GP Contract

Debate between Simon Opher and Stephen Kinnock

Monday 16th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Kinnock]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a very important point about bureaucracy. Many of the reforms that we are pushing for in the contract are designed to reduce bureaucracy. For example, by moving to a single point of access and embedding advice and guidance in the contract, we will reduce the number of transactions. In the current system, the practice needs to put in a request for a £20 payment each time it provides advice and guidance; we are embedding that and streamlining it.

The other point to make is that at the heart of our 10-year plan is the shift from analogue to digital. I have seen some extraordinarily effective artificial intelligence technology around ambient voice services, which enable an entire consultation to be recorded and put directly into the system, thereby saving the GP hours at the end of the day in writing up notes.

[Dr Simon Opher (Stroud) (Lab)]

I declare an interest as a working GP in the NHS. I probably would not be standing here if general practice had not been decimated over the last 14 years. I welcome the £485 million of extra funding, and I also welcome the fact that the capacity and access money is being channelled back into emergency GP action, so increasing the number of appointments, and increasing continuity of care by bringing back the family doctor. May I have some reassurance that the processes of advice and guidance and the referral mechanisms will not get in the way of Jess’s rule, which is about referring patients on their third presentation without any particular diagnosis?

[Stephen Kinnock]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The £292 million we have made available for advice and guidance is repurposed funding from the capacity and access improvement payments, so it is part of incentivising improved access and better patient outcomes. I can absolutely assure him that Jess’s rule remains fixed as a really important part of ensuring that it is three strikes and a referral. Whatever happens, that will be a top priority throughout the embedding of this contract.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-fifth sitting)

Debate between Simon Opher and Stephen Kinnock

Tuesday 18th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Stephen Kinnock]

The right hon. Member sets out clearly the difference between self-administration—the concept at the heart of the Bill—and the performance of the act either jointly or by the doctor. The latter is not permitted under the terms of the Bill; the former is. That is where we are.

[Dr Simon Opher (Stroud) (Lab)]

The lack of an ability to assist in the final process would put medical professionals in a very difficult position. Would carrying the medicine to the room where the patient is count as assistance? I think we have to have assistance in the Bill, but I also feel that, as the Minister has outlined clearly, someone can help a person to self-administer but cannot administer. That is quite clear to me.

[Stephen Kinnock]

I thank my hon. Friend, who speaks with considerable clinical expertise. It is about exactly that difference between self-administration and administration. If we cleave to those two principles, that is the basis on which we will achieve the stated aim of my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Nineteeth sitting)

Debate between Simon Opher and Stephen Kinnock

Wednesday 5th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Opher]

I am grateful that you have not intervened as well, Mrs Harris. You did say that I am allowed to call you “you”.

I will finish on this serious point. Amendment 6 has much power, and we would all agree that if the first or second doctor has doubts, they must—not may—refer to a psychiatrist. Expecting every patient who requests assisted death to have a psychological or psychiatric assessment is simply not necessary, and it would not improve the safety of this Bill.

[Stephen Kinnock]

rose—