Medical Training (Prioritisation) Bill

Debate between Lord Stevens of Birmingham and Lord Mohammed of Tinsley

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 ---

[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.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Debate between Lord Stevens of Birmingham and Lord Mohammed of Tinsley

Thursday 8th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)]

My Lords, I rise, after a very heavy day of debate, because it is important to reflect on what I have heard, not only in interactions with colleagues and friends across your Lordships’ House but, more importantly, from the public. They are looking to us to do our role: to scrutinise legislation. I have sat through some fantastic debates, particularly watching the noble Lords, Lord Pannick and Lord Carlile, on the other side of the argument. However, I have canvassed colleagues on this side of the House—we are not whipped either—and some of their comments are, “I am not supportive of your position, but I am frustrated by the lack of progress”. That is a consistent message across your Lordships’ House and out among the public.

There is a lot of scrutiny on your Lordships’ House at the moment—on what we do, whether we deliver value for money, et cetera. There would be a massive negative reaction from the public, regardless of what side of the argument they are on, if we do not get through this legislation. I join the noble Lord, Lord Young, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, in urging the Government and the usual channels to support us, as suggested by the Motion from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer. We owe it to the public, who will be watching us, to do our best to make sure that we do our duty and send this Bill back to the other place for it to do its duty as well.

[Lord Stevens of Birmingham (CB)]

My Lords, I too support the idea that this Bill needs extra time. It is entirely unsurprising that that is the case given that, notwithstanding the fact that it is a Private Member’s Bill, it is dealing with such a matter of substance. For example, if you compare the process that was put before the House for the Mental Health Bill—an important but arguably less significant piece of legislation—by the time we got to the Lords Committee stage, we had already had an independent commission, a White Paper, a public consultation, draft legislation and pre-legislative scrutiny. All of that is in effect being done by your Lordships through this process, so it is not surprising we need extra time. The suggestion that, just because this has been introduced as a Private Member’s Bill, democracy requires that we give it less scrutiny than a government Bill is an unpersuasive argument.

It is also the case that, over the first few days of Committee, some pretty significant matters of substance have arisen. We are not going to rehearse them now, but they are around capacity, choice, vulnerable groups and eligibility. While agreeing with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, the sponsor, that we need to find a way of coming to some judgments on these questions, what process does he envisage for that? The guidance that those who have put down probing amendments in Committee have got back from the Government—precisely because the Government do not want their fingerprints all over this Bill—has been, shall we say, Delphic or elliptical. The phrasing that Ministers have used time and again has been, “If you are contemplating coming back with an amendment such as that on Report, then you will need to do further work to make sure it is fully workable, effective and enforceable”, but then there is no subsequent work to bring that about. If we are going to have a substantive debate on Report, so we can get these safeguards in place, we are going to need to see that.

Finally, I would like to ask a question of the Government. For those of us who have concerns about the interaction between this legislation and the state of the health service, social care and palliative care, it would be very helpful if we could have more clarity soon from the Government on how they see those interactions happening. Yesterday, in the House of Commons Health and Social Care Committee, the Minister responsible for palliative care said that the Government would not publish their detailed modern framework for palliative care until, in effect, after this Bill had supposedly already passed through Parliament, which seems to me a dangerous reversal of the timetable that we require. It would be excellent to hear from the sponsor of the Bill and from the Government how they can help the House constructively engage on Report on some of the safeguards which are, in my judgment, clearly needed.