Medical Training (Prioritisation) Bill

Debate between Earl Howe and Lord Mohammed of Tinsley

Report stage
Monday 23rd February 2026 Lords Chamber

[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.

Medical Training (Prioritisation) Bill

Debate between Earl Howe and Lord Mohammed of Tinsley

Committee stage
Thursday 12th February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, I begin by making it clear that this is very much a probing amendment, for reasons which I shall explain. Across all the many representations I have received on the provisions of this Bill—from UK medical graduates; UK citizens studying medicine abroad; non-UK citizens studying abroad; some in the middle of their degree course; some who have finished their degrees, and some who have commenced but not completed a UK foundation programme—there is one issue that rises to the surface. It is an issue that is most easily encapsulated in the phrase “legitimate expectations”.

Quite justifiably, in my view, individuals who have embarked on the long and costly journey that is required of them in order to gain a GMC-approved medical qualification and who have found themselves suddenly deprioritised by one or other provision within this Bill have questioned the fairness of the dividing lines that the Government have chosen to draw in such summary fashion. Medical graduates—many of them British citizens—who have demonstrated both commitment and excellence and who have adhered in good faith to every step of the process laid down under existing rules are now being told that their trust in the system counts for nothing and that, all of a sudden, their legitimate expectations have been overridden.

Noble Lords will note that my amendment relates specifically to the 2026 UK foundation programme. It suggests that a graduate who has already received a written offer of a place on a foundation programme should be able to rely on the validity of that offer. In reality, I understand that, with very few exceptions if any, applicants to the 2026 UK foundation programme have not yet received formal written offers of employment. However, the formal process began last summer. Eligibility applications were completed last July and foundation programme applications in September. Since then, there have been mandatory UKFP-related deadlines, including the national clinical assessment—NCA—in November and PLAB 1 in December. In other words, the process is active, sequential and consequential, notwithstanding as yet the absence of formal written offers.

To take the case of a medical graduate in February 2026 who finds themselves prospectively deprioritised in the way that I have described, in the Government’s view, at what point on that graduate’s journey does the principle of legitimate expectations kick in? How fair is it to say to a talented and high-achieving graduate that, despite their passing through all the existing procedural hoops, they now need to lower their expectations quite dramatically and accept that they are no longer in that part of the queue for a medical qualification which, in good faith, they previously worked to join?

In summary, my amendment is intended to pose a somewhat broader question than its literal wording would suggest. What do the Government have to say to that cohort of soon-to-be deprioritised graduates who have committed time, effort and money to pursuing their goal? Is there any room for movement? I beg to move.

[Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)]

My Lords, I speak to the amendments in this group in my name—Amendments 5 and 10—and to Amendments 9, 11, 24 and 25 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Birmingham, which I have also signed.

I follow up the point that the noble Earl, Lord Howe, talked about in terms of the fairness for those people who went into the application process last summer. They started this process with the expectation of getting a confirmation any time now and being able to prepare. That is why my Amendment 5 proposes to postpone the implementation of this speciality training prioritisation for this year’s intake, so that those people who are applying for 2027 know that we are changing the rules, rather than telling those people who applied last summer that we have changed the rules. Let me be clear from the outset: this amendment does not seek to undermine the principle of the objectives of this Bill on medical training; rather, it seeks to ensure that these objectives are implemented fairly, coherently and without unintended harm to the very trainees upon whom our healthcare system depends.

The central issue for us here has always been timing. As the Bill currently stands, these changes would be introduced during an active application cycle. This raises serious concerns about procedural fairness and legitimate expectations. Applicants have made life-altering decisions—academic, financial and personal—based on a set of rules that existed last summer when they applied. To change these rules mid-cycle, in my opinion, is not merely inconvenient but fundamentally unjust. Like many others, I have been contacted by affected medical students who have articulated their concerns around the criteria. They noted that they had complied fully with all the requirements enforced at the time of application, only to find themselves potentially excluded by the change that has now been imposed. Without transitional protections, the Bill would disadvantage applicants who acted in good faith, followed the guidance provided and had every reasonable expectation that the rules would not be rewritten half way through the process. This is not about isolated grievance; it reflects a systematic risk inherent in rushed implementation.

Medicine is a profession that demands long-term planning, with years of study, examination, placement and significant personal sacrifice. When Parliament alters the conditions of progression without adequate notice or transition, it destabilises that planning and erodes trust in the system. My amendment therefore offers a modest but proportionate and sensible solution: a one-year delay that would allow for clarity in communications and proper preparation. It would give institutions time to adjust their process, regulators time to issue clear guidance and applicants time to make informed decisions so that people who will be applying this summer know what the criteria are. Crucially it would also align with the principles of this House, which has long upheld fairness, legal certainty and an avoidance of disadvantage. We should be especially mindful of these principles when legislating in areas that directly affect access to professional training and career progression.

There is also the practical consideration. Disruption of the current application cycle risks creating gaps, appeals and bottlenecks that could ultimately harm workforce planning in the NHS. At a time when staffing pressures are already acute, we should really be wary of reforms that may have unintended consequences and might deter capable candidates. My amendment would not delay the reforms indefinitely, but simply ensure that reforms are done properly. By supporting this amendment, we would send a clear message that, while we are committed to improving medical training pathways, we are equally committed to treating applicants fairly and honouring the rules under which they apply.

We have heard about the immigration status mentioned earlier and the criteria on which that is based. With my Amendment 10, I would like to raise with the Minister the alternative option, given that the Government are also seeking to change the rules around indefinite leave to remain. My understanding is that there is a better option. The NHS has its own recruitment platform, the Oriel system, which is able to demonstrate professional commitment to the NHS. In doing so, it shifts the focus from legal residence status to actual service, contributions and engagement with our health system.

The NHS does not run, as we heard earlier, on immigration categories. It runs on people who turn up to shifts, who trained within its system, who understand its pressures and who have committed themselves to caring for patients day in, day out. The Oriel registration is not just a symbolic tactic; it is a gateway through which NHS recruitment, training and workforce planning operates. It is a clear, objective indicator that an individual is already participating in or seeking to participate in the NHS.

Similarly, the concept of professional commitment to the NHS allows for a broader and fairer assessment of contributions. It recognises work undertaken in the NHS trust, clinical placements, foundation training, research, teaching and other forms of service that directly benefit patients and institutions. This approach reflects reality far more accurately than a single immigration milestone, which may have little bearing on an individual’s clinical engagement or future commitments or intentions.

There is also a serious risk of equality issues at stake. Many doctors who have trained in the UK, worked in NHS hospitals, paid taxes and served our communities for years do not yet hold indefinite leave to remain, due to the structures and lengths of immigration pathways. To divert these such individuals despite their proven service risks sending a deeply damaging message that contribution is secondary to paperwork. At a time when the NHS remains heavily reliant on international medical students, we should be careful not to erect barriers that discourage retention or undermine morale. These clinicians are not temporary stopgaps; they are integral members of our workforce. Many intend to build long-term careers here and many already have.

From a practical standpoint, this amendment also improves administrative clarity. Assessing our registration and documenting NHS experience is straightforward, verifiable and directly relevant to workforce needs. By contrast, tying prioritisation to immigration status risks complexity, inconsistencies and unintended exclusion. If the aim of the Bill is to strengthen medical training and to support the NHS workforce, our criteria must align with that goal. This amendment ensures that prioritisation is based on what truly matters: demonstrated commitment to the NHS and the work that it exists to do. Therefore, I urge noble Lords to support both my amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)]

The noble Lord, Lord Stevens, has given people ideas. Possibly, this could happen, yes.

Thirdly, both courses and study for the convocation are approved by the GMC as being equivalent to the UK medical qualification. This is not about lowering standards or creating a new route through the back door. On the contrary, this is about recognising the standards that already exist and are regulated by the GMC. The GMC is determined that these courses are equivalent in content assessment and outcome. It is difficult to justify why we should exclude them, given the numbers that we heard about earlier.

Universities such as Newcastle—and there may be others as well—rely heavily on this partnership. These programmes have not just happened overnight. They have existed for some time. They are run by UK institutions, aligned with UK curricula and assessed identically to UK standards and subjects. Graduates receive UK-awarded degrees, not foreign substitutes. Such programmes contribute to the NHS. Only yesterday, we heard from Newcastle University that they have had up to 150 students on their Malaysian campus. As we heard earlier, some of those students have come back to the United Kingdom and, in particular, have served for many years as GPs when we have had an acute shortage. We need to take heed of that contribution and also the long-standing relationships that exist both with Newcastle and Queen Mary.

We are only asking for a very small change. We are not asking for tens of thousands of students to come here. We are asking for a small number through long-established partnerships that have existed and stood the test of time. We are asking the Minister for some flexibility. This is being heard from all sides of your Lordships’ House. We are about to go on a holiday. I hope that the Minister will take this time to reflect on our debate and come back on Report with government amendments that we can all support. I look forward to the debate that we are going to have in less than a fortnight’s time.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak to my Amendments 20 and 21 and in support of the other amendments in this group.

My amendments are intended to work together and to return us to one of the salient themes of our debates at Second Reading, a theme which has been persuasively developed today by the noble Baroness, Lady Gerada, the noble Lord, Lord Forbes, and other speakers. At the heart of their concerns is why the Government have chosen to adopt a definition that threatens to undermine high-quality workforce capacity in the NHS, that jeopardises the sustainability of medical education delivered overseas by UK institutions, and that runs completely counter to the Government’s stated ambitions on promoting British standards of education internationally.

The Bill prioritises graduates based on strict geographic criteria, rather than on the provenance of their qualifications. UK academic institutions such as Queen Mary University of London and Newcastle University have campuses respectively on Malta and in Malaysia which train doctors to GMC-approved standards, using the same curriculum and the same assessments as those employed on their campuses in the UK.

The noble Baroness, Lady Gerada, has eloquently made the case for Maltese-trained students. I can add little to that. The noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones, Lord Mendelsohn, and Lord Forbes have also spoken very powerfully on the same theme. The amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Gerada, speak of the two qualifications—in other words that gained in Malta and that gained in London—as being identical in character. The amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Forbes, uses the word “equivalent”. I would go further by saying that the degree issued by the Queen Mary University of London Malta campus is not merely equivalent to a UK degree: it is a UK degree.

Not only that, but Queen Mary University is able to state that cohorts of its students trained in Malta frequently outperform their contemporaries who have studied and trained on the London campus. The intervention from the noble Lord, Lord Winston, has confirmed that that is not an isolated claim. The same claim could be made of many graduates of Newcastle University’s campus in Malaysia. These are excellent doctors, so there is not an issue of quality here.

Nor should there be an issue around numbers. In total, as we have heard, the number of these overseas-trained graduates is modest in comparison to the overall NHS training intake in a given year. The numbers really ought to be treated as de minimis. We have heard from Ministers that, if they were to flex the rules in the way that I and others are proposing, there would be no way for them in the future to control the total numbers of eligible applicants from these sources. My question is: why? It would seem perfectly possible to grant Ministers a power to cap total numbers at a figure corresponding to recent experience. It would then be up to the relevant universities concerned to collaborate year by year to ensure that the cap was not exceeded. That is what my Amendment 21 is intended to do.

Finally, we return to the issue of legitimate expectations. For all the reasons that I have given, students trained on overseas campuses of UK institutions have never dreamed of questioning whether the status of their qualification would differ in the slightest from the status of the qualification gained by their student colleagues in London. They are, in consequence, not to put too fine a point in it, appalled that, through this Bill, they are suddenly to be regarded as less deserving of a medical career in the NHS. I ask the Minister to think again.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)]

My Lords, I know that it is late, but it is important that I move this amendment, which seeks for all regulations that are made under the Bill are subject to affirmative resolution procedures. In simple terms, after the Bill is passed, we would have a vote in both Houses on any changes made to allocation of spaces. This amendment goes to the heart of parliamentary accountability.

The Bill as currently drafted grants Ministers broad regulation-making powers, including the ability to amend key operational aspects of medical training with limited parliamentary oversight. My concerns are not with the intentions of the current Minister or the present Government but with the precedent that this sets. Delegated powers once granted outlive individual Ministers or Governments.

Medical training is an area where stability and predictability are essential. Doctors and medical students plan years in advance—sometimes decades. They make decisions about education, location, finances and family life based on the rules that Parliament sets. If those rules can be altered by secondary legislation without a positive vote in both Houses, we risk creating uncertainty and undermining confidence in the system.

The affirmative resolution procedure would provide a necessary safeguard. It ensures transparency, debate and accountability. It allows Parliament to examine whether proposed changes are proportionate, evidence-based and aligned with the original intent of an Act. Importantly, in this case, it would give affected shareholders—medical students, trainees, regulators and the NHS workforce—the assurance that changes will not be made without democratic consent and accountability.

This House has repeatedly expressed concerns about the expansion of executive powers through delegated legislation, particularly in areas with significant policy impacts. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has, on numerous occasions, warned against the inappropriate use of negative or minimal scrutiny procedures where primary legislation confers wider discretion. My amendment responds directly to those concerns.

There is also a practical benefit. Requiring affirmative approvals encourages better policy-making. Ministers can explain, justify and defend their proposals in open debate. That process often improves the quality of regulations, identifies unintended consequences and builds broader support for necessary reforms.

This amendment would not prevent future Governments adapting the medical training system. It would simply ensure that, when they do so, they do so with Parliament, not without it and not by going around it. It would preserve flexibility while embedding accountability. At a time when trust in politics and political institutions is fragile, Parliament must demonstrate that significant changes to professional regulations are made openly and responsibly. Requiring a positive resolution in both Houses is a modest but important step in that direction. I therefore commend this amendment to your Lordships’ House.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, for his amendment and his very helpful introduction. From these Benches, we have consistently raised our concerns about the downsides of emergency legislation. The Constitution Committee chairman, my noble friend Lord Strathclyde, wrote in his letter to the Minister that the Constitution Committee has

“repeatedly raised concerns about the fast-tracking of legislation, highlighting in particular the need to ensure that effective parliamentary scrutiny is maintained”.

We are all of us, I hope, doing our utmost in the short time available to scrutinise the Bill fully, but, with such a short period of time available, we cannot discount the possibility that this legislation will have unintended consequences. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, posited one particular example in his speech during the last debate.

It is true that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has not brought anything in the Bill to the attention of the House. However, in the light of the fact that the Bill has been fast-tracked through Parliament, there is, I believe, a case for making all regulations under this Act subject to the affirmative procedure, allowing for additional future scrutiny. Like the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, I look forward to hearing the Minister’s reply.