Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Excerpts

Committee stage
Friday 14th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

My Lords, I do not think it is helpful to your Lordships’ House to be going into discussions that included private discussions. The Motion that the House passed did not suggest that. Noble Lords will also know that there are ethical concerns about calling people who are so vulnerable.

[Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)]

I remind your Lordships of the conventions of the House. An intervention on an intervention is not ideal. If we can follow normal conventions, that will be helpful.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

I thank the noble Baroness. I note that my former tutorial partner from Oxford was intervened on, or interrupted, for speaking for too long beyond 10 minutes. I shall endeavour still to be within 10 minutes despite having been doubly intervened on.

The report noted that the committee had not taken evidence from terminally ill people. I will leave it at that in terms of responding to the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton. However, we took evidence, as we were requested to do, on safeguarding and procedures, and, within the confines of a very brief committee, we took a wide range of evidence. Should we and could we have taken more? Absolutely, but within the confines of what we were able to do I think we did a job. I certainly did not at any point speak or vote against, or indeed take any view on, the idea that we should not take evidence from terminally ill people, so it is unfortunate that that has become a topic of debate.

The reason I rose to speak is that the question of capacity versus ability is hugely important. There are references throughout the Bill to the Mental Capacity Act, but to suggest that this one amendment is not appropriate is an unfortunate legal point. The amendment says that people should have the ability to make the decision, but “ability” reaches far beyond the narrow confines of the Mental Capacity Act. At various points in Committee, we will talk about capacity. The committee took evidence on capacity, and a key thing to bear in mind about the Mental Capacity Act is that it was never designed for a life or death decision. We need to be very clear as a Committee of the whole House and as parliamentarians—

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Excerpts

Committee stage
Friday 12th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Noble Lords]

Order!

[Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)]

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.

[Lord Winston (Lab)]

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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

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?

[Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)]

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.

[Baroness Hollins (CB)]

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.