Medical Training (Prioritisation) Bill

Lord Stevens of Birmingham Excerpts

2nd reading & Committee stage
Wednesday 4th February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stevens of Birmingham (CB)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as an honorary fellow of the Royal College of Physicians and the Royal College of General Practitioners, and as chair of the council of King’s College London, which is Europe’s largest educator of health professionals. I too congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Roe, on his excellent maiden speech. Given the deteriorating physical fabric of the Palace of Westminster, it is reassuring to know that we have a firefighter in our midst.

I start by endorsing the thrust of the policy set out in the Bill. It clearly makes sense for the NHS and for British taxpayers to properly connect undergraduate medical education with access to specialist training, and then the flow-through of doctors able to contribute over the balance of their careers to the work of the NHS. All that makes total sense. Nevertheless, I echo three of the concerns we have heard already in the brilliant contributions to this debate.

The first is about the difficulties and concerns around the transition year, 2026, that the Bill proposes. For 2027 and beyond, rightly, there is the suggestion in the Bill that applications will be prioritised from doctors with NHS experience, who have made a contribution to the NHS. But because of not being able to get the computer system right, that is excluded for the 2026 transitional period.

As we heard from, I think, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, there is a range of views that suggest that that is not a correct assessment. I think the impact assessment says it is £100,000 to sort out the Oriel computer system—against a £4.3 billion taxpayer expenditure in this area. This is an area where the Minister and the Minister in the Commons, Karin Smyth, might want to give officialdom a little tap and just double-check that what they are being told is right, not least because there is a degree of oddity about this in that the Government declared their intention to introduce this new prioritisation for UK graduates seven months ago. It was in the 10-year NHS plan published on 3 July. It is not completely clear why there has been a seven-month lapse before we get this emergency Bill that has to be passed within four weeks.

There is the transitional 2026 concern and then, relatedly, there is the question of whether, by just changing the prioritisation, the Government actually have a game plan to deal with the more fundamental, underlying problem of the bottlenecks. This piece of legislation by itself does not widen the bottlenecks, it just changes who will occupy them. As the noble Earl, Lord Howe, I think, asked, it would be very useful to know, of the 1,000 additional specialty training places over three years promised in the 10-year plan, or the 4,000 put on the table in December as part of the Government’s negotiation with the BMA—of which 1,000 extra were to be in place for the coming year—what is their current assumption about the expansion in specialty training that will go alongside this reprioritisation for 2026 and 2027?

Today, we have seen the publication of the cancer plan, which, quite rightly, says that the Government

“will work with the Royal Colleges to encourage resident doctors and internal medicine trainees to specialise in clinical and medical oncology”—

where there are significant shortages—and will prioritise

“training places in trusts … where vacancy rates are higher and performance is lower”.

Can the Minister tell us whether the Government will give effect to that commitment in the cancer plan with the 2026 and 2027 increases in specialty training places, which are clearly required?

To circle back to a point that the Minister made—and, indeed, the Health and Social Care Secretary made at Second Reading in the Commons on 27 January—the Government’s estimate appears to be that even with this tighter, or reshaped, prioritisation, there will still be a ratio of two applicants to every place for specialty training. Just stand back a moment—that means we will be turning away half the doctors who would be able to fill those places. Are the Government sure that they are going pedal to the metal on the expansion in specialty training to reduce that oversubscription rate?

How does that connect with the upcoming rebadged, or refreshed, long-term workforce plan, given that the undergraduate doctors who start their training this year will be, in practice, coming out to deliver clinical care as consultants from 2040 and training their successors up to 2070? We really do need a long-term plan here, rather than the constant chopping and changing that, sadly, we have seen.

Finally, I completely endorse the comments about Malta. Three collective institutions have been awarded the George Cross—Malta and the NHS are two of them. We should sustain those relationships. The idea that we have less in common with the Maltese than with the good people of Liechtenstein—I have just had a quick look and Liechtenstein has one 35-bed hospital and a per capita GDP more than three times that of the UK—misses the point. We have to see the wood for the trees; the Department of Health and Social Care needs to raise its gaze and value these historic relationships that are so important for us.

Medical Training (Prioritisation) Bill

Lord Stevens of Birmingham Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 12th February 2026 Lords Chamber

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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?

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.