A divisionDivision No. 419 · Tuesday, 27 January 2026· Commons· Health

Medical Training (Prioritisation) Bill: Amendment 2

61Ayes
311Noes
Defeated · majority 250 · Government won
275 did not vote
Aye63No311DID NOT VOTE · 275

647 Members · Aye 61 · No 311 · DNV 275 · grey dots in centre are abstentions

Analysis
Commons

Parliament voted on 27 January 2026 on Amendment 2 to the Medical Training (Prioritisation) Bill, which would have required the affirmative procedure for ministerial regulations changing who is eligible for prioritisation in medical training. Under the affirmative procedure, Parliament must actively approve such changes; under the negative procedure, which the Bill as drafted uses, changes take effect unless Parliament objects. The amendment was defeated by 311 votes to 61. The vote matters because it determines how much parliamentary oversight applies to future changes in the rules governing who gets prioritised for postgraduate medical training places. The Bill creates a new statutory framework for allocating Foundation Programme and specialty training places, favouring UK medical graduates and a defined priority group. The defeated amendment would have required a parliamentary vote before the Secretary of State could redraw those eligibility boundaries. Without it, the government retains the power to adjust prioritisation rules by regulation without a full vote, allowing faster changes but with less formal scrutiny. The Liberal Democrats voted unanimously in favour of the amendment, joined by Plaid Cymru's four MPs, the Greens' three MPs, two independents and one Traditional Unionist Voice MP. Labour and Labour Co-operative MPs voted against en bloc, as did the Democratic Unionist Party and the Ulster Unionist Party. No Conservative MPs appear in the Aye lobby, and the party had no vote recorded in this division. The result followed a similar pattern to Amendment 1 on the same Bill, also defeated on the same day, suggesting a consistent government majority against tightening procedural scrutiny of the Bill's regulation-making powers.

Voting Aye meant
Support requiring Parliament to actively approve any future changes to medical training prioritisation rules, strengthening scrutiny of ministerial decisions affecting doctors' careers and NHS workforce planning.
Voting No meant
Oppose the amendment, preferring the Bill as drafted with the negative procedure, allowing the government to adjust prioritisation rules more quickly without a full parliamentary vote each time.
§ 01Who voted how.372 voting Members · 275 absent

Each row is one party. The stacked bar gives the within-party split of Aye / No / Absent; the columns on the right give the raw counts. The whip column shows the published party position — “Free vote” means the whip was formally removed for this division.

Party
Whip
Aye / No / Abs
Aye
No
Abs
Labour Party
Whipped No
0
276
85
Conservative and Unionist Party
0
0
116
Liberal Democrats
Whipped Aye
53
0
18
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped No
0
27
15
Independent
2
3
8
Scottish National Party
0
0
9
Reform UK
0
0
8
Sinn Féin
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist Party
Whipped No
0
4
1
Green Party of England and Wales
Whipped Aye
3
0
1
Plaid Cymru
Whipped Aye
4
0
0
Social Democratic and Labour Party
0
0
2
Your Party
0
0
2
Alliance Party of Northern Ireland
0
0
1
Restore Britain
0
0
1
Speaker
0
0
1
Traditional Unionist Voice
1
0
0
Ulster Unionist Party
0
1
0

Source · Hansard · UK Parliament Votes API · whip status from announced positions; “free vote” indicates the whip was formally removed

§ 02From the debate.5 principal speakers
Karin SmythSupportiveBristol South
Supports the Bill as drafted; opposes most amendments as they would widen the priority pool, undermine workforce planning, or create loopholes; defends the discretionary commencement clause as necessary for effective NHS implementation.Labour · Voted no · Read full speech (2,610 words)
Dr Caroline JohnsonNeutralSleaford and North Hykeham
Supports the Bill's principles but tables amendments to protect British citizens trained overseas, safeguard armed forces medics, require annual reporting on international student impacts, and ensure merit-based allocation of specific training places.Conservative · Voted no_vote_recorded · Read full speech (1,984 words)
Helen MorganNeutralNorth Shropshire
Supports the Bill but tables amendments to replace negative with affirmative procedure for future regulations, protect 2026 applicants mid-cycle, require annual impact reporting by medical specialty, and ensure devolved consent on regulatory changes.Liberal Democrat · Voted aye · Read full speech (734 words)
Dr Ben SpencerQuestioningRunnymede and Weybridge
Strongly opposes the current preference informed allocation system as meritless and dehumanising; supports new clause 2 requiring merit-based allocation of candidates to specific training places after prioritisation requirements are met.Conservative · Voted no_vote_recorded · Read full speech (469 words)
Helen MaguireQuestioningEpsom and Ewell
Intervenes to support new clause 1, raising concerns that the Bill could exacerbate workforce shortages in specialties like oncology and radiology without specialty-specific impact assessment.Liberal Democrat · Voted aye · Read full speech (100 words)
§ 03Related divisions.Same topic · recent
Sources
Division dataUK Parliament Votes API
DebateHansard · Commons
Stance analysisAI analysis · Claude 4.x
LicenceOpen Parliament Licence v3.0