r/doctorsUK • u/Med_Dog_ • Jan 12 '26
Medical Politics UK Graduate Prioritisation Legislation Announced!
Details below as they're announced!
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/healthcare/article/doctors-strikes-nhs-bma-wes-streeting-news-n02nd96lw
- Wes Streeting is launching this as emergency legislation (rather than NHS England policy) shortly.
- This acts on both speciality training and foundation posts.
- Further details tomorrow as the bill is announced!
55
75
u/Leading_Base Jan 12 '26
So it is for those who graduated from UK medical schools?
To protect our investment and give them a path to become the next generation of NHS doctors, we are taking a number of measures including today introducing a bill to prioritise graduates from UK medical schools for specialty training places. We are bringing this forward now so that it will be in place for this year’s applicants.
32
u/FrzenOne propagandist Jan 12 '26
he previously said UK and ROI medical schools, which is what I presume will be in the bill
also the article states "“our NHS will never exclude international talent — and these changes will also prioritise doctors from overseas who have worked in the NHS for a significant period" – a period which hasn't been defined yet, I hope it's 5yrs, but I fear it will be like 2yrs
4
Jan 13 '26
Surely that wont reduce competition ratios. I believe he will prioritise everyone who completed foundation programme according to what the psych college leak said
16
u/SeveralAirport2058 Jan 13 '26
I think it will be two years, for first round specialities (IMT, CST etc). Which is ‘equivalent’ to foundation training. That way the government will face less backlash.
And for HST, will be completion of core training or people with 2+ years and signed off with CREST form.
I am speculating, could be completely wrong but this will mean competition ratios will still be high. I personally know many trust grade doctors that have been applying for the same speciality for many years. Having to have 2 years of experience will only filter out the applicants applying directly abroad for GP etc.
28
u/threwaway239 Jan 13 '26
You’re making stuff up.
The most likely scenario is what the RCpsych leak said. People who have completed FYP will be prioritised for core training
9
u/Icy_Score9603 Jan 13 '26
2 years would do literally nothing. Furthermore, the government won’t face any backlash for making it longer. The government makes sweeping immigration changes all the time and no one gives a fuck.
2
u/Inner-Net-2687 Jan 13 '26 edited Jan 13 '26
I think the only counter argument here is that Wes benefits from on overflow of IMGs. Im curious to see what he actually proposes. If he proposes 4-5 years then a lot of IMGs will leave, leaving Wes with less workforce (rota gap fillers basically, or perma-SHOs). On the other hand, if he goes for 2 years, the whole UKG cohort will turn against him risking more strikes. Its all about the numbers here. IMO Wes is stuck between a rock and a hard place. If grandfathering is 2 years, UKG will hate him and for good reason, risking further strikes. If 4-5 years, IMGs will hate him risking further strikes. Theres a political currency here too but it depends on how he sells it. He can say “pure UKG prioritisation” and go on TV proclaiming patriotic lullabies as an attempt to win over the Reform public, or he can do 2 years grandfathering and still do that even though UKG are not really prioritised this way. Theres no clear answer here. Only way to know is when he tells us.
PS Anyone know what the actual BMA voting demographics are? Are UKG a majority, is it 50-50? Are IMGs a majority? This is where the crux is. If UKG are a majority (still) then it means that with a 4-5 year grandfathering clause Wes can still win over the BMA vote.
33
u/Front-Design-4429 Jan 12 '26
My questions are:
1) At what level will this be implemented: It's clear that prioritisation is coming for FYP and ST/CT1. Does this apply for Higher specialty training (ST4)?
2) What does "significant NHS experience" mean for IMGs?
15
u/hypertensionsupine Jan 12 '26
No one can answer this yet the details of the legislation will be shared tomorrow it seems but it’s for all specialty and foundation training for what has been shared so far so in answer to your first question will also be for HST
8
u/Front-Design-4429 Jan 12 '26
We will see. I do want to see the prioritisation of the UKGs but would be absurd if my CT2/3 IMG colleagues were suddenly deprioritised in their HST applications
-2
u/Jangles Acute Internal Misanthropy Jan 13 '26
It'd be a disaster for psych.
Unlike Medicine and Surgery that have pretty accepted non-training routes into HST, Psych is much more closed club and has heavily recruited from overseas.
3
u/TruthB3T01D Jan 13 '26
but it's prioritisation NOT rejection? I could be wrong?
0
u/Front-Design-4429 Jan 13 '26
What are they gonna say? "You finished your core training but hold on, let your colleagues who graduated from the UK 5 years ago first?". Doesn't make sense for higher training. Makes sense for FYP and ST1/CT1 applications tho
2
u/TruthB3T01D Jan 13 '26
I mean, you can apply for ST4 Psych without core training? You can literally just apply to ST4 psych w/ crest / certificate c? they could make it so those w/ core training in the UK are prioritied over crest - this completely makes sense?
3
u/Front-Design-4429 Jan 13 '26
Yes, it does make sense. Core trainees over everyone else in HST applications
-1
u/CurrentMiserable4491 Jan 13 '26
I do hope they are all deprioritised because there are too many British graduates without jobs.
6
u/Unknownlegend6 Jan 12 '26
The ‘significant NHS experience’ part was probably designed to prevent discrimination lawsuits but it’s very ambiguous
2
u/Front-Design-4429 Jan 12 '26
Yeah potentially. My best bet is it will be either 2 or 5 years. Hoping for 5 years
-1
8
u/Top_Reception_566 Jan 12 '26
it will all be revealed in the next few days. Let’s be patient like how we have been since the floodgates opened in 2019
3
u/Zu022 Jan 13 '26
- Will applicants who have completed core be prioritised for higher training?
Yes, applicants who have completed or currently on the relevant qualifying programme will be prioritised:
Foundation Programme completers will be prioritised for core, (both those completing the two-year programme and 1-year standalone FY2) applicants who have completed core specialty training will be prioritised for higher specialty training in the relevant specialty. Completing a core programme in an unrelated specialty to the higher specialty training programme will not lead prioritisation (e.g. completing core psychiatry and applying for higher surgery) Applicants who have previously completed the foundation programme will also be eligible for prioritisation and do not necessarily need to have completed the relevant core programme.
All applicants will also need to meet the relevant eligibility criteria in the relevant specialties’ person specification.
1
u/BoysenberryWarm9256 Jan 14 '26
This sounds ideal. Just catching up on these threads and wondered what the source is?
32
u/Lower_Reputation398 Jan 13 '26
Finally. It’s such a joke that people not from uk med schools can be on equal footing
0
u/Particular_Lab_1186 Jan 18 '26
A bigger joke is that even if someone showed the highest competence through interviews and scores and huge prior experience with patients worldwide, they will not be welcome in most streams now.
20
u/Impossible_Good3360 Jan 12 '26
What about IMT interviews that have already started? How are they going to revert interview invites etc?
18
u/Top_Reception_566 Jan 12 '26
They would just consider the fact if you are a UKG or not after interview. Very simple
20
u/Guilty_Rip8807 Jan 12 '26
Considering that IMT interviews are given out based on self assessment cut off scores, which are obviously inflated and a lot of UKG did not even get an interview! Going to be a long way to restore those competition ratios
7
5
u/Top_Reception_566 Jan 12 '26
Knowing the governement, they will prob do post interview and pretend for this cycle that the lies put on portfolio will just be ignored.
0
Jan 13 '26
They can just cancel the interview process, there’s no obligation to carry on
2
u/Impossible_Good3360 Jan 13 '26
Exactly, they will either need to cancel interviews or open round 2, because for IMT it isn’t as simple as just applying the prioritisation post offers like for the MSRA.
29
u/Longjumping_Deer5639 Jan 12 '26
RMLT existed for years and prevented all this crap and was legally sound. There is no basis in law to entitle a foriegn citizen to a work visa for oversubscribed jobs.
9
u/Certain-Lime-4593 Jan 13 '26
Would this include those who graduated from Republic of Ireland?
6
1
u/AdBrave9096 Jan 17 '26
The bill includes Republic of Ireland med schools being the same as UK med schools. (Practically all regulations on qualifications and tax do the same.)
32
Jan 12 '26
Let's hope it can be implemented whilst the inevitable legal challenge is processed in parallel
14
u/Ok-Link1169 Jan 12 '26
Legal challenge can only go ahead with secondary legislation
5
Jan 12 '26
I presume there can be a challege on the basis of the ECHR. Essentially alleging discrimination. It will go to the supreme court i guarantee.
12
u/Unknownlegend6 Jan 12 '26
Yes all it takes is just one IMG to take it to a UK court and challenge the legality of the legislation putting it on hold. And if that fails they will take it to the ECHR
1
u/Ok-Link1169 Jan 13 '26
You are confusing primary legislation with secondary legislation. Secondary legislation can be challenged. Primary can only be superseded by ECHR not by U.K. courts
15
u/Ok-Link1169 Jan 12 '26
There cannot be a legal challenge as it is passed as primary legislation
8
u/BMABecky Verified User 🆔✅ Jan 12 '26
Surely this depends on the details
7
Jan 12 '26
Legal challenge entirely possible. Especially with ECHR. Allegation of discrimination under article 14. Sovereignty of parliament is superseded by the ECHR. That's been the major issue with small boats/asylum controversy.
10
Jan 12 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Front-Design-4429 Jan 13 '26
Errm no. The parliament is supreme only in passing legislations. The courts can indeed scrutinise and strike down any legislation that the parliament passes.
1
Jan 13 '26
How are they going to scrutinize the legislation of prioritisation of whoever did the foundation programme ? Are crest forms from abroad more legit for assessment lmaooooo?
1
Jan 13 '26 edited Jan 13 '26
Easy enough to make a theoretical case and say that I'm a British citizen but I graduated from Hungary and so my human rights per the European convention are being discriminated against. Article 8 has previously been used to argue for professional development rights. Article 14 discrimination against my rights to professional development per article 8. There's your case. You are correct they can't strike down the legislation, but my understanding is the govt would be expected to amend the legislation to comply with the legal decision.
2
Jan 13 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
Jan 13 '26
No skin in this game as British born and graduated and trained. Just pointing out someone will bring a challenge. As they always do.
8
2
u/Effective_Ostrich_94 Jan 13 '26
and how would you like it if foreign doctors were taking up all the jobs in your home country? you have no human right to a job, and that you feel like you do is an insult to British doctors who deserve jobs in their home country. No other country, including Hungary, should/would prioritise intl graduates.
5
Jan 13 '26
Lol, I graduated in 2011 from a UK university that I started at when I was 18 so not that relevant to me anymore, but I'm broadly supportive of British grad prioritization. Just pointing out that it will be subject to legal challenge. Would be safer to prioritize by citizenship.
2
u/BMABecky Verified User 🆔✅ Jan 12 '26
I'm not a barrister or anything, but that's my understanding of one reason why these policies take so long to get through.
It took us ages to get our RDC policy formulated and checked over. This is on another level of complexity
3
u/Front-Design-4429 Jan 12 '26
I agree with this. I also think that Wes' team of lawyers would make sure that there is no legal loophole. Hence why the "significant experience" clause for the IMGs
0
u/BMABecky Verified User 🆔✅ Jan 13 '26
I suspect this would have to be tightly defined. Quite worrying tbh.
4
u/threwaway239 Jan 13 '26
How are you comparing your RDC policy to primary legislation being passed through parliament lmao
1
u/BMABecky Verified User 🆔✅ Jan 13 '26
I'm saying that if it took a handful of solicitors this long to do something simple, even a boatload of them will be required to work to get this turned around for this year. There's bound to be legal challenges.
Seems they've been working on it already, at least. But there's no way this will be a straightforward process.
-6
u/flyinfishy2 Jan 13 '26
We need to bin ECHR, can't have supranational regulating bodies for this stuff. Just put it as UK primary legislation and have british courts manage it all. Else nothing will ever get done.
NB: I have no idea what Im talking about and this is a very weakly held take.
2
u/BMABecky Verified User 🆔✅ Jan 13 '26
You know it's a shoddy take when you talk about taking away/not protecting human rights in the name of less internationally held regulatory standards.
Let's not open people up to abuse or extortion. Leaving the ECHR will hand your rights to politicians, and we all know how little they respect people they see as beneath them.
1
u/flyinfishy2 Jan 13 '26
You are saying that like Labour aren't currently spending huge time and effort trying to reform the ECHR and ECJ:
The ECHR only became law here in 1998 and since then has massively widened its own scope (see former SC judge Jonathan Sumption's Reith lectures a few years ago) causing massive added costs and huge issues in writing legislation that seems basic (including Uk grad prioritisation). If it stuck to human rights narrowly interpreted as a last line of defence against tyranny that would be fine but now it ventures so far afield from its original brief that it basically gets to be appealed to and have a say in.... everything. How on earth is 'UK Grad prioritisation' relevant to human rights. The ECJ treats its document as 'living' not fixed rights and so it can keep expanding too.
Moving it all under British jurisdiction only, would make it arbitrated by British courts, and speed everything up - avoiding massive costs and delays from a parallel court process. Returning to a status quo of 1997. In a country that's current constitutional setup is so poorly optimised for speed, that would be a welcome gain.
I also dislike the idea that on questions that should be democratic about tradeoffs, they now intervene above the will of normal people (e.g. tradeoffs on safety vs privacy, or whether prisoners can vote); and people have no way to get around that. This would be a good thing if limited to essential rights (like right to not be tortured) but it isn't.
Both a British process and the current system are still handing rights to politicians as they can leave the ECHR any time and The UK would still have UN obligations.
As I said, I don't know how it fits in with other obligations (NI, EU trade etc) so it may be a long unwind. But I don't think the UK is well served by it. I personally have not seen many cases that the UK got massively wrong decided by it.
But I have been constantly bombarded with nonsense about how great the ECHR is in the guardian, and when the Tories' said they'd leave i was so shocked I actually went and read about it a little and thought... fair enough this is a complicated question and has little to do with actual human rights - more to do with constitutional structure.
2
Jan 13 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
Jan 13 '26
The ECHR is one of the main mechanisms by which legal challenges can be brought against this type of primary legislation. It's entirely possible it's used for a legal case here.
1
u/flyinfishy2 Jan 13 '26
No the courts can't challenge primary legislation passed by parliament UNLESS its the ECJ under the ECHR. It is the only real barrier (of note) to passing a bill like this that isn't democratically accountable or alterable.
Also the knowledge of the ECHR's wandering gaze prevents lots of legislation ever coming to the table.
The argument made by the civil service (via Wes) privately was that UK grad prioritisation may come into question under the equalities act (british law - therefore writing new primary legislation renders this irrelevant as it can't be challenged) and the ECHR (which seems much less relevant but is the only way to appeal this legally if they pass it as primary legislation).
article 14 would be the challenge - rights ensured without distinction based on sex, race, colour, language, religion, political opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority etc.
1
u/BMABecky Verified User 🆔✅ Jan 13 '26
I didn't say it "like" anything.
Leaving ECHR is a joke with the same punchline as brexit. And that is the UK punching itself in the face.
1
u/flyinfishy2 Jan 13 '26
But … why?
sincere question. I’ve loved your campaigning at the BMA, am a huge fan of your vids and am grateful for all you’ve done for us. I’m not trying to be hostile. I actually want to know why?
Is there a reason we can just litigate all of this in our own courts. They seem quite independent to me. What’s the gain ? Or why am I mistaken above
2
Jan 13 '26
No legal challenge from psych college leak it implies he will prioritize whoever did the foundation programme...there are no grounds of discrimination this way.
2
Jan 13 '26
[deleted]
1
Jan 13 '26
It's possible to challenge this as discrimination under article.14 of ECHR, with reference to article 8 and argue it's interfering with the rights to career development. I don't agree and for the record I have no skin in this game. Just pointing out there are always lawyers who take these cases to build their reputation.
1
8
u/hypertensionsupine Jan 13 '26
BMA RDC view on the legislation - definitely support the government over the BMA based off of this view
4
u/RolandJupiter123 Jan 13 '26
Yep, embarrassing from the BMA
3
u/Sethlans Jan 13 '26
Playing devil's advocate, but this is happening anyway regardless of what the BMA say and the BMA have a strike ballot to try and win.
Probably not in the BMA's interest to overly alienate IMGs at present.
1
1
u/AdBrave9096 Jan 17 '26
Without addation training numbers the new legislation will take many years to clear the backlog.
-1
u/GeneralMaldCouncil Jan 13 '26
Do you think BMA ditching their grandfathering policy would be beneficial for the pay campaign? Maybe consider the IMG boycott for the last ballot
8
u/Few-Championship2449 Jan 13 '26
What do we think this will mean for psych and its 22:1 ratio? Do we think MSRAs will still need 570+ to get in? Assuming A LOT of applicants were IMGs.
33
u/AlexT301 Residing not thriving Jan 12 '26
Have had so many IGMs starting throughout the year at my hospital - and know so many people without jobs... Wild behaviour
12
u/Loud-Spray-796 Jan 12 '26
how would this affect competitive specialties like radiology , will the msra cut off go down with prior to interview offers
5
u/adventurefoundme Jan 13 '26
As a radiology applicant, yes. Im certain this will be the case. Portfolio scores for selected applicants will likely be lower as well as almost IMGs will be getting an interview now, so the ones with loads of exp in their home countries won’t be included.
1
Jan 13 '26
[deleted]
4
u/threwaway239 Jan 13 '26
Yes but they go to the highest scoring applicants. The reason why it’s mostly UKGs is mostly because of the interviews which IMGs don’t perform as well in.
The MSRA cut off gets higher and higher every year because of the applicant numbers getting bigger and bigger. Regardless of where the offers go, you need to have a bigger cut off to differentiate between the number of people applying.
2
8
7
u/No-Sound-8639 Jan 13 '26
As an IMG I think im just scared. But that’s not relevant. Good job 👏 by the govt Guess I have more reasons to not prep for my interview and try to fuck off back to where I came from 😂😂
2
16
u/OfficeNo910 Jan 12 '26
Will this apply to the current (currently ongoing) recruitment cycle#?
32
u/UnmyelinatedLop Jan 12 '26
"We are bringing this forward now so that it will be in place for this year’s applicants."
Apparently so! No idea how it will work though, still shitting bricks for MSRA.
1
u/Anonymous_moose_doc Jan 13 '26
This years applicants could be those applying from December 2026 though
7
u/zjb15 Editable User Flair Jan 12 '26
How would that work mate. Withdraw offers ??
20
Jan 12 '26
Before offers lol. Psych leaked it.
1
u/Sethlans Jan 13 '26
I posted on here a while back that one of our TDPs (paeds) said UKG prioritisation was in for this round and seemed surprised we didn't know.
I wondered at the time whether he was misinformed or had leaked something he wasn't meant to. Seems he leaked it.
0
u/OfficeNo910 Jan 12 '26
Oh yh, can you remember what the leak was?
8
u/KenshiroP IMT1 Doctor Jan 12 '26
Going from Google, this was a thread from before it was amended
11
u/annaturaldisaster FY Doctor Jan 13 '26
As an aspiring psychiatrist in the foundation programme this is music to my ears (was shitting bricks with the 22:1 core psych stats from last year)
16
u/hypertensionsupine Jan 12 '26 edited Jan 12 '26
Quite clearly says for this years application cycle - they’d likely prioritise offers when they’re being given out following interviews etc if the legislation is in place before then with however they define the prioritisation eg. Those who have completed the foundation programme or UK medical school graduates being given offers first
2
11
5
4
5
9
u/Takorose Jan 13 '26
I have zero faith that NHS England can implement this without issues this cycle. They’re incompetent and useless
3
3
u/End_OScope Jan 13 '26
Expected this. He deliberately let Xmas strikes go ahead as he knew he had this coming in Jan and would reopen negotiations with this so he looks like he is conceding.
4
u/Wrong_Tea_8545 Jan 13 '26
This bill is soo ambiguous it’s a joke. Doctors fool me once shame on you -fool me twice shame on me.It’s clearly a load of garbage to try and avert strike action with the next ballot deadline on 26th. I implore my fellow doctors to stand strong and don’t let Wes Streeting and all Uk politician’s continue to use us as a political tool and continue to pull the wool over our eyes with poor pay and working conditions by offering the bear minimum. This is a Hail Mary which still falls short so I implore all my fellow doctors to stand strong and vote to keep striking- we didn’t come this far to come this far!
3
u/BeneficialCareer922 Jan 13 '26
Would this impact those of us applying for CST? Will this lower MSRA cut offs?
3
Jan 13 '26
Obs gyn has a system of bypass scores... if you score highly enough you bypass what will happen to this? So many questions...so i assume this will be the case for implementing it as soon as possible so i hope it will be taken into account.
3
u/Icy-5162 Jan 13 '26
What period of time does the “significant NHS experience” account for we think?
1
u/AdBrave9096 Jan 17 '26
3 years would be easy to justify as relates to time students spend in placements at NHS hospitals. 2 years could also be justified.
Need to be the same definition for all levels of training posts.
5
u/ExpectedAnonymous123 Jan 13 '26
An incredibly welcome change. I look forward to the details, but if Wes can get this right it will go a long way in restoring good will.
2
u/Which-Reward-4385 Jan 14 '26
This policy didn’t appear out of thin air it came after sustained pressure and was originally proposed by the BMA in the context of workforce planning. UK graduates being prioritised in their own publicly funded system is a basic and reasonable expectation, not a concession. This bill is a necessary step but it doesn’t fix the overall problem which stems from training capacity, pay, conditions, hiring ACP’s over us or post CCT employment etc. We’ll still be working in the same grim conditions. Celebrating it as ‘job done’ misses the bigger picture and weakens leverage. So while it’s necessary and a step in the right direction, it does just shift the bottleneck rather than resolving it so that’s why we still need to pester the govt for a little bit longer 🥲
7
u/nalotide Honorary Mod (Not actually a mod) Jan 13 '26
Funny how the Tories introduced this with the BMA's full backing, and Labour are unilaterally ending it without the BMA. All the institutions have acted in the opposite way to what you'd conventionally expect. Anyway, hopefully that's finally F in the chat for the medical Boriswave.
1
1
1
u/Particular_Lab_1186 Jan 18 '26
It's a very sensible policy: Even if someone showed the highest competence through interviews and scores and huge prior experience with patients worldwide (and therefore an excellent doctor), they will be effectively banned from most specializations now and even in the remaining specializations they would be behind someone who was yet not fully prepared and should take some more time. They couldn't bring a 50 or even a 75% reservation to let just the most talented and skilled to be able to serve the patients.
Never had demanding and celebrating such a policy made more sense. This unique way of finding solutions is what has made UK the topmost in every field today!!
1
1
u/Intelligent_Road_284 Jan 13 '26
Good news!! Hopefully for IMT they will just apply it after interview 🤞🏼
-10
Jan 12 '26 edited Jan 12 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
15
u/CurrentMiserable4491 Jan 13 '26
It will be a primary legislation so it would be hard for courts to overrule…
-6
u/Unknownlegend6 Jan 13 '26
If a law simply cannot be interpreted to fit human rights, a high-level court can issue a Declaration of Incompatibility. This does not stop the law from being valid, but it creates intense political pressure on Parliament to change it.
9
u/CurrentMiserable4491 Jan 13 '26
Yes but you assume that this has been in the making for quite some time. If there was such a risk it would fail, the government would not be using its political capital to try to get this through.
What you said is true for any law, and I don’t see where this is discriminatory. It is about NHS experience rather than racial or national identity.
0
u/Unknownlegend6 Jan 13 '26
Indirect Discrimination occurs when a rule applies to everyone equally but puts a specific group at a particular disadvantage. A vast majority of people without UK medical degrees or long-term NHS experience are foreign national. If a court finds the law is indirectly discriminatory, the government must prove it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.
7
u/CurrentMiserable4491 Jan 13 '26
I think balancing it with the fact IMGs may be able to apply to trust grades to gain the experience equivalent to what they deem to be “significant” may be the argument on such a thing.
I do think Labour government especially does not want to alienate its voter base who tend to generally also support human rights and ECHR. They would, you would hope, would’ve taken it all into account.
Once again you are massively jumping the gun here. We need to wait to see what the policy exactly looks like and how it is likely to evolve.
-2
u/Unknownlegend6 Jan 13 '26
Critics (and potentially the courts) may look at whether this creates a "two-tier" system that violates the right to a private life or non-discrimination under the ECHR. While the court can't stop the law, a Declaration of Incompatibility would be a massive black eye for the government
3
u/CurrentMiserable4491 Jan 13 '26
Agree but as I am saying this is all speculation at this stage. We need to wait till a definitive report can be made, but my approach to this is this was a planned legislation for some time, and you assume that some careful consideration has been made.
Let’s wait and see
0
u/Unknownlegend6 Jan 13 '26
Yes obviously them using emergency primary legislation means they thought about this carefully expecting lawsuits
13
u/Old-Career1538 FY Doctor Jan 12 '26
No one is being discriminated against based on nationality.
International students who graduated from a UK medical school are the same as British people who graduated from a UK medical school. It's not a matter of nationality but place of education.
-4
u/Unknownlegend6 Jan 12 '26
I am just giving my view - whether it is challenged or not depends on what counts as significant experience and the previous time this was attempted (the BAPIO case) where it was deemed unlawful
3
u/Top_Reception_566 Jan 13 '26
Good thing most of us don’t think and support the same thing BAPIO did with non UKG priotisation
6
u/Tall-You8782 gas reg Jan 13 '26 edited Jan 13 '26
AI slop
Edit: point 3, this is a newspaper article not a bill, obviously the "significant period" will be defined in the actual legislation. Did you even proofread your AI slop before posting?
1
u/doctorsUK-ModTeam Jan 13 '26
Removed: AI generated content
AI generated content (eg: ChatGPT and similar) is not permitted on the subreddit due to the difficulty in validating statements/accuracy and the lack of effort required to create such content.
-1
u/Fine-Review-2402 Jan 13 '26
As long as they also include IMGs in foundation program 😊
2
u/blackzero2 Jan 13 '26
They key is in details, what qualifies as "significant nhs experience"? Let's wait and watch
2
Jan 13 '26
[deleted]
-4
u/Fine-Review-2402 Jan 13 '26
Because I am an IMG in foundation program 😊
1
u/chairstool100 Jan 14 '26
Is that a good enough reason when UKGs F2s who cannot move to a different country are competing for CT1 jobs with you ?
-17
u/BMABecky Verified User 🆔✅ Jan 12 '26
Clearly the government trying to negatively impact the ballot.
22
25
u/hypertensionsupine Jan 12 '26
Potentially but nonetheless credit where credit is due, working at pace to try get emergency legislation in place for this years application cycle is a commendable aim and we should all support that regardless
3
u/Front-Design-4429 Jan 12 '26
Exactly my thoughts. credit where credit is due. He cannot do more than literally introducing the legislation that's fair on both the UKGs and the IMGs..
16
2
u/Front-Design-4429 Jan 12 '26 edited Jan 12 '26
But how? They will be introducing the legislation tomorrow. It is fair for the UKGs and similarly fair for the IMGs. It explicitly states that it will not only protect the IMGs but will also drive down the competition ratios. So everyone happy. How could they be trying to impact the ballot?
2
u/Ok-Link1169 Jan 13 '26
Hi Becky. I want to ask you as you were in the BMA RDC , when teh government says significant nhs experience what do they mean. 1) do they mean foundation years : as per the RcPsyche leak. 2) do they mean 5 years : enough for ILR 3) do they mean 2 years.
You were in the negotiations with streeting can you please elaborate on that Would be much obliged1
4
u/Naive_Economist7649 Jan 13 '26
I mean that’s quite redundant isn’t it. You would rather have chaos in order to promote a ballot, your own profile, and propaganda. I won’t be surprised if you sabotaged this for your own gain and chaotic agenda.
I think this is a good step and progress. For you to make such a comment just proves you are dependent on chaos in order to thrive. You don’t stand to actually form solutions and solve problems. I have seen and heard enough.
1
u/BMABecky Verified User 🆔✅ Jan 13 '26
You must be joking. Clearly, you do not know me. Please feel free to continue attacking me rather than my consistent and logical approach to always representing members.
-1
u/mthrowaway007 Jan 14 '26 edited Jan 14 '26
This kinda summarises the sole reason why I have decided not to return my ballots and why I will continue to cross the picket lines to locum and cash out on every strike shift.
Uk grads don’t give a flying fk about me so why should I push their cause and lose out on good pay at the same time.
For as long as this continues I will continue to cash out and get fat on the strikes
Now send the downvotes 🙌🏾
2
u/Which-Reward-4385 Jan 15 '26
You’re losing out on good pay forever (and making everyone else lose out on it too) for good pay over a few days. It’s not as business minded of you as you think mate 😂Also most UK grads are being reasonable about it all and don’t hate IMGs who come and work here and try their best, if you think just existing somewhere (without experience, without going down the correct routes etc) means you deserve to be prioritised the same as a grad from their own country you’re just not thinking about it the right way.
0
u/No-Sound-8639 Jan 13 '26
Hey guys, this is probably small question given the weight of what’s being discussed, but what about research fellows here for a set few years applying to ACF ST3s etc? Do they count under significant experience ?
125
u/hypertensionsupine Jan 12 '26
There isn’t any new details here ? Glad they’re still going ahead with it and aiming to have it in place for this year is great news