Lord Clement-Jones (LD)

My Lords, I too thank the Minister for her introduction. I look forward to hearing from our two maiden speakers and add to the noble Earl’s welcome to the House to them. It is a pleasure to follow the noble Earl, and I agree with a great deal of what he said. Let me say from the outset that we on these Benches support the underlying principles of the Bill. The Government’s impact statement makes the case that UK graduates are significantly more likely to remain in the NHS long term than their international counterparts. It is entirely reasonable that where the British taxpayer invests some £4 billion annually in medical education, there should be a secure pipeline for those graduates into our health service. However, while the intent is sound, the execution is marred by serious flaws. Fairness requires that those who have relied on a long-standing government position are not disadvantaged by abrupt alterations. Six months’ notice is wholly inadequate for a decision with such a long lead-in time, and few could reasonably have expected such a significant change to be implemented with so little warning. I want to highlight two specific areas where the Bill creates profound inequity—the treatment of UK university campuses overseas, specifically Queen Mary University of London in Malta, and the flawed criteria used to assess significant NHS experience for our international colleagues. First, on the anomaly regarding Queen Mary University of London and its campus in Malta, until mid-last year, I was chair of Queen Mary University of London’s governing council. It is vital to understand that Queen Mary University in Malta is not a foreign institution or a private commercial venture; it is an integrated campus of a UK public university. Its students study a curriculum identical to that of their peers in London. They sit the same assessments, including the UK medical licensing assessment, and they are awarded the exact same GMC-approved primary medical qualification. In her letter to noble Lords this week, and I welcome her correspondence, the Minister argued that these graduates should not be prioritised because they may lack familiarity with local epidemiology and NHS systems. With respect, that does not hold water. These students follow the exact same NHS-aligned curriculum as Queen Mary students in Whitechapel. Contrast that with Clause 4, in which the Government rightly prioritise graduates from Ireland, but also prioritise graduates from Switzerland, Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein. A graduate from Liechtenstein has no UK medical degree, has not sat the UK medical licensing assessment and has no training in UK epidemiology. Yet, under the Bill, they will be prioritised over a Queen Mary in Malta student who holds a UK degree and has been specifically prepared for the NHS. This is a manifest absurdity. The Minister’s letter also suggests that including those students would undermine workforce planning because numbers are uncontrolled. That is incorrect. Queen Mary in Malta’s student numbers are capped by the Maltese Government at just 50 to 70 graduates a year—statistically negligible in a system of 11,000 places. To penalise them on such grounds is neither proportionate nor fair. Furthermore, the Government’s own impact assessment justifies the Bill on the need to protect taxpayer investment, yet Queen Mary in Malta students are self-funded. This is not merely a matter of academic equivalence; these graduates provide the NHS with doctors trained to UK standards at no cost to the British taxpayer, representing a rare example of value without expenditure —precisely the kind of pipeline a fair system ought to support rather than disadvantage. By excluding them, the Government are working against their own value-for-money logic. We also risk breaking a solemn international commitment. The Minister’s letter implies that our agreement with Malta is limited to ad hoc training. That downplays the reality. Since 2009, the UK and Malta have operated under a unique mutual recognition agreement regarding the foundation programme itself, explicitly renewed by the Department of Health and Social Care as recently as 2024. Malta is the only country in the world with this status. By unilaterally demoting these graduates, we are, in effect, tearing up a long-standing agreement with a Commonwealth partner—one that Malta’s own Minister for Health describes as having served both countries for over two centuries. Other universities, such as Newcastle University, which operates a similar campus in Malaysia, face similar predicaments. Its vice-chancellor has noted that its graduates too receive identical accreditation and transition seamlessly into the UK workforce. Then there is the second critical flaw in the Bill: how it attempts to identify significant NHS experience for the upcoming 2026 recruitment round. Under Clause 2, the Government propose using immigration status, specifically indefinite leave to remain—ILR—as a crude proxy for NHS experience. This reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of medical training timelines. ILR typically, at the moment, requires five years of residence, yet UK graduates enter specialty training after just two years of the foundation programme. That creates a perverse experience gap. International doctors who have served on our front lines for three or four years, passed royal college exams, built a career portfolio and worked the same rotas as their UK colleagues will be treated as if they have no experience at all, simply because they have not yet clocked up the five years required for ILR. This, effectively, tells dedicated doctors that their three years of service counts for nothing. In her earlier letter, the Minister defends this blunt proxy, as she did today, by claiming it was not operationally feasible to assess all applications for actual NHS experience in time for the 2026 cycle. We have received compelling evidence to the contrary. Doctors currently using the recruitment platform Oriel inform us that the system already captures data on months of NHS experience. The data exists, the mechanism to do this fairly exists, and to persist with the ILR requirement is to prioritise administrative convenience over the reality of clinical contribution. We should define significant experience not by visa status but by time served. A benchmark of two years of NHS experience would be equitable, and mirror the two years of core training required of UK graduates. Furthermore, we have all received distressing correspondence regarding doctors on spousal visas. These are permanent residents, married to British citizens, with an unrestricted right to work, yet under the Bill they are placed in the lowest priority tier. We risk driving away not just those doctors but their British spouses who work in our public sector as families are forced to emigrate to find work. There is a deep anxiety, in particular, regarding the mid-cycle implementation of these rules. We have received correspondence from doctors who have spent years building career portfolios and investing substantial resources based on published criteria, only to find the rules changing while the recruitment process is active. This creates procedural unfairness and huge instability for their families. If our guiding principle is, as it must be, fairness, then it cannot be right to introduce such consequential changes mid-cycle when candidates have already ordered their lives and careers around criteria that have stood in place for many years. To cap it all, there is a glaring incoherence at the heart of the Government’s approach. Just days ago, the Education Secretary, Bridget Phillipson, announced a new strategy to grow our education exports to £40 billion a year by 2030. She explicitly encouraged our universities to expand transnational education and open campuses overseas. Yet in the Bill, the Department of Health and Social Care is actively undermining that very strategy. We cannot have the Department for Education urging universities to go global to boost the economy while the Department of Health and Social Care simultaneously pulls up the drawbridge against the very students who enrol. That is a fundamental contradiction. For Queen Mary in Malta, the solution is simple: a minor amendment to Clause 4 to recognise its UK degree, or the inclusion of Malta in the priority list, honouring our 2009 agreement. For the broader issues affecting international medical graduates, we must abandon the blunt instrument of ILR and use the data we already have to recognise two years of service as the true mark of commitment. Let us not mar a necessary piece of legislation by failing to correct these obvious injustices.