Medical Training (Prioritisation) Bill

Earl Howe Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 12th February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Patel, deserves our thanks for opening our Committee debate in a cogent and powerful way. He is absolutely right: in this country, we train some of the very best doctors in the world—at great expense to them and to the taxpayer—but too many are choosing to leave the training process because in the now expanded competitive scrum they cannot access the training places they require. Each year many remain unemployed. That is a serious policy challenge, and Ministers are right to seek to address it. We need a long-term and fair solution.

The noble Lord, Lord Patel, is seeking to ensure that UK medical graduates are prioritised for training places first before those in the priority group are offered places. There would then be a third tier of prioritisation for any other eligible applicants. This would put UK medical graduates, as defined by Clause 4, ahead in the queue for training places. I do not think we can fault the noble Lord for his logic. If we believe there is currently a massive and disproportionate injustice being meted out to UK medical graduates, we owe them the best chance we can give them to enter further training pathways in this country.

However, I have two questions for the Minister. First, the Explanatory Notes confirm that those who have trained in Ireland, Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway have been included in the priority group because

“existing agreements require us to recognise their qualifications and offer parity in access to the profession”.

Can the Minister please confirm whether the reordering of prioritisation, as proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Patel, would cut across the existing agreements that the UK Government are bound by?

Secondly, I think many of us agree that emergency legislation should be avoided as far as possible, but where it is necessary, it should be simple and straightforward. On the face of it, the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Patel, would make the Bill a bit more complicated by adding a further tier of prioritisation. If that is so, I am sure he would argue that the extra complexity is well worth it. It would be helpful if the Minister could tell us whether such an additional tier of prioritisation would make the process more complex to manage.

Amendment 2 in the name of my noble friend Lady Coffey would prioritise UK medical graduates who are British citizens first, then those persons in the priority group and then UK medical graduates who are not British citizens. The category of other eligible applicants is not included. Perhaps it is an inadvertent omission; I do not know. Again, this would create a three-tier prioritisation process, where the Government are currently proposing two tiers, with the added dimension of drawing a distinction between different categories of UK medical graduates. Like the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, I am uncomfortable with that as a matter of policy. On the face of it, the amendment presents a more complex set of arrangements than those proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Patel, so it would be helpful to hear from the Minister how the Government view my noble friend’s suggestions, including their ready workability.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)]

My Lords, I am most grateful to all noble Lords for their helpful contributions to this debate. Amendments 1, 3, 6 to 8 and 12 to 14, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Patel, seek to create tiered categories of prioritisation for the UK foundation programme and specialty programmes. Taken together, they would require places to be allocated to UK medical graduates in the first instance, and then to applicants in the other prioritised categories specified in the Bill. As noble Lords have observed, the Bill sets clear priority groups, but it does not make rankings within these groups, and that is what we are looking at.

I welcome my noble friend Lord Darzi, not least because the review that he undertook for the Government in 2024 recommended that we should prioritise medical training, for all the reasons given by the noble Lords who support it. I will return to this whole area when we debate a later group, but on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Darzi—this will perhaps also be helpful to the noble Earl, Lord Howe—alongside UK graduates, we are prioritising in the Bill graduates from Ireland and the EFTA countries. This reflects the special nature of our relationship with Ireland—specifically, our reciprocal rights of movement and employment—and our obligations under international trade agreements with the EFTA countries, which the noble Earl, Lord Howe, referred to, that require consistent treatment of these graduates in access to medical training. The amendments that we are looking at would mean that we could not honour these agreements. That, by its nature and definition, would create huge difficulties.

On specialty training, these amendments would also mean that we could not effectively deliver on our policy intention to prioritise applicants with significant NHS experience who understand how the health service works and how to meet the needs of the UK population. It might be helpful if I summarise this by saying that the Bill sets out what I would regard as a binary system where applicants are either prioritised or not. Clearly, once that prioritisation has happened, the normal processes will apply to establish who the appointable applicants are, to fill the posts, and so on.

Amendment 2, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, seeks to create tiered categories of prioritisation for the UK foundation programme and to prioritise UK medical graduates who are British citizens above all other applicants. The Bill as drafted prioritises all UK medical graduates who meet the criteria, regardless of their citizenship status. It might be helpful to the noble Lords, Lord Mohammed and Lord Clement-Jones, to restate that what matters is where a doctor is trained, not where they are born. UK-trained medical graduates have undertaken curricula, clinical placements and assessment standards aligned to the NHS, and are therefore best prepared to move directly into NHS practice.

The Government are committed to prioritising those doctors who have already spent a significant part of their education within the NHS and understand how the health service works and how to meet the needs of the UK population, not least because—this is an issue that we have discussed many times—these doctors are more likely to remain in the NHS for longer, supporting the sustainable medical workforce for the future that we are all looking at.

As I set out in relation to the previous set of amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Patel, this amendment would also mean that we would not be honouring the special nature of our relationship with Ireland and obligations under trade agreements with EFTA countries. I emphasise again in the Chamber today that prioritisation does not mean exclusion. All eligible applicants will still be able to apply and will be offered places if vacancies remain after prioritised applicants have received offers, which we expect to be the case particularly in certain areas.

My noble friend Lord Winston raised a question about the Bill in respect of highly skilled overseas doctors and particularly referenced clinical academics. As I have said, it is not exclusion from applying—it is prioritisation. It may be helpful more broadly for me to emphasise that there are likely to be opportunities in specialties such as general practice, core psychiatry and internal medicine, because historically they attract fewer applicants from the groups that we are prioritising for 2026. I understand the point that my noble friend is making, but we have to focus on the core purpose of the Bill. With that, I hope that noble Lords will feel able not to press their amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Earl Howe]

4: Clause 1, page 1, line 7, at end insert—
“(2) Nothing in this section shall be taken to negate or override a confirmed offer of a place on a UK Foundation Programme where the offer was made prior to the date on which this Act was first laid as a Bill before Parliament.(3) In this section “confirmed offer” means an offer in writing made by a person who has a function of deciding offers of places on a UK Foundation Programme.”

[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 ---

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, especially those from around the Committee who felt able to support my Amendment 4. I think there will be very many people in the medical community who will read the Minister’s reply to my amendment with acute disappointment. I say that not only because of the arguments I tried to articulate about legitimate expectations but also because of the point, well made by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, about the damage that the Bill will cause to the UK’s reputation for fairness around the world.

I would also pray in aid the amendment spoken to so ably by the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed of Tinsley, who argued in favour of delaying the implementation of the medical specialty training prioritisation requirements by one year. In doing so, he has very much echoed my thinking in this whole area. My initial reaction to this amendment is that it would have a positive impact on applicant confidence, as well as trust in the system, to pick up again the point by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, by allowing an extra year to transition to the new prioritisation process.

I also note that my noble friend Lord Strathclyde, in his role as chairman of the Constitution Committee, has written to the Minister, raising the committee’s concerns about the impact of the new prioritisation regime on applicants for the 2026 cohort who would fall outside the prioritised groups. It seems to me that Ministers really should consider this proposal carefully.

Amendment 10 by the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, would remove the requirement that those who are prioritised for specialty training programmes must have indefinite leave to remain or leave to enter or remain in the UK, replacing those subsections with the requirement that persons merely need to have been

“registered on the NHS Oriel recruitment platform, or … demonstrated a professional commitment to the National Health Service”.

I thought the noble Lord argued his case very well. Of course, material in this context is the number of applicants who do not currently have leave to enter or remain in the UK who would, under the noble Lord’s amendment, be able to come here. I am, however, quite surprised to hear from the Minister that it would require a manual search of tens of thousands of records to find the answer to that, and that there are not ways of conducting a search automatically or electronically that could reveal the information that is needed. Again, I was disappointed by the Minister’s reply, for the reasons largely cited by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones.

Finally, I comment briefly on the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Birmingham, to which I added my name. These do not seem to me to be onerous on the Government in any way; they merely grant the Secretary of State the power to permit the appropriate authority to make regulations specifying further groups of people who are included. I feel that the Bill is particularly unfair to doctors with significant NHS experience seeking a specialty training post in 2026, and the mechanism proposed in the noble Lord’s amendments could be used to address that unfairness.

It is a pity that the Minister felt compelled to sound a negative note on the proposals by the noble Lord, Lord Stevens. However, having listened to the Minister’s reply and to all the amendments in this group, I think a period of reflection is warranted, hopefully by the Government as well as noble Lords around the Committee. With that, I beg to withdraw Amendment 4.

Amendment 4 withdrawn.

--- 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.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful for this debate, as I have been grateful for the time that noble Lords have given to discussing their concerns about various aspects of the Bill in advance of today. I can say to both the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, that I always reflect on what they and other noble Lords say. Indeed, I reflect on what every noble Lord says—it is true that I may listen to some more than others, but that would be telling. I am genuinely grateful. In my view, it really does assist the passage of legislation and I take it very seriously. I will of course reflect, as I have before, not just on what is said in the Chamber but on what we have discussed outside.

The noble Earl, Lord Howe, said previously that people will be watching and reading this debate, and I absolutely agree and am glad that they do. So I must emphasise the point that this is not about excluding people from their applications; it is about prioritising. The reason we are in this position is the removal of the resident labour market test in 2020, which changed the whole landscape. In 2019, there were 12,000 applicants; now, there are nearly 40,000 applicants, which means four resident doctors for every specialist training post. I believe that noble Lords understand the scale. Internationally trained doctors make a huge contribution and will continue to do so. We are aiming to bring forward those internationally trained doctors who have significant NHS experience for training posts in the future, which I think is absolutely right.

Let me turn to the amendments in this group: Amendments 15 and 16, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Gerada; Amendment 17, tabled by my noble friend Lord Forbes; and Amendments 20 and 21, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Howe. Each of these amendments seeks to ensure that graduates of overseas campuses of UK medical schools are prioritised for foundation and specialty training. I understand why this is being raised, and it is quite right to probe this whole area, in my view. While I appreciate the intention behind these amendments, and the manner in which they have come through, the Government are unable to accept them.

--- 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.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful not just for this brief debate but for the efforts of noble Lords to expedite this legislation. I acknowledge the short timeframe—it is not as short as in the other place but, nevertheless, noble Lords have been most co-operative, and I value that.

Amendment 23, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, seeks to require that all regulations made under the Act are subject to the affirmative procedure. This is an amendment we are not able to accept. To reiterate our intention, the Bill sets out the groups of people who are to be prioritised for specialty training from 2027 onwards. I reassure the noble Lord that the delegated power is limited to adding to this list by reference to significant experience working as a doctor in the health service or immigration status.

Similarly, we have set out in the Bill specialty training programmes excluded from the prioritisation scheme. The delegated power is limited to amend this list, and it gives necessary operational flexibility to respond to future changes in recruitment, training and workforce needs—something that I know noble Lords are very attuned to the need for.

I am sympathetic to the desire for parliamentary scrutiny and I always try to ensure that it is provided but, because of the limited scope of these powers, we believe that the negative procedure is appropriate. As the noble Earl, Lord Howe, just referred to, the Bill has been assessed by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, and no suggestion has been made that the negative procedure was inappropriate for this regulation.

I have spoken in a previous group to why we are dealing with emergency legislation. I hear what is said about the downsides, but we have to balance that with the scale of the problem and the urgency that it demands. That is why we decided to introduce emergency legislation.

The noble Earl spoke about the Constitutional Committee letter. We will be responding formally to the committee to address its concern. With that, I hope the noble Lord feels able to withdraw his amendment.