Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Debate between Baroness Keeley and Baroness Coffey

Committee stage
Friday 5th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, I do not think I am confused at all. I know what Jess Asato tried to get into the Bill to give her assurances, and that something has changed. I had moved on to talk about the amendment from Jack Abbot, which was very important.

The issue of illness is an example of where the Government said they had worked with the Bill’s sponsor. The challenge of this group—I am thinking about what the noble Lord, Lord Birt, said earlier—is that we are covering multiple issues on the basis of drafting changes. I would rather get into the substance of some of this when we get to later groups. However, Clause 14 says that, in the very unlikely circumstances that the doctor who agreed to give a second opinion “dies” or “through illness” is unable to continue, the person has the right to seek a second opinion elsewhere. My point is about removing “through illness”, which was specifically included the Bill. I am trying to understand why the noble and learned Lord is seeking to do that. I have already heard him say that you can just find another doctor, but I am particularly keen to hear from the Government their view, because they worked with the Bill’s sponsor in the Commons to get this phrasing about illness in.

The sponsor’s Amendment 416 is to do with independent doctors and Commons Amendment 459, and there is more than one reference to this issue. There was significant debate when Sarah Olney introduced her amendment in Committee in the Commons seeking to reduce the possibility of abuse by making sure that the second independent doctor has available the reasons why the first independent doctor concluded that the person was not eligible. My interpretation of the amendment tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, is that that goes away and there will not be two reports, and the amendment speaks further about aspects of the reports.

This amendment brought attention from other MPs. Lewis Atkinson talked about recognising that the provision of five different touchpoints of assessment—I appreciate the effort that has gone into trying to bring in safeguards around these matters—is one of the strengths of the Bill and that each assessment should be done in a way that can be progressed with more information. On the Bill’s record-keeping provisions, the assessment should become increasingly informed throughout the process, and therefore there should be an opportunity for a lot of those things to be shared with the panel, as the Bill proposes. Kim Leadbeater said that she was minded to support Sarah Olney’s amendment, but, again, some of those changes are being taken out.

I am not entirely clear about Amendment 417. I somewhat understand the disability definition, although there is only one reference to Section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 anywhere.

This group of amendments needs careful scrutiny as we go through the different groups for later discussion. One of the aspects that we need to make sure of is that the extensive concessions made in the other House do not all of a sudden, through just a few changes here and there, go away. In fact, as we know, in this House we are even considering what further safeguards there could be. One of my reasons for rising today was to bring this to the attention of the Committee. I am not suggesting that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, has done this in bad faith. He may well think that this is just being more efficient, but the extensive debate and the support in the other place—indeed, the support of Kim Leadbeater—for several of these amendments as they were originally drafted mean we should be asking him to think again. We will get into some of the detail in the debates on future groups. I beg to move.

[Baroness Keeley (Lab)]

My Lords, my Amendment 420 could sit beside Amendment 419 from my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer, but it has not been put in this group. This group is labelled “drafting changes” but, as we have just heard, the effect they would have goes further than that. I have tabled Amendment 420, to be discussed in a later group, to address a concern that the grounds on which a co-ordinating doctor can drop out are already too wide, but I see that the amendments in this group from my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer compound that problem by expanding the grounds even further. I therefore feel I must speak briefly in this debate, despite the fact that my amendment comes later, because your Lordships’ Committee needs to be aware of the concern I am seeking to raise, which the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, also has.

My Amendment 420 highlights that these provisions should be limited to cases of death or illness. Clause 14 fails to define in which situations it would be acceptable for the state not to be concerned that the doctor is unwilling. As the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, has highlighted in her Amendment 420A, the danger is that the current wording would allow the risk of changing doctors until the wanted answer is given. These probing amendments are going to be discussed later, and they will focus on the need to restrict the grounds for changing the co-ordinating doctor by excluding the word “unwilling”, which Amendments 420 and 420A both address.

It would be helpful if my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer could answer these questions on this matter. How do we distinguish between a doctor who is unwilling due to conscience and one who is unwilling due to suspicion? Without a requirement to record the specific reasons for unwillingness, is there a danger that we are creating a black box? If a doctor steps away because they are uncomfortable, for instance, with a family member’s influence, surely the system needs to capture that specific hesitation before a new doctor is appointed. Will my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer specify what circumstances cross the line where the state should be more curious about why the doctor is unwilling?

Health and Social Care Update

Debate between Baroness Keeley and Baroness Coffey

Thursday 22nd September 2022 Commons Chamber

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)]

As one exasperated constituent put it, having not been able to get a GP appointment,

“It seems there are too many patients and not enough doctors and this has gotten worse over the last few years.”

My constituents can grasp the workforce issue, but it seems that the Secretary of State cannot. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) that it is deeply worrying that the new Secretary of State did not mention the pay of care staff, when that is the crucial issue if we are to tackle the 160,000 vacancies in the care sector. Will the Secretary of State tell me why the Government are choosing not to tackle the shortage of doctors, nurses and care staff, which is leading to such long wait times for my constituents?

[Dr Coffey]

We are getting more clinicians—doctors and nurses—into the NHS, and I have already shared with the House the approach on care.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Baroness Keeley and Baroness Coffey

Monday 21st March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)]

For many people with disabilities, switching off essential equipment to reduce energy costs is not an option. Extra power is needed to run equipment on which they absolutely rely—to power ventilators, to charge electric wheelchairs or to run a stairlift. When I asked the Prime Minister about this recently, he said that the Government would be looking at ways to abate these costs, so what are the Government doing to support people with disabilities who now face unmanageable energy bills?

[Dr Coffey]

Throughout questions my hon. Friends have been setting out the different types of support available for energy bills. I am conscious of what the hon. Lady refers to, and all I can say is that we will continue to look at opportunities to help people, but I encourage her constituents to access support via the local council’s household support fund.

Supporting Disadvantaged Families

Debate between Baroness Keeley and Baroness Coffey

Monday 9th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Dr Coffey]

I congratulate my hon. Friend. I know how dedicated he was, before entering this House, to social mobility and tackling poverty, and he continues to be so. I fully agree that a lot of local charities have a particular insight into their communities and are often helped by more national organisations such as FareShare. However, they are not the only ones out there. There are plenty of others trying to make sure that we help people in different ways: not only help to get food on the table but help through some of the wraparound care that is so important for families at this time.

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab) [V]]

I want to raise the issue of carers and financial disadvantage. During this crisis, millions of unpaid carers have taken on more caring duties or started caring for a family member for the first time, and many of them are struggling to make ends meet. Although universal credit was uplifted during the crisis to provide people with more support, there was no change to the level of carers allowance, despite it being the lowest benefit of its kind. Will the Secretary of State recognise the monumental impact that the pandemic has had on carers’ lives and introduce an equivalent uplift payment to that for universal credit for carers in receipt of carers allowance?

[Dr Coffey]

I heard part of the hon. Lady’s question and I think the whole House can agree how much we value carers not only as a Government but often through experiences in our own individual lives. I am conscious that carers allowance is not a salary—it is there as a benefit to help people who undertake that duty. I continue to make sure that we try to offer as much help as we can, as a Government, not only to social services but through how we can help people to undertake these caring responsibilities in as flexible a way as possible.

Covid-19: DWP Update

Debate between Baroness Keeley and Baroness Coffey

Monday 4th May 2020 Commons Chamber

[Dr Coffey]

LHA is done on the basis of certain housing areas, and the Chancellor announced a significant change in order to bring this up to the 30th percentile. I say to my right hon. Friend that councils across the country have been receiving discretionary housing payments—separate from the hardship fund. That was ongoing, and we added £40 million to it for this financial year prior to this situation. I encourage anyone who is still struggling in his local area to go directly to the council for some support.

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab) [V]]

During this crisis, the Government have rightly stopped recovering overpayments from universal credit recipients, but they are still deducting money from those who are given an advance payment. We need the five-week wait to be scrapped, so that people do not need advance payments. Will the Secretary of State confirm today that the Government will defer any recovery of advance payments until after the crisis has passed?

[Dr Coffey]

The way that advance payments are recovered is by treating it in effect as a phasing issue, so that people have 13 payments over a year, instead of 12. As a consequence, elements will be removed from the following 12 payments so that the annual total is the same.