Debate contribution: Medical Training (Prioritisation) Bill: Legislative Consent Motion

Debate contribution by Mr Mike Nesbitt on 24 February 2026.

MLA

Mr Mike Nesbitt

Party at the time

Ulster Unionist Party

Date

24 February 2026

Type

Debate contribution (made as a minister)

Business

Executive Committee Business

Heading

Medical Training (Prioritisation) Bill: Legislative Consent Motion

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5404659

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I beg to move

The need for a legislative consent motion (LCM) has arisen as a result of the need to extend the provisions of the Medical Training (Prioritisation) Bill to Northern Ireland. The Bill was tabled in the House of Commons on 13 January 2026. It introduces a UK-wide duty on all providers of medical training to prioritise applications from United Kingdom or Republic of Ireland (ROI) medical schools. Given that the Bill applies to devolved health and social care (HSC) matters, an LCM is required to extend its provisions to Northern Ireland. I have apologised to the Speaker and the Health Committee for the short window that was afforded for scrutiny of the provisions of the Bill, and I extend that apology to Members. Unfortunately, the emergency nature of the legislation, coupled with the need to secure Executive approval for the tabling of the LCM, hindered my Department's ability to comply with the usual protocols. Having secured Executive approval on 12 February 2026, I wrote to the Health Committee that very day to advise it of my intention to table a legislative consent motion. I am grateful to the Committee for its consideration of the motion on 19 February 2026 and to the Speaker for facilitating today's debate at short notice. I fully appreciate the Committee's decision not to adopt a position on the LCM. I will briefly explain the policy background. The Bill introduces a UK-wide duty on all providers of medical training to prioritise applications from UK or ROI medical schools. Its application to devolved health and social care matters necessitates an LCM to extend the provisions here. The Bill's policy aim is to ensure that there is an employment pathway for United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland graduates of UK medical training programmes. It aims to implement the UK Government's commitment, as set out in the 10-year health plan for England, to prioritise UK medical graduates for foundation training places and UK medical graduates and other doctors with significant NHS experience for speciality training places. The Bill also includes provisions to prioritise others in a priority group that includes graduates of Irish medical schools and those of countries with which the UK has agreements on the recognition of professional qualifications and the provision of "no less favourable" access to practice. It will be possible to add to the list of countries to take account of future arrangements. I can confirm that each of the UK nations is committed to supporting and developing a sustainable domestic supply of doctors, recognising that medicine is a global profession and that the movement of doctors from the UK to other nations and vice versa is desirable and, sometimes, necessary. The proposed LCM asks the Assembly to endorse the Bill's extension to Northern Ireland for provisions within its legislative competence. Approving the LCM will ensure UK-wide consistency and will enhance career pathways for UK and ROI medical graduates. It will also protect UK-wide recruitment practices and ensure that there are sufficient medical foundation places for the output of all local higher education institutions. Without that provision, Northern Ireland might face increased competition for training places from international applicants and might have to withdraw from national recruitment processes, placing a significant administrative burden, with associated increased costs, on our local provider, which is the Northern Ireland Medical and Dental Training Agency (NIMDTA). I have repeatedly acknowledged the huge contribution that internationally trained doctors make to the health service, and I will continue to do so. Through the Bill, we aim to prioritise for future training posts internationally trained doctors who have significant NHS experience. That will not exclude anybody from applying for training places. While international staff will always play an important role in our health service, we are recruiting doctors from abroad when there is already a substantial pool of eligible applicants who have trained in the UK or are already employed in HSC. Those doctors are more likely to work in the health service for longer and to be better equipped to deliver healthcare that is tailored to our population, because they better understand our epidemiology. The Bill will ensure that we have a more sustainable medical workforce that can meet the health needs of the population, meaning that we will be less reliant on an unpredictable labour market and can make best use of the substantial taxpayer investment in medical training. The Bill will reduce competition for places and give homegrown talent a path to become the next generation of HSC doctors.

If the legislation is not passed, the number of applicants to these training programmes will continue to grow and the bottlenecks into speciality training posts will worsen. To prevent that escalation and ensure that changes take effect for the current application round for posts starting in August of this year, the UK Government have asked Parliament to expedite the progress of the Bill, with the aim of achieving Royal Assent by 5 March 2026.

The content of the Bill has been widely consulted on with constitutional, equality and Windsor framework senior counsel, who have indicated that they are content with the stated policy aim, which is to ensure that there is an employment pathway for UK and ROI graduates. Due to the expedited time frame for the introduction of the Bill, public consultation has not been undertaken. On human rights and equality, as recruitment to the medical foundation and speciality training programmes is carried out on a national, UK-wide level, all data pertaining to applications is held by the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) in England, which has, therefore, undertaken the relevant screening. The analysis by DHSC demonstrates that, while this approach supports the aims of sustaining a domestic pipeline of doctors and ensures that all UK medical graduates can complete their basic medical education, it will likely alter the demographic composition of the foundation programme workforce over the longer term. Recognising those risks, DHSC and the devolved Administrations will ensure that they continue to monitor and evaluate the impacts of that policy. I can advise Members that there are no known financial implications for Northern Ireland as a result of the Bill. DHSC published a regulatory impact assessment of the provisions, and I can confirm to Members that no Northern Ireland-specific impacts are anticipated beyond the general impacts that have been identified. I am supportive of the provisions. In the interests of good government across the United Kingdom, insofar as the provisions of the Bill deal with a devolution matter, they should be considered by the UK Parliament, particularly considering the policy basis for the proposals in relation to the introduction of a UK-wide duty on all providers of medical training to prioritise applications from United Kingdom or Republic of Ireland medical schools. There is reassurance in the Bill in that the consent of the Department of Health in Northern Ireland is required before the making of regulations on matters within the Assembly's competence. The Bill will ensure the prioritisation of UK and ROI medical graduates for foundation training places, and UK medical graduates and other doctors with significant NHS or HSC experience for speciality training places. I ask Members to support the motion.

1,201 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:03 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.

Disagree with this assessment?

Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.

Challenge this classification