Medical Training (Prioritisation) Bill: Amendment 9
Tuesday, 27 January 2026 · Division No. 418 · Commons
177 MPs did not vote
Voting Yes means
Support prioritising British citizens for NHS specialty training interviews and places from 2027, even if they trained outside the UK
Voting No means
Oppose using citizenship as the primary criterion for training priority, preferring to prioritise those with UK medical qualifications and NHS experience regardless of nationality
What happened: On 27 January 2026, MPs voted on Amendment 9 to the Medical Training (Prioritisation) Bill. The amendment, tabled by the Conservative opposition, would have required that from 2027 British citizens on UK foundation programmes be given priority for interviews and places on specialty training programmes. The amendment was defeated by 378 votes to 91 -- a margin of 287.
Why it matters: The Medical Training (Prioritisation) Bill is designed to give doctors who trained in UK and Irish medical schools priority access to foundation and specialty training places in the NHS. Amendment 9 sought to go further than the government's Bill by specifying that British citizenship, not just where a person trained, should be the qualifying criterion for prioritisation from 2027 onwards. The defeat of the amendment means the Bill proceeds on the basis of where a doctor trained rather than their nationality. In practical terms, this affects thousands of doctors -- in 2025, around 12,000 UK-trained doctors competed for training places alongside approximately 21,000 internationally trained applicants.
The politics: The vote divided almost entirely along party lines. All 84 Conservative MPs who voted backed the amendment, and they were joined by 4 Democratic Unionist Party MPs, 2 Reform UK MPs and 2 independents. Labour, Labour Co-operative, the Liberal Democrats, the SNP, Plaid Cymru and the Green Party all voted against. The Liberal Democrats backed the government's Bill in general terms but opposed several Conservative amendments on different grounds, including concerns about ministerial powers to change eligibility without parliamentary scrutiny. Health Secretary Wes Streeting signalled scepticism about the Conservative amendment, suggesting its shift in position -- from earlier criticism of his approach to resident doctors' pay -- was cynically motivated.
How They Voted
Government position: No
What They Said in the Debate
Conservative · Daventry
Supports Bill principle but demands immediate commencement on Royal Assent, 4,000 new specialty training places, merit-based selection, and clarity on implementation rather than using commencement clause as negotiating leverage.
Voted Aye
Liberal Democrat · North Shropshire
Welcomes prioritisation but warns reorganising queue without expanding capacity won't solve workforce crisis; seeks positive procedure for future eligibility changes and delay of mid-cycle deprioritisation of international doctors already in NHS.
Voted No
Conservative · Runnymede and Weybridge
Supports Bill but argues it treats symptoms not disease; calls for merit-based allocation (new clause 2), devolution of training decisions to ICBs, and restoration of doctors' autonomy over job placement rather than computer allocation.
Voted Aye
Labour · Ilford North
Defends Bill as necessary to prioritise UK-trained doctors funded by £4bn annual taxpayer investment, reduce competition from 4:1 to <2:1 ratio, and prevent talent loss to overseas recruitment.
Voted No
Labour · Birmingham Edgbaston
Strongly supports Bill as fair use of public investment; prioritisation of UK graduates is responsible government aligned with national interest and long-term workforce planning.
Voted No
Labour · Ipswich
Strongly supports Bill; emphasises fairness of prioritising 30,000 applicants for 9,500 posts, necessity to retain home-grown talent, and morality of not poaching doctors from WHO-listed shortage countries.
Voted No
SNP · Aberdeenshire North and Moray East
Welcomes Bill as pragmatic and net-positive for Scottish health; raises concern about settled status requirements (10 years) conflicting with 3-year training programmes for international staff retention.
Voted No
Labour · Sunderland Central
Supports Bill; argues it fixes core workforce planning assumption (international graduates leave earlier), reflects working-class communities underrepresented in medicine, and is sensible to legislate before workforce plan.
Voted No