Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Baroness Coffey Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 19th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, sadly, over 1,500 people will die in the UK today. Of those, nearly 500 will be from cancer. Death comes to us all, and of course we want to make sure that people have as comfortable a death as possible. But in the legislation before us, we are being asked to agree that someone be enabled to be given and use a concoction of chemicals to take their own life, and we are being asked to require the Government to provide services for that to happen.

I recognise that we have heard a lot of distressing stories of people suffering pain, intolerable pain, at the end of their life, and the suggestion is that by introducing assisted dying, or controlled suicide, that pain could be avoided. There is no reference to pain or suffering in the Bill. We have heard in the debate about polling. In other surveys, when it is explained that the assisted dying in the Bill is effectively controlled suicide, support falls. The BMA survey this year shows that support from GPs has fallen. The royal colleges have expressed their concerns.

I do not want to extend life unduly. In a week when the Government have introduced the Hillsborough law, I think of the legal case of Tony Bland, the 96th Hillsborough victim. That decision to stop artificially keeping him alive was the right one. I also support the concept of DNR. However, without going into too much detail, I have seen first-hand how the clinician/patient relationship can be frighteningly coercive, even for something as simple as sedated surgery for a broken hip.

I also think back with a shudder to the Liverpool care pathway. What an awful way to die. It had become commonplace. I raised this when I first entered Parliament, and gathered enough support from other MPs to get the Government to review and end that practice.

I have serious doubts about how, or indeed whether, we can get this legislation right to cover indirect coercion in particular. This indirect coercion is real: the feeling of being a burden; knowing you could save money for the NHS if you went that bit earlier; knowing you might be able to leave more money to your children, rather than pay care home fees. As such, I am genuinely concerned about how this may become commonplace here, as it is already in Canada. I will also raise other concerns in Committee, including the provision in Wales, given that the Welsh Senedd has voted against this—but I have to say that indirect coercion is my biggest concern.

I have followed the proceedings of the Bill since it was introduced in the Commons, and it has changed considerably since it was first introduced, so I welcome the proposal for a short, targeted Select Committee ahead of our consideration in Committee. One change that the Commons made on Report, which I welcome, was not to allow doctors to raise this option with a child, which the promoters of the Bill opposed. It got through against their desire.

Addressing the amendment of my noble friend Lord Forsyth, which I am pleased he has already indicated he will withdraw later, I need not dwell on the differences in processes between the Commons and Lords and their consideration, but I do not agree that this Private Member’s Bill should get particularly special treatment in your Lordships’ House. It has already received substantial support from civil servants. I am not questioning that, because I appreciate that they have to get this in a way that can be delivered, but as has been exposed by the two Select Committees that have already considered the Bill, that has led to an extreme number of regulations and unlimited powers. Both the MoJ and the Department of Health and Social Care have rejected my FoI requests asking which specific areas they had helped on.

I take noble Lords back some time, to a much shorter Bill of five clauses, with a majority of 275 in the Commons—not just the 23 this Bill enjoys—which, by the way, fell from Second to Third Reading; your Lordships stopped consideration in Committee. The Government then put that Bill in their manifesto at the election, and it passed eventually through both Houses. This Private Member’s Bill should not be turned into a government Bill now. It is going to take a lot of fixing, so I hope we will ask the Commons to start again, rather than let the Bill pass. But I assure noble Lords that I will be doing my best to scrutinise and to try to get something that may work—but I fear it may not.

NHS and Care Volunteer Responders Service

Baroness Coffey Excerpts

Tuesday 20th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

My noble friend makes an important point and I can give her that assurance. For me, volunteering provides a different type of resource. For example, Mid Yorks is advertising for trolley volunteers, ward befriending volunteers and café volunteers. It is about supporting the staff in their efforts, and supporting patients. Volunteers have always had a role, and long may that continue.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, if the Minister is concerned about the use of volunteers, will she then consider the role of community first responders? Responses by volunteers are included in measuring the response times of ambulances to 999 calls. Based on her logic, she should now exclude that from response times so that we get the required transparency.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

This announcement does not affect transparency or services directly provided by the NHS. We are seeking to improve the volunteering offer to make it more cost-effective, and to retain, recruit and better utilise volunteers. I will look at the point the noble Baroness raises, but I emphasise my point to your Lordships’ House.

Food, Diet and Obesity Committee Report

Baroness Coffey Excerpts

Friday 28th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, I declare an interest in that I worked for Mars for 12 years and I have a pension.

I am conscious that a lot of the discussion today is about food processes, not food producers, but I have spotted that the noble Baroness, Lady Batters, is speaking later, so I expect that she may cover the issue of food production.

One thing that struck me about this report is that it seems that the only way to try to get change is through regulation, taxes and strategies. I can genuinely say that, in the three different roles that I held at Cabinet level, particularly when I was at DWP, we worked with the Department of Health and Defra on the food strategy. We worked on increasing Healthy Start, and, when people asked for it to be online, we got the applications online.

This is all about how we try to develop habits and, as has already been referred to today, starting young is a key element of that. That can be in schools, but I would go further. Thinking of what the noble Baroness, Lady Brown of Silvertown said, there is a lot here for local government. That is where the health workers are and it has responsibility for planning permission, which was further strengthened last December—a key driver is not necessarily what happens at home, but what you purchase, particularly from fast food outlets. That is really where a lot of the focus should increasingly be.

To follow on from what the noble Baroness, Lady Meyer, said, I remember that, as a student, I used to go down from my halls of residence to the Berwick Street Market every Saturday at 5 am to get the cheap veg. The question is how councils can promote markets, and not just, dare I say it, the niche chichi farmers’ markets. Perhaps councils can do innovative things, such as removing business rates or similar, in order to try to get that fresh food habit as part of a regular shop, with people not just travelling to the supermarket.

One thing that the report frequently refers to is the 2021 national food strategy. I know that Henry Dimbleby was commissioned by Michael Gove to provide evidence to it. It somewhat mushroomed and went way beyond its remit and people referred to it as the “national food strategy”. I should point out that it was never adopted by the Government. However, it brought out a lot of important issues—I appreciate that Henry is not only charming but indeed passionate about this particular interest—that built on the work he had done in improving school meal standards and his other work. A strategy was produced in June 2022 and is now to be updated.

In thinking about processes, one thing your Lordships may not be aware of is the relationships that were forged, particularly during Covid, with the Food Resilience Industry Forum. Frankly, it was the partnership between government and the food processors that are being maligned that kept food on the shelves, so that people could get fed during the challenges that were faced at that time and to some extent during Ukraine a little bit later. Fast-forwarding somewhat and thinking about UPF and science, I would recommend that your Lordships read Dr Amati’s article in the Times today, which talks about this issue and the challenge of how, to be candid, the Nova classification is not just in the balance like the committee has suggested but has been discredited as being ineffective in its classifications. The Nova classification gave a starting point, which was a good thing, but it needs to evolve. That is why the important work still needs to continue. If more research could be done towards that, it would be a welcome move by the Government.

In thinking about the needs of families, we have to remember the cost of living challenge that people face. When food inflation was rising, we had food companies admitting in private that their policies of pursuing net zero by 2030 were increasing the cost of food for families right across the country. When we challenged them about changing that while we had the national emergency, the answer was, quite simply, no. That was a concern to me, but I appreciated that trying to legislate to change that, or creating some new strategy, would simply just add to a very long list. As a consequence, going into the Department of Health as I did, I was accused of all sorts of things at the time, despite the fact that we had a series of strategies. We sat down, looked at the impact assessments for all the different bits of legislation and tried to prioritise those that would make the most difference. That is why banning buy one, get one free during a cost of living crisis was not necessary, especially when the marginal impact was so low. I hope that the updated food strategy that we will see later this year will have a systemic approach to achieving the outcomes that noble Lords seem to be seeking.

I agree with the committee on one specific recommendation: getting the Food Data Transparency Partnership to complete its work. It is one of the best things I set up when in government. It is done on a basis of trust, but it should not be delayed. I encourage the Minister to work with her colleagues to make sure that goes through.

I speak as somebody who is super-obese. Noble Lords may not believe this, but about 20 years ago, I lost 8 stone. I did that by not eating or drinking alcohol—that was pretty much it. I cannot pretend that it has stayed off—far from it. It is not a lack of desire and, as I said to the health officials when I went in, I am a classic example of failure. What has gone wrong? It was not the nutritionist who advised me to eat more carbohydrates. What was it? This is still a journey and there are many good recommendations, but I encourage the Government to focus on delivery and not on more strategies and laws that distract from getting the job done.

Food and Feed (Regulated Products) (Amendment, Revocation, Consequential and Transitional Provision) Regulations 2025

Baroness Coffey Excerpts

Monday 10th March 2025 Grand Committee

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)]

My Lords, these regulations were laid before the House on 29 January. This draft SI uses powers conferred by the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023 to propose two reforms to the market authorisation process for regulated food and feed products in Great Britain. The first is the removal of the requirement for certain products to be reauthorised every 10 years, and the second is to allow authorisations to come into effect following ministerial decisions and to then be published in a public register, rather than prescribed by statutory instrument. The reforms are very much related to process.

These reforms are part of this Government’s mission to kick-start economic growth by increasing investment, driving up productivity and tackling regulatory barriers—something that I know noble Lords are concerned with. The UK food industry is worth some £245 billion in consumer spending annually. It is driving innovation, particularly as the UK’s growing engineering biology sector harnesses emerging technology to produce novel foods.

Regulated products are food and feed products that require safety assessment before they can lawfully be sold. The Food Standards Agency and Food Standards Scotland carry out this assessment and provide recommendations to Ministers across Great Britain on the authorisation of products. Innovation and growth across the food sector is increasing demand for authorisations. We need proportionate regulation to support investment, while maintaining safety and consumer trust. This statutory instrument removes requirements that are unnecessary for food safety without compromising it.

On renewals, certain authorised products must currently be reauthorised every 10 years. This SI removes that requirement. Instead, safety reviews will be carried out when necessary. The service will be more efficient if regulators focus on detailed reviews of products that potentially pose risk, instead of reassessing products that have many years of safe use.

The FSA and the FSS have earned public trust through rigorous risk analysis. These reforms build upon regulators’ existing powers to request safety information. They enable an efficient approach, where the regulators respond effectively to emerging risks. I emphasise that, where necessary, approvals can be modified, suspended or revoked. Food safety will continue to be the priority.

Although steady progress is being made, it is fair to say that the FSA and the FSS are not processing as many applications as are coming in. This is causing an increasing backlog, which is of concern. There are 481 current applications; although 97 applications have been completed since 2021, the caseload is growing, not reducing. Of those 481, about 100 are renewals, with almost 500 additional renewals expected in the next three years. This has to be dealt with. While the FSA and the FSS have implemented measures to improve the service within current legislation, it is essential that the service and the system are modernised. Removing automatic assessment for renewal allows a more targeted approach.

I turn to the removal of SIs. The second part of these reforms allows authorisations to come into force following ministerial decisions and to be published in a public register, rather than being prescribed by an SI. This will enable new products to be brought to market more quickly, without, I emphasise, compromising safety. Publishing authorisations together in online registers, rather than in complex legislation, will make finding information on authorised products more accessible than currently. This aligns with other UK regulators’ authorisation processes, such as for veterinary medicines and pesticides.

The FSA and the FSS provide scientific scrutiny through expert staff and independent scientific advisory committees. They provide safety assessments, risk management advice and recommendations for ministerial decisions. This process aligns with internationally recognised principles. The FSA and the FSS will publish risk assessments and authorisations, in line with their commitments to transparency. The statutory obligation to consult will not change, and authorisations will continue to be subject to public scrutiny.

I assure noble Lords that there has been extensive engagement with industry and consumer groups, including through public consultation. The reforms have received substantial support. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee was reassured by the FSA’s responses to questions raised during scrutiny. I have responded to those primary areas of focus in this opening speech.

These reforms prioritise efficiency and safety, focusing resources on innovative products. I hope noble Lords will feel able to support these reforms, which will create a service which manages risk in a proportionate fashion, without compromising our high food and feed safety standards. I beg to move.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, I welcome these regulations, on several grounds. First, as the Minister mentioned, this is a deregulatory approach. There cannot be many regulations deemed to be deregulatory that have 104 pages, but 70 of those pages deal with revocations of existing legislation. That is to be welcomed.

I completely support that this will be a risk-based approach. I am conscious that consultations are ongoing on products being considered by the FSA under this approach. I am conscious that some may be concerned about removing the need for separate secondary legislation, which is a hangover from our days in the European Union, but this is perfectly routine.

I have a couple of questions for the Minister. First, I am conscious that the Food Standards Agency is a non-ministerial department, with the DHSC leading on this in government and in Parliament. Can she confirm whether DHSC Ministers will be making these decisions or whether it will be open to Defra Ministers?

Secondly, an issue that arose during the passage of what is now the precision breeding Act was concern that the devolved Administrations would be reluctant to have any GMO in products sold in their countries. The purpose of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act and the non-discrimination principle was to make sure that, where something had been given the go-ahead in England, say, it could be sold anywhere across the United Kingdom, respectful of the devolved Administrations but nevertheless giving consumers that choice. Will the UK Government fully assert the non-discrimination principle in the sale of future products? As I said, I support these regulations.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I support the comments made by my noble friend and concur entirely. I congratulate the Minister on bringing forward this streamlining and deregulatory process. However, I share some of the concerns put forward by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee.

My noble friend talked about GMO. I am personally very wary of GMO products: I would like to know if I were eating such a product or if such feedstuff was being fed to an animal that I may go on to eat. Can the Minister assure me that the removal of the renewals process will not lead to any information affecting the suitability of validation methods for GMOs being overlooked? Put simply, can the public and consumers rest assured that the processes that have been followed hitherto will be followed? How can the public be made aware of those processes and know that that is the case?