to improving medical training pathways, we are equally committed to treating applicants fairly and honouring the rules under which they apply.
We have heard about the immigration status mentioned earlier and the criteria on which that is based. With my Amendment 10, I would like to raise with the Minister the alternative option, given that the Government are also seeking to change the rules around indefinite leave to remain. My understanding is that there is a better option. The NHS has its own recruitment platform, the Oriel system, which is able to demonstrate professional commitment to the NHS. In doing so, it shifts the focus from legal residence status to actual service, contributions and engagement with our health system.
The NHS does not run, as we heard earlier, on immigration categories. It runs on people who turn up to shifts, who trained within its system, who understand its pressures and who have committed themselves to caring for patients day in, day out. The Oriel registration is not just a symbolic tactic; it is a gateway through which NHS recruitment, training and workforce planning operates. It is a clear, objective indicator that an individual is already participating in or seeking to participate in the NHS.
Similarly, the concept of professional commitment to the NHS allows for a broader and fairer assessment of contributions. It recognises work undertaken in the NHS trust, clinical placements, foundation training, research, teaching and other forms of service that directly benefit patients and institutions. This approach reflects reality far more accurately than a single immigration milestone, which may have little bearing on an individual’s clinical engagement or future commitments or intentions.
There is also a serious risk of equality issues at stake. Many doctors who have trained in the UK, worked in NHS hospitals, paid taxes and served our communities for years do not yet hold indefinite leave to remain, due to the structures and lengths of immigration pathways. To divert these such individuals despite their proven service risks sending a deeply damaging message that contribution is secondary to paperwork. At a time when the NHS remains heavily reliant on international medical students, we should be careful not to erect barriers that discourage retention or undermine morale. These clinicians are not temporary stopgaps; they are integral members of our workforce. Many intend to build long-term careers here and many already have.
From a practical standpoint, this amendment also improves administrative clarity. Assessing our registration and documenting NHS experience is straightforward, verifiable and directly relevant to workforce needs. By contrast, tying prioritisation to immigration status risks complexity, inconsistencies and unintended exclusion. If the aim of the Bill is to strengthen medical training and to support the NHS workforce, our criteria must align with that goal. This amendment ensures that prioritisation is based on what truly matters: demonstrated commitment to the NHS and the work that it exists to do. Therefore, I urge noble Lords to support both my amendments.
Lord Stevens of Birmingham (CB)
My Lords, I repeat my declarations of interest from Second Reading as chair of King’s College London and chair of Cancer Research UK, and as an honorary fellow of the Royal College of Physicians and the Royal College of General Practitioners. I am going to speak to my Amendments 9, 11, 24 and 25. I am most grateful to my co-signatories: the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the noble Lords, Lord Mohammed of Tinsley and Lord Patel.
The Government, in my opinion rightly, want to prioritise for specialty training doctors who, among other things, have significant prior experience working in the NHS. They propose in the Bill that that would be an explicit criterion to be taken into account from 2027. So the principle is clear. The practice for 2026, however, is said in the impact assessment to be such that they cannot use that criterion for the current cycle. So, instead, a series of proxies are proposed which, in the words of the impact assessment, would
“capture applicants who we believe are most likely to have NHS experience”.
This set of amendments, which should be an easy pill for the Government to swallow, would simply give them the ability to apply in 2026 the same criterion relative to work experience in the NHS that they propose from 2027 onwards. I recognise that there may still be some discussions, as we just heard from the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed of Tinsley, about the executability of that criterion, using the Oriel system or other mechanisms. These amendments would not require the Government to bring forward their 2027 approach but simply permit them to do so if, in the weeks between now and 5 March, for example, if that is the deadline for when Royal Assent is required, it becomes clear to them that the modest enabling work on the computer software, estimated at £100,000, can be put in place if that were needed.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, I support the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Birmingham, to which I have added my name. I am not going to repeat much of what he said, but I support it because when, in 2026, both the UK and overseas graduates are further down the process of applying—and some have even been asked to come for interview—they will now not be able to continue. That seems morally and ethically wrong, so I support the amendments. I also support the amendment in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Howe. He made his points very strongly.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I declare my role as a pro-chancellor of Cardiff University, and that I have until recently been an observer on the Medical Schools Council; I am still in touch with it.
This group of amendments seems incredibly important for our international reputation for fairness and consistency in what we commit to, but also in wanting excellence in our NHS. Therefore, there needs to be a sophisticated way of prioritising. One of those important areas is the contribution to the NHS, especially during Covid and major events, when some have gone way above what is normally expected and come back from holiday or maternity leave, or whatever, to deal with a major incident, while others have perhaps not always been quite so flexible.
We certainly have a crisis and must deal with it, so this is not in any way to say that we should not be doing this, but the timing is the worry. I will come on to the other degrees in the next group. Can the Minister explain whether the Oriel system itself is a block to incorporating the flexibility that these amendments ask for? There is a real worry among some that the Oriel system is a rate-limiting step, rather than being flexible enough to be rapidly reprogrammed appropriately to allow the intention of these amendments to be incorporated at great speed, and therefore redress the accusation of unfairness.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I offer our strong support for Amendments 9, 11, 24 and 25 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Birmingham, and Amendments 5 and 10 in the name of my noble friend Lord Mohammed. I thank the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for his Amendment 4, because it, in essence, sets the theme of this group, which is the dashing of legitimate interests for this year, which a number of noble Lords explored.
Before I address the specific mechanics of these amendments, we need to thank the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, and other noble Lords who highlighted at Second Reading the whole question of the protracted failure in long-term workforce planning. For years, we have seen a disconnect between the number of medical school places and the number of specialty training posts. There is a bottleneck of our own making: 12 applications for one post is a disaster. My late wife trained in the 1970s and became a registrar at Barts. I have no recollection of it being anything like on this scale, and we risk dashing the expectations of many of those currently in training.
As the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, noted at Second Reading, the Bill does not widen the bottleneck; it simply reshuffles the queue. Although we on these Benches accept the principle that UK graduates should not face unemployment after taxpayer investment, we must ensure that, in correcting one failure, we do not commit a second failure of fairness against those have served our NHS in good faith.
These amendments address one of the greatest injustices in this Bill: the decision to implement major changes mid-cycle for 2026, using the blunt instrument of indefinite leave to remain as a proxy for experience. The Government claim that assessing actual NHS experience is “not operationally feasible” for the 2026 rounds. Since Second Reading, we have received compelling evidence to the contrary. As my noble friend says, we have heard from doctors currently using the system who confirm that the Oriel recruitment platform already captures data on “months of NHS experience”. The question is there; the data exists. The claim that this cannot be done is a choice, not an administrative necessity.
By refusing to use this data, Clause 2 creates a perverse experience gap. It excludes doctors who have served on our NHS front lines for two or three years but who have not yet reached the five-year threshold for settlement. We have received hundreds of emails detailing the human cost of this decision. We heard from a mother who lived apart from her one year-old child for seven months to study the MSRA exam, only to find the rules changing days after she sat it. We heard from a neurosurgery SHO with two years of NHS service, who notes that this mid-cycle change renders his sunk costs unrecoverable. We have heard from a British citizen whose wife, a doctor on a spousal visa, is deprioritised, despite being a permanent resident.
Amendments 9 and 11 offer the Government a lifeline. They are permissive—my noble friend’s amendments mandate the Government. The bottom line is that the Secretary of State should use the data we know Oriel possesses to prioritise those with significant NHS experience in 2026, just as they intend to do in 2027. To reject this is to choose administrative convenience over natural justice.
I see the amendments at this stage as a probing opportunity. We need the Minister to explain in specific, technical detail why the existing Oriel data fields regarding employment history cannot be used to filter applicants for this cycle. If the Minister cannot provide a satisfactory technical explanation today, and if the Government resist this flexible approach, we will be forced to conclude that this is a choice, not a necessity. In that event, we may well need to return to it on Report.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
This group of amendments relates to the implementation of prioritisation of posts starting in 2026. I thank all noble Lords for their consideration of this. It is a very important area, as noble Lords have said, and I have listened closely, as ever, to the points made.
Beginning with prioritisation for the UK foundation programme, Amendment 4, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, seeks to prevent prioritisation applying to offers for the foundation programme that were confirmed before 13 January. To clarify, the Bill will impact only offers for places made after the Bill is passed and becomes law. The Bill will therefore not have any impact on offers to the foundation programme made before it becomes law. In our view, the amendment is therefore not necessary. In any event, no such offers exist, other than for a very small and specific group.
The noble Lord, Lord Stevens, asked about those who have already been allocated. The only individuals who have already been allocated foundation programme places for 2026 are those who deferred last year for statutory reasons, such as maternity leave or sickness absence. These individuals have already been assigned to posts, and this year’s allocation process does not affect them in any way.
On a more general point, as I referred to in the earlier group, and as noble Lords will recall, the 10-year plan, which was published in July 2025, confirmed that it was the intention of the Government to come forward with the Bill we are speaking of today. The noble Lord, Lord Stevens, asked about the time it has taken since that date in July 2025. I can only say to the noble Lord that this is linked to our careful listening, which he will be aware of, to resident doctors and our understanding of the pressures that they are facing. The Bill is about action now. It is about acting decisively and introducing legislation for 2026, because, as noble Lords have kindly acknowledged, we need to start reshaping the workforce pipeline and show our commitment to easing the bottlenecks in training places.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
I would be grateful if the Minister could say what proportion of those who wrote were disappointed with the Bill versus those who wrote supporting it.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I cannot give an exact proportion, as the noble Lord is aware, but I have noticed that the proportion has changed as the Bill has progressed. As we have approached Committee, I have certainly seen more email traffic urging a non-amended Bill rather than an amended Bill. I would imagine that that is reflected in other emails. The noble Lord is indicating that it is not. I can see differing responses, but that has certainly been my impression.
The application of prioritisation to the 2026 intake is necessary and justified. If, as I referred to earlier, we waited until 2027, competition ratios are projected to rise even further, meaning that more UK graduates would be unable to progress their careers on time, with a greater risk to the long-term sustainability of the workforce. For these reasons, another year’s delay is not an option, and we cannot accept the noble Lord’s amendment.
Amendment 10, also tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, also seeks to change categories of people who would be prioritised for specialty training places, starting in 2026, by virtue of having significant NHS experience or by reference to their immigration status. We cannot accept this amendment on the basis that the effect would be to prioritise every individual who applied for specialty training places in 2026 because all applicants are, by necessity, already registered on Oriel. This amendment would in practice nullify prioritisation for 2026 and render the legislation ineffective. It would not address the severe and growing bottlenecks in specialty training that the Bill aims and is designed to tackle.
The proposal to prioritise those who have demonstrated a professional commitment to the NHS also presents workability problems as there is no clear or objective definition of what such a commitment looks like, nor any reliable way to assess it for tens of thousands of applicants at this stage. Attempting to do so would be unmanageable in a practical sense and would introduce inconsistency, delay and uncertainty for applicants.
Lord Stevens of Birmingham (CB)
One objective proposition that has been suggested is two years of NHS experience, which, it is said, would be readily trackable on Oriel. Can the Minister confirm whether that would indeed be possible?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
Although I cannot be specific about what is technically possible, I can say that, as the noble Lord is aware, the arrangements for 2026 in the Bill can change for 2027, and that will be the subject of consultation with a wide range of stakeholders to get the best definitions we can. We know that currently, because of the time pressure, we are going to have to use—I think the noble Lord used the word “proxy”, in my view correctly. So that is where we are.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
The Minister criticised Amendment 10 from my noble friend on the basis that, in a sense, it is technically not doing what it attempts to do. But she has not really addressed the key argument at the core of this, which is that the Oriel system is capable of assessing precisely the kinds of two-year experience that so many of these deprioritised doctors will have. Is the Minister saying that it is absolutely not possible to use the Oriel system for that purpose in this context?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My recollection from my discussion with officials about this very point is that, with no criticism of the Oriel system, this is about what we are trying to do now and what we have available to us. It would require—I am looking for the right words—not just using that system but manual attention to thousands of applications. I am very happy to write to the noble Lord with further technical advice on the matter, but that is the situation of which I have been advised. The whole point about the way the Bill is designed is to make it workable. If we change it, we know we cannot deliver in the way the noble Lord might wish.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
I thank the Minister for that. I hope that, despite the recess, there will be time to get all the information we need. There is a real problem here with the credibility of the Government’s position. There are many of us who hope that it will be possible to do something different, particularly since, in a way, the boot is on the other foot. The Government have had since last July, as we keep being told, to get the Oriel system fit for purpose in order to supply the information for 2026.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
The noble Lord is ambitious on workability, beyond what I can honestly confirm is possible. Noble Lords would not wish me to stand at the Dispatch Box and suggest that, having looked at all we could do, the situation is anything other than that this Bill is a workable option. I can assure him that, as always, all noble Lords will get the information they are promised in a timely fashion. I also hope that the all-Peers letter and the letters I subsequently sent in respect of various areas of concern were helpful to noble Lords. I will of course ensure that anything further is there.
The issue with Amendment 10 is also that there is not that clear objective and definition of what a commitment looks like; it makes reference to it but does not explain it. By contrast, the Bill uses a set of carefully chosen, specified immigration statuses as a practical and proportionate proxy for identifying applicants who are most likely to have an established professional commitment to the NHS, which I believe is what all noble Lords are looking for. After careful consideration, we have concluded that for the 2026 recruitment round, that is the best approach. The amendment would remove any practical effect of prioritisation, which of course is at the heart of the Bill.
Amendments 9, 11, 24 and 25, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, seek to create a regulation-making power to define additional persons with significant NHS experience to be prioritised for specialty training in 2026. We cannot accept these amendments. As already stated, the Bill sets out the most suitable criteria for prioritising specialty training places in this year. Under the existing Clause 2(2), for specialty training places starting in 2026, immigration status will be used as a practical proxy for NHS experience to allow prioritisation to begin swiftly. This proxy is being used because applications for posts starting in 2026 have already been made. Therefore, we need to prioritise based on the information already captured, and which can be assessed.
To build on what I was referring to in the exchange with the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones—I know this is also of interest to the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay—while NHS experience is captured in the Oriel recruitment system, using it as an assessment criteria for the 2026 allocation round would require a manual review of tens of thousands of applications, “manual review” being the words I was looking for earlier. This is just not operationally feasible. There is no current agreed threshold for what constitutes a meaningful level of NHS experience. Stakeholders offer very different views on this, which is why we have committed to a proper engagement process, subject to the Bill’s passage, to ensure that any future definition is fair, evidence-based and deliverable.
The Bill already gives us flexibility to ensure that we take the best approach to prioritising those with NHS experience for specialty training posts in subsequent years. For posts starting in 2017 onwards, the immigration status category will not apply automatically. Instead, we will be able to make regulations to specify any additional groups who will be prioritised by reference to criteria indicating significant experience as a doctor in the health service, or by reference to immigration status.
For the reasons I have outlined, I ask noble Lords to withdraw or not press their amendments.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, especially those from around the Committee who felt able to support my Amendment 4. I think there will be very many people in the medical community who will read the Minister’s reply to my amendment with acute disappointment. I say that not only because of the arguments I tried to articulate about legitimate expectations but also because of the point, well made by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, about the damage that the Bill will cause to the UK’s reputation for fairness around the world.
I would also pray in aid the amendment spoken to so ably by the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed of Tinsley, who argued in favour of delaying the implementation of the medical specialty training prioritisation requirements by one year. In doing so, he has very much echoed my thinking in this whole area. My initial reaction to this amendment is that it would have a positive impact on applicant confidence, as well as trust in the system, to pick up again the point by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, by allowing an extra year to transition to the new prioritisation process.
I also note that my noble friend Lord Strathclyde, in his role as chairman of the Constitution Committee, has written to the Minister, raising the committee’s concerns about the impact of the new prioritisation regime on applicants for the 2026 cohort who would fall outside the prioritised groups. It seems to me that Ministers really should consider this proposal carefully.
Amendment 10 by the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, would remove the requirement that those who are prioritised for specialty training programmes must have indefinite leave to remain or leave to enter or remain in the UK, replacing those subsections with the requirement that persons merely need to have been
“registered on the NHS Oriel recruitment platform, or … demonstrated a professional commitment to the National Health Service”.
I thought the noble Lord argued his case very well. Of course, material in this context is the number of applicants who do not currently have leave to enter or remain in the UK who would, under the noble Lord’s amendment, be able to come here. I am, however, quite surprised to hear from the Minister that it would require a manual search of tens of thousands of records to find the answer to that, and that there are not ways of conducting a search automatically or electronically that could reveal the information that is needed. Again, I was disappointed by the Minister’s reply, for the reasons largely cited by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones.
Finally, I comment briefly on the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Birmingham, to which I added my name. These do not seem to me to be onerous on the Government in any way; they merely grant the Secretary of State the power to permit the appropriate authority to make regulations specifying further groups of people who are included. I feel that the Bill is particularly unfair to doctors with significant NHS experience seeking a specialty training post in 2026, and the mechanism proposed in the noble Lord’s amendments could be used to address that unfairness.
It is a pity that the Minister felt compelled to sound a negative note on the proposals by the noble Lord, Lord Stevens. However, having listened to the Minister’s reply and to all the amendments in this group, I think a period of reflection is warranted, hopefully by the Government as well as noble Lords around the Committee. With that, I beg to withdraw Amendment 4.
Baroness Gerada
Baroness Gerada (CB)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 15, 16 and 19. I want to disclose an interest that I did not have at Second Reading: I am now co-chair of the Malta APPG—and I remain of Maltese heritage.
Amendment 19, in my name and that of the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Mendelsohn, seeks to add Malta to the list of countries in Clause 4(4). It is precise and proportionate, and it would correct a narrow but serious unintended consequence in the Bill, as I will explain. Of course I acknowledge the need to prioritise UK graduates for training but, as the Minister of Health and Active Ageing of Malta put it in a letter to the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the Bill risks
“undermining two centuries of proud tradition and the dissolution of a strong bilateral relationship in healthcare, care, and the training and specialisation of Maltese graduates”.
At Second Reading, I spoke about the unique medical training partnership between the UK and Malta, which dates back two centuries. For example, Maltese surgeons have held licences from our own royal colleges since the 1830s. This is therefore not a recent convenience but a deep historic alignment. It is a relationship that has shaped both systems for generations, creating an instinctive alliance in training, practice, standards and expectations.
The Maltese education system is modelled on the UK system and aligned to British clinical and ethical standards. Training is delivered in English, and the Maltese healthcare system closely mirrors the NHS. That is why my father was able to come to this country in 1963 and devote his working life to serving patients in the east of England, and why others from Malta have done the same, performing well above their weight in serving patients in this country.
Furthermore, postgraduate membership and fellowship remain aligned with the British royal colleges, reflecting a deep and enduring professional loyalty. Indeed, many of these doctors have become trainers, educators and examiners, helping to uphold the quality of UK postgraduate education—some have had daughters who became presidents of royal colleges. Malta and the UK are therefore historically, culturally and educationally linked.
I turn to the comparison of the Malta foundation programme, an affiliated programme to the UK foundation programme, and I shall reflect on the free trade agreements that the UK holds with the countries in Clause 4. Government documentation for the UK’s free trade agreement with these countries requires regulators to
“recognise qualifications or relevant experience of a professional who applies for recognition and possesses comparable professional qualifications”.
The language in that documentation, which recognises reciprocal arrangement, strongly aligns to the UK-Malta affiliate programme and, on that basis, it should be treated no less favourably than these other nations.
Since 2009, our foundation programmes have been formally aligned, sharing the same curriculum and e-portfolio. This alignment was renewed in 2024, confirming that the Malta programme met the same standards and outcomes as the UK foundation programme. To the best of my knowledge, no other country anywhere in the world has that level of mutual recognition.
At the centre of this is Queen Mary University of London’s campus in Malta, a UK public university delivering an identical UK GMC-approved MBBS degree to that which it delivers in its east London campus in Tower Hamlets. The students follow the same curriculum, complete the same statutory mandatory training, take the same UK national qualification exams and graduate with the same UK primary medical qualification. They are registered by the GMC as graduates of Queen Mary University of London.
During Second Reading, the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, addressed Malta as a distinct case, and indeed it is. The QMUL training programme is a UK programme delivered overseas under a framework recognised by and supported by the UK Government. More than half the students are UK citizens. The equivalence of training between the UK and Malta is complete, not approximate. It is not close; it is identical. Even the patient profile is the same. Malta’s population, diversity, healthcare system and disease patterns share extraordinary similarities with the UK, particularly compared with any other international training environments. Moreover, most students undertake NHS attachments during their training. These graduates enter the UK workforce fully prepared for UK foundation training, trained at no cost to the UK taxpayer.
The impact of a medical school goes beyond the students. QMUL has made a not insubstantial professional and financial investment in the campus and the Government of Malta have invested in the school’s construction. This aligns with the UK Government’s wider objective of developing international UK university campuses, as outlined in the recent strategy document from the Department for Education. This Bill, if not amended, puts this at risk.
The numbers are small, as the foundation years are capped at between 50 to 70 graduates. This is less than 0.6% of the UK foundation programme places. This is simply no workforce threat, no substitution effect or planning distortion. There is, however, a real risk of unfairness in the Bill as it stands. These students have a legitimate expectation, grounded on 15 years of consistent government practice, and the experience of all preceding QMUL medical graduates, that they should be treated comparably with other holders of UK primary medical qualifications. The Bill as drafted removes that status and places these graduates behind Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein and Switzerland—jurisdictions whose graduates do not hold a UK primary medical qualification, do not sit the medical licensing or prescribing exams and are not trained on an NHS-aligned curriculum. This is difficult to explain, let alone to justify. This amendment simply corrects this anomaly. It protects a uniquely successful partnership, anchored in history, quality and equivalence.
Going beyond foundation years, a few Maltese doctors come to the NHS every year to fill gaps in their own medical training—so-called finishing school. These are in non-numbered posts. Malta provides 70% of their pay and these doctors are contractually required to return to Malta. This is not a pipeline of overseas doctors displacing domestic graduates. It is a small group, maybe 30 or 40, who meet our standards, all of whom have been examined and trained specifically in UK practice.
Finally and briefly, I turn to Amendments 15 and 16 again in my name and the names of the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Mendelsohn. These suggests a carefully defined exception in Clause 4 for UK universities operating overseas campuses that deliver an identical UK-approved medical degree as in the British islands. These are exceptionally narrow amendments confined, to the best of my knowledge, to only two programmes in the world—Queen Mary University of London’s campus in Malta and Newcastle University Medicine Malaysia.
At Second Reading, the Minister referred to
“almost 300 applicants from … overseas campuses”,—[Official Report, 4/2/26; col. 1679.]
and noted that the Government need to control this number to “avoid opening the floodgates”. I stress, as I have already said, that the number of QMUL graduates applying for UK jobs is capped by the University of Malta at between 50 and 70, with around 120 from Newcastle University Medicine Malaysia bringing the total to 190. These caps would enable the Government to control the number of overseas applicants.
I also want to make clear my support of the amendment in the name of noble Lord, Lord Forbes, which provides a similar solution. Only institutions operating overseas campuses that meet the criteria set out in the amendments and that are in operation at the time the Act is passed should be included. I beg to move.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I strongly support Amendments 15, 16 and 19, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Gerada, which I have signed, and which she spoke to so convincingly. These Benches also support Amendment 17 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Forbes, and signed by my noble friend Lord Shipley, and Amendment 20 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Howe.
As I said at Second Reading, I am the former chair of the council of Queen Mary University of London and now, for my sins, an honorary professor. Amendments 15, 16 and 19 seek to correct a category error in the Bill: namely, the classification of students holding a UK primary medical qualification from a UK public university as “international”, solely because their classroom is in Malta. I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Forbes, will say the same in respect of Malaysia. The Minister has argued that these students lack “clinical familiarity” with the NHS, but that does not withstand scrutiny. These students follow the exact same curriculum as their peers in London, as the noble Baroness said.
The Bill prioritises EEA nations, because it seems that our trade deal requires us to recognise “comparable” qualifications. It is legally incoherent to accept a “comparable” qualification from Liechtenstein while rejecting an “identical” and “affiliated” qualification from Malta. We are treating a formal UK affiliate worse than a trade partner. These students sit the UK medical licensing assessment and they are taught by UK-trained consultants. As I said at Second Reading, it is a manifest absurdity that, under this Bill, a graduate from Liechtenstein with no UK degree and no UK training is prioritised over a Queen Mary student who holds a UK degree and is specifically prepared for our health service.
I strongly endorse the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Gerada, regarding our free trade agreements. We are in an absurd position whereby a treaty obligation forces us to prioritise these “comparable” qualifications. This is not workforce planning; it is a diplomatic and regulatory own goal. As the noble Baroness explained, Amendment 19 offers a simple solution by adding Malta to the priority list. This honours the mutual recognition agreement held between the UK and Malta since 2009—an agreement the Department of Health explicitly renewed in 2024.
Amendments 15, 16 and 17 offer a broader solution based on the qualification. If a student holds a UK degree from a UK-registered institution and passes identical UK assessments, they should be treated as a UK graduate. The Minister fears displacement of domestic talent, yet the majority of these Maltese trainees are contractually obliged to return to Malta after their training. They are what can be described as a circulatory workforce: one that supports the NHS during their training years, without permanently blocking the consultant pipeline. They are the ideal workforce partner. As stated by the noble Baroness, Lady Gerada, Maltese surgeons have been licensed by our royal colleges since the 1830s. This is not a new or risky pipeline; it is a two-century year-old bond that the Bill carelessly severs.
Furthermore, we support Amendment 20 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Howe, regarding people who qualify in the British Islands but who have trained abroad. We are all on the same page in advocating for these well-qualified students, who should be eligible to have the same priority in obtaining training jobs as those currently set out in the Bill. We have received heartbreaking correspondence from British nationals studying in eastern Europe, often because of the cap on places here, who intend to return to the NHS. One correspondent highlighted that we allow British dentists to return without these barriers. Why do we treat our future doctors differently?
Lord Winston (Lab)
My Lords, it is an honour to support the noble Baroness, Lady Gerada. The best surgical training I had was with a Maltese surgeon, who was absolutely fantastic and taught me lessons I have never forgotten. One has to see that that cross-fertilisation happens across the NHS very often.
Lord Mendelsohn (Lab)
My Lords, I support Amendments 15, 16 and 19, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Gerada, and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. It is my first opportunity to speak in the presence of the noble Baroness, Lady Gerada, in this Chamber. She is one of the more extraordinary and fantastic additions to this House in recent years. She has made a massive contribution to our country in medical expertise. The case that she made for these amendments was utterly compelling. I hope the Minister has felt the same inspiration as I did from her words. I also commend the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, who I realise I have now known for 29 years, for another great speech, which again I think added to the strength of these points.
The amendments address an important omission, which has a couple of concerning issues underlying it. The case for why we should continue with this relationship is compelling. We seek to add Malta to the list of jurisdictions whose primary medical qualifications are recognised for prioritisation. As stated, Malta’s medical education system is not merely comparable to that of the United Kingdom; it is formally and historically integrated, through decades of regulatory alignment, shared training structures and sustained institutional partnerships, including the Queen Mary University of London’s Malta campus.
A substantial proportion of the graduates from this campus are United Kingdom nationals and many others hold UK domicile or indefinite leave to remain status. This is a cohort that can be planned for with confidence and absorbed without difficulty within the normal operation of the system, while making a real and practical contribution to the NHS. As the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said, they provide a valuable workforce capability that does not undermine the consultant pipeline, which is something we have to manage very well. Excluding this cohort of medical students disrupts an established pipeline, separates training from deployment and leaves capacity unused within a system that is under constant pressure. That is not disciplined workforce policy; it is a misalignment between regulation and operational need.
Medical education is one of the United Kingdom’s most significant strategic assets and a central pillar of our global impact in healthcare. It is very important that we maintain alignments and partnerships where they exist. Undermining them does nothing to enhance our reputation as a stable partner for any form of business, let alone the important thing of building relationships in medical research. I hope the Government reflect very carefully on this. A category error has led to a position where, even as recently as 2024, we undertook another solemn commitment—as you do in contracting—which we have now backed away from. That is a terrible place to be in.
The historic connections we have with countries—where we align these things over years and people invest with confidence—must not be undermined, especially when we, essentially, use a free trade agreement as a mechanism to undermine it. This is the wrong way around. This is not strategic planning; it is dodging and weaving between different and vacillating policies. We cannot be subject to this.
I hope the Minister will encourage the Government to reflect very carefully on this. I hope that there will be some positive news about how we can make sure that the countries we have aligned with most closely and have a formal UK affiliation can be brought into this arrangement and that some form of these amendments can be accepted.
Lord Forbes of Newcastle (Lab)
My Lords, I must begin my contribution to this debate with two formalities. First, I declare that I am an honorary member of the court of Newcastle University. In fact, I am a recent recipient of an honorary doctorate from Newcastle University—although I must stress that I in no way compare an honorary doctorate in civil law with the range of national and international medical expertise in the Chamber this afternoon.
I also apologise to the Committee for tabling the probing amendment in my name without speaking at Second Reading. I hope that your Lordships will excuse my inexperience in the procedures of the House and be assured that there was no intended discourtesy to the Committee on my part by this inadvertent breach of procedure. Previous contributions to the debate have demonstrated that I may have got off somewhat lightly in terms of email traffic by not speaking at Second Reading; I have no doubt that there will be more email traffic to come on this subject.
I congratulate the Government on bringing this Bill forward and acknowledge the legitimacy of its core purpose. Prioritising doctors trained in the United Kingdom for foundation and specialty training is a necessary, reasonable and understandable aim, particularly given the sustained workforce pressures in certain parts of the NHS.
I was motivated to table this amendment by a number of representations that I received from concerned students who had been studying at the NUMed campus in Malaysia, which I had the great privilege of visiting shortly after it opened about 10 years ago. Many graduates of the NUMed Malaysia campus have gone on to serve with great distinction in the NHS. As the noble Baroness, Lady Gerada, said, the numbers are very small, but their impact on our National Health Service is very great. That sense of pride in the NUMed campus is felt deeply by Newcastle University, which is how I know and have been contacted about this issue. However, in a number of the representations that I have received, there has been a mistaken interpretation that the intent of the legislation is to exclude rather than prioritise. I wish to comment on these points in the debate on this group.
I was very surprised to see figures demonstrating that, in some specialties, competition ratios for specialty training have now exceeded 20 applicants per post, making the urgency of the Bill ever more apparent. I listened very carefully to the debate and have been greatly reassured by my noble friend the Minister’s assurances, particularly on the prioritisation of UK students rather than the exclusion of overseas students, and the intention of the Bill to smooth out bottlenecks in medical training and focus on homegrown talent as a priority. This does not mean denying the NHS appropriate international talent when it is appropriate to deploy it. I am also very reassured by my noble friend the Minister’s reassurances on the concerns about unintended consequences being addressed by subsequent regulation and review.
The Government have expressed a clear intent to continue to engage with relevant UK universities with international campuses to further explain the intention of the Bill and the way that it will operate in practice, and to support them as they adjust to the Bill’s very legitimate and important requirements as it progresses towards enactment.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, it was with great pleasure that I added my name to the amendment so nobly introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Forbes of Newcastle. I am most appreciative to my noble friend Lady Gerada for the way that she introduced this whole group, because she flagged up very clearly that Malta and Newcastle are different from other places.
I also reassure the noble Lord, Lord Darzi, that my probing amendment was simply to probe. I was worried that the Bill’s wording could inadvertently leave UK-based universities unable to develop other outreach campuses, but not Irish medical schools and universities, and that those graduates could then be included in the future. I wanted to make sure that we had a level playing field, but I accept that the wording is clumsy and does not work.
I think the key word in the amendment that the noble Lord, Lord Forbes of Newcastle, tabled is “extant”, when it says that the
“medical school … is extant on the day on which this Act is passed”.
That would allow those schools currently in place, particularly Malta-Newcastle and, if the Government are so minded, the RCSI in Bahrain, to be able to be included because those degrees are taught to the same curriculum and examined at the same level, and those taking it undertake the medical licensing exam and prescribing exam—which I know is changing, but it will still be important that there is a completely level playing field. It would stop the mushrooming that could occur from other universities.
The word “extant” is really important, and I hope that the Minister will be able to take it on board and that it is completely compatible with the compelling case made by my noble friend Lady Gerada.
Lord Stevens of Birmingham (CB)
My Lords, I speak in support of the thrust of the amendments in this group. I start by acknowledging the concern that I think is animating the Government on this point, which is that they do not want to see a thin end of a wedge that opens up substantially with a lot of newly created international programmes that then end up further displacing UK-trained graduates and undermining the ability to effectively plan the medical workforce of the future.
Fortunately, however, none of these amendments actually constitutes the thin end of the wedge—there is no wedge. As we have just heard, these amendments grandfather the current, very modest arrangements at QMUL Malta and Newcastle University, which are so numerically small, with a couple of hundred students relative to 12,800 for the other training programmes. So those are not the programmes that have caused the problem that the Bill is seeking to address, nor should they therefore be collateral damage as the Bill progresses.
As discussed at Second Reading, particularly in respect of Malta we have a long-standing relationship, and we have a series of diplomatic and other ties of bilateral agreement that the British Government and the Maltese within the last 12 months have renewed, which are of continuing and considerable significance to us, including on defence, security and other aspects. So the Government would be well advised not to throw the baby out with the bathwater and to take seriously the concerns that these amendments represent.
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
I shall speak to the Amendments 15, 16 and 19 to add my support to the amendments on the issue of Malta from the noble Baroness, Lady Gerada, as well as Amendment 17 from the noble Lord, Lord Forbes, and Amendment 20 from the noble Earl, Lord Howe.
Given that we have had a substantial discussion on Malta, particularly from the noble Baroness, Lady Gerada, and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, I shall speak more towards Newcastle, forging the northern alliance that we may have—and more importantly because my mentor, the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, who cannot be here, made a particular point of visiting my office to say, “You are going to be speaking on Newcastle on Thursday, aren’t you?” So here we go.
The amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Forbes, would ensure that graduates from overseas campuses, and United Kingdom medical schools in particular, are treated fairly and consistently. I think that the amendment is precise and proportionate. It applies three conditions: first, that the primary medical qualification is awarded by a United Kingdom medical school—in this case Newcastle, but there will be others; and, secondly, that the qualification is obtained through study at an overseas campus that existed at the point of this Act being passed. The noble Baroness talked about potential creep when we discussed this last week in terms of other institutions being able to take advantage and open that back door. With this very timely amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Forbes, it is very clear that—
Lord Stevens of Birmingham (CB)
Is it the noble Lord’s understanding that there would be the opportunity for creep as is currently set out in the Bill? For example, if Queen Mary University of London wished to establish a medical school in Liechtenstein, which currently lacks one, it would be able to do so with an unlimited number of places. All those new students would then be passported into the NHS.
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
The noble Lord, Lord Stevens, has given people ideas. Possibly, this could happen, yes.
Thirdly, both courses and study for the convocation are approved by the GMC as being equivalent to the UK medical qualification. This is not about lowering standards or creating a new route through the back door. On the contrary, this is about recognising the standards that already exist and are regulated by the GMC. The GMC is determined that these courses are equivalent in content assessment and outcome. It is difficult to justify why we should exclude them, given the numbers that we heard about earlier.
Universities such as Newcastle—and there may be others as well—rely heavily on this partnership. These programmes have not just happened overnight. They have existed for some time. They are run by UK institutions, aligned with UK curricula and assessed identically to UK standards and subjects. Graduates receive UK-awarded degrees, not foreign substitutes. Such programmes contribute to the NHS. Only yesterday, we heard from Newcastle University that they have had up to 150 students on their Malaysian campus. As we heard earlier, some of those students have come back to the United Kingdom and, in particular, have served for many years as GPs when we have had an acute shortage. We need to take heed of that contribution and also the long-standing relationships that exist both with Newcastle and Queen Mary.
We are only asking for a very small change. We are not asking for tens of thousands of students to come here. We are asking for a small number through long-established partnerships that have existed and stood the test of time. We are asking the Minister for some flexibility. This is being heard from all sides of your Lordships’ House. We are about to go on a holiday. I hope that the Minister will take this time to reflect on our debate and come back on Report with government amendments that we can all support. I look forward to the debate that we are going to have in less than a fortnight’s time.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to my Amendments 20 and 21 and in support of the other amendments in this group.
My amendments are intended to work together and to return us to one of the salient themes of our debates at Second Reading, a theme which has been persuasively developed today by the noble Baroness, Lady Gerada, the noble Lord, Lord Forbes, and other speakers. At the heart of their concerns is why the Government have chosen to adopt a definition that threatens to undermine high-quality workforce capacity in the NHS, that jeopardises the sustainability of medical education delivered overseas by UK institutions, and that runs completely counter to the Government’s stated ambitions on promoting British standards of education internationally.
The Bill prioritises graduates based on strict geographic criteria, rather than on the provenance of their qualifications. UK academic institutions such as Queen Mary University of London and Newcastle University have campuses respectively on Malta and in Malaysia which train doctors to GMC-approved standards, using the same curriculum and the same assessments as those employed on their campuses in the UK.
The noble Baroness, Lady Gerada, has eloquently made the case for Maltese-trained students. I can add little to that. The noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones, Lord Mendelsohn, and Lord Forbes have also spoken very powerfully on the same theme. The amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Gerada, speak of the two qualifications—in other words that gained in Malta and that gained in London—as being identical in character. The amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Forbes, uses the word “equivalent”. I would go further by saying that the degree issued by the Queen Mary University of London Malta campus is not merely equivalent to a UK degree: it is a UK degree.
Not only that, but Queen Mary University is able to state that cohorts of its students trained in Malta frequently outperform their contemporaries who have studied and trained on the London campus. The intervention from the noble Lord, Lord Winston, has confirmed that that is not an isolated claim. The same claim could be made of many graduates of Newcastle University’s campus in Malaysia. These are excellent doctors, so there is not an issue of quality here.
Nor should there be an issue around numbers. In total, as we have heard, the number of these overseas-trained graduates is modest in comparison to the overall NHS training intake in a given year. The numbers really ought to be treated as de minimis. We have heard from Ministers that, if they were to flex the rules in the way that I and others are proposing, there would be no way for them in the future to control the total numbers of eligible applicants from these sources. My question is: why? It would seem perfectly possible to grant Ministers a power to cap total numbers at a figure corresponding to recent experience. It would then be up to the relevant universities concerned to collaborate year by year to ensure that the cap was not exceeded. That is what my Amendment 21 is intended to do.
Finally, we return to the issue of legitimate expectations. For all the reasons that I have given, students trained on overseas campuses of UK institutions have never dreamed of questioning whether the status of their qualification would differ in the slightest from the status of the qualification gained by their student colleagues in London. They are, in consequence, not to put too fine a point in it, appalled that, through this Bill, they are suddenly to be regarded as less deserving of a medical career in the NHS. I ask the Minister to think again.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful for this debate, as I have been grateful for the time that noble Lords have given to discussing their concerns about various aspects of the Bill in advance of today. I can say to both the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, that I always reflect on what they and other noble Lords say. Indeed, I reflect on what every noble Lord says—it is true that I may listen to some more than others, but that would be telling. I am genuinely grateful. In my view, it really does assist the passage of legislation and I take it very seriously. I will of course reflect, as I have before, not just on what is said in the Chamber but on what we have discussed outside.
The noble Earl, Lord Howe, said previously that people will be watching and reading this debate, and I absolutely agree and am glad that they do. So I must emphasise the point that this is not about excluding people from their applications; it is about prioritising. The reason we are in this position is the removal of the resident labour market test in 2020, which changed the whole landscape. In 2019, there were 12,000 applicants; now, there are nearly 40,000 applicants, which means four resident doctors for every specialist training post. I believe that noble Lords understand the scale. Internationally trained doctors make a huge contribution and will continue to do so. We are aiming to bring forward those internationally trained doctors who have significant NHS experience for training posts in the future, which I think is absolutely right.
Let me turn to the amendments in this group: Amendments 15 and 16, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Gerada; Amendment 17, tabled by my noble friend Lord Forbes; and Amendments 20 and 21, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Howe. Each of these amendments seeks to ensure that graduates of overseas campuses of UK medical schools are prioritised for foundation and specialty training. I understand why this is being raised, and it is quite right to probe this whole area, in my view. While I appreciate the intention behind these amendments, and the manner in which they have come through, the Government are unable to accept them.
Lord Stevens of Birmingham (CB)
I want to come in on the point about whether or not the UK Government would lack the ability to control the expansion of international places in the grandfathered campuses. Is it not the case that, in fact, the UK Government do have such a tool at their disposal, through the Office for Students? The OfS has to agree the number of undergraduate medical places that a university can operate here in the UK and can cap those, and could therefore introduce an off-setting mechanism so that any additional place created outside the UK would see a reduction in the UK authorisation. That would be incentive enough, I suspect, to ensure that universities did not behave in the way that the Minister is concerned about.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
The noble Lord kindly raised this with me before, and I did test it out. I am grateful that he has given thought to this, because it is an important point. However, I am advised that, unfortunately, the solution that he has come up with would not deal with all the concerns we have and would still give us difficulty. The noble Lord talked about the thin end of the wedge, and I fear that we are still in the same place. I am happy to write to the noble Lord, and to make that letter available, to explain further detail. I am grateful that he has given consideration to a solution for what is undoubtedly an issue.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
I understand the comments that the Minister has made to my noble friend Lord Stevens. Would she consider wording in the primary legislation that expands on the fact that the campus must be extant and includes that the number of students studying medicine for the UK degree must be the same as when the Bill passes? That would provide rigid guidelines in primary legislation and would not rely on another body, where a quota could possibly be negotiated.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
Again, I understand that the noble Baroness is coming forward with a solution and I appreciate her thoughts. I always reflect on what is said, but my initial reflection is that that does not deal with the fact that we already have a number of people. I asked this very question about continuing to prioritise them. It is significant even currently and that is part of the problem, although I understand what she is suggesting.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I will take one more intervention, but it might be helpful to hear all that I have to say.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
I am sure that it will, but I just wanted to follow up the Minister’s pledge to deliver a letter to us in which she will set out precisely what her concerns are. Will the timing of that letter be early next week so that there is time to table amendments for Report to meet some of those concerns?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
As I always do, I will seek to engage in sufficient time before Report. I will not promise the beginning of next week, but we all know the deadlines that noble Lords are working to and I am very respectful of that.
Amendment 17 could create the loophole I have referred to and risks existing international overseas campuses expanding their intakes further. I am grateful that noble Lords acknowledge the concern and are considering how to deal with it. That would be outside any UK workforce planning.
Amendment 21 would provide a regulation-making power to limit the number of applicants who could be prioritised from these overseas campuses. Going back to my earlier comments, it is not clear how such a requirement would be implemented effectively and fairly in practice but, in any event, it would not provide an appropriate safeguard for UK workforce planning.
The Bill rightly prioritises those whose education and placements the UK taxpayer has supported, who are most likely to work in the NHS in the long term—I emphasise this point—and are better equipped to deliver healthcare tailored to the UK’s population because they understand the UK’s epidemiology. However, I hope my noble friend Lord Forbes and the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, will take back to the university that graduates from international overseas campuses are not excluded and will continue to be able to apply to the foundation programme and specialty training.
Amendment 18 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, relates to the prioritisation of medical graduates from institutions in Ireland. The Government cannot accept this amendment, and I thought her own assessment of it was most honest and helpful. Throughout the development of this Bill, we have been clear that graduates from the Republic of Ireland are prioritised on the same basis as UK medical graduates. This reflects the long-standing and unique relationship between our countries, including the arrangements under the common travel area, which supports reciprocal rights of movement and employment. It also ensures coherence in workforce planning across both jurisdictions, where medical education and training pathways have been closely aligned for many years.
Introducing different criteria for graduates from the Republic of Ireland, as this amendment proposes, would risk disrupting those shared arrangements. It could also create an uncertainty in the provision of postgraduate training in Ireland.
Amendment 19, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Gerada, seeks to add Malta to the list of prioritised countries set out in Clause 4. This would require that those who hold a primary medical qualification from any institution in Malta, irrespective of their nationality, are prioritised for foundation and specialty training. I address this particularly to my noble friend Lord Mendelsohn, to whom I listened closely, as I did to the noble Baroness, but we cannot accept this amendment.
I refer particularly to the European Free Trade Association countries, as they have been mentioned a number of times, including by my noble friend Lord Mendelsohn, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and others. Those countries listed in Clause 4 are those with which the UK has signed agreements that include offering parity of access to the workforce. I have looked back at when those agreements were made: for the EFTA countries of Iceland, Norway and Liechtenstein, the agreement was made in July 2021, and Switzerland was in 2019. I make these points because they certainly precede this Government. In practice, as I have said before, not all these countries will have eligible applicants in any case.
The 1975 UK-Malta reciprocal healthcare convention will continue and is not affected by the Bill. I emphasise that that agreement is wholly related to reciprocal access to healthcare, not access to training or employment related to medical training. I hope it is helpful to say that the Bill includes a power to amend the list of countries in Clause 4 to reflect any future international agreements that the UK may enter into. As I have also stated previously, the Government set UK medical school places based on future health system needs. I emphasise that there is no disrespect intended here and we very much value the long-standing partnership with Malta on healthcare, and that will continue to be valued. However, prioritising international graduates would undermine our ability to keep foundation training numbers aligned with the NHS workforce that we are planning for and manage those bottlenecks in specialty training, about which there is concern across the Committee. This is about focusing on patient care and ensuring that those whose education and experience best prepares them to practice safely and effectively in the NHS are the ones who are prioritised.
For specialty training, prioritising these individuals would not support our aim to prioritise doctors with significant NHS experience who understand how the health service works and how to meet the needs of the UK population. I reassure the Committee that this Bill will not affect existing fellowship arrangements with Malta, and the affiliation of the UK foundation programme and Malta foundation programme, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Gerada, referred, will still stand. Senior officials in my department have met with the high commissioner of Malta to the United Kingdom to assure him of this and last week I received a positive letter of acknowledgement from the Health Minister in Malta.
To be absolutely clear, individuals with a primary medical qualification from Malta will still be able to apply for foundation and specialty training places, and they will be considered for any places that are left after prioritisation. But it would still be the case that it would be at odds with the aim of the Bill for them to be prioritised for these places. For the reasons I have set out, I hope the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Lord Winston (Lab)
The NHS is a complex organisation which is going to be rapidly changing, with increasing issues regarding its employees and all sorts of new technologies that will develop in a way we have never seen before. In view of that, does the Minister think there might be some reason for the Government to consider looking at this situation in, say, five years’ time to see the effect of the Bill on the health service?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My noble friend is right about the pace of change, and many of the changes we cannot even imagine as we discuss this today. We keep the impact of legislation under review, and the Bill will be no different to any other Bill in that regard.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
I do not want to put the Minister too much on the spot now, so could she clarify in her letter whether Clause 4(3)(b) means that the Bahrain campus is within the allocation for prioritised places, whether any other Irish campuses are, and how the limit would be held on other campuses developed from Ireland, given that the response we have had seems to exclude Malta and Newcastle?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I am happy to set it out in a letter, but I can say immediately that graduates of the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland’s Bahrain campus are not necessarily prioritised just because part of their programme takes place in Ireland. The Bill is clear that prioritisation applies to graduates of Irish medical schools who complete the majority of their medical education in Ireland, but I am happy to add to that in my letter.
Baroness Gerada (CB)
I am grateful to the Minister for the care with which she has addressed my amendments. I will be very brief. I must say I am disappointed, and I have a few points.
I will address Malta first. These are not international medical graduates; these are UK-trained doctors training in a UK university, albeit overseas. As I said, they are trained for the NHS. The Minister mentioned several times that it is not exclusion, it is prioritisation. I have already had emails from two doctors, one of whom is being excluded from applying for a postgraduate examination until the UK cohort has applied. I will not say their specialty, because it might identify them, but it means that the tiny island of Malta will not have this particular specialty because this doctor cannot finish his training until he does that. They are already being excluded from fellowship posts that have been long standing over decades—that is of last week.
Given the fact that the Bill is being taken through the House at such pace, as well as writing a letter—which I understand we will get in our post next week—would the Minister be willing to meet me and several Peers who have already raised some amendments so that we can explore this in more detail and work constructively towards a solution? I am sure these issues will be considered further on Report but, in the light of the Minister’s reply today, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Kamall
“Review: provision of medical training places(1) Within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must undertake a review of the impact of this Act on the provision of medical training places as part of the UK Foundation Programme and UK specialty training programmes as defined by section 5 of this Act.(2) The review under subsection (1) must include assessment of the impact of this Act on—(a) the take-up of places on the UK Foundation Programme and UK specialty training programmes in each calendar year from 2010 to 2025, and(b) the total number of valid applications to the UK Foundation Programme and UK specialty training programmes in each calendar year from 2010 to 2025.(3) In undertaking the review under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must consider the number of unsuccessful applicants or successful applicants who decide not to take up their training place.(4) Within two months of the completion of the review under subsection 1, the Secretary of State must publish a report including the findings of the review and lay a copy of the report before both Houses of Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to undertake a review of the adequacy of provision of medical training places and publish a report detailing the findings of that review.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, in speaking for the first time in Committee, I refer to my interests as a professor of politics and international relations at St Mary’s University, Twickenham, where I teach an MBA module on healthcare policy and strategy, and where I also co-operate with the school of medicine, which will start accepting students later this year. I also work as an honorary fellow at the Vinson Centre for the Public Understanding of Economics and Entrepreneurship at the University of Buckingham, which also has a medical school but with which I have no direct connection.
I tabled Amendment 22 to facilitate a wider debate on the level of provision of medical training places and its impact on the outcomes for doctors and, by extension, patients, as well as the need for regular review. We all agree that the NHS and other health providers need highly qualified staff if they are to deliver the quality care that people expect of them, but that means that policymakers should seek to establish an education system that encourages young people to see the benefits of medicine as a career path, supports those going through medical training every step of the way and removes barriers to those who want to be doctors. As my noble friend Lord Howe said earlier, currently, too many young doctors reach the point at which they need to secure a medical specialty training place but find themselves disappointed, either because they are unable to access a training place or because the training place they are able to secure does not meet their needs.
A 2023 study by Tomas Ferreira on the career intentions of medical students found that many medical students finishing their foundation programme do not intend to take up medical specialty training places. The report says
“we report an increase in intention to not take up specialty posts immediately after the Foundation Programme, with an increase from 6.75% … of first-year students to 35.98% … of final year students. A contributing factor to this scenario could be a significant increase in competition ratios for specialty training posts, partly due to increasing medical student places and no corresponding increase in the number of training posts available”.
The lack of specialty training places to retain those medical students within the NHS is a challenge that the Government and we all face—something, I concede, we realised perhaps too late when we were in government. If the issue is not tackled, we will continue to see talented young doctors who might otherwise prefer to stay in the UK and work within the NHS, and maybe other health providers, leaving the UK to complete their training elsewhere.
The Government have announced their offer to the BMA to expand specialty training posts by 4,000, with 1,000 of them brought forward this year. That expansion in training places is welcome and necessary. I ask the Minister to confirm whether there will be any delay in their delivery and whether they will be delivered this year.
In May last year, I tabled a series of Written Questions on resident doctor medical training places, and the responses showed that very small numbers of training places are available in some regions. For example, in 2024, just one medical oncology specialist training stage 3 post was offered in the whole of the north-east region. The figure for the Wessex region was two places. For the earlier specialist training stage 1 posts in gynaecology, the Wessex region had just 11 places in 2024, while the whole of the south-west region had just 16 of those places. Can the Minister say whether those numbers are meeting the needs of those regions and whether there is a gap? What are the key factors that restrict the number of training places that can be offered in those regions?
The overall number of training places is probably the most important challenge young doctors face, but there are other considerations that affect talent retention. The geographical distribution of training places is also something that we all know needs attention. Last month, the Government announced that they will introduce new training places targeted at trusts with the biggest workforce gaps, prioritising rural and coastal areas, where patients currently struggle the most. We welcome that. That is good news. But, in designing this policy, I ask the Minister what assessment the Government have made of the number of medical students who actually want to train in these rural areas and whether that is a factor in some UK medical graduates choosing to go abroad or is irrelevant.
In response to concerns from the BMA about the challenge of doctors having to cover the upfront cost of their training, the Government have offered cost-related measures in their offer to the BMA, including reimbursement of exam fees. I ask the Minister for a little transparency and to give the Committee more detail on how reimbursement would work if the BMA were to accept that offer.
I hope that the Minister is able to answer these questions, either today or later in writing. I assure her that we look forward to working constructively with the Government as they face up to these workforce challenges. I beg to move.
Lord Stevens of Birmingham (CB)
My Lords, to help the Committee to assess the need for this further report that the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, just set out, it would be helpful if we could hear from the Minister when the Government will produce their replacement long-term workforce plan for the 2023 edition, which itself was deemed to be long term but ended up having a half-life of less than two years. How imminent is that and will it deal with the sorts of points that the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, rightly brings to our attention? When will we see the follow-on to the excellent Medical Training Review: Phase 1 Diagnostic Report, authored by the Chief Medical Officer and the previous National Medical Director of NHS England, published in October, which sets out these issues extremely well? The clue is in the title: it is the diagnosis. But when do we get the prescription? When does the treatment begin?
In a sense, the problem that we are dealing with through the Bill—again, as the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, just set out for us—owes its antecedents to the disconnect between the provision of NHS services and the ability to make smart, long-term workforce decisions. Unfortunately, for the period 2012 to 2022, those decisions on medical training were outwith the NHS and in effect were being controlled by the Treasury, which was constantly saying no to Health Ministers who were at the time trying to bring forward constructive solutions. Indeed, it was only when a former Secretary of State for Health became Chancellor that the situation was unblocked and we got the medical school expansion. Perhaps that is an inspiring example for the current Health Secretary—I do not know; perhaps he aspires higher. The fact is that we need that whole-government engagement on these kinds of questions to bring coherence and deal with these problems at root. Therefore, in responding to the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, any light that the Minister can shed on when precisely we will have line of sight to these sorts of questions would be, I think, of great benefit to the Committee.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I support Amendment 22, standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kamall. He absolutely made the case but, having heard what the Minister had to say on the previous group, I have a terrible certainty about what her response will be.
I assure the Minister that many of us want to find solutions, in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, mentions. The principles of the Bill are supported across the Committee; it is some of the detail that is in contention. We must be honest that the Bill deals with the symptom—competition ratios—not the cure, which is the bottleneck of insufficient specialty training places. I go back to the phrase that the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, used at Second Reading. We are simply reshuffling the queue.
This amendment places a necessary duty on the Secretary of State to review the adequacy of training places. We have received warnings from doctors in shortage specialties such as psychiatry and general practice, who fear that the Bill will drive away the international talent that we rely on. We need to know whether this legislation will succeed in retaining UK graduates or whether it will inadvertently exacerbate shortages by signalling to the global medical community that the NHS is closed for business. We cannot manage what we do not measure.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the debate that we have just had and I appreciate the support for what we are seeking to do, particularly from both Front Benches, as in the other place. I am most grateful for that.
The amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, seeks to require the Secretary of State to review the impact of this Act within six months of Royal Assent and to require that that review is published and laid in Parliament. I understand the intent behind this amendment, but we do not feel that there is a need to accept it because the Government have already set out their impact-monitoring and evaluation plans within the published impact statement on 14 January.
The noble Lord’s amendment also specifies requirements that are not compatible with how recruitment cycles operate. He will understand that I want to report to your Lordships’ House only on the basis of proper information, as he would expect. However, data as specified in the amendment would not be available to allow us to meet those requirements or to allow sufficient time and flexibility for the investigation of impacts. However, I give the assurance that, should the Bill be passed, the Government will ensure that appropriate data is collected and investigated to facilitate the already proposed impact evaluation. I hope that this will be helpful.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who spoke on this amendment. I recognise the answer that the Minister gave about the impact report that the Government have announced. I will reflect carefully on whether what I intended with this amendment aligns with that impact report. If this is just a problem of synchronisation of when data is available with the report then, if the impact report that the Minister mentions does not provide information, perhaps we could find an amendment. We could look at syncing that data to make sure that it is a meaningful report that meets both our needs. Obviously, I will need to do a careful review, but at this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley
“(1) Regulations under this Act are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.”
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
My Lords, I know that it is late, but it is important that I move this amendment, which seeks for all regulations that are made under the Bill are subject to affirmative resolution procedures. In simple terms, after the Bill is passed, we would have a vote in both Houses on any changes made to allocation of spaces. This amendment goes to the heart of parliamentary accountability.
The Bill as currently drafted grants Ministers broad regulation-making powers, including the ability to amend key operational aspects of medical training with limited parliamentary oversight. My concerns are not with the intentions of the current Minister or the present Government but with the precedent that this sets. Delegated powers once granted outlive individual Ministers or Governments.
Medical training is an area where stability and predictability are essential. Doctors and medical students plan years in advance—sometimes decades. They make decisions about education, location, finances and family life based on the rules that Parliament sets. If those rules can be altered by secondary legislation without a positive vote in both Houses, we risk creating uncertainty and undermining confidence in the system.
The affirmative resolution procedure would provide a necessary safeguard. It ensures transparency, debate and accountability. It allows Parliament to examine whether proposed changes are proportionate, evidence-based and aligned with the original intent of an Act. Importantly, in this case, it would give affected shareholders—medical students, trainees, regulators and the NHS workforce—the assurance that changes will not be made without democratic consent and accountability.
This House has repeatedly expressed concerns about the expansion of executive powers through delegated legislation, particularly in areas with significant policy impacts. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has, on numerous occasions, warned against the inappropriate use of negative or minimal scrutiny procedures where primary legislation confers wider discretion. My amendment responds directly to those concerns.
There is also a practical benefit. Requiring affirmative approvals encourages better policy-making. Ministers can explain, justify and defend their proposals in open debate. That process often improves the quality of regulations, identifies unintended consequences and builds broader support for necessary reforms.
This amendment would not prevent future Governments adapting the medical training system. It would simply ensure that, when they do so, they do so with Parliament, not without it and not by going around it. It would preserve flexibility while embedding accountability. At a time when trust in politics and political institutions is fragile, Parliament must demonstrate that significant changes to professional regulations are made openly and responsibly. Requiring a positive resolution in both Houses is a modest but important step in that direction. I therefore commend this amendment to your Lordships’ House.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, for his amendment and his very helpful introduction. From these Benches, we have consistently raised our concerns about the downsides of emergency legislation. The Constitution Committee chairman, my noble friend Lord Strathclyde, wrote in his letter to the Minister that the Constitution Committee has
“repeatedly raised concerns about the fast-tracking of legislation, highlighting in particular the need to ensure that effective parliamentary scrutiny is maintained”.
We are all of us, I hope, doing our utmost in the short time available to scrutinise the Bill fully, but, with such a short period of time available, we cannot discount the possibility that this legislation will have unintended consequences. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, posited one particular example in his speech during the last debate.
It is true that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has not brought anything in the Bill to the attention of the House. However, in the light of the fact that the Bill has been fast-tracked through Parliament, there is, I believe, a case for making all regulations under this Act subject to the affirmative procedure, allowing for additional future scrutiny. Like the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, I look forward to hearing the Minister’s reply.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful not just for this brief debate but for the efforts of noble Lords to expedite this legislation. I acknowledge the short timeframe—it is not as short as in the other place but, nevertheless, noble Lords have been most co-operative, and I value that.
Amendment 23, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, seeks to require that all regulations made under the Act are subject to the affirmative procedure. This is an amendment we are not able to accept. To reiterate our intention, the Bill sets out the groups of people who are to be prioritised for specialty training from 2027 onwards. I reassure the noble Lord that the delegated power is limited to adding to this list by reference to significant experience working as a doctor in the health service or immigration status.
Similarly, we have set out in the Bill specialty training programmes excluded from the prioritisation scheme. The delegated power is limited to amend this list, and it gives necessary operational flexibility to respond to future changes in recruitment, training and workforce needs—something that I know noble Lords are very attuned to the need for.
I am sympathetic to the desire for parliamentary scrutiny and I always try to ensure that it is provided but, because of the limited scope of these powers, we believe that the negative procedure is appropriate. As the noble Earl, Lord Howe, just referred to, the Bill has been assessed by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, and no suggestion has been made that the negative procedure was inappropriate for this regulation.
I have spoken in a previous group to why we are dealing with emergency legislation. I hear what is said about the downsides, but we have to balance that with the scale of the problem and the urgency that it demands. That is why we decided to introduce emergency legislation.
The noble Earl spoke about the Constitutional Committee letter. We will be responding formally to the committee to address its concern. With that, I hope the noble Lord feels able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
I thank the Minister for that timely response. I particularly welcome the support of the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for the principle that I was trying to establish. However, on this occasion, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Kamall
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment brings the Act into force one month after it is passed.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend Lady Coffey, who is not in her place, I hope it is acceptable if I move Amendment 26 and speak to Amendment 27. Both amendments seek to bring forward the commencement of the Bill rather than leaving its provisions to be implemented by regulations.
The Government say they need the Bill to pass as soon as possible but then refuse to commit to a date for commencement. Given that there is no date for implementation, noble Lords will rightly ask: what is the hurry with this Bill? There is a fundamental constitutional point here. Emergency legislation should be avoided as far as possible and, where it is necessary, it should be delivered urgently. In this case, we have been asked to fast-track the Bill without there being any apparent urgency to implement it.
The Minister sought to partly address this concern at Second Reading. Could she please explain exactly why the training allocation system will be unable to cope with the changed prioritisation arrangements introduced by the Bill if the BMA continues with its strike action during the coming months? What factors would frustrate the rollout? Would it be systems? Would it be the availability of officials? Would it be the ability of trusts and institutions to engage with the Department of Health and Social Care in a timely way? Or are there other reasons that noble Lords should be aware of? I hope this gives the Minister the opportunity to explain some of those reasons.
While we agree with the principle of giving UK graduates priority, and many noble Lords across the Committee have said this, we should take the time to have a proper debate on whether any other students should also be prioritised and in what order. We should have a debate to consider and debate questions such as: while qualifications may be similar, whether graduates from overseas branches of UK universities really do have similar experience to those who studied in the UK and worked in the NHS, or whether the country in which they studied has a patient profile similar to the UK, and whether in fact any of these distinctions are actually important. Another possible question that we should be looking at is whether historical prioritisation is still valid for today’s world, and whether it is worth while or too much effort to revisit some international agreements.
Instead of this much more considered debate, the Government tell us that they need to get the Bill on the statute book as soon as possible, but they are not forthcoming—perhaps not transparent—when it comes to implementation. Given this lack of clarity, I must say that there is a suspicion that the timing of the Bill and the Government’s rush to get it on to the statute book may appear to be not entirely unconnected with negotiations with the BMA resident doctors.
Whatever our politics and whichever Bench we sit on, legislation should be about making the lives of British people better. Although this Bill has the potential to help British citizens who are graduates of UK medical schools, the lack of transparency on implementation gives the impression that this legislation is more about giving the Secretary of State a negotiating chip in discussions with the BMA. I gently suggest that this is not a good enough reason for rushing such legislation, which is why my noble friend and I tabled these amendments. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 26 and 27 on commencement, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Kamall. I confess that we are conflicted on these. This brings us back to the tension at the heart of the Bill. We have UK graduates urging immediate implementation to resolve their uncertainty; conversely, we have international medical graduates asking for delay or transition because the rules are changing mid-cycle. If the Government eventually accept the amendments in group 2, providing a fair transitional arrangement for those with NHS experience, then immediate commencement becomes less punitive. However, if they persist with the blunt ILR proxy for 2026 then rushing to commencement simply accelerates an injustice.
I urge the Minister to clarify when precisely the regulations for the 2026 cycle will be laid if this Bill passes and whether they will include the transitional protections we have argued for. I am somewhat pessimistic on that. Certainty is needed, but it must not come at the expense of fairness.
In that context, as we are at the end of Committee, I must ask the Minister to confirm that she is going to meet the cross-party group of those of us who have spoken at Second Reading and in Committee before Report takes place. I have kept my diary free for the Monday before Report and I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Gerada, mentioned that earlier. We would all welcome a face-to-face meeting with the Minister. She talked about us being co-operative, and we all realise the Government’s desire for speed, particularly in the context of the industrial dispute, but, quite frankly, it takes two to tango.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I am grateful for the noble Lord’s advice in his last comment.
I thank noble Lords for their contributions. The noble Lord, Lord Kamall, spoke about what I am going to call the tension between emergency legislation and the commencement clause. I will start on that point. I hope he is aware that our intent is, of course, to commence the Bill as soon as we possibly can, subject to its passage through Parliament. That is why I am so grateful to noble Lords and to Parliament more broadly—both Houses—that they have agreed to expedite the progress of this Bill.
I will come back on to this later in a bit more detail but, as I have already stated, there is a genuine question about operational feasibility, if strikes are ongoing, due to the strain that they put on the system. I am sure everybody in your Lordships’ Chamber would understand that. I will now refer to the amendments, and I have some other points to answer some of the questions that were raised.
Amendment 26, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, and spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, and Amendment 23, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, and spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, relate to the date upon which the Act comes into force. Both would remove the provision that allows the Secretary of State to appoint the commencement date.
We cannot accept these amendments, as they remove an important element—and I emphasise this point—of operational flexibility, should it be needed. The commencement provision within the Bill is not a mechanism for delay. It is, we believe, a necessary safeguard to ensure that systems planning and operational capacity are in place before the Act is brought into force. Noble Lords will also appreciate that it is a material question, as referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, about how possible it is to proceed if industrial action continues, given the strain that strikes put on the system.
It is our intention to commence the Bill as soon as we are able, but it is essential that the Secretary of State is able to take all the circumstances, including operational readiness, into account when deciding when the Act should come into force. I think that it is honest to say this. Amendment 26 also seeks to require the Act to come into force one month after it is passed. Specialty training offers must be made from March. Delaying commencement by even one month would leave insufficient time to implement prioritisation for this year’s application round. In short, fixing a commencement date one month after Royal Assent, as Amendment 26 suggests, would create a situation where the Bill comes into force too late to tackle the bottleneck problem that we seek to resolve—the one that it is designed to remedy for the 2026 year—while also removing our ability to commence the Act only when systems are ready to deliver it effectively.
On the comments about industrial action made by the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, I reconfirm that the Government have been in intensive and constructive discussions with the BMA resident doctors committee since the start of the new year. The aim is to try to bring an end to the damaging cycle of strikes, and to avoid what is undoubtedly further, unnecessary disruption for patients and NHS staff. We continue to hope that those talks result in an agreement that works for everyone, so that there will be no more strike action by resident doctors in 2026.
With regard to the noble Lord’s request for more detail on operational readiness, I know he understands that introducing reforms to such a large-scale recruitment process is a big undertaking. We do not want the risk of creating errors that could lead to further uncertainty for organisations, for educators and, most importantly, for our trainees. An effective commencement demands clear processes for delivery across the health system. The reality is that industrial action will put this at risk because it is a diversion of resources, as it always is.
The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, asked about further engagement. I have already had engagement with a number of noble Lords, including both Front Benches. If it is possible to do so before Report, I will write again. Time is extremely short, so while I am always glad to do so, if the noble Lord will allow me to look at that in a practical sense, I will be pleased to. With that, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Kamall (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for that considered response to the discussions. I thank all noble Lords who have spoken, not only to this group of amendments, but today. I also thank the staff for being here to look after us while we stay to this hour.
I should perhaps clarify for the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, that when I laid the amendment it was with the amendment from my noble friend Lord Howe in mind. If we can address some of the perceived injustices or unfairness in the system, we should implement as soon as possible. I was not seeking to create a tension there.
I am grateful to the Minister for explaining that there are operational issues. I think that it would help the Government, and help this Bill to go forward, if the Minister were able to explain in a letter to noble Lords some of those operational issues, because sometimes it may be that we think that it is quite easy. I know, having been in government, that there are a number of issues. I can see that the Minister is looking forward to spending her Recess formulating that letter with her officials. The noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, talked earlier about a holiday, but I do not think that Ministers ever get a holiday. I am giving the Minister a challenge during the Recess to explain some of the operational challenges that lead to the Government not being able to accept this amendment to implement the Bill as soon as possible.
With that, I thank the Minister for her response. I thank all noble Lords who have spoken today and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.