The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Wes Streeting)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I begin by thanking the Leader of the House, the Chief Whip, their counterparts in the other place, colleagues in my Department and in the NHS, the Bill team and parliamentary counsel, who have moved mountains to prepare this Bill in double-quick time. I once again place on the record my sincere thanks to my counterparts in the Governments of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland—as well as the respective Secretaries of State for those nations—for the spirit in which, regardless of party, they have helped us to bring the Bill forward. Last but by no means least, I am enormously grateful to Jackie Baillie, Labour’s deputy leader in Holyrood, for her wise counsel.
The NHS is on the road to recovery, not least because of the herculean efforts and dedication of NHS leaders and frontline staff who, even in the depths of winter, are delivering outstanding episodes of care, hour after hour and day after day. Among the encouraging signs of year-on-year improvement are waiting lists falling at their fastest rate in three years—down more than 300,000 under Labour—and quicker ambulance response times, shorter waits in A&E and speedier cancer diagnoses for more people. December was the busiest month in NHS history for 999 calls, but despite that, and regardless of industrial action and winter pressures, ambulances arrived at heart attack and stroke patients nearly 15 minutes faster compared with last year.
The progress we are seeing is a reminder that nothing positive for the people who use the NHS ever happens without the people who work in our NHS. Our investment and modernisation are starting to restore confidence and renew belief among frontline staff; with that, hope, optimism and ambition are returning too. That is why, outside of the pandemic, staff retention is at its highest in a decade and vacancies are at their lowest since records began in 2017. There is lots done, but, as we know, there is so much more to do.
I will always be honest about the state of our national health service—what is going well and where we need to improve. There is no sugar coating the fact that staff morale is still too low, and the way that some of our NHS workforce is still treated and the conditions in which too many of them still work are nothing short of a national disgrace. Not only is it a stain on our NHS, but it shames us as a country when those who care for us in our hour of need suffer bullying, harassment and racist abuse; have nowhere to rest, go to the toilet or get changed; cannot get a hot meal on a night shift; have limited flexible working options; must book holiday a year in advance; need to log in seven times just to use a PC; spend time form-filling rather than looking after patients; and face basic errors with pay and contracts. Before Christmas, I had a doctor in my constituency advice surgery in tears as she described the way she had been treated by a previous employer. This is no way to treat the people who kept us going when everything else stopped, so we are taking action.
Trusts are now implementing the 10-point plan for resident doctors and my Department, together with NHS England, is developing new staff standards to create better working practices and better conditions.
We have awarded above-inflation pay rises to everyone working in the NHS for this year and last year, which is beginning to recover the pay erosions seen under the last Government. We have begun 2026 with constructive talks with the British Medical Association’s resident doctors committee, as we seek to broker industrial peace. I have also told NHS leaders that they need to step up when it comes to the conditions that their staff face. They cannot expect the Secretary of State to micromanage availability of hot food in their canteen, for example.
However, there are workforce problems that only Government can solve. We have known for years that the treatment of resident doctors is often totally unacceptable and that the very real fears about their futures are wholly justified. Every time I have met a resident doctor, either formally or informally, they have told me without fail how their careers are blocked because there are far too many applicants for training places. Not only do I think that they have a legitimate grievance, but I agree with them.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
The Secretary of State is essentially talking about postgraduate training. I wonder what thought he has given to new clause 2 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer). I have spoken to students who worked really hard all the way through medical school to get the best exam results and perform highly but then ended up in an allocation system that pays no attention whatsoever to that. Merit has been entirely removed from the system. I think it was wrong for us to make that change. Does he have any sympathy for returning to a merit-based system?
Wes Streeting
I certainly do have sympathy with that argument. We have begun to move the system in the right direction in terms of giving applicants greater preference in placements, but it is not lost on me that the system of rotations, placements and jobs means doctors are moved around the country and families are uprooted. The frictional cost of relocating from one place to another is a challenge that resident doctors in particular face. I do not think that an amendment to the Bill is the right vehicle in which to address that issue, but I am sympathetic to the arguments that the hon. Member makes, and I am sure he will make them again during this afternoon’s proceedings. We will take his arguments seriously and look to work together with the BMA and others to act to improve the experience of training, rotations and jobs.
UK graduates used to compete among themselves for foundation and specialty roles. Now they are competing against the world, because of the visa and immigration changes made by the Conservative Government post Brexit. The situation is compounded by the previous Administration’s total lack of workforce planning, which saw more students going to medical school without the number of specialty training places being increased. That is why we see the training bottlenecks that resident doctors face today.
Several hon. Members rose—
Wes Streeting
I will give way to the hon. Member for Henley and Thame (Freddie van Mierlo) and then to my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin (Alistair Strathern).
Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)
A constituent of mine is studying medicine at Queen Mary University of London but at a campus in Malta. Students at the Malta campus complete the same General Medical Council-approved curriculum, assessments and licensed exams as London-based students, and graduates hold a UK primary qualification. He was given a formal guarantee that he would be at no disadvantage if he chose to study at the Malta campus. Can the Secretary of State reassure me that graduates like my constituent will be prioritised on the NHS foundation medical training programme?
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.
Alistair Strathern (Hitchin) (Lab)
I wonder if the Secretary of State shares my residents’ utter disbelief that the last Government created a system where thousands of UK medical graduates, educated at the cost of billions to the UK taxpayer, were suddenly forced to compete with overseas students, pushing many abroad for their careers and losing a big talent pool that should be powering our NHS and getting it back on its feet.
Wes Streeting
That is right. I have to say, many of my counterparts around the world cannot fathom how we ended up in this situation in the first place. They certainly do not do as we have been doing, investing so much in their home-grown talent only to then see that talent compete on equal terms with anyone from anywhere else in the world.
Let me set out why we need this Bill. There are workforce problems that only Government can solve. We know that the treatment of resident doctors has been totally unacceptable for years and we see the training bottlenecks that resident doctors face today. In 2019, there were around 12,000 applicants for 9,000 specialty training places. This year, that has soared to nearly 40,000 applicants for 10,000 places, with nearly twice as many overseas-trained applicants as UK-trained ones. As a result, we now have the ridiculous state of affairs where UK medical graduates, whose training British taxpayers fund to the tune of £4 billion a year and who want to carve out a career in their NHS, are either being lost abroad or to the private sector. If we do not deal with that, the scale of the issue and the resentment it causes will just get worse. More taxpayers’ money will be wasted, more British medics will turn their backs on the NHS, and patients and our NHS will ultimately suffer.
Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)
The Secretary of State knows that the SNP believes that this is a pragmatic Bill that will have a net-positive outcome for the health service in Scotland. We welcome the Bill and are glad to support it. However, there are specialty fields, such as general practice, which have a high number of international graduates. Because of Government policy, there are significant challenges in supporting the retention of some individuals. For example, the new requirement for settled status is 10 years with some exceptions, whereas training programmes are often only three years long. I am sure that the Secretary of State does not want the UK to be a hostile environment for our vital overseas medical staff. Will he therefore make representations to the Home Office so that it is aware of the anomaly?
Wes Streeting
I will say two things to the hon. Gentleman. This Bill does not in any way detract from the fundamental point that the NHS has always been an overseas recruiter and we have always been fortunate to draw on global talent from around the world who come and give through their service, their taxes and their wider contribution to the national health service and our country. We will continue to welcome that and people will continue to be free to apply. In future, they will apply on terms that are fairer to our own, home-grown talent.
There is nothing in what the Home Secretary proposes that will stop people who come through our universities and have the skills that we need to contribute to our health and care system applying for jobs and settling and making the UK their home. The Bill supports the Home Secretary to reduce an over-reliance on overseas talent and labour, which contributes to levels of net migration that even bleeding-heart liberals like me can see are too high. That is the issue that the Home Secretary seeks to deal with.
Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend is right that we need to deal with this pressing problem and I support the aims of the Bill. However, as he can imagine, as the only current Member of this House with Maltese heritage, I have had representations from all quarters, both in the UK and in Malta, about the impact on Malta of this. Our two countries have a special health relationship, including the affiliation of the UK foundation programme with the Maltese equivalent. I understand that now may not be the time to have Malta in the priority group, but I note that there is a power in clause 4(6) that allows the Secretary of State to amend that in future. Is that something that my right hon. Friend will think about reviewing in future?
Wes Streeting
My hon. Friend is right about the measures in the Bill. He is also right about the importance of our relationship with Malta, which is long-standing and deep, and this Government place enormous value on that. We will, of course, keep the workings of the measures in the Bill under review. He is also right to say that the Bill provides flexibility to the Secretary of State to adjust, as our needs may demand.
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.
Ben Coleman (Chelsea and Fulham) (Lab)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his excellent speech and the strong points that he is delivering. I associate myself with the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Kevin Bonavia) about Malta. As a member of the Health and Social Care Committee, I have also been approached by Queen Mary University. It seems to me that we should be approaching this with a sense of fairness, and if students have entered into a GMC-recognised course with the expectation of having priority access for foundation status, we should accept that those who are currently in training still enjoy that, even if we change the rules for people who enter those courses in the future. Is that something that my right hon. Friend will consider?
Wes Streeting
As I have said, the position we have set out is founded on fairness. The basis on which people have applied to these universities has made it clear that the universities cannot guarantee places and that overseas applicants studying at UK universities’ overseas campuses can still apply. There is nothing to prevent those people from applying, but when it comes to prioritisation, we are prioritising UK-trained medical graduates from UK-based universities who have undertaken their training here in the UK. I think that is the right priority to draw.
Wes Streeting
I will take an intervention from the hon. Gentleman. I will come to my right hon. Friend in a moment.
Gregory Stafford
The Secretary of State mentioned the need for more medical staff across the world and, of course, in this country as well. At the general election, he pledged to double the number of medical school places by 2030. Is that still a commitment, and how far has he got with it?
Wes Streeting
With respect, I think the hon. Gentleman has got his chronology slightly wrong. As shadow Health Secretary, I proposed that we should double the number of undergraduate medical school places. That policy was poached by the then Conservative Government, who made modest progress with it. We then came into government, looked at their long-term workforce plan and concluded that it was not a particularly long-term workforce plan, and we are revising it as we speak. The number of medical school places will be determined by future need. We will publish our long-term workforce plan in the not-too-distant future.
Wes Streeting
I will give way to the hon. Lady and then to my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds).
Alison Bennett
The Secretary of State rightly notes that there is international competition for healthcare talent. On Friday, I met Dr Osoba, a GP who trains future GPs. She told me how disheartening it is to train future GPs whose intention is to leave the UK. What is the Secretary of State doing to ensure that British-trained medics stay working in the NHS?
Wes Streeting
The hon. Member puts her finger right on the issue at the heart of the Bill. That is exactly the challenge we want it to address. The Bill is not a panacea—it does not solve all the problems—but reducing competition for specialty places from around four to one to less than two to one, as the Bill will do, will make it far more likely that people who have undertaken their training here in the UK will stay here and contribute to our national health service. Of course, there is much more to do on career structure, pay and conditions, but we will go as fast as we can and as far as the country can afford. We recognise that we need to keep the great people we have invested in, because doing so is in their interest and in our national interest.
Anneliese Dodds
My question relates to exactly that issue. The Secretary of State will be aware, because I have written to his Department about it a number of times, that many disabled medics face a particular challenge. They may have had to take time out of their training because of a medical condition. They are told that they can obtain a certificate of readiness to enter specialty training and go into a training specialism, but the computer says no and NHS England is not sorting this out. Will he please get a personal grip on this and fix it for my constituents?
Wes Streeting
I am certainly aware of my right hon. Friend’s concerns. I can give her that assurance and will report back to her on progress.
Without action to prioritise UK medics, we will also make it tougher than it already is for those from working-class backgrounds like mine to become doctors—or, for that matter, to even consider a career in medicine. The odds are already stacked against them: they are less likely to know doctors, their teachers may be less familiar with how to help students into medical school, they will have fewer opportunities to do work experience, and fewer people in their lives will tell them that they should aim high and reach for the stars. The result is that only 5% of medical school entrants are from lower-income working-class backgrounds. Someone’s background should not be a barrier to becoming a doctor, so our job—especially as a Labour Government committed to social justice—is not just to ensure that a few kids like me beat the odds, but to change the odds for every child in this country so that they can go as far as their talents will take them.
Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)
It is vital that we address this issue to ensure that UK-trained doctors are prioritised for vacancies over international applicants—the Secretary of State is making important points about that. We need those places to be opened up for UK medics immediately, so will he explain why the Bill will not come into force immediately after Royal Assent but instead includes provision for it to come into force
“on such day or days as the Secretary of State may by regulations appoint”?
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.
Wes Streeting
I give way to my hon. Friend with significant NHS experience.
Dr Opher
I commend the speed with which my right hon. Friend has brought this legislation to Parliament. I have been a GP trainer for 25 years. Fifty per cent of GP trainees are international medical graduates, and there has been some disquiet from them. Will he reassure our international medical graduates that they are welcome and treasured in the health service?
Wes Streeting
My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the contribution that international medical graduates make, and I have no doubt that that will continue to be the case for many years to come. I hope it is clear to those going through medical school or aspiring to a career in medicine that, in terms of the future of healthcare in this country, general practice is where it’s at. We are looking to shift the centre of gravity in the NHS out of hospital and into the community, with care closer to people’s homes and, indeed, in people’s homes, with GPs as leaders of a neighbourhood health service. I hope that gives encouragement to GPs serving today about the future of their profession, about which they care enormously. I also hope that that message resonates with people who are thinking about a career in medicine, when they think about what kind of career that might be.
Sarah Pochin (Runcorn and Helsby) (Reform)
I recently spoke to a doctor in my constituency who was concerned about resident doctors going abroad to get a training place in their chosen specialty. We in Reform welcome this Bill. Can the Secretary of State make a commitment that we will prioritise our own UK-trained resident doctors ahead of those trained abroad, and will he assure me that the Bill will help UK-trained resident doctors to secure a training post in their chosen specialty?
Wes Streeting
I can give the hon. Member that assurance—that is exactly what the Bill does. Madam Deputy Speaker, I cannot, however, resist the enormous temptation to say that while I welcome the support of the hon. Member and her party, I hope that her party’s position will not change now that it has adopted so many of the formerly Conservative culprits who landed us with this system in the first place. Whether it is the former Home Secretary, the right hon. and learned Member for Fareham and Waterlooville (Suella Braverman), or the former Immigration Minister, the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), I am afraid that Reform looks rather more like the Conservative party that the country rejected at the last election, which I am sure will not be lost on people when they go to the ballot box in May—[Interruption.] As my hon. Friend the Minister for Care says from a sedentary position, Reform UK are increasingly the teal Tories—it is certainly the most successful recycling project currently taking place in the House of Commons. Anyway, that was totally self-indulgent, and very churlish given that the hon. Member for Runcorn and Helsby (Sarah Pochin) is supporting the Bill, so I will slap myself on the wrist and get back to the serious matters at hand.
As we set out these changes, it is important to note that they will have no impact on doctors working in the armed forces, who will continue to be a priority, and neither does the Bill exclude international talent, as people will still be able to apply for roles and continue to bring new and vital skills to our NHS. The principle here is home-grown talent. It is not about where students are born; it is about where they are trained. What the Bill does is return us to the fair terms on which those home-grown medics competed before Brexit.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s approach to the Bill, and how he has worked across all devolved Administrations. May I seek his assurance that medical students who reside in Northern Ireland, who identify as Irish and who study in an Irish institution in the Republic of Ireland will not be excluded from coming back to work in the national health service in Northern Ireland, where we very much need all the talent we can get?
Wes Streeting
I absolutely give the hon. Member that assurance—the Bill covers medical graduates from the UK and Ireland, for very obvious reasons. I welcome the broad support that the Bill appears to have across the House, because for the changes to benefit applicants in the current round—for posts starting this August—it must achieve Royal Assent by 5 March. Any delay will risk vacancies in August and disrupt planning in NHS trusts, which rely on their new trainees to deliver frontline care. Doctors also need sufficient time to find somewhere to live, sort childcare and arrange other aspects of their lives before their posts start. I am grateful that Parliament has agreed to expedite the Bill’s progress, and confident that we will be able to work at pace with our majority in this House, and with cross-party support in the other place.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
I sense that the Secretary of State is about to reach the end of his remarks. We are keen to start the debate, but it would be helpful to get clarity on one thing before we begin. When will we see the workforce plan? It has been delayed a couple of times. We wrote to the Department in November asking for an explanation as to why it has been delayed and when we can expect it. Can the Secretary of State give us some clarity, because that is the context in which the narrow technical measure that we are discussing needs to happen?
Wes Streeting
That is a fair question from the Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee. We are taking longer than I would have liked with the workforce plan. I hope it reassures the hon. Member and the House that we have taken more time because that is what the royal colleges, trade unions, and clinical and NHS leaders asked us to do. Their strong urging was to get it right, rather than rush according to a political timetable, which I thought was a fair challenge. It will be published this spring.
Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)
I welcome this legislation. Does the Secretary of State agree with me that the fact that the Government have listened to the concerns of resident doctors about training places, and have acted at pace to bring forward the legislation, shows that we as a Government are committed to fixing the problems left behind by the Conservative Government? Does he agree that the BMA should consider that when thinking about going forward with any potential further action?
Wes Streeting
I agree with my hon. Friend. For context, I say to members of the BMA and resident doctors that to bring forward legislation in this way and at this pace is not easy. We have a packed legislative programme. The clock is ticking on getting everything through that we want to get through in the time that we have available, and I am grateful to the business managers in both Houses for facilitating the Bill. Cross-party support is going to be important, particularly in the other place, where we have lots of expertise to draw on, including from Cross-Bench peers.
We have introduced the legislation because fundamentally we agree with the case that the BMA and resident doctors have been making. In our discussions with BMA representatives, immediately prior to the last round of industrial action and since, it has been very clear that when it comes to jobs, we are not that far apart. We recognise the problems and we are working together to address the solution. On pay, there remains a gap between the expectations of the BMA and what the Government can afford. All I ask of resident doctors and their BMA representatives is some understanding and a bit of give and take about the range of pressures on the Government and the national health service, many of which require funding, which is why there are choices and trade-offs.
I hope that the BMA representatives know and have noticed that, regardless of the fact that we remain in dispute on these issues and have had a number of rounds of industrial action, I have not slammed the door in their faces and stopped talking—we have continued with good-natured and constructive talks—and I have not thrown my toys out of the pram either, and said “Right, we will not proceed with this Bill.” We have continued to work to enact solutions that we think are good for resident doctors, and therefore good for patients and good for the NHS. I hope that this will be the spirit in which we can work together.
The goal is to be in a place, particularly with the BMA and resident doctors although this applies to other groups in the workforce too, where we can work together and make progress outside disputes, so that we can gather around tables as partners, rather than as opponents. That will take some gear shifting from where we have been to where we want to be, but I know that both the Government and the BMA have entered the new year in that spirit, so we will continue to make progress.
Having stressed the urgency of the legislation, I want to address the commencement clause included in the Bill, which has already been raised. First and foremost, it is there as a failsafe. We are running to an extremely tight deadline. I do not want to be in a position where a law is enacted and we are unable to implement it in a timely and orderly fashion. Secondly, there is a material consideration about whether it is even possible to proceed if strikes are ongoing, because of the pressure that they put on resources and the disruption that is caused operationally, particularly among the people I require to help me deliver the measures in the Bill. Of course, I am keeping my options open. We are in a good place with the BMA, and we have entered the latest round of talks in good spirit, but we do not yet have an agreement on their disputes and we are waiting for the outcome of their ballot, so I am not going to do anything now that unnecessarily makes it harder to end the strikes.
The Opposition amendment to remove the commencement clause is designed to make industrial action more likely, not less likely. It tries to bind my hands and make this job even more difficult. It looks like political gameplaying, at a time when we are trying to save the NHS, and it looks like party interest before national interest. I hope that the Conservatives will consider whether their amendment is really necessary.
British taxpayers spend £4 billion training medics every year. We treat them poorly, place obstacles in their way and make them fearful for their futures. We are forcing young people, who should be the future of our NHS, to work abroad, in the private sector or to quit the profession entirely. It is time that we protect our investment and our home-grown talent. This Bill will ensure a sustainable workforce, cut our reliance on foreign labour, halve competition for places and give home-grown talent a path to become the next generation of NHS doctors. I commend this Bill to the House.
The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)
It is a pleasure to close on behalf of the Government. I welcome the support of the Opposition spokespeople and the Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee, the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran). I put on record my thanks to them for meeting me in advance of the Bill and for airing their concerns.
From the many contributions this afternoon, there is clearly a broad base of sympathy and support right across the House for the measures in the Bill to support our NHS staff, who have been at the sharp end of every ill-conceived policy of the past 14 years—not least since the previous Government lifted the visa restrictions in 2020, as outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth West (Jessica Toale). The last Government’s failure to do any proper workforce planning has also led to patients struggling to find a GP appointment while GPs struggle to get a job, bottlenecks for resident doctors and an over-reliance on overseas workers and a refusal to foster our own home-grown talent.
Although I welcome the support, I find it slightly ironic that some of the Opposition speeches were around the need for clear and consistent routes and for clarity. That is exactly what we intend to provide to fix the mess. We will bring forward wider issues in the workforce plan, which, as the boss said earlier, will be in the spring. That is as a result of the concerns around training from the Royal Colleges and other stakeholders and making sure that we do that properly. We will bring that forward in due course.
Karin Smyth
I am going to make some progress. Time is of the essence, I am afraid, but we can pick up more in Committee.
When I was a manager in the NHS, I worked alongside many overseas doctors, and I want to make it clear from this Dispatch Box this afternoon that they are, of course, welcome here. The NHS is and always will be one of the most diverse employers in the world. This Bill is about bringing future generations into the health service and giving them the secure future that we all know they need. It is about sustainable workforce planning so that patients are no longer at the mercy of the market. Crucially, it is also about fairness. How is it fair that every year the taxpayer picks up a £4 billion bill to train medics who cannot then get jobs? Those taxpayers deserve a return on their investment. How is it fair that medics in this country put themselves forward to train, make sacrifices, get into debt and work long hours only to find themselves trapped in bottlenecks?
I am going to try to address a number of colleagues’ points. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson), for his experience and for outlining the capacity and demand issues that people like him have to face as managers, and also for his important point about our workforce needing to reflect our society. He talked about the great work being done in Sunderland, and I was pleased to meet the leaders there, including Dr Wilkes, to see the work they are doing so that we can take that elsewhere. That is exactly what we want to do.
I also commend my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns)—the mum of a nurse, as she told us—for putting on the record the work of the Pears Cumbria School of Medicine and the intention of growing doctors who are steeped in Cumbria. She also mentioned health inequalities, and I would be pleased to meet my hon. Friend to discuss those issues further. My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) was right to highlight the soaring numbers of people we are losing and to recognise that it was all going back to front.
Why do we need emergency legislation? We need Royal Assent by 5 March at the latest to ensure that the change happens this year. We do not want medics to face another year of bottlenecks. Specialty training offers will be made from March, and any delay will risk vacancies in August. This emergency legislation gives the NHS the certainty and stability it needs to carry on bringing down waiting lists and to keep us on the road to recovery. The people applying for those posts need enough time to make decisions about their lives, including deciding where they will move, finding accommodation and sorting childcare, and they deserve enough time to get on with that.
A number of colleagues have raised the definition of prioritisation for training posts. Let us be clear that, for specialty training posts starting this year, we will prioritise UK medical graduates and others, using their immigration status as a proxy for having significant experience of working in the health service. Colleagues might wonder whether there has been some pulling of strings to include Irish doctors in that prioritisation, but I can assure them that that is not the case. Ireland is included because of our special and long-standing relationship with Ireland and very similar epidemiology. I thank the hon. Member for South Antrim (Robin Swann) for the important points he raised about Magee College and working with the devolved institutions. I can assure him that officials have worked closely with officials in Northern Ireland on this. If there are any other issues, he should please raise them, but we have worked closely on that point.
From next year, 2027, immigration status will no longer automatically determine priority. I accept some of the points from my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan) . He perhaps suggested that the proposal was crude, but it is a proxy for this year. Next year we will bring forward regulations to prioritise whether someone has significant experience as a doctor in the health service or by reference to their immigration status. This point was raised by the Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon, and many others. We will continue to work with all partners and the devolved Governments to agree those criteria in time for the autumn application round.
On international staff, my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham Edgbaston (Preet Kaur Gill) and for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales), the Chair of the Select Committee and others raised the issue of foreign doctors. Let us be clear that international staff play an important role in our NHS and they always will. The NHS might be the most diverse public body in the world, and we would not have it any other way, but we are recruiting doctors from abroad—sometimes even from countries that are short of medical staff—when there is already a pool of applicants at home.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge) said, we are not about nicking other people’s workforces. Home-grown doctors are more likely to work in the NHS for longer, and be better equipped to deliver healthcare tailored to the UK’s population, because having been trained in the UK’s epidemiology, they better understand it. It is not fair for British taxpayers to spend over £4 billion training medics every year, as my hon. Friends the Members for Worthing West (Dr Cooper) and for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) said. Nor is it fair for doctors who struggled to get into specialty training places. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Edgbaston said, a responsible Government get a grip on this.
I will refer to the amendments when we move into Committee of the whole House. We are seeing the green shoots of recovery as we repair the NHS following the damage done over the past 14 years. We are turning another page on that decline. However, the decision in 2020 to lift visa restrictions has done untold damage to the system and to staff morale, and contributed to a national mood of cynicism and pessimism, especially among the young, so we need to act. Those points were articulated well by the hon. Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam), and expertly, as always, by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley).
Let me end my remarks by talking about the many young people who will be affected by the changes that we are setting out. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Jack Abbott) said, these are not abstract statistics but personal costs. When I speak to those in my family, my constituency and even my parliamentary office who have breached the first barrier of getting to a medical school from a state school, I am disheartened to hear how many of them feel that their careers would be better served by moving abroad. In the 1970s, James Callaghan said that if he were a young man, he would emigrate. I do not want young people to take that path; I would rather say to them, “By all means, travel, see the world and enjoy that time, but there are great opportunities for you all in this country, and we want you to rebuild the NHS with us.” My niece is currently in Australia, and we sometimes call this the “bring Talia home Bill”.
The NHS must play its part in training our young people and keeping top talent in the UK. If colleagues agree that that is worth doing, and if they want to keep our people here, they should join us in voting for the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time; to stand committed to a Committee of the whole House (Order, this day).