Lord Rook:

Moved by Lord Rook

19: Clause 1, page 1, line 12, at end insert “and has been so registered for at least 12 months ending with the date of the first declaration, during which time the person has been seen by a general practitioner at said practice (in appointment, consultation, or home visit) at least twice”Member’s explanatory statementThis provides a simple way to check one of the aspects of ordinary residency required in paragraph (c), and ensures the person in question has been receiving medical care within the jurisdiction prior to making the request.

My Lords, my Amendment 19 would add a modest but important safeguard to Clause 1 by ensuring that a person seeking an assisted death has been registered with a GP practice in England or Wales for at least 12 months and has had at least two contacts with that practice in that period, whether in person, remotely or through a home visit. These are minimal thresholds. They do not obstruct genuine applicants. They would simply ensure that before someone seeks the assistance of the state in ending their life, there is at least some continuity of care—the importance of which the right revered Prelate the Bishop of Norwich has already stressed this morning.

To this end, a real relationship with the primary care system is important and prevents a terminal decision becoming subject only to a paper exercise. The Bill already requires 12 months of ordinary residence, but ordinary residence, as we discussed on the last day in Committee, can be, legally speaking, a somewhat elastic concept. A single GP registration can in practice be little more than having your name down on a list. The Government’s own equality impact assessment notes that access to GP services is uneven, that continuity of care is declining, and that patients in deprived or rural areas often struggle to obtain timely appointments.

The independent investigation into the NHS by the noble Lord, Lord Darzi, discovered that more than 1,300 GP practices have closed since 2015, while the average full-time GP now has responsibility for more than 2,200 patients. In such a landscape, it is simply unrealistic to assume that every person approaching the end of life will have a meaningful GP relationship, without a safeguard such as the one I propose in this amendment.

This amendment would give the residency requirement real substance. Twelve months of registration and two GP contacts would not create a barrier but would provide a more objective basis for assessing doctors to know that the person has not merely appeared in the system at a moment of crisis. The amendment would also increase the chance that some medical history exists. Notes of previous consultations, indications of distress, relevant family context and prior diagnoses are all crucial in understanding whether a wish to die is stable or situational.

This matters because, as we have discussed already and at some length, the Bill places extraordinary weight on two clinicians making difficult judgments about a prognosis, about mental state and about possible coercion. Clause 12 allows them to seek information from the person’s GP, but this safeguard works only if a relationship with that GP actually exists.

As a number of noble Lords have mentioned, this House has been served well by the Bill’s own Select Committee. In that, your Lordships heard repeatedly that continuity of care is one of the most reliable protections against misjudging capacity or missing signs of procedure. Dr Michael Mulholland of the RCGP stressed that continuity is not a luxury but central to safe clinical judgment. Professor Katherine Sleeman explained that earlier access to palliative care often changes patients’ perception of their suffering, which again relies on a clinician who knows the patient. Without any medical history or any prior interactions with clinicians, life and death decisions are being made without the proper safeguards. This is not safe for patients, and it is not safe for, or fair to, doctors.

We also heard extensive evidence on access difficulties. Caroline Abrahams of Age UK told the Select Committee that the single biggest practical improvement that older people want is simply being able to see their GP. Many cannot. She noted that significant numbers of older people near the end of life have no contact at all with their GP, not because they do not want it but because the system does not provide it. A report cited in the equality impact assessment on the Bill found that two in three older people in Wales struggle even to make suitable appointments. If access to GP care is already fragile, the Bill must not assume a relationship that does not exist.

There is also the risk, recognised multiple times already in Committee, of doctor shopping. We see it in pain management, in cosmetic procedures, even in end-of-life discussions. When someone is desperate, frightened or grieving, they will simply go from clinician to clinician until they find the answer that they feel they want and need. Expert witnesses, including psychiatrists and geriatricians, told the Select Committee that major emotional shifts commonly occur around diagnosis, around transitions in care or around family crises. These are precisely the moments when a single assessment by an unfamiliar doctor is most likely to misread a temporary situational wish to die as a settled and autonomous choice.

International evidence reinforces the point. Australian states, often cited as models, have tightened their systems after discovering patterns of people travelling to access assisted dying without any real connection to local health services. Canadian doctors regularly highlight the difficulty of assessing capacity and voluntariness when clinicians had no longitudinal knowledge of the patient, contributing to public concern over several high-profile cases.

We need not make those mistakes. The DHSC and MoJ impact assessments underline that assisted deaths must be documented and monitored and that clinicians require access to historical records to make safe judgments. But the true quality and veracity of these records relies on real and consistent engagement with a primary care provider. The Select Committee also heard from social workers and safeguarding experts, who emphasised that subtle coercion is almost impossible to detect in a single clinical encounter.

I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I just wonder what he feels a GP should do in the circumstance in which he does not approve of assisted dying? Does the noble Lord feel that that is a problem?

With the greatest respect, that is not the conversation I am trying to have here. The conversation is about the necessity that someone who is going through the process has continuity of care and a relationship with that GP. We are suggesting that someone who is after a state-assisted end-of-life process should have the opportunity to see that GP on a number of occasions so that their judgment can be made in the context of continuity of care, not in one appointment.

To pick up the noble Lord’s questions, this Amendment would not block access. It would not frustrate autonomy. It would simply ensure that assisted dying does not begin from nowhere. It grounds a grave decision in a minimal but essential relationship with the health service that is charged with safeguarding the person in question. Supporting autonomy requires a supportive context. It requires knowing whether a request reflects a settled conviction, a moment of despair, untreated depression or pressure that the patient feels unable to articulate. These things cannot be reliably assessed in isolation. Above all, care is relational. If Parliament is to contemplate legislation under which the state may participate in deliberately ending life, the very least we must insist on is that such decisions take place within the context of real and primary medical relationships, not on the periphery of the system.

This amendment would strengthen residency safeguards, improve the evidential foundation for clinicians, reduce the risk of doctor shopping and respect the seriousness of what the Bill proposes by rooting it in genuine and consistent care. I commend the amendment to the Committee.

Can I ask the noble Lord, having cited the doctor Michael Mulholland as a great authority in relation to his evidence to the Select Committee, whether he also accepts what Dr Mulholland said to the Select Committee? He said:

“As GPs, we are very used to providing holistic care and trying to understand where the patient is coming to us from in lots of situations”.

I absolutely agree with that. The reason why the doctor is able to do that is because he gives consistency and continuity of care. He does not see patients on one occasion on one big issue, but is able to travel with them in a longitudinal relationship, and that gives him the ability to make those decisions.

As a GP, I understand the sentiment behind this Amendment and the power of continuity; in fact, it was what my maiden speech was about yesterday. But modern general practice works in multidisciplinary teams. We have nurse prescribers, pharmacists and physician associates. We also work with other team members, especially with those at the end of their life, such as palliative care teams and oncology teams. While I understand the need to have a GP involved, I think it is rather reductive. We deliver continuity in today’s world through our medical record, which is a complete record of the individual from cradle to grave. I would say it is with the primary healthcare team that the individual has a relationship rather than with an individual.

On a point of clarification, the average patient over the age of 75 consults their GP team—the primary healthcare team—around 10 times per year, so I do not recognise the figure that most elderly people at the end of their life have no access to the GP. We reach out to our elderly patients and we try to deliver the best possible care we can to them, especially when they are approaching the end of their life.

My Lords, I tabled Amendment 20 and I have put my name to Amendment 220, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, who is not able to be here today. I am sympathetic to Amendments 21 and 29 and to the process devised by the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, in her Amendments 30B, 265A and 443A.

A huge range of clauses—Clauses 7, 8, 10, 12, 15, 19, 20, 23, 24, 28, 29 and 30—refer to the applicant’s GP practice and the importance of keeping a GP informed. Clause 12(2)(f) includes a provision for the assessing doctor to recommend that the applicant informs their GP practice. These amendments also refer to the very relevant information that may be available from those who are close to the person seeking assisted death.

There is an assumption that the GP knows the patient and that the patient has an ongoing supportive relationship with the UK GP practice. Notwithstanding what the noble Baroness, Lady Gerada, has just said, that is no longer the case for many people. Many patients now see different clinicians on each visit. Locum and temporary staffing arrangements reduce the possibility of a GP being familiar with the patient’s condition or with the context in which they live. Home visits have almost disappeared. People in need of care often have to go to A&E, since doctors no longer visit as they once did. A major theme in UK and international data on GPs is declining continuity of care, particularly where people live in poverty or deprived areas. The Government’s equality impact assessment notes that such people experience “poorer quality healthcare”. They

“have a higher patient to GP ratio … have worse continuity of care” and

“are more likely to struggle with navigating the healthcare system”.

Amendment 20 in my name would provide that it is not enough to be registered with the GP, but that there must be an established relationship between the GP and the patient. The GP must be able to certify that they have good knowledge of their personal circumstances, having seen the patient at least four times in the year and made at least one home visit in the last 12 months. As I said, the reality today is that many sick and elderly people do not have the relationship they might like with their GP; it is a thing of the past. Moreover, when a person moves into a residential or nursing home, they are often required to change to the GP who attends that facility and who may only have seen them on a few occasions, if at all. A GP who does not know a patient may not have the ability to make the necessary assessment.

The Select Committee heard evidence highlighting the very real inherent difficulties in detecting coercion, pressure and complex capacity issues. Making someone feel that they are a burden does not normally happen by direct coercion but is more likely to occur over a period of time. The National Care Forum stated:

“Our members are concerned that some of the people they support may sadly already see themselves as a burden. This can be financial, or just because they are now reliant on those who once relied on them. The concern is that this makes them vulnerable to deciding for this reason alone, or as a result of exploitation”.

Dr Annabel Price of the Royal College of Psychiatrists said in her evidence that coercion

“is everybody’s business. It is an area that is difficult to rule out confidently”.

It needs to be thought about throughout the process, not just at the scrutiny at the end of the panel. Professor Patel, president of the Royal College of Physicians, said in her evidence:

“Involvement of family within decision-making is important … I feel that the complex decision-making is hard. It has to be shared”.

Amendment 220 would provide a mechanism to allow GPs to consult with those who have a close interest in the applicant’s welfare when there are concerns about safeguarding capacity and undue influence. Such concerns, regrettably, often arise. Family members and close contacts may possess information which could be vital for a robust assessment and which is otherwise unavailable to the assessing medical practitioner.

Professor Katherine Sleeman said that

“complex capacity assessments do conventionally require triangulation, with input and information from the family”.

This amendment would allow access to professional records, including police and local authority records. Medical practitioners may be unaware, for example, of existing domestic abuse situations which have been reported to the police but have not made their way back to the doctor, where you have got a patient or an elderly person.

It should never be the case that the first time that somebody finds out that a family member has been granted a request for assisted dying is when they are asked to go to the mortuary to view the body. Anybody with any experience of the situation in which a person dies by suicide will know the terrible shock and trauma which ensue for surviving family and members. The reality is that, by extending the concept of autonomy to this extent, there can be a terrible impact on the ability to function of those who love the person who has died. Autonomy in this context can cause serious medical problems for those who are left behind. Autonomy, to the extent provided for in the Bill, does not ensure sufficient protection for a vulnerable—

Does the noble Baroness accept—because she has been quoting some of the evidence given to the Select Committee of which I was a member—that the committee was not able to hear either from people who were dying or indeed from the families who had been through what she is talking about? That was absent; we lost that. On the particular point she raises about the first time a family may know about it, might she also reflect that the evidence was that most families try to discourage somebody from taking their own life rather than the other way round?

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her Intervention. It is of course the case that the Select Committee was very truncated in its ability to hear evidence. That was a decision of the House and, although we would have preferred to hear evidence from others, it was not possible.

I just say, if I may, as a member of the Select Committee, that it was decision by the Select Committee not to hear from terminally ill people. It was not to do with the time available; it was to do with the Majority of the committee being opposed to hearing from terminally ill people.

I cannot comment on the deliberations of the committee. I think there are others here who possibly can.

My Lords, for the record, I inform the Committee that there was only one vote taken in the Select Committee. The vote was on whether the committee should receive written evidence; that vote was taken and the committee did not receive written evidence, which is a great shame because we would have heard from so many groups that people are raising in their contributions today. So, for the record, there was only one vote taken. There were many witnesses whom people on all sides wished to hear from. There was a deep regret that we were truncated and had only those three weeks to have those 13 panel sessions. If we had had more time, we would have been able to hear from many other groups. Again, for the record, only one vote was taken, which was not to take written evidence.

I thank the noble Baroness for her Intervention, which is very helpful. All I was trying to say is that we are aware of many situations in which people are subject to coercion and where there are financial and other interests that cause people to be subject to pressure or to think that perhaps they are a burden. The autonomy which currently exists in the Bill in terms of decision-making, where there is no provision for access to police and medical records, does not ensure sufficient protection for a vulnerable individual who is making an application for assisted death. That is why these amendments are important, so that the GP who is faced with dealing with the situation and all those involved can have access to other documents.

My Lords, I am currently a patient, in a very minor way, at an excellent medical practice where the nurses know me well. There are five GPs; I have met two of them briefly, but they do not really know me. I have huge sympathy with these amendments, but I think this is unrealistic. Over the years that I have been at this excellent practice, I have never got to know a GP, certainly to an extent of more than twice. Since there are five, and I am extremely well looked after, I do not see any problem with it. However, the idea that you should know your GP, or rather that your GP should know you—I just do not think that happens across the country. Going by what the noble Baroness, Lady Gerada, said, that is the reality.

My Lords, could the noble and learned Baroness possibly accept that there are situations in which patients either cannot get access to GPs or, when they do get access to GPs, have GPs with huge patient loads, which means that they cannot see the patients? While she may be in the privileged position of having five GPs, many doctors’ practices do not have that number, and people quite simply do not get access to the doctor. I am not fabricating anything as I say this, and I ask her to reflect on the fact that it is established in the Government’s equality impact assessment that there are problems with access.

Yes, I entirely agree. That is the basis of what I am saying. I think it would be admirable if anyone who was seeking assisted dying in fact had the opportunity to be known by the local GP. All I am saying is that, yes, I am lucky, but I do not actually know my GPs. Of course, I accept what the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, says: there are many people who never meet their GPs and never have access. That is why it seems to me that what is required cannot be achieved. That is all I am saying.

My Lords—

My Lords, should we not hear from the noble Lords who have tabled the amendments before we—

Noble Lords:

Order!

My Lords, can we follow the normal courtesies of the House, please? As the noble Baroness was not here at the beginning of this group of amendments, she cannot participate on this group of amendments. I urge noble Lords to take note of where we were and move forward.

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, in fact destroys her own argument, because access to GPs, unfortunately, is still a major problem. In that respect, I greatly congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Gerada, who gave a fantastic maiden speech yesterday explaining the role of the GP and the ideal situation. The fact is, in this Chamber, there will be a number of people who, quite rightly, absolutely deplore or disagree with assisted dying, as they have every right to do.

It is also true that, in my practice many years ago, I saw patients who had requested termination of pregnancy—certainly, in more than one case. However, there is one particular patient who I remember very clearly. Several years after the Abortion Act had been agreed to and had started, I saw a patient who came into the hospital having been refused referral by a GP because he disapproved, as he was entitled to do, of abortion. She did not get a further referral. She went to an illegal practitioner in the East End of London and ended up with infection of the uterus and was in bed for several weeks with septicaemia. She did not die, but her laparotomy required her uterus, tubes and most of her pelvis to be removed. That is the risk. It is always going to be the case that individual GPs have the absolute right to decide how they might handle a particular difficult ethical issue. Of course, the problem here is that these vary from patient to patient; we have to understand that, and simply relying on the GP in this way seems to me to be deeply flawed.

My Lords, it is very regrettable that the noble Lord had a patient in an abortion situation. We are not, in this group, discussing the doctor’s wishes or otherwise and his views about abortion. I ask the Minister, because I can hear mutterings here, what provision says that you cannot intervene in a debate where you have not been present, perhaps, at the very first moment of the debate? What is the section in the Companion that provides for that?

My Lords, returning to the amendments that we are discussing, I want to commend the sponsors of the Bill in the sense that, when I read the Bill, multiples clauses referred to the applicant’s GP. There is an assumption, however, of an ongoing relationship with that GP. If there is not, we can come back to that. I had assumed that there is an ongoing relationship. The noble Lord, Lord Rook, has raised some of the real challenges to why that might not be realistic.

The problem is that, if there is no assumption of an ongoing relationship but simply a visit to a GP, it seems to me completely meaningless. You go in for a 10-minute meeting with a GP, which is transient and patchy at best, as they are unlikely to be able to make any clinical assessment of great merit. The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, referred to the real-life situation of not seeing a GP but how pleasant it was.

I will give a bit of lived experience. I have been at the same GP practice for 25 years. I have never seen the same GP. I have seen locums, temporary staff and physician associates, who I thought were GPs but found out afterwards were not. You might think that is no problem at all, but they had no familiarity with my conditions. In many instances, I have had to say, “Would you please read my notes?”, as they looked elsewhere. The consequence of this has been missed diagnosis and no positive, reasonable interventions in serious conditions. That is what life is like for many people.

When the noble Baroness, Lady Gerada—who I am delighted to welcome to this House—gave her maiden speech, she described the ideal GP, which she may well embody. I wish I knew more of them. I have friends who are GPs, but that is not the real-life experience of most people in this country. The noble Baroness said they all work in harmonious teams and she does not recognise the scenario of elderly people who cannot get to see their GPs. That statistic was from Wales—if you know anything about the Welsh NHS, I am surprised any of them get to see a GP.

I was commending the sponsor of the Bill, but the truth is that there is no point in the Bill saying: “It’s all right because you’ll get to see a GP”. Just wandering in and seeing a GP for a short consultation is not the same as this holistic notion of a GP who can act as a safeguard and understand all that is going on in your life—which, when I read the Bill, I had assumed and flattered the sponsors of the Bill for wanting. I was going to say to them that real life is not like that. There is a serious danger, if it is just a question of going to see a GP without continuity of care, that it becomes a tick-box exercise. The word “GP” is mentioned to give some kind of medical authenticity, but it is of no real consequence.

However, to be even-handed, I have a degree of sympathy with the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, who spoke very well to her Amendment 20, but when I read the amendment I thought, “Who on earth is ever going to have access to this?” Home visits are mentioned in a number of amendments. Who has ever had a home visit recently? These are a thing of the past. I know that we are all getting on, but honestly. I am confused, because I want the Bill to embody a sense of the GP being important, but that requires continuity of care.

I remind the noble Baroness that we are talking about people who are terminally ill, not the general population.

My Lords—

I will just finish, because it relates to this. I appreciate that, once given a terminal diagnosis, that might be true, but not necessarily. That is the honest reality of the situation.

We have a moral dilemma here. GPs are being called on as though they are important to this Bill, but if they are just passing and you do not have continuity of care, they are actually being treated with contempt. On the other hand, in truth, the demand that you have to have continuity of care before you can ever be offered assisted dying seems unrealistic in today’s modern health service.

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 30B, 220 and 265A in my name. They share the aim of other amendments in this group to ensure that the GP knows and has looked after the person who wants to end his or her life, but go beyond them in proposing the extent and length of the relationship needed and in requiring a letter from the GP to provide important additional safeguards. I will explain the amendments.

First, I propose that the patient be known personally to a doctor for two years through having been seen for at least six appointments. Secondly, I propose that the doctor submits a letter to the assessment panel on the patient’s physical and mental health during that period, and a prognosis. Thirdly, I stress that the doctor, as we see their involvement in this Bill, may be the patient’s GP, but that is not required; the doctor may be the first doctor, but, given Clause 11(8), this is unlikely, and it will probably not be the second doctor. The important point is that a medically qualified practitioner knows the patient over time and can write an assessment for them.

Why does this matter? Advocates of and those concerned about the current arrangements in the Bill want adequate safeguards. We all do. We want to protect the weak, the elderly and people with physical or mental health conditions from being influenced, pressured or coerced into wanting to end their own life. But if the request for assisted suicide can be accepted without a doctor who knows the patient personally over time, there will be no such safeguards. “Knows” does not mean a fleeting acquaintance but a professional knowledge of the patient built up over years. That is the aim of my amendments. By contrast—

What happens if my doctor retires and I therefore have not had a doctor who knows me for two years? Am I to be denied access to the provisions under this Bill?

I thank the noble Lord. I hope to come to deal with that question.

By contrast, all the Bill requires is the involvement of two doctors, neither of whom needs to be at the practice where the patient is registered or even has to have had prior knowledge of them before the process begins. Under the Bill as it stands, there is no connection between a doctor who knows the patient well and the process that leads to the assisted suicide. The other amendments in this group go some way to mitigating this, but it matters that there is a guaranteed role in the process for the doctor who may have known the patient.

The Bill recognises that the patient’s GP may not wish, as a matter of conscience, to be involved in the process, but that does not mean that they or another doctor who knows the patient should not submit a letter to the process of the assessment panel as one of a number of documents seen by the multidisciplinary panel, which would be part of the public record of the assisted suicide. It will be in a different format—neither a checklist nor compiled from the hasty notes that GPs are obliged to write that they squeeze in between their 10-minute appointments.

I turn to possible objections to these two-pronged amendments. First, the requirement that the same doctor has seen the patient six times over two years to allow adequate safeguards may be thought too much. Anything less would hardly amount to knowing the patient, the condition and their state of physical and mental health. It is feasible. Some evidence suggests that, on average, in 2018-19 patients had 3.3 face-to-face consultations per year with their GP, and 8.7 when every sort of consultation was taken into account. This data has not necessarily changed over the 20-year period of the study. Other data puts the face-to-face consultations lower, at 2.6, but these are averages. Very seriously ill people will have had far more consultations.

Moreover, only face-to-face consultations, when the patient is physically with the doctor, give a good idea of physical and mental conditions as they develop. If the Bill is so amended, in answer to some problems that have been raised, it might encourage more face-to-face GP consultations with seriously ill patients. If there is a seriously ill patient and the GP retires, they might like to leave a letter providing the evidence over the period they saw them before they retire. But there will always be objections—

The GP might have died 18 months ago; what happens then?

These things can happen, but we should have a process or an alternative mechanism. I am not going to deal with exceptional cases. My GP is still in situ, and I can see my GP when I want to; other practices could aim to do the same thing. We have very great demands on the practice in Cambridge, with many students registering.

Can the noble Baroness tell the Committee whether she actually listened to what the GP in our midst said about how practices work?

I thank the noble Baroness for her question, but I would like to press on. There are other GPs who want to see the same patients; they want to build up the patient relationship over time because they say it makes for better diagnosis, care and treatment for their patients. We should not put up with the worst-case scenarios simply because it does not happen or because we think a multi-doctor practice works well. It may work well in some cases, but there is no replacement for knowledge of a patient over time.

The letter gives the multidisciplinary panel an assessment of the patient’s illness and state of mind by someone who knows them. If anything raises suspicion that there has been pressure or that the patient is not in a state of mind to make the decision, the panel can investigate further. Moreover, unlike the other matters and activities in the process, the letter is not a matter of ticking boxes. The demand is for something that doctors are used to doing; to write a coherent letter about one of their patients is something that requires thought and careful concern for the individual case. It is standard practice in referring a patient to a consultant for specialist care where there are letters passed to and from. Doctors and consultants write letters.

If the Bill is to have real safeguards in the form of coherent and analytical evidence from a doctor who has known a patient over time, such amendments are needed. I ask the sponsor of the Bill to require it.

My Lords, we are supposed to be making the Bill more practical; it does not make it more practical to ask for something that is manifestly impossible. I could not demand assisted dying, because I have not seen my registered practitioner in Suffolk for many years. I do not have a particular practitioner because that is not how the local system works. We are not in a sensible position if that is what we are going to ask for.

But the noble Lord, Lord Rook, has an important point that I do not want us to lose because of the suggestion that all people have the kind of National Health Service that we would all wish to be the case. We have to take his point rather differently. I was surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Winston, suggested that the proposition is that the general practitioner or the team—in normal circumstances it is the team—could in some way stop the application.

The point is—and I ask the Committee to think about this seriously—that if someone has a general practitioner, it is important that the GP and his or her team are informed of the request in case they are able to contribute to a sensible decision. The fact that this is assumed in the Bill, as was put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, does not prevent us insisting that they should at least have the opportunity. If we do that, we will be doing a very valuable thing.

It is not an assumption. It is in the Bill that if the co-ordinating doctor is not the GP of the person seeking the assisted death, under Clause 10(3)(b)(ii) the co-ordinating doctor has to write to the GP practice to make it aware of the request.

I agree with that, but the point of the Amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Rook, is to tie together a period of someone being in the National Health Service. I agreed with the comments made by the lawyers about “normally resident”, rather than other words. The noble and learned Lord who introduced the Bill might consider that this amendment will give some confidence to those who had a concern because it means that “normally resident” has been underlined by the fact that someone has in fact been in a general practice of the National Health Service. I cannot see that it does any harm, given that there is a year in any case. It underlines what the noble Lord reminded us of: the idea that this should be a part of the normal way in which people are dealt with.

I do not like the Bill very much, but it is our job to make it work. To do that, it is more valuable to fix it within the National Health Service as we have it, rather than trying to invent a service that we might well like to have—and I am old enough to remember when we did have it. Let us not pretend, when things are not as they ought to be.

My Lords, if a patient is at the end of their life in any practice in the NHS, that patient will be discussed at a multidisciplinary team meeting. The patient will be put on an end-of-life pathway and will have a named clinician within the practice to do their care. This would include assisted dying. There is absolutely no way that a patient, unless in an extraordinary situation—and I take the point about Wales, which has a desperate problem with GPs—would not be cared for in that way. That is how our contract is; that is how we want to care for our patients. We would code it on the notes so that every single person consulting with that patient would know that this patient was an assisted dying choice, and they would get the care that I have just described.

With respect to the arbitrary 12 months or 24 months, many patients choose to move at the end of their life. They choose to move to the place where their loved ones are. Many choose to do something such as go abroad to the countries that they may have come from and come back right towards the end of their life. To put in an arbitrary barrier of 12 or 24 months is not putting the patient first; it is putting an arbitrary time limit first.

My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister in winding up could advise us what the Companion says about Peers making speeches on the same Amendment over several points of the passage of that amendment.

It is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Deben, speaking to the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Rook. There is a lacuna in Clause 1(1)(d), which, by requiring registration with a GP, does not cover the practical point of what happens to people who have lost contact with their GP. They may have lost contact for no other reason than being so ill, perhaps with cancer as that is the main illness that people who might be seeking assisted dying have, that they have been taken into private care—those who are lucky enough.

An increasing proportion of the population of the United Kingdom now uses private care, not least because employers provide it as part of a package. So, coming to continuity of care, if we must have the light-touch amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Rook, in the Bill, to clarify and strengthen Clause 1(1)(d), I will share with the Committee very briefly a practical experience of what it means to have advanced cancer and the interaction with the GP. My GP practice, having failed to diagnose me over six months, as I mentioned in my Second Reading speech, slipped away the moment I engaged with private care, although every single consultation with a private practitioner is sent to the GP. Nevertheless, between 30 August 2024, when I was first diagnosed, and late this September, I had no contact whatever with my GP practice. I was finally invited to come in and was told I had fallen between the cracks—it must have been a pretty large crack to have lasted 14 months.

I noticed in the equality impact assessment that 66% of the people who sought assisted dying in the two jurisdictions quoted were people who had cancer. My question to the noble and learned Lord when he winds up on this debate is therefore, what consideration has been given, in having Clause 1(1)(d) in the Bill, as to the relationship of the private oncologist who is treating that patient with the local GP, given that terminally ill people in significant enough numbers that we need to be conscious about them in the Bill may well have been—shall I say—passed on from the GP?

As a final point, once I had the diagnosis, I had the experience of requesting treatment at my local—within a walkable distance—leading cancer teaching hospital in the United Kingdom. When I rang about that after the diagnosis, I was told by my GP, “They won’t take you, because now you’ve gone private”. I leave that for noble Lords to reflect on.

Before we move to the rest of the debate, could we please give way to those noble Lords who have tabled amendments? I would like to hear what they have to say.

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 21, tabled in my name, from personal experience. The richness of the debate today shows that, even in your Lordships’ Chamber, we all have completely different experiences of how we access a GP practice.

I tabled this amendment partly from personal experience, trying to look at how we provide continuous care to a patient. As for my own experience, I am disabled, not sick, but I have had some very interesting experiences of interacting with doctors. Fairly recently, I was asked by a doctor how I caught spina bifida and had to explain to him that it was congenital. As for my husband’s experience of the healthcare system, he had a spinal cord injury in 1984 and, at a recent visit, was continually asked whether it was in 1884 that he had his accident—I know he looks good for his age, but not that good. This is not to be flippant, which I have been accused of before. It is actually to try to ensure that we have proper continuity of care for a person who wishes to end their life.

My amendment is also grounded in coercion detection and the limitations of any capacity assessment. When I tabled it, I was thinking that perhaps a GP could provide extra knowledge to contribute to the decision that was made. But then I heard of the experience of my noble friend Lady Falkner, which is absolutely appalling. It shows that there is far more work we need to do, not just on the National Health Service but on making sure we provide the right care. The noble Lord, Lord Deben, talked about the NHS we wish to have. Well, this might be a chance to think about the NHS we wish to have.

I take this opportunity to welcome my new noble friend Lady Gerada and the experience she brings to the Chamber. I have to say that it has left me slightly more confused. I have amendments on data recording, which we will be debating later. Her comments show that data recording and sharing is really important. The part I got a bit confused about was that, if there is a named clinician as part of that process, does that not ultimately feed in to the points that have been made today? I would welcome the chance to discuss that with her outside the Chamber.

Continuity of care is really important, and how it relates to improved patient outcomes. In 2012, 56.7% of patients had a preferred GP, but that is declining. There is a link between your preferred GP and being able to access that GP. The decline has happened regardless of baseline continuity, rural or urban location or level of deprivation. Providing a better experience to patients will make those final weeks and months better for them. The Royal College of General Practitioners published excellent work in 2021 on why the patient’s relationship with their general practitioner is so important. Research on coercion and undue influence demonstrates that standard capacity assessments, while necessary, are not currently sufficient to identify subtle forms of coercion. That is why I tabled an amendment.

In response to the comments of my noble friend Lord Pannick, about what happens if a GP dies, I am happy to be corrected, but I thought the provision in the Bill about your doctor dying would cover a general practitioner as well as any other doctor involved in the process.

What we are talking about here are really complex decisions. Consulting an established GP or GP practice might mean that they possess the nuanced knowledge which would help somebody make a choice. The requirement that GPs confirm that they have a good understanding of the individual’s personal circumstances represents, to me, a better form of safeguard, ensuring that this knowledge actually exists. We cannot assume anything during this process. The assessment should provide abuse detection capacity unavailable in other types of consultations. For individuals whose care is family dependent, the home visit element—which I had, not so long ago—can play an important part in identifying coercion. If the debate has raised nothing else today, it is that this is a really complicated issue which needs much further work.

My Lords, perhaps I may just ask a question on that. Everyone believes a GP should be able to conscientiously object. But, in all of this, I have not heard an answer to what happens in that circumstance. Surely, we need a circumstance, as happens today, involving a team-based approach, as the noble Baroness, Lady Gerada, said. Otherwise, you could have formed a great relationship with a GP who then conscientiously objects—which we think is absolutely suitable—withdraws himself or herself from the situation and can no longer take part in it. Surely a team-based approach is the better approach.

The comments made by my noble friend Lady Gerada explaining the team-based approach seem very sensible in terms of providing that continuity of care. I am very lucky that I see the same GP every time I go; it is interesting to understand that not everybody experiences that. I am not absolutely welded to it being a single GP. For me, it is about ensuring that we have continuity of care and the right support for an individual, and doing it in the right way that enables them to make the best choice, while not experiencing any coercion in making that decision. The more frequent contact means that a GP or a practice may be able to understand some of the really difficult family complications that we absolutely know go on.

Many noble colleagues who worked on the then Domestic Abuse Bill will see that coercion can be very subtle and understated and happens in numerous different ways. We have a duty to make this Bill the safest Bill in the world. The noble and learned Lord will say that it is. We slightly disagree on it being the safest Bill in the world, but we have a duty to make it safer.

My Lords, I shall speak to my Amendment 26 in this group. It is important to remember that Clause 1(1)(d) of the Bill simply states

“is registered as a patient with a general medical practice in England or Wales”.

It does not require anything more than that. I will explain why I have tabled an amendment looking at a home visit, because, as my noble friend Lady Gerada has said, patients will be looked after by many different members of a primary care team but will be legally listed and registered with the named GP, because that is how the funding flows to the practice for care delivery. We must not confuse the two, and the notes held in the practice are important.

The person may actually be receiving most of their care in secondary or tertiary care, as the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner of Margravine, has pointed out, but if this qualifying condition is to have any meaning, there must be substance in it, with a clinical record that can be drawn down in assessment. That does not mean that the GP has to have anything to do with providing an assisted death, but it seems sensible that the clinical record, which will have the record from previous GP practices if the patient moves, can be drawn down.

Data suggests there has been a fall in home visit rates over time. Most home visits undertaken by primary care team members are indeed to people who are seriously ill. The data shows that in October 2025 there were over 462 home visits by GPs, which comprised about 1.7% of all face-to-face consultations registered by a practice that month, or 1.1% of all contacts. While that percentage may seem low, particularly as care moves into the community, it is important to remember that the pressures on primary care teams have increased, with more listed patients per GP and more complexity. In addition, there is less continuity of care, with patients often seen by several different doctors in a practice, and different members of the team. During a hospital stay, patients are likely to encounter, on average, 18 to 27 different healthcare professionals. All those conversations and details should be entered in the hospital record, but they may not be well entered, and the information sent to the GP after admission may be a rather simplistic summary about more of the physical aspects but not necessarily psychosocial details that may be recorded somewhere in the depth of a hospital record.

Why does all this matter? It is because the living conditions and atmosphere in a home reveal an enormous amount about pressures and influences on a person who is ill in a way that is never ascertained in the consulting room. The well-groomed patient’s home can reveal overcrowding and poverty, where others in the household are dismissive or even verbally abusive in front of the healthcare professionals who visit. For most patients, a home visit can allow the person the confidence on their own territory to talk about their hopes and fears in depth, and about why they seek an assisted death. They are not intimidated by the hospital or GP venue, knowing that other patients are waiting outside and aware that others may notice that they have been crying when they leave through a crowded waiting room.

In evidence to the Select Committee, we heard from the Royal College of General Practitioners, of which I declare I am a fellow, that any assisted dying service should be seen as a stand-alone, specialised service that GPs and other healthcare professionals may opt in to provide. They stated that it is neither appropriate nor practical for this to be deemed core GP work, and they do not want any blurring of lines with the palliative care that they provide, which has already been described by my noble friend Lady Gerada. That position was confirmed in a motion at the RCGP Council last week. The GPs were clear in evidence to the Select Committee that they have no spare capacity in the working day to take on additional duties related to providing an assisted death. For some, a lifetime of 10-minute contacts will have built long-term relationships, but that does not apply to everyone.

As the Bill does not require any inquiry of the family about the person’s circumstances, the clinical record from the GP practice about a home visit may be the most revealing way to ascertain the true situation and decrease the risk of coercion being missed, as my noble friend Lady Grey-Thompson has referred to. The GP record must be available to whoever is undertaking the assessment and assisted death service provision.

In terms of ability to see the GP, I support the evidence that we heard from Caroline Abrahams of Age UK, who said that older people often report that better access to a GP would make a huge difference to their world, and that two in three struggle to make appointments or communicate with their GP. Sadly, I am afraid the evidence in Wales is that in 2023 two-thirds of patients said to the Older People’s Commissioner for Wales that they had difficulty in getting an appointment, and that had gone up from one-third in 2022.

The Demos commission report, which was led by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, found that a doctor supporting the person and their family

“are the key elements that … should be included in any future framework for assisted dying”.

So I ask him: is that the reason why the requirement to be registered with the GP is included as a qualifying condition? Perhaps he could clarify a bit further.

The noble and learned Lord’s commission report envisaged that the assessing doctor would know the patient well and have an established relationship. In his “Newsnight” interview, he also confirmed that if the patient was young, it would be a sensible investigation for family members such as the parents to be interviewed if that young person was asking for an assisted death. Does he recognise the importance of putting some kind of stable primary care relationship at the heart of information that is available about the circumstances of the patient?

It might help the House if I answer those questions, because they are rather at the centre of the debate. Before I get there, I should say that, in the view of the sponsors, the requirement to be registered with a GP practice reflects the reality, which is that in some cases you will have a relationship with your GP but in other cases you will not, despite your best efforts to do so. The reason for the relationship with the GP’s practice was that it provides a central place for records to be kept. The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, rightly identified myriad references in the Bill to GP practices, and noble Lords will see that it is informing the GP of every step that is taken. As ever, though, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, puts her finger on it: you cannot possibly rely on people having an established relationship with their GP, and that is not the protection.

The point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Gerada, seems to be key, and it is reflected in what the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, has said. The people looking after you are those who should be putting their input into what the right course is. The wrong answer to this is ludicrous hurdles that you have to get over. I do not call the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, ludicrous, and I unreservedly withdraw that in relation to her, but having to have seen your GP six times in the previous years is not the way to deal with it. Surely the way to deal with it is to put in the Bill—and I am more than willing to discuss how we do that—how the multidisciplinary team, which might be GPs, oncologists, nurses, physiotherapists or social workers but it might not, get to have some input into it.

What I am taking away from this debate is this: do not think about the GP being able to provide it, because they will in some cases, but they will not in others. Think instead about how you get the multidisciplinary team who are looking after the patient who wants an assisted death to give the appropriate input. Again, the right course is to talk to the people who have some expertise in relation to this and think how we build that into the Bill. It is not in the Bill at the moment, but I think we can put it in.

Can the noble and learned Lord clarify whether he would consider amending the Bill to ensure that information is sought from those who have provided care to the patient during the course of the serious life-limiting illness that has led them to request an assisted death, whether that is from primary care, a hospital or a private sector provider? Would that also include information from members of the family, as he suggested in the Demos commission, when the person is young and when there are circumstances that would be particularly pertinent?

Yes, we should get the information from those responsible for the care of the individual in a health sense. However, I am not willing to commit myself to that in relation to the family. The person making the decision should think, “What should we do about the family?”—but what if the patient has not seen their family for a long time or are at odds with particular family members? I believe that it should be done very much on a case-by-case basis.

My Lords, the noble and learned Lord thought that it was ludicrous that a patient would see the same doctor. Is it ludicrous, in his view, that, on average, 3.5% of consultations between a patient and a doctor are face to face? Is it ludicrous that we should expect those consultations to be with the same doctor?

I am sure that my noble and learned friend will respond to that in the debate, but the noble Baroness has just intervened on an Intervention. The Chief Whip made clear reference to that earlier.

My Lords, I welcome the comments from the noble and learned Lord. General practice is very different today from when I practised as a GP earlier in my career; it was certainly not as part of a multidisciplinary team.

I added my name to the very reasonable Amendment 21 tabled by my noble friend Lady Grey-Thompson. The debate has not been about whether assisted dying should be part of a GP’s role; it has, very helpfully, focused on the importance of continuity of care and accurate records.

I congratulate my noble friend Lady Gerada on her first contribution in Committee; she is correct that GPs now work as part of a multidisciplinary team. I think that patients accept that, but they also expect that a doctor is ultimately responsible for their care when they are seriously ill. Perhaps Amendment 21 could meet the noble and learned Lord’s requirements if it were amended to refer to the medical practice rather than to the general practitioner.

My Lords, in my opinion, these amendments are really about safety, but we have turned the debate into a generalised whinge-fest about the shortcomings of the National Health Service, and we are all aware that there are many.

However, from recent personal experience, I accept what the noble Baroness, Lady Gerada, said. I am fortunate that we have a local health centre; it has four floors and four practices—a separate practice on each floor—each with multiple members within them, who come and go. In general, if somebody is seriously ill, we are fortunate in that we would be able to have established contact with more than one team member.

However, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, said that he wanted the GPs mentioned to be a central point for the records. Here we come to an entirely different issue. I have seen records that include what the GP practice puts in, as well as discharge letters from the various hospitals people have been in. Those discharge letters are written by F1 doctors—which is the most junior doctor grade—who have just come out of university. Sitting there late at night, writing these discharge letters is regarded as one of the worst things a doctor has to do. I have seen serious mistakes in those letters, even regarding one of the problems the patient had. Getting those records changed is very difficult. The making of decisions on the future of an individual on the basis of a record that might be totally wrong or misleading is the reason why we need additional protections. It is only common sense, because we humans are all frail and we make mistakes. We write and say mistakes. We overlook things.

These mistakes are very significant, because the condition that a person might be suffering from requires a certain type of medication. It may be that the person is suffering from multiple issues, requiring multiple medications. At least the doctor who knows the patient has some sense of how that individual reacts to those various medications.

This is about safety. The noble Lord, Lord Deben, had some good ideas. The issue with general practices, as we all know, is that some people have access and some do not; some are good and some are bad; some are sold and some are closed, and entire practices can be moved into another practice, where they have no knowledge of the patients whatever. So we have a mixed bag.

This issue illustrates a couple of things. Yes, it is down to safety, but I respectfully suggest that the fact that we are having this discussion today shows the immaturity of the Bill. We should have had a royal commission and a Government Bill, instead of trying to do it this way and negotiate on the hoof.

My Lords, I did not speak last Friday, and this is the only group to which I intend to speak today. I could have spoken to the last group, as my former Constituency abutted the Scottish border of Dumfries and Galloway and a mere 85 yards across the River Sark was Gretna. I was aware of our glorious 600-year history of border-raiding for cattle and women—in that order—and now it seems we can add free prescriptions to the list as well.

These amendments would strengthen the safeguards with a demonstrable, ongoing clinical relationship with a GP, reducing risk of error, coercion and administrative confusion, while supporting clinical judgment and the continuity of care. Requiring 12 months’ registration plus a minimum number of in-person contacts gives a straightforward verifiable test of recent clinical involvement. We need robust, practical safeguards and clear eligibility checks. These are essential to protect vulnerable people by evidencing local care and oversight. A sustained relationship with a local GP who has seen the patient helps ensure that the patient is informed and is acting voluntarily and free from subtle pressure. The GP’s direct knowledge of the patient’s circumstances is therefore a critical safeguard rather than a bureaucratic hurdle.

The big issue, which has already been raised today, is: who sees the same GP twice these days? I am very lucky, and perhaps some other noble Lords are as well, in that there are superb multi-disciplinary GP practices in Cumbria. I almost always see the same GP, and we can email as well. In fact, in 40 years of living that constituency, I have only ever had two GPs. However, that is not the national picture. Many patients see a different GP every time they visit. Therefore, for this part of the Bill to work, it cannot be any old GP from a practice; it has to be a GP who has treated the patient personally on a few occasions or over a period of time.

Yesterday, I had the wonderful privilege of hearing in this House from a GP who satisfied all the criteria of these amendments thanks to her deep knowledge of her patients. I was later able to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Gerada, a former president of the Royal College of General Practitioners, on her excellent maiden speech. I am delighted to see her here today. I understand that this morning, she was doing the day job, treating her patients in her constituency.

I know that the noble Baroness is in favour of assisted dying, but what she said in one part of her speech yesterday was directly relevant to these amendments. The noble Baroness—I am rather vexed at the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich, who stole these lines earlier this morning—said:

“I became a GP in Kennington, and I have lived and worked in the community I serve ever since … My very first patient was a young woman who suffered a stillbirth. Decades later, I look after her children and now their children too. That continuity, seeing lives unfold across time, gives general practice its unique moral and social power. It allows us to see people as whole human beings, not as isolated organs or diagnoses. We are interpreters of experience, translators of suffering and witnesses to change”.—[Official Report, 11/12/25; col. 370.]

That is exactly the sort of GP I trust to make a decision on whether a person has a confirmed wish to opt for assisted dying—not just any general practitioner, who may never have met the patient before and has just 10 minutes to form an opinion.

I would love to find a way to include that magnificent sentence about continuity and seeing lives unfold over time giving general practice its unique moral and social power; I would love to see whether we could incorporate it into the Bill, because it sets the right moral climate.

As I say, I have a GP. However, for those millions of people who are not so lucky, these amendments would balance safeguards with practicality. Setting a modest minimum of contacts is proportionate. It is enough to demonstrate an established relationship without imposing unrealistic burdens on patients or practices.

Many noble Lords have spoken of multidisciplinary teams. Can the noble Baroness tell me—indeed, can anyone tell me—how many of all the GPs in this country are still single-practice doctors? A Google search suggests that it is around 63%. That seems terribly high; there must be more multidisciplinary teams than that. There are still an awful lot of single-practice GPs. On the rare occasion when I have not seen my own GP, the other GP has had a look at the computer and read all my clinical notes. However, he does not really know who I am; perhaps that is just his good fortune.

These amendments would support patient safety and public trust in any assisted dying regime. It needs to be visible and enforceable, and it needs to have enforceable safeguards. Clinicians must be able to attest to a patient’s circumstances. I support these amendments.

May I say to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, that I was dismayed to read some very hostile comments about noble Lords and noble Baronesses in the weekend press? The complaint was that some Peers had tabled a large number of amendments, and that that was somehow wrong. If they were the only Peers who spoke to them, that criticism would be valid, but those noble Lords and noble Baronesses, as professionals and experts, tabled amendments to which many of us wanted to speak. We left them to do it because those Peers have experience; scores of Peers have spoken to their amendments, so they were not abusing the House. I am absolutely certain that the noble and learned Lord was not behind that bad-mouthing, because he is a gentleman as well as a Peer, but some supporters of this Bill are trying to drown out and close down any proper scrutiny in the Lords.

Lastly, I remind the noble and learned Lord and the Committee that Dignity in Dying’s website boasts that the Bill had 29 Committee sittings in the Commons and over 90 hours of consideration. Since the Bill has come to us from the Commons, we have heard devastating criticisms of it from the Constitution Committee, the Delegated Powers Committee and experts giving evidence to the noble Baroness’s Bill Committee. Today, we are on only our fourth sitting, after, I think, 18 hours of debate. So I say this to the noble and learned Lord: please tell some of the others to call off the attack dogs because this House is doing its proper job.

My Lords, like many noble Lords, I grew up at a time when the family doctor was looked upon as a family friend who could always be depended on whenever you were ill or in a time of crisis. Unfortunately, that is not the situation today. There is a major problem across the United Kingdom: patients desiring to see a GP find themselves sitting on the telephone and ringing the surgery 120 times, perhaps, but still not getting through to someone and giving up at the end of it. That is the reality of the situation in many places.

I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, is not here. He posed a question to the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, concerning what happens if your GP retires. Let me give my small experience. My GP was in his late 50s. He was an excellent GP. During Covid, unlike many other practices, he still allowed patients to come to his surgery. Whenever elderly patients could not come, he went out to their houses and visited them in their own homes—unlike many other practices and GPs. Unfortunately, he got cancer and, in his late 50s, just recently, he passed away.

We were left with a practice in our town with several thousands of patients but nobody to take it over. So what happened to us? Our GP died, and so, without any consultation whatever, we were all farmed out to seven or eight practices around the countryside, some of them not even close—just to whoever would take us. It is unrealistic to imagine that somehow a new doctor would have any knowledge of the pressures, the problems or the complex challenges that his new patient was facing; he would not have any continuity of care whatever.

It was even worse than that, because it was several months before the notes went to the next practice that you were farmed out to. You were allotted a practice but the notes concerning any illnesses of the patients did not immediately follow; it was several months before they arrived. What has been suggested in these amendments today strengthens safeguards. Therefore, they are worthy of the support of noble Lords in this House.

My Lords, I agree with the noble and learned Lord about why we are focused on GP practices, because they are the hub of information. Since I arrived in this country, I have had a lot of treatment for all kinds of conditions—I am one of those people—and all the national insurance I have been paying has being paid back to me about a hundred times, so I am a walking miracle.

An amazing thing happened to me recently. When my anaemia was so high—I did not think I would survive it—I went to see a consultant in Newcastle hospital and he called up my records from 1975. It was amazing that, apart from one GP who did not keep the record properly, he had it all; therefore, I was able to get proper treatment. Friends, the record keeping on health in this country—even if some do not do it well —really is amazing. The records are very clear. The GPs who are good will always keep up their information, which is digitalised so that they can send it quickly.

Therefore, for me, the whole picture is not just the GP doing it but GP practices, which are the hub from which a lot of information about anybody can be gathered. You sever that and put it somewhere else, and you may not actually get it. I have every confidence that in my GP practice at the moment, which has nine doctors, they will have access to that information.

I therefore think that noble Lords should stick with what is in the Bill about the GP, because it is the information that you want to get, and you get it now and I am amazed. I am therefore very thankful for the care that I have received and the records that speak about my journey, and I want to thank all those who have been involved in my health.

My Lords, I wonder whether we can now hear from the Front Benches. We have had a long discussion about these issues and have moved into the danger of repetition. We have already had a response from the sponsor of the Bill too, so I think it is now the turn of the Front Benches.

My Lords—

A noble Lord:

No—Front Benches.

My Lords, I will raise some new points that have not yet been raised in the debate—looking at the Companion, as the Government Chief Whip instructed, I have every right to do so. My noble friend Lord Blencathra made some very good points. I have been here for every minute of the debate on the Bill, and I have listened with care and courtesy to every noble Lord, whether they were making points I agreed with or disagreed with, and I expect the same courtesy to be afforded to every Member of this House.

I agree with the sentiment of these amendments. It has been a very valuable debate, because there has been a general sense in the Committee about the importance—

My Lords, the noble Lord and I go back a long way. I certainly appreciate what he just said, but I ask him whether he agrees with the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, that it is important that the Bill gets to Report and that the House has the time to consider it then and not only in Committee.

I am trying to make some comments on the amendments. Let me do that and then, if I have time—I am very careful to keep my remarks to less than 10 minutes, which is the guidance in the Companion—I will address the noble Baroness’s points. She is right that, when I was Government Chief Whip, she was my Opposition and we had a very good working relationship, which I want to continue in this House.

What has come out of the debate is a general view from everybody, whatever their view on the Bill, about the importance of the relationship that people have with their general practitioner, whether it is an individual or, as the noble Baroness, Lady Gerada, said, a multidisciplinary practice. That is a very important point. The amendments that have been tabled to Clause 1 are about the eligibility criteria for whether someone is able to make a request for an assisted death.

The flaw in the amendments—I support the idea behind them, but I do not support them—is that they do not make an appreciable difference to the safeguards in the Bill. When the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, made some remarks in this debate, he put his finger on it: there is no requirement in the Bill for the GP or the team at the GP practice to be the doctor who makes the assessment about whether the person has the capability to make this decision or not. That, as was said by the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, is the role of the co-ordinating doctor, who does not need to have any relationship with the patient at all.

When the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, looked at this issue before, there was a report from the Demos assisted dying commission, which the noble and learned Lord chaired. Its recommendations recognised the need for

“a doctor who … knows the person well and supports the person and their family”.

The report also said that that doctor who knows the person can better assess whether the request to die is a cry for help, a sign of poor care or a result of coercion, and that

“if an assisted death was to go ahead, the first doctor should be responsible for arranging support for the patient and their family during and after the assisted death”.

It envisaged that

“the first doctor would have a greater level of involvement” and

“an established relationship with the person requesting this assistance, and be familiar with their personal history and family context”.

That seemed to be the general view of all of the noble Lords who have spoken.

The problem is that there is no requirement in the Bill before us for the GP or multidisciplinary practice to be the co-ordinating doctor or even to be consulted before the co-ordinating doctor makes the first assessment. It is absolutely true, as the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, said, that, when the co-ordinating doctor has made the assessment, he or she has to send that to the GP practice. However, as the Bill is drafted at the moment, the role of the GP practice is to act as a postbox, log the report—I see the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, nodding—and pop it on somebody’s medical records. There is no requirement or duty on that GP practice to read the report, to make an assessment of the decision of the person with whom they have a relationship to die or to do anything about it at all. That is the flaw in this.

The problem with the amendments on the eligibility criteria that we are considering is that, if they were all adopted—this is an administrative point—they would not ensure that that knowledgeable individual or practice with whom the patient has a relationship has any role whatever in making this important decision, involving the family or consulting anybody at all. That is the flaw.

This has been a valuable debate because I think it has demonstrated—and I think the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, recognised in his earlier comments —that there was value in that relationship, and I am not surprised by that, given the conclusions that the commission he chaired came to, but the problem is that that is not reflected in the Bill at all.

If I may, I will conclude on this point before I address the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Winterton. Why we have these debates, and the reason for hearing from noble Lords with opinions, is because it highlights the flaws that exist in the Bill. The point of this process is that that then enables the sponsor of the Bill and all noble Lords to listen carefully to the debate and to bring forward improvements on Report.

I hope that, in his response, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, will draw on the concerns that have been highlighted and can indicate his approach. If he is minded to bring forward amendments that deal with some of these things, that clearly means that other people do not need to. If he indicates he is not minded to do that, then other noble Lords can bring forward amendments to deal with it, which can then be debated and voted on at Report stage. That is the point of our process and why we debate these things in the Chamber: so that everybody can hear the debate and the points. It is a better way of improving the legislation than having lots of private discussions to which most of us are not party.

What I would say to the noble Baroness, Lady Winterton—

My Lords, I think there is a misconception by the noble Lord on how modern general practice works through the electronic patient record. If the report goes to a GP, like any report does, it is clinically coded, and there would be a flag on the patient’s electronic patient record that would indicate to the GP and anyone in that practice that an assisted death had been requested through the co-ordinating doctor. It would not, to use the noble Lord’s words, just be postboxed; it would be automatically registered on the electronic patient record, and a flag would come up for anyone in the GP practice to see what was happening.

That is a very helpful Intervention, and I absolutely accept that. I understand that that is the way it works. Certainly, with the way the NHS works now, you can go on to the NHS app, which many noble Lords may use, access your own patient record and see all those various notifications registered. He is absolutely right that a flag would be raised; the problem is that there is no requirement in the way the Bill is drafted at the moment for that GP practice to do anything as a result of that flag being raised—none at all. I think there should be. We can come on to that, as we progress through the Bill, when we get to Clause 10. That is the point I was trying to raise.

I do not want to go over my time, but I will deal briefly with the points by the noble Baroness, Lady Winterton. I agree with her. It is right that the House scrutinises the Bill properly. If you look at the number of days of debate in the House of Commons, I think there were 11 days in Committee. If you look at the normal way this House conducts itself—because we tend to do a more detailed level of scrutiny than the House of Commons—you would expect, as a rule of thumb, about 16 days of debate in Committee; then we normally have 50% of that on Report and at Third Reading. I do not disagree with her. It may be that this Bill requires more time, and that is clearly a discussion for the sponsor to have with the Government Chief Whip about making that time available. But I think the wrong response is for us to not do our jobs properly, not scrutinise the Bill and not make sure that it is a properly fit piece of legislation to get on to the statute book. That would be the wrong response. If we were to do that, we would be failing in our duty to legislate properly for the people of this country.

My Lords, I will speak to these amendments because I want to make a new point. A very vulnerable population that we must continue to remember is the prison population. Although we will deal with the prison population more fully in the group coming up, we must remember that this Bill currently does not exclude prisoners from being eligible. That means we must consider how each issue is likely to play out in a prison setting.

As we have heard extensively, these amendments deal with two main issues: first, access to primary care; and, secondly, how well that primary care physician knows the details of your medical history. The first is very closely related to inequalities and making sure that those who have worse access to care are not more likely to choose assisted dying. The prison population are therefore a key group that must be considered, since their health and access to healthcare are worse than that of the general population. That is evidenced by the recently published report by the Chief Medical Officer.

That report also highlights access to healthcare for those in prison. There is no automatic or compulsory enrolment of prisoners into primary care on the prison estate. Over 20% of the prison population do not complete registration on arrival. For those who do, the service is often slow or inaccessible. According to the Nacro report on physical health in prison, two in five prisoners waited for a month or longer for a GP appointment and one in 13 never got one. According to the Chief Medical Officer’s report, one in three prisoners does not have their full electronic health record available to prison healthcare staff. These are not just statistics. When I visit and talk with prisoners about their well-being and purpose, access to healthcare is always spoken about.

Briefly, I do not believe that the issue of how well a primary care physician knows your medical history has been sufficiently considered from a prison context. If a GP may be the person to conduct a preliminary discussion to consider a person’s application for an assisted death, how will they do that safely with incomplete information about their patient’s health record? We must question eligibility along these lines. Before we talk about the next group of amendments, I hope that there will be important safeguards for prisoners on the issues raised in this group.

My Lords, the noble and learned Lord has already been very helpful in the undertakings and clarificatory comments that he made earlier in the debate, so I shall be very brief. In following up those comments, I will return to the question that I raised on the previous group. The Bill seems consciously to steer clear of insisting that a person’s GP must always be involved in the process being pursued by that person in seeking an assisted death, other than the GP having a duty to note in the patient record that the preliminary discussion has taken place. The entire process, in other words, could be conducted by the patient in conjunction with hospital-based medical consultants.

Do I understand correctly that the noble and learned Lord is willing to look closely at ways of making sure, by whatever means, that the crucial judgments made by clinicians about a patient’s capacity, about coercion and about that person’s settled wish to end their life are firmly and soundly based? The route to achieving that may well be the GP practice and the multidisciplinary team within it, but, as we have heard, that source of information may not be practical or useful in every case. Will the noble and learned Lord therefore ensure that he will consider more generally in the round possible safeguards that will forestall the possibility of superficial or cursory assessments being made—especially, perhaps, assessments by hospital consultants, who may have enjoyed only a brief acquaintance with the patient?

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their contributions on proposed safeguards relating to general practice. I will keep my comments limited to the amendments on which the Government have major legal, technical or operational workability concerns. On that basis, I draw noble Lords’ attention to the operational workability concerns in relation to Amendments 19, 20, 21, 29, 30B, 265A and 443A.

Amendment 21, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, stipulates that an individual must have

“an established relationship with a GP who has good knowledge of their personal circumstances”.

However, the amendment does not specify how this requirement is to be satisfied, or when. Amendment 20, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, and Amendment 29, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, would require the GP to have made a home visit to the person and for the person to have attended a certain number of appointments. Amendment 19, tabled by my noble friend Lord Rook, requires an individual to have been registered with a GP in England or Wales for 12 months and to have seen a GP at that practice at least twice, to meet the eligibility criteria.

In relation to these amendments, not everyone will require face-to-face appointments or a home visit with a GP and we would be concerned about the operational impacts of mandating a specific number of consultations or visits where this is not based on clinical need. Additionally, in relation to Amendments 20 and 29 specifically, home visits are generally offered only where clinically appropriate for the patient, and the stipulation on this may restrict eligibility.

I turn now to Amendments 30B, 265A and 443A, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins. The effect of these amendments is to require a person seeking an assisted death to have a letter from a GP who has known them in a professional medical capacity for at least two years—

I beg the Minister’s pardon but she is referring to my Amendments 30B, 265A and 443A, not those of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins.

I am most apologetic and grateful for the clarification. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, will forgive me, too.

I will continue. The GP must also have seen them at least six times in face-to-face appointments during those two years. Noble Lords may wish to note that these amendments introduce requirements that may result in people seeking GP appointments that are not clinically necessary. This may have an impact on wider access to GP services. Noble Lords may also wish to note that, even if a person has seen their GP the required number of times over the two-year period, their GP could still refuse to provide the explanatory letter, as they are not under any duty to participate in the provision of assistance, as per Clause 31. This would result in the person being unable to access an assisted death.

Lastly, Amendment 220, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, seeks to add an additional step in the assisted dying process. It would not be a compulsory step; therefore, it would not have a major impact or be unworkable. However, this amendment has not had technical drafting support from officials and, although the issues raised are rightly a matter for noble Lords to consider and decide, would likely require further consideration in order to be made fully workable, effective or enforceable.

If there are on average 3.5 consultations a year face to face, with calls and so on bringing it up to 8.7, it would not necessarily make for additional unnecessary appointments for a person with such a condition. That is my first clarification. My second is about a letter being required and the doctor concerned not wanting to assist in the process. The letter is not about the process. The letter would go into the person’s history over the two years they have been consulting the doctor. It has nothing to do with the process of seeking an assisted death.

Acknowledging that the amendments that I was referring to were tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, I have nothing to add to the points that I have already made, other than to say that the noble Baroness used the word “average” and therefore there is a question about workability. Therefore, our interpretations on the noble Baroness’s second point do differ.

My Lords, I indicated my position in my Intervention. I will summarise my understanding of the Amendment, what my response is and next steps. All the amendments in this group seek a requirement in addition to having a GP before you can have an assisted death. My noble friend Lord Rook suggests having a GP for at least 12 months and having seen him twice before the first declaration. The noble Baronesses, Lady O’Loan and Lady Grey-Thompson, refer to having an “established relationship” with a GP. The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, refers to one consultation and a home visit before the application. The noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, refers to a two-year relationship, an average number of visits face to face and then a letter that relates to the medical condition, the treatment and the state of mind of the patient.

As I have indicated, the GP, in the structure of the Bill, is not somebody who has to be involved. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, encapsulated perfectly that the GP is somebody who is receiving information. All these provisions for making it necessary to have a better relationship with your GP than just having a GP do not touch the safeguards. Quite separately from that, I support what the noble Lord, Lord Deben, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, said. These provisions have an air of utter unreality if you are saying that a condition of an assisted death is a particular relationship with a particular GP. I do not think that any of these safeguards work or reflect the current drafting of the Bill.

It is clear from listening to the debate that people who are concerned with the care should form a basis for the decision. It may not necessarily be making the decision—a lot of people would say that they should not be making the approval—but their input is vital. That was the insight of the noble Baroness, Lady Gerada, which was very much reflected around the Committee. I am willing and keen to reflect that insight in the Bill. But the route is not through newness in relation to the GP. It is reflecting the proposition that the multidisciplinary team dealing with the patient must have some input. I do not know whether that satisfies the question asked by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, but that is the purpose of what I am taking away from this very valuable debate.

As for the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester, we are going to speak about prisoners on the next group. Can I reserve my position in relation to prisoners to avoid there being too much duplication?

In those circumstances, I invite the noble Lords not to press their amendments.

I thank noble Lords for their patience, passion and seriousness in scrutinising this part of the Bill.

My Amendment 19, which started this debate, possibly needs some clarification. Forgive me, as one who is still becoming accustomed to your Lordships’ House, if I should have intervened earlier on this. I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Gerada, for her remarks. I had the privilege of working with her in a previous life and saw her brilliant healthcare and the provision of many experts—not just healthcare professionals but the wider community—in seeking people’s health and well-being. Her best-case scenario is what we would like to see in all end-of-life care and in assisted dying.

However, to speak to the comments by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, my amendment is not seeking for a patient to have to see the same GP twice. That is not the amendment that we are trying to make here. We are asking that someone should be registered in a practice for a year and see a GP twice in that year.

I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, for her view that this could mean a wider team engagement—it might not be just the GP. I am saying not that it has to be the same GP twice but that a person has to engage with a GP twice in that stage. If any one of us in this Committee, or any one of our loved ones, were facing a serious medical condition right now, I think we would all have the reasonable expectation that in the next 12 months we might see a GP at our practice. Given the importance of this legislation and just what it will do for the state’s relationship to life and the NHS’s relationship to life, someone who is critically facing the end of life and requesting an assisted death should also be afforded the opportunity to see a GP twice in that period.

Dr Michael Mulholland has been quoted a number of times from his remarks to the Select Committee. I will finish with a quote from him. He said:

“We need to be sure that these things are checked on many levels. It is not at a single time and point where you tick something”.

I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, for his willingness to consider this issue. I look forward to seeing how these concerns and conversations might be expressed and reflected in the Bill. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment in my name.

Amendment 19 withdrawn.

Amendments 20 and 21 not moved.