Medical Training (Prioritisation) Bill Debate
Full Debate: Read Full DebateDepartment: Department of Health and Social Care
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley
Main Page: Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)Department Debates - View all Lord Mohammed of Tinsley's debates with the Department of Health and Social Care
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment postpones the implementation of the medical specialty training prioritisation requirements by one year, moving the effective date for the mandated offer sequence from 2026 to 2027.
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
My Lords, both amendments in this group are in my name. I start by saying that, despite the fact that we have had a short break since we discussed this previously, we have all had a lot of emails and commentary on the Bill as it has been going through your Lordships’ House. One point that people have queried, particularly around Amendment 3, is this: “Why is Lord Mohammed doing this? He must have some declarations of interest. He must have some personal gain to do what he is doing”.
For the record, I have three children. One works for Northern rail; the second, despite our best efforts, his mother’s in particular, to get him to go to medical school—we failed—went on to become a paramedic, and at the moment he is absolutely loving it. So it is highly unlikely that this Bill will affect him, and my daughter is not studying medicine or anything related. Therefore, the purpose of and the motive for me moving this amendment are around fairness and equity.
This would be a modest postponement. In rejecting this policy, we are not doing so outright. It is a necessary safeguard to ensure fairness for those who have already applied under the rules that existed when the current application cycle opened. As we heard in Committee, the core purpose of the Bill is to prioritise graduates with strong links to the UK, and NHS experience, as the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, said earlier. It has broad support and is rooted in legitimate concerns about the balance between health, workforce supply and demand. However, the Government’s own planning documents indicate that for the 2026 recruitment, prioritisation is applied only at the offer stage because shortlisting has already occurred and the posts need to be filled by August; in other words, the legislation would apply part way through an active application cycle.
It is this timing that gives rise to the compelling fairness concerns at the heart of my amendments. Medical applicants make decisions in advance—far in advance. They invest years of study, financial cost and personal sacrifices based on published criteria. To change the criteria mid-application, with potential effects on eligibility, shortlisting, scoring or final offers, risks penalising those who complied fully with the rules as they stood when they applied. They cannot rewind their applications. They cannot be judged against a different standard. This is not theoretical. I have been contacted directly, as have many Members of your Lordships’ House, by candidates who face exactly this prospect under the current system. The core principle of procedural fairness and legitimate expectation is well established. Legislation, however well motivated, should not disadvantage applicants who acted in good faith. It should not reshuffle the deck once the cards have already been dealt.
A delay until 2027 would allow for clarity and proper stakeholder engagement and would ensure that no doctor is unfairly caught between two regimes. I emphasise that my amendment would not delay the policy indefinitely nor dilute its intention. It would simply align implementation with a natural application cycle. Therefore, I really hope that the Minister responds favourably.
Amendment 7 would replace the Government’s proposed immigration status criteria in the prioritisation framework with a test based on completion of
“at least two years of training or employment in a medical capacity within the National Health Service”.
The intent of the Bill to prioritise those who have strong links with UK medical training and the health service is not controversial, but to use indefinite leave to remain and other immigration categories as proxies for NHS experience is deeply problematic for me—and, I am sure, for many others. It risks both unfair outcomes and loss of clinical value for patients. In Committee, we heard detailed arguments about the unsuitability of immigration status as a measure of meaningful NHS experience, not least because it does not reflect who actually worked, trained or contributed here in the UK.
Under the Government’s current drafting, international medical graduates with indefinite leave to remain, settled status or citizenship would be prioritised irrespective of whether they have ever worked in the NHS—experience counts only if it fits within residency categories. Yet many doctors who arrived earlier on shorter visas have worked for years in the NHS, delivering front-line care throughout the pandemic pressures and workforce shortages. Their contribution is real, sustained and beneficial.
The British Medical Association has repeatedly emphasised that specialty training prioritisation should reflect clinical experience in the NHS, not simply legal residency status. The BMA has set out its position that international medical graduates who are GMC-registered and practising in the NHS and have at least two years’ experience should be prioritised.
This amendment aligns with that evidence-based and professionally grounded approach. Two years’ experience is clear, objective and legitimate, and a demonstrated threshold of contribution that is far more meaningful than a stamp in your passport. It would recognise those who have already invested in the UK system, who understand our clinical pathways and workforce needs, and who have delivered care for our patients. Critically, it would also avoid the injustice noted in Committee by several noble Lords about the category for either arbitrarily including or excluding applicants with negligible NHS ties. Doctors who arrive with ILR but have not delivered NHS care should not be automatically advantaged ahead of colleagues with years of service here. That simply cannot be justified on the grounds of fairness or workforce planning. Nor would the amendment prejudice the aim of prioritising UK medical graduates. It would supplement the Bill with additional criteria that would strengthen how NHS experience is recognised, supporting, not undermining, the long-term sustainability of the training pipeline.
The amendment strikes the right balance between policy ambitions and practical fairness. It would honour people’s contributions, support retention and strengthen the NHS workforce. I urge noble Lords to support it, and I hope the Minister will speak in favour of it.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I will go back to the question of Oriel and the prioritisation processes. It collects a full employment history from graduation and requires applicants to confirm whether each post was paid NHS experience. I hope the Minister will be able to recognise that some have worked in a voluntary capacity before they were able to get paid employment in the NHS, and that some people, in trying to build up their criteria for eligibility to apply, have worked in non-medical posts in order to gain the background NHS experience that they need.
I have been sent a copy of a response that was sent by the Department of Health and Social Care to a query about specified immigration status, which states:
“In 2026 the Government is using these immigration statuses as a proxy to capture applicants who it believes will be most likely to have significant experience of working in the health service in the UK”.
It goes on to state that that prioritisation
“will be applied at the offer stage because shortlisting is already underway”,
which, of course, creates a lot of problems for people. I can see that there are difficulties in postponing this, because all the applicants are already in such a state of turmoil that to have a second year of turmoil may not be helpful to them in any sense.
There was a worrying sentence at the end of the second paragraph, saying that the Government
“will be aiming to have regulations in place for the autumn 2026 application round (subject to parliamentary timetable)”.
I hope the Minister will be able to assure us, given that this has been emergency legislation, that the regulations will be treated with a similar degree of urgency to remove any uncertainty for the next round of applicants.
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
My Lords, I thank everyone in your Lordships’ House for their contributions on this group. I also place on record my thanks to the Minister, not only for speaking to me earlier today but for her letter, which she referred to earlier, and for speaking to us before this legislation was debated in your Lordships’ House. That has been very useful, and I appreciate the Minister giving us her time despite her busy diary.
On the amendments, I have heard the opinion and mood of the House, particularly from the noble Earl, Lord Howe. I therefore beg leave to withdraw Amendment 3. I will keep a watching brief on Amendment 7, given the discussion we had earlier outside the Chamber.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, I apologise. I should have said that the noble Lord, Lord Darzi, emailed me at noon today to apologise that he could not be here because he had a patient to look after. However, I think the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, covered his amendment adequately.
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
My Lords, briefly, I offer our support from these Benches to Amendment 11, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, and to the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Gerada.
I want to talk about the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister. I am sure that other noble Lords will have had an email from a woman from Ukraine, who set out her concerns. We as a nation have proudly welcomed and given safe sanctuary to people from Ukraine, predominantly women and children. However, because of the conflict in her country she has not been able to fulfil her dream of being a doctor; she has tried to navigate the system, through working as a care worker, and would like us to be able to support her.
I plead to the Minister: can we not have some flexibility, at least when it comes to specific circumstances? We have been so generous as a nation in welcoming those people, who, if they had their way, would be in their country. They want to continue building on the education that they had in their nation. I am sure that there will be others as well. Is there some flexibility? I hope that the Minister can comment on that.
On the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Gerada, when we had this discussion before the Recess it was clear that we were asking for those two overseas medical schools. They are the only ones that are active now. The amendments are clear that no other schools would be allowed to open up and go through the loophole that some noble Lords have talked about. We are talking about very small numbers. However, those numbers are important because we have also had emails from British nationals who have gone to study abroad with an expectation. As I said on my amendments in the previous group, we are changing the rules for them mid-cycle. There must be some level of flexibility.
We want the Bill to go through, but we would like it to be a bit fairer than it is. I talked previously about the unintended consequences of pushing this though. A lot of the funding for these two campuses comes from overseas. It is not costing the UK taxpayer money, but it is a pipeline, as my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones said. Having listened to the noble Lord, Lord Forbes, and spoken to my noble friend Lord Shipley, I know that they very strongly support the overseas campus that Newcastle University has in Malaysia. I hope that the Minister supports those two universities. There are no others in these circumstances.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, the amendments in this group seek to change the definition of the priority group. We debated the principle behind the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Gerada, and the noble Lord, Lord Darzi, in Committee. I shall come back to the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Gerada, in a moment.
Meanwhile, the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, seeks to include a new group of people who should be prioritised for medical specialty training places. We have not, as she said, debated this precise issue before. She argued the case very powerfully. However, we need to come back to the object of the Bill, which is to resolve the specific problem of UK medical graduates having insufficient priority in accessing medical specialty training in UK workforce planning. Our prime focus should be on those young UK doctors who have put so much effort into their studies and who now want to progress further in the NHS.
I appreciate the force of everything that the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, said. I observed earlier that we are not living in an ideal world. However, for the reasons that I have given, I am not convinced that including an additional group—in this case, those who have come to the UK from Afghanistan, Ukraine, Syria or Hong Kong—will necessarily improve the Bill’s effectiveness in resolving the problem that it is designed to address. Those doctors are not, and surely cannot be, part of the NHS’s workforce planning framework.
That said, I think we can all agree that, where an individual comes to the UK through a safe and legal route as a legitimate refugee and has skills to offer our country, we should welcome them offering those skills. It would therefore be helpful to know from the Minister what support her department is giving and will give to medically trained people who have come to the UK legally and who wish to serve in the NHS.
I will say some brief but important things about the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Gerada, without, I hope, repeating what has been said. The merits of her case were ones which she powerfully presented in Committee, and she has done so again today.
I want to highlight three key points. First, QMUL’s campus on Malta and Newcastle University’s campus in Malaysia are not “foreign institutions”. Yes, they may be physically located abroad but, constitutionally, both are UK institutions and the qualifications they award are UK qualifications based on a UK-prescribed medical curriculum. Doctors have made career plans based on that long understanding. Therefore, badging graduates from those overseas campuses as international medical graduates, which is the implication behind the Government’s position, does them a grave injustice. In my submission, they are not international medical graduates in the sense that we normally understand the term—a point well made by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay.
“(1) Regulations under this Act are subject to the affirmative procedure.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that all regulations under this Act are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
My Lords, Amendment 14 would ensure that all regulations under the Bill are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure—or, in simple terms, that both Houses of Parliament get to have a say in and have a vote on any changes that a future Minister or Government make. This is not a narrow technical point; it goes to the heart of parliamentary accountability and to the fair and transparent governance of medical training policy.
The Bill confers broad powers to Ministers to determine key aspects of how prioritisation will operate. These include potentially definitions for eligibility, scoring frameworks, exemptions, transitional arrangements and other detailed rules that will shape the careers of tens of thousands of doctors. In Committee, noble Lords expressed concerns about the breadth of delegated powers in the Bill and the limited parliamentary oversight of these powers. In Committee, it was evident from the debate that Members of your Lordships’ House share the view that regulatory decision-making powers are vast and open-ended, yet the Bill envisages only the negative procedure for most regulations, meaning that the regulations can come into force unless actively annulled.
This falls short of the level of scrutiny appropriate for measures of such significance. It is precisely because of the impact of this legislation on individuals’ careers and NHS workforce planning that the affirmative resolution procedure is the right standard. Ministers should be required to lay each statutory instrument before both Houses and obtain explicit parliamentary approval before they can take effect. This would give the House the opportunity not merely to debate but to approve or reject the detailed rules that give effect to the policy, ensuring that changes are made not by default or through omissions but by the conscious decisions of Parliament.
Medical training policy is not static. It will evolve in response to workforce needs, technical standards and educational practices. There is nothing wrong with working with flexibility. There is something wrong with flexibility exercised without open scrutiny. Doctors plan years ahead; they make life choices on the basis of published criteria. To allow Ministers to adjust those criteria by regulation without positive endorsement by this Parliament risks unpredictability and unfairness.
The use of the affirmative resolution procedure does not prevent Governments acting. It simply ensures that Parliament is properly informed and engaged, strengthening trust in the process and respecting this House’s role in scrutinising public policy. Given the far-reaching nature of these measures that could be set in regulation, the affirmative resolution procedure is not just desirable but necessary. For these reasons, I hope that noble Lords will back my amendment.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
My Lords, I should advise the House that if this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment 15 by reason of pre-emption.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Kamall and Lord Mohammed, for their contributions in this group of amendments.
I turn first to Amendment 14, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed. As I stated in Committee, we are unable to support this amendment. It might be helpful to your Lordships’ House if I am clear about our intention. As your Lordships are aware, the Bill sets out on its face the groups of people who are to be prioritised for specialty training from 2027 onwards. The delegated power about which we are speaking is limited to adding to this list by referring to the significant experience of working as a doctor in the health service or immigration status, so it is, in my view, tightly drawn.
Similarly, we have set out in the Bill the specialty training programmes excluded from the prioritisation scheme. Again, I give the reassurance that the delegated power about which we are speaking is limited to amending this list and gives necessary operational flexibility for future changes in recruitment, training and workforce needs—something that noble Lords raised in an earlier group.
As I hope noble Lords are aware, I am always supportive of parliamentary scrutiny. However, due to the very limited scope of these powers, we believe that the negative procedure is appropriate, not least as the regulations will not have the effect of excluding anyone from applying for a training post. I hope it is helpful to remind noble Lords that the Bill has been assessed by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, and no suggestion was made that the negative procedure was inappropriate for such regulations. With that explanation, I therefore hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Turning to Amendment 16, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, in Committee I spoke to why, as he said, we cannot support this amendment: because it removes an important element of operational flexibility. Let me say at the outset that I completely understand why the noble Lord has raised again the points he raised previously. He mentioned a tension; yes, in lots of ways there is a tension and that is what we are trying to manage.
As I stated previously, the commencement provision in the Bill is absolutely not a mechanism for delay. We want to proceed with this as soon as possible. That is the non-specific answer to the noble Lord’s very reasonable questions, but I think he will understand that not knowing the timetable on which I am commenting or the possibility of strike action means that I am not readily in a position to give exact answers; I wish I were. The main thing is that it is absolutely our intent to commence the Bill as soon as possible. That is why we are dealing with it on the planned timescale.
The commencement clause is a safeguard. It is to ensure that all the planning, capacity and systems are in place before the Act is brought into force, because it will be impossible to do it otherwise. Noble Lords will also appreciate—the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, raised this—that the question of whether it is possible to proceed if industrial action continues, given the strain that strikes put on the system, cannot be ignored.
Although preparations for the implementation of the Bill as introduced have been progressing and are undergoing quality assurance testing, should the Bill be amended it could impact on operational readiness that could delay offers and disrupt staffing preparations. We have to avoid such disruption; although we do not expect such issues to arise, it is important that we retain what we regard as a fail-safe provision.
Any Secretary of State would be right to take all the circumstances, including operational readiness, into account in deciding when the Act should come into force. I cannot restate often enough that the intention is to bring this in as soon as possible; that is what we all want to do and that is what we need to do. For the reasons I set out, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
I thank noble Lords who have contributed to the debate. Given what I have heard from the Minister, both in the Chamber and in my previous conversations with her, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.