Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Debate between Lord Harper and Baroness Coffey

Committee stage
Friday 14th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

I will respond to that. I do not know the answer about the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy. However, I say to the Committee and to the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, that amendments have been made to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 that have not been enacted by this Government. Therefore, we are not even sure exactly which version of the Mental Capacity Act we will be dealing with in the future. The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, is babbling away, but this happened. Amendments were made in 2023. That was on slightly different matter, but it is something I will come to in Clause 3.

I come back to the attack on Dr Price. Perhaps the noble Baroness could be brave. She has used parliamentary privilege to do that. If she really believed it, she might say those words outside the Chamber and see if she gets a legal letter. I thought it was really poor to attack somebody who had been invited and to try to suggest that, somehow, for such a distinguished royal college, she was manipulating a particular report. That was unfair.

I will make one minor observation about the Select Committee. In my view, it was noticeable how distressed Dr Price started to become during that oral evidence session. I am not a clinician or a psychiatrist; frankly, I am just another woman who could see how distressed she started to become. I also spoke to her outside afterwards. We have to bear in mind that we are used to this bear pit—which is much gentler at this end than at the other end—but that is not true of the others.

I will come back to the discussion and one of the questions I wanted to understand when going through ability versus capacity. We have already heard that things such as depression and mental illness are not a disabler. We already know that having dementia is not a reason to be denied, certainly in the Mental Capacity Act 2005. We know that capacity can fluctuate, and I certainly will not repeat what others have said.

What I have not yet understood is how things such as the power of attorney might work, which can be given over for health reasons. I want to get an understanding of the view of the sponsor and the Government Minister about the application of this, before potentially laying further amendments to discuss this.

We know that the Government do not believe that the Bill is in a fit state. They would not have 16 people working on it and the amount of work that has been going on if they did. By the way, that does not include the Government Legal Department in any way.

I thank the noble Baroness for having introduced this, but there is still quite a lot of debate to be had once we get to Clause 3, if we are allowed to see that it is in scope.

[Lord Harper (Con)]

In case I am not understanding it and it would be helpful for the Minister, is the question my noble friend wants the Minister to answer on lasting of powers of attorney whether it the Government’s understanding that somebody in possession of a lasting power of attorney for health and social care would be able to use that lasting power of attorney to seek an assisted suicide for the person on behalf of whom they hold the lasting power? Is that the question she is asking? I was not entirely certain.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My noble friend has put it more accurately—that is precisely the question I am trying to understand. I am trying to be a legislator rather than somebody who argues in court, but the very fact that somebody can make health decisions on behalf of somebody else is important to consider in this matter, and I am not clear that it is explicit in the Bill—yet—that that power of attorney could not apply. We know that the Mental Capacity Act 2005 does not apply to Section 2 of the Suicide Act 1961. I will not go into a history lesson about the Suicide Act at Clause 1, but at the moment everything seems silent on the use of that lasting power of attorney.

Health and Social Care Update

Debate between Lord Harper and Baroness Coffey

Thursday 22nd September 2022 Commons Chamber

[Dr Coffey]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right, and I completely agree with her: it is a real problem. We have started making some changes already, but we need to do so in more detail right across the country. My hon. Friend the Minister responsible for dentistry will be looking into that more intensively.

[Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)]

In Gloucestershire, the inability to discharge people from hospital because of inadequate social care is the primary reason why we have ambulances queuing, so I welcome the adult social care discharge fund that the Secretary of State has announced. Can she set out how that £500 million is going to be allocated, so that Gloucestershire’s local NHS will know how much it can expect and can work with Gloucestershire County Council to improve matters for my constituents?

[Dr Coffey]

My right hon. Friend is correct to raise that question. We are still working on the detail of where that funding will be allocated across the country.

Covid-19: DWP Update

Debate between Lord Harper and Baroness Coffey

Monday 4th May 2020 Commons Chamber

[Dr Coffey]

On the question about the self-employed, where people have assets—for example, savings set aside for paying tax—they need to check carefully and go through that as they make their claim, because it will not be considered part of savings with regard to the £16,000 threshold. On housing, we have increased the local housing allowance, and I am sure that the discretionary housing payments have gone to Ealing Council. It is open for councils to come back to central Government if they would like that to be raised substantially.

[Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con) [V]]

It is clear from the Secretary of State’s statement and her answers to questions from Members that universal credit has been much more effective at scaling up to deal with the unprecedented level of claims arising from the coronavirus pandemic. I know from my constituents’ experience that we get half the number of problems that we got with the legacy benefits. May I therefore take the opportunity to thank all the staff, including those in my constituency, who have delivered universal credit? May they continue to do so.

[Dr Coffey]

My right hon. Friend is right. The old system would not have coped with what universal credit has done. It has helped more than 1.8 million people making that claim.

Immigration Rules: Sponsors

Debate between Lord Harper and Baroness Coffey

Thursday 14th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Harper]

I was listening very carefully to what my hon. Friend said, and I will reflect on it. I thank him for making that point.

Let me say a little more about the financial changes—

[Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)]

I am glad that my hon. Friend is moving on to that point, because residents in my constituency are surprised that the limit of £18,000 is so low, given that we hear concerns about the benefits cap of £26,000. I am delighted that he is going to explain why the limit is £18,000—of course, it is more for people with children.

[Mr Harper]

The previous requirement, which I think has been alluded to, was that applicants had to be “adequately maintained”. The courts generally interpreted that to mean income equivalent to the level of income support for a British family of that size, which was about £5,500 a year for a couple at that time. Our view was that that level of income was not an adequate basis for sustainable family migration and did not provide adequate assurance that UK sponsors and their migrant partners could support themselves and their children over the long term.

The previous regime also required quite a complex assessment, both for applicants and caseworkers, of current and prospective employment income and other financial means. It made decision making difficult, as was highlighted by the independent chief inspector’s report of 24 January on the processing of applications under the old rules for spouses and partners. Again, that was partly why we wanted a financial requirement that was clear and transparent; applicants would know where they stood, and we could make clear and timely decisions.

The minimum income threshold is £18,600 a year, with a higher amount with those sponsoring dependent children—it is £22,400 for those sponsoring one child and an extra £2,400 for each further child. We based that on the expert advice of the independent Migration Advisory Committee. It gave us a range of figures and that was at the low end. Its figures went up to about £25,000, a level at which someone would be making a net contribution to the Exchequer. The £18,600 level we settled on is broadly the income at which a couple, once settled here, cannot access income-related benefits. It is not an exact match, but it was as close as we can get. Our approach broadly says, “If they are here earning that amount of money, they are going to be able to stand on their own two feet and not expect the taxpayer to support them.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Thérèse Coffey]

Does my hon. Friend agree that plenty of companies in this country regularly secure permits to bring talented people to fulfil specific roles? So, it happens now and we are proud to welcome talent into our country to fill those roles.

[Mr Harper]

My hon. Friend is right. If people have married or are with a partner, they are looking at a particular route. It is worth saying, and her intervention highlights this, that there are alternative routes for people under the immigration rules for some of these difficult cases.