Medical Training (Prioritisation) Bill

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Tuesday 27th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Wes Streeting]

Students studying in Malta will not be prioritised in the Bill, but they will still be able to make applications. Queen Mary University’s Malta website is clear that Queen Mary does not administer the UK foundation programme and cannot control whether or on what basis applicants are accepted into the programme, and no one is guaranteed a post on qualification.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Wes Streeting]

I will make some progress because, with respect, I have not yet set out the measures that we are to debate today. Let me take the intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin, then I will set out the Government’s rationale and take further interventions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Murrison]

The Bill is basically a good one, and we all share the intent to encourage home-grown talent to remain in our national health service, so could the Health Secretary explain why he appears to have set his face against British students who for various reasons train at, for example, St George’s in Cyprus or St George’s in Grenada and who then want to come back and practise in our national health service? They want to come back and practise at home. Amendment 9 would deal with that conundrum. Why will he not support it?

[Wes Streeting]

We set UK medical school places based on future health system needs. We cannot control how many places the overseas campus universities create, whether they are UK-based universities or not. Prioritising those graduates in the way that the right hon. Gentleman suggests would undermine sustainable workforce planning. It would also undermine social mobility and fair access. Those campuses are commercial ventures; they receive no public funding and students are generally self-funded. The nature of prioritisation is that we set priorities, and these are the priorities that this Government are setting out. We must break our over-reliance on international recruitment.

As I have said, I am proud of the fact that the NHS is an international employer, and it is no coincidence that the Empire Windrush landed on these shores in 1948, the very year our NHS was founded. We are lucky that we have people from around the world who come and work in our health and care service. Since Brexit, however, under the last Government, we have begun to see something much more corrosive, with the NHS poaching staff from countries on the World Health Organisation’s red list because their own shortages of medical practitioners are so severe. The continued plundering of doctors from countries that desperately need them while we have an army of talented and willing recruits who cannot get jobs is morally unacceptable. If some Opposition Members want to defend that record and dismiss the morality argument, I would point out that that position is naive on economic grounds. Competition for medical staff has never been fiercer. The World Health Organisation estimates a shortfall of 11 million health workers by 2030. Shoring up our own workforce will limit our exposure to such global pressures without depriving other countries of their own home-grown talent.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wes Streeting]

It is important that the Bill is workable. A number of factors may well interrupt our ability to move at the pace at which I want to open up those places. One of those factors is the ongoing risk of industrial action. We know that the BMA is balloting for further industrial action at the moment. We respect the process that it is undertaking, and we are not closing the door to discussions while it does so. However, we are clear that that is a further disruption risk. I hope that we will be in a position to open up a new application round very shortly for current applicants, but that will depend on our ability to expedite the passage of the Bill through both Houses, and to ensure that the system is ready to implement it. That is why bringing forward the Bill on this timescale has been particularly important.

[Dr Murrison]

I am grateful to the Health Secretary; he is being generous with his time. Is he saying that he intends to use this as some sort of lever or bargaining chip in his discussion with the BMA?

[Wes Streeting]

I am clear that this is about whether the system will be ready to implement the measures in the Bill. I must say that I view the Conservatives’ amendment on this issue with a degree of cynicism. Not so long ago, they were accusing me of being too kind to resident doctors when it came to making changes to pay or conditions without something in return. They seem to have completely changed their position. I am sure that that is not remotely cynical and is for entirely noble reasons, but I will wait for the shadow Health Secretary, the right hon. Member for Daventry (Stuart Andrew), to make his case. Let’s just say that I am not entirely convinced.

The Bill implements the commitment in our 10-year plan for health to put home-grown talent at the front of the queue for medical training posts. Starting this year, it prioritises graduates from UK medical schools and other priority groups over applicants from overseas during the current application round and in all subsequent years. For the UK foundation programme, the Bill requires that places are allocated to UK medical graduates and those in a priority group before they are allocated to other eligible applicants.

For specialty training, the Bill effectively reduces the competition for places from around four to one, where it is today, to less than two to one. That is a really important point for resident doctors to hear, not least because in the debate we had on the Government’s previous offer to the BMA, that point was lost amid some of the broader and, frankly, more contested arguments between the Government and the BMA around pay. It is not just the provision of additional training posts that reduces the competition ratio; it is also the measures in this Bill. I hope that that message is heard clearly by resident doctors as they think about their own futures immediately or in the coming years. For posts starting this year, there must be prioritisation at the offer stage, and for training posts starting from 2027, prioritisation will apply at both the shortlisting and offer stages.

In the 10-year plan, we committed to prioritising international applicants with significant NHS experience for specialty places in recognition of the contribution they have made to our nation’s health. This year, we will use immigration status as a proxy for determining those who are eligible, so that we can introduce prioritisation as soon as possible. From next year, under the terms of the Bill, we will set out in regulations how we are defining significant NHS experience.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stuart Andrew]

No, I am most definitely not defecting.

In the spirit of being constructive, I will start by saying that the Opposition support the principle behind the Bill. Doctors trained in Britain and funded by the taxpayer should have a fair, clear and consistent route to progress in our NHS. Britain trains some of the best doctors in the world, yet too many are leaving—not because they want to, but because they cannot access the training places they need. That wastes talent, damages morale, and ultimately affects patient care. However, support in principle is not a blank cheque; the Bill must work in practice, not just look good in a headline. We should also be honest about why we are here. Much of what is in the Bill has been promised by the Government since their election in plans, reviews and ministerial statements, and the fact that it is only being brought forward now suggests that this is catching up, not leading.

The first test is delivery. We cannot solve a shortage by changing the queue. Unless the Government deliver the 4,000 new specialist training places that they have promised, including the 1,000 places that are needed early, the Bill will not fix the bottlenecks; it will simply shift frustration from one group of doctors to another. That is why we are proposing constructive amendments to the Bill that we believe are workable and fair.

The next test is clarity. The real impact of this Bill will be determined by the rules that sit beneath it—who qualifies, how experience is assessed, and how decisions can be challenged. We welcome the focus on foundation training; prioritising UK and Irish graduates for foundation training is sensible, as it strengthens the pipeline and improves workforce planning. However, it will only work if there are enough placements and the system is transparent. That is why amendment 8 would clarify that a UK foundation programme must mean a programme in which the majority of training takes place in the United Kingdom. That is a necessary safeguard against loopholes.

Amendment 9 would ensure that from 2027, British citizens on UK foundation programmes are prioritised in a meaningful way. Prioritisation must apply not only at the final offer stage, but at interview, which is where selection decisions are often made. The amendment addresses many of the points that Labour Members have been raising, so I encourage them to support amendment 9 when we divide on it.

We are also concerned about doctors serving overseas with the armed forces. I was pleased to hear the Secretary of State talk about them, since they certainly should not be penalised because part of their training takes place abroad on service. As such, amendment 10 would expand the definition of a UK medical graduate to include those undertaking placements as part of an armed forces posting outside of the British Isles. I hope the Secretary of State will consider accepting that amendment to give reassurance to our armed forces, which I know is something he cares about. These are practical changes that would improve fairness and operability, and we hope the Government will adopt them.

We also support new clause 2, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer), which would make clear that once priority groups are established, training places should be allocated on merit. That allocation should be based on academic achievement and clinical performance, rather than a lottery or a computer-generated ranking divorced from real performance. Again, I hope the Government will seriously consider the new clause. When the Minister for Secondary Care sums up, will she put on record that merit will remain central to selection?

Another issue that cannot be ignored is the impact on medical schools, especially those that rely on international students. New clause 3 would require an annual report to Parliament on the number of international students at UK medical schools and the financial consequences flowing from the Bill’s provisions. International students pay higher fees and help sustain our universities. If those numbers fall, what funding model would replace them? When she sums up, will the Minister for Secondary Care outline what assessment has been made of the impact on medical school finances? How many international places do the Government expect to fund in future, and on what basis?

The Bill cannot stand in isolation. Workforce planning depends on more than allocating training posts; it requires enough trainers and clinical supervisors, viable rotas that support learning and facilities that make training possible. The revised NHS workforce plan must set out how those needs will be met, and how the extra training places will be staffed and supported. With NHS England set to be abolished in April 2027, we need to hear from the Government who will lead workforce planning and accountability thereafter.

Our approach is straightforward. We will support measures that are fair and practical, that strengthen patient care and that respect staff. We will press the Government where we feel that proposals are rushed, underfunded or left vague. Backing doctors means giving them a route to progress and ensuring that the system is properly planned and properly resourced. I repeat that, in principle, we support the Bill. We want doctors trained in Britain to build their careers in the national health service.

That brings me to enactment. As we have heard, the Government propose that the Bill should take effect when the Secretary of State decides, rather than on the date of Royal Assent. When he said that he wanted to introduce this Bill, and that it would be urgent, I said that we encourage that and support it. However, if this Bill is truly urgent, and if Ministers want it to affect this recruitment round, why would they not commence it immediately? The Secretary of State should not be playing politics with people’s jobs. It is not right for doctors, including those not involved in industrial action, to be treated as bargaining chips, and it is not right for Parliament to be treated in this way to give him the tools that he needs because he did the first set of negotiations so badly. Will the Government support amendment 1, so that the Bill takes effect on Royal Assent? Will they commit to enacting the Bill as quickly as possible?

When does the Secretary of State intend to commence the Bill? If the Minister for Secondary Care cannot give the House a date today, what makes the Bill so urgent that it needs to be pushed through Parliament in a single day? Will the Government proceed with this legislation, even if no agreement is reached with the BMA? If industrial action is paused, will the Government still honour their commitment to prioritise UK medical graduates?

Many doctors took industrial action because they felt that their career progression was blocked. This Bill could play a part in rebuilding that trust, but that will only happen if Ministers deliver, publish the detail and follow through. They must be straight with the House. If this Bill is urgent, it should commence on Royal Assent. If implementation takes time, the Government should publish a timetable and the steps required to deliver it. To do anything else, frankly, would be discourteous to Parliament.

[Dr Murrison]

I think the Secretary of State has perhaps misunderstood how traumatic the process is for the young medical graduates going through this performance. Does the shadow Secretary of State agree that the sooner this legislation comes into force, the better it is for those young people, some of whom are finding the current situation incredibly difficult? They do not know what the successor scheme will look like, and the delay is adding to that unhappiness.

[Stuart Andrew]

I absolutely agree with my right hon. Friend. I said right at the outset that we would be constructive, but we have heard from many who are anxious about their future and do not know what will happen. The sooner that we can give them that certainty, the better. That was the premise on which we offered to support the Bill. I am grateful to him for making that point.

I am conscious that others want to speak, so I will end by saying this. Prioritisation without capacity will not fix the workforce crisis. Promises without delivery and headlines without planning will not retain the doctors whom our NHS needs. The Government must fund the extra places, set out the operational detail, and begin this reform without delay, because that was the premise that the Secretary of State identified. When he came to Parliament just a few weeks ago, he said that we needed to get on with this urgently, and that he would encourage business managers to provide the time. Well, if that is the case, let us get on with the job.

[Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op)]

I welcome the Bill. I have long argued that a strong state must be rooted in work, contribution and fairness, and that principle stands behind the Bill. For too long, medical training pathways have drifted away from that principle. Taxpayers invest heavily in medical education, clinical placements and postgraduate training, but we have not been honest about who ultimately benefits from the investment. At a time when the NHS is under immense pressure, that is not sustainable.

The Secretary of State set out the scale of what we are dealing with. The taxpayer invests more than £4 billion every year in medical education, with more than £1 billion invested in undergraduate clinical placements, and more than £3.3 billion invested in postgraduate foundation and specialty training. That is public money, spent so that British patients have the doctors they need. However, since the lifting of visa restrictions in 2020, we have seen a fundamental shift in the way that medical training places are allocated. In the 2025 recruitment cycle, more than 25,000 overseas-trained doctors applied for training posts, and more than 15,000 UK graduates were competing for the same—nearly 13,000—round 1 and round 2 positions. As we heard from the Secretary of State, there are more than 47,000 applicants in 2026. That is a dramatic surge.

The Bill does one straightforward thing. It prioritises UK medical graduates for training posts, both foundation and specialty, where the NHS has already invested heavily. In my constituency, we see this clearly. University Hospitals Birmingham NHS foundation trust is one of the largest NHS trusts in the country. Just under 30% of my constituents work in the health sector. That figure is double the national average. We are home to the University of Birmingham medical school, one of the best in the country. The scale of public investment in training, supervision and infrastructure is enormous, and rightly so. However, the Bill recognises the basic truth that when the taxpayer pays, the public should see the return. Prioritising those who are most likely to work and stay in the NHS is not exclusionary; it is common sense. It is how we rebuild a health service that is resilient, staffed and fair.

[Dr Murrison]

I entirely agree with the Chair of the Select Committee that we need to keep Brits working in our national health service. Does she agree that we need to add to the priority list British nationals who, for one reason or another, are training in medical schools outside the United Kingdom—in Prague, in Malta, in Cyprus and in the Caribbean? The reasons why they are training in those places are many and varied, but they are British, and their intent is to practise in the national health service. However, they are being deprioritised by this measure.

[Preet Kaur Gill]

I am not the Chair of the Select Committee, and I think that the Secretary of State set out his position. This is really important. This is about UK taxpayers’ money being invested in training doctors, and we must ensure that UK trainees are able to secure training places once they graduate. That is the issue that we are discussing.

Let me be clear: this is not a criticism of international staff. The NHS would not and could not function without the dedication, skill and compassion of people from around the world, and we should say that plainly and with gratitude. Every day, they hold our system together. However, a mature, confident country can value that contribution while also saying that we cannot replace long-term workforce planning with a permanent reliance on overseas recruitment. That is not fair on British trainees, not fair on source countries, and not fair on the NHS. As we heard from the Secretary of State, the World Health Organisation has estimated that by 2030, there will be an 11 million shortfall in health workers, as every country competes for the same limited workforce. This Government understand that putting British workers first is not something for which we will apologise. It is what the public expect.

The Prime Minister has been clear: a serious Labour Government must align migration, skills and training policy with the national interest. We cannot simply be passive; we must shape our domestic workforce to ensure that the NHS can continue to function. The same principle should apply wherever we are overly dependent on skilled migration because domestic training was neglected for 14 years under the Conservatives. Investing in people in the UK, and expecting that investment to strengthen Britain, is not ideological; it is responsible government.

The powers conferred to the Secretary of State in this Bill are important. The Royal College of Radiologists’ 2024 census found that 83% of cancer centre heads of service in the west midlands were concerned about patient safety as a result of workforce shortfalls. In 2024, only 19% of clinical oncology training places in the west midlands were filled. Will the Secretary of State outline how he intends to use the powers in this Bill and work with the integrated care boards to ensure that access to training matches regional workforce needs and health demands?

Above all, this Bill is about respect—respect for the taxpayer, respect for the NHS workforce, and respect for a health service that must be planned for the long term, not patched up year on year. This is exactly the kind of reform that the public expect from a Labour Government who are serious about work, contribution and the future of our NHS.