Lords Chamber
10:06
Legislation: Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) Bill - third reading
-
Legislation: Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) Bill - third reading
My My Lords, My Lords, I My Lords, I should My Lords, I should like My Lords, I should like to My Lords, I should like to notify the House of the retirement with effect from today of the noble Lord Lord Stone of Blackheath, pursuant to section one of the House of Lords Reform Act, 2014. On behalf of the House, I acknowledge the noble Lords contribution to the work of the House. Third Reading of the dogs. Protection of Livestock
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Amendment Bill Baroness Coffey. My Lords, I beg to move that
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Amendment Bill Baroness Coffey. My Lords, I beg to move that
10:06
10:07
Baroness Coffey (Conservative)
-
-
Baroness Coffey (Conservative)
>> My Lords, I beg to move that this bill do now pass. I have to say, my Lords, the farming community will be delighted that so community will be delighted that so many peers are here for the Third Reading of this important bill. Livestock worrying has devastating consequences, both animals and farmers, and it can be horrific, causing brutal injuries that are tragically, often fatal. And there are instances of stress causing pregnant livestock to miscarry and separation of mothers and their young, leading to hypothermia or starvation.
This modest bill will modernise the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953, ensuring it reflects the needs of modern day farming, strengthening policing powers so they can do their job more effectively, giving the police powers of entry and allowing them to seize and detain dogs and to collect evidence. At the moment, particularly, collecting evidence tends to rely on the goodwill of the owners of the suspected dog. Now, I was contacted by a peer this week, the Liberal Baroness, lady who I see in her place with the concern that had been passed on to her, that the word parts in clause one, subsection A, might be interpreted as referring only to footpaths or bridleways or similar.
And it was it was it be important to make it clear that pass had its
This modest bill will modernise the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953, ensuring it reflects the needs of modern day farming, strengthening policing powers so they can do their job more effectively, giving the police powers of entry and allowing them to seize and detain dogs and to collect evidence. At the moment, particularly, collecting evidence tends to rely on the goodwill of the owners of the suspected dog. Now, I was contacted by a peer this week, the Liberal Baroness, lady who I see in her place with the concern that had been passed on to her, that the word parts in clause one, subsection A, might be interpreted as referring only to footpaths or bridleways or similar.
And it was it was it be important to make it clear that pass had its
10:08
Legislation: Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) Bill - Bill Do Now Pass.
Baroness Coffey (Conservative)
-
Legislation: Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) Bill - Bill Do Now Pass.
Baroness Coffey (Conservative)
ordinary meaning? And I intend to do that. Anyone who has driven down country roads will know that farmers move livestock. Now, the bill specifically extends the scope of the provisions to. They do not of the provisions to. They do not only apply to a field that a farmer may own or where livestock are kept. It recognises agricultural It recognises agricultural practices means that animals are often transferred from one field to another, and the current legislation does not apply. Where legislation does not apply.
Where animals are crossing a road and a dog is out of control, or indeed other sections, which is not the actual specific field. So in recognition of that, the bill includes roads and paths as locations where an offence may take place. That will give farmers greater reassurance when moving livestock. And I do understand that parts will have its ordinary meaning. I hope that gives the noble Baroness Assurance, and I hope that I'm sure the Minister will confirm that in her response. My Lords, this bill actually originally started two years ago, in December 2023, when I took it through the Commons, when I was formerly an MP, and my noble friend Lord Colgrain stood ready last year to take it through this House.
And then the election was called. But I do want to thank the new Defra Ministers who recognise the importance of this issue and ensured it became a government handout bill that has allowed us a good passage, but in particular to thank EFRA Brandreth, who picked up the bill shortly after becoming a newly elected MP in Cheshire and who has navigated it through the Commons. Of course, I want to thank the NFU and all those who made multiple representations from right around the country, and I particularly want to thank the officials from Defra who have been working on this for some considerable time.
I do believe this Bill is a straightforward way to make sure that we help our farmers, whose primary role is to grow food, to put on our plates, and should not be worrying literally about other people's animals, worrying their livestock. I beg to move. Yay!
Where animals are crossing a road and a dog is out of control, or indeed other sections, which is not the actual specific field. So in recognition of that, the bill includes roads and paths as locations where an offence may take place. That will give farmers greater reassurance when moving livestock. And I do understand that parts will have its ordinary meaning. I hope that gives the noble Baroness Assurance, and I hope that I'm sure the Minister will confirm that in her response. My Lords, this bill actually originally started two years ago, in December 2023, when I took it through the Commons, when I was formerly an MP, and my noble friend Lord Colgrain stood ready last year to take it through this House.
And then the election was called. But I do want to thank the new Defra Ministers who recognise the importance of this issue and ensured it became a government handout bill that has allowed us a good passage, but in particular to thank EFRA Brandreth, who picked up the bill shortly after becoming a newly elected MP in Cheshire and who has navigated it through the Commons. Of course, I want to thank the NFU and all those who made multiple representations from right around the country, and I particularly want to thank the officials from Defra who have been working on this for some considerable time.
I do believe this Bill is a straightforward way to make sure that we help our farmers, whose primary role is to grow food, to put on our plates, and should not be worrying literally about other people's animals, worrying their livestock. I beg to move. Yay!
10:10
Lord Colgrain (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Colgrain (Conservative)
The question is that this bill do now pass. frontbench responses. I too would like to add my thanks to your Lordships' House and to the other place for their speed and constructive nature of the passage of this bill. As I said at Second Reading, I borne personal witness to horrible dog attacks on sheep, for which this bill will make dog owners more accountable. The farming community is facing strong headwinds at the moment, and this small and seemingly innocuous bill will provide when it receives Royal Assent.
The best possible Christmas present to all livestock owners.
The best possible Christmas present to all livestock owners.
10:10
Baroness Mallalieu (Labour)
-
-
Baroness Mallalieu (Labour)
Yes.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I would like to add my voice to praise for the noble Baroness, who has pursued this bill for some has pursued this bill for some considerable time, and to express gratitude both to her and to the Minister, for allowing it to pass Minister, for allowing it to pass from grateful sheep owners and dog owners everywhere. Thank you.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I would like to add my voice to praise for the noble Baroness, who has pursued this bill for some has pursued this bill for some considerable time, and to express gratitude both to her and to the Minister, for allowing it to pass Minister, for allowing it to pass from grateful sheep owners and dog owners everywhere. Thank you.
10:11
The Earl of Effingham (Conservative)
-
-
The Earl of Effingham (Conservative)
>> Well done. >> My Lords. >> Please let me thank the noble Baroness. Lady Coffey, the first female deputy Prime Minister in British history, for her work on this bill, which embodies the steadfast conservative commitment to farmers. We should also flag the many organisations who have campaigned for and been instrumental in delivering reform in this area. His Majesty's Loyal Opposition is fully supportive of the Bill, which is a long overdue update to the law and of genuine benefit to rural communities such as the one that I myself live in.
This bill will, among other measures, extend the powers available to the police to enforce the law against incidents of livestock worrying. With an estimated 34,000 incidents of livestock worrying every year across England and Wales. This issue is of key concern not only because of the significant financial costs, but also because of the distress it causes to farmers who truly care for the animals in their keep, who and who themselves have to bear both the emotional and monetary scars.
It also includes new protection for the 45,000 alpacas and llamas, whose UK population continues to grow, and they will now be afforded the same protections as other livestock under the 1953 act. By enhancing powers of enforcement, encouraging responsible dog ownership and securing justice for those negatively impacted. This bill delivers for both farmers and their livestock. We commend the bill to your Lordships' House, and we look forward to seeing it complete its final stages. complete its final stages.
This bill will, among other measures, extend the powers available to the police to enforce the law against incidents of livestock worrying. With an estimated 34,000 incidents of livestock worrying every year across England and Wales. This issue is of key concern not only because of the significant financial costs, but also because of the distress it causes to farmers who truly care for the animals in their keep, who and who themselves have to bear both the emotional and monetary scars.
It also includes new protection for the 45,000 alpacas and llamas, whose UK population continues to grow, and they will now be afforded the same protections as other livestock under the 1953 act. By enhancing powers of enforcement, encouraging responsible dog ownership and securing justice for those negatively impacted. This bill delivers for both farmers and their livestock. We commend the bill to your Lordships' House, and we look forward to seeing it complete its final stages. complete its final stages.
10:13
Baroness Hayman of Ullock, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Labour)
-
-
Baroness Hayman of Ullock, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Labour)
My Lords, I'm very grateful to all noble Lords for their contributions and for their support for this Bill through its passage in the House. I would like to thank the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury for introducing this very important Bill in the other place, and, of course, to thank the noble Lady Baroness Coffey, for successfully guiding the Bill through this House. But also keeping at it, I think, is the is the description. So I'm really pleased that, as we've heard, the bill makes really important changes to strengthen police powers and also increases fines as a deterrent, as well as expanding the scope to include incidents on camelids.
I'd also just to reference roads and paths. As the noble Lady Baroness Coffey mentioned, we'd had an email from my noble friend Baroness Mallalieu, so I'd just like to clarify that the ordinary meanings of road and path are broad, and we would expect the courts to interpret road or path broadly to include things like tracks, for example, in order that it doesn't have that narrow meaning, which the noble Lady was concerned about. The passing of this bill is clearly important for our farmers and their livestock, and the strength and provisions will send a clear message that livestock worrying is a serious offence, and responsible dog owners must be accountable.
The provisions will serve as a deterrent, but also restore confidence among farmers and members of rural communities, many of whom live in fear of the devastating impact of such incidents, and that what the impact they have on their livelihoods and also the welfare of their animals. This bill is a truly meaningful step forward in our commitment to animal welfare, and to those who work tirelessly to sustain our agricultural sector, and I look forward to seeing the positive impact that it will have.
I'd also just to reference roads and paths. As the noble Lady Baroness Coffey mentioned, we'd had an email from my noble friend Baroness Mallalieu, so I'd just like to clarify that the ordinary meanings of road and path are broad, and we would expect the courts to interpret road or path broadly to include things like tracks, for example, in order that it doesn't have that narrow meaning, which the noble Lady was concerned about. The passing of this bill is clearly important for our farmers and their livestock, and the strength and provisions will send a clear message that livestock worrying is a serious offence, and responsible dog owners must be accountable.
The provisions will serve as a deterrent, but also restore confidence among farmers and members of rural communities, many of whom live in fear of the devastating impact of such incidents, and that what the impact they have on their livelihoods and also the welfare of their animals. This bill is a truly meaningful step forward in our commitment to animal welfare, and to those who work tirelessly to sustain our agricultural sector, and I look forward to seeing the positive impact that it will have.
10:15
-
Good question is that this bill do now pass, as many of that
**** Possible New Speaker ****
opinion will say, content. Content. Content content, the content
**** Possible New Speaker ****
habit. Message from the Commons that they have passed the pension schemes Bill to which they desire.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
schemes Bill to which they desire. The agreement of your lordships. My Lords, I beg to move that
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, I beg to move that time. The question is that this bill be now read a first time, as many be now read a first time, as many of that opinion will say. Content the contrary, not content. The contents have it.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
opinion will say, content. Content. Content content, the content
**** Possible New Speaker ****
habit. Message from the Commons that they have passed the pension schemes Bill to which they desire.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
schemes Bill to which they desire. The agreement of your lordships. My Lords, I beg to move that
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, I beg to move that time. The question is that this bill be now read a first time, as many be now read a first time, as many of that opinion will say. Content the contrary, not content. The contents have it.
10:15
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Labour)
-
-
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Labour)
My Lords, as I've done on previous days, I will make a short statement about proceedings today before we start Committee stage of everything we're about to say remains in line with how business usually would move forward, and has done so on the previous two days of committee. The Government Whips Office distributed and updated groupings to noble Lords yesterday on the noble friend, Lord Falconer of Thoroton has set a target for today's debates. The government remains neutral, but I would highlight that we have only had considered three groups in the two previous days, with only one group debated on the last sitting Friday.
I would hope that noble Lords can make much greater progress today, to ensure that a wider range of important amendments can be scrutinised in the time available. I remind our laws that there is significant public interest in the bill, and there are strongly held views both for and against the bill. It is right all sides that we undertake detailed scrutiny, but also we seek to make much more progress. My Lords, this is Committee stage, so participants in the debate should address their remarks to the amendments under consideration and not make long Second Reading speeches going way beyond the substantive amendments being debated.
This should help us make progress at the Committee stage many times before standing at this Dispatch Box as Government Chief Whip and previously standing the opposite Dispatch Box as Opposition Chief Whip, I have stressed the importance of the companion to assist us on our debates, and I do so again today. In particular, I refer noble Lords to page 143 .8.81, which makes clear that noble Lords should not summarise or repeat others at length, not make Second Reading speeches and the points made should be relevant to the amendments being discussed and .8.82 on page 143 that when withdrawing amendments, noble Lords should be brief.
We also do not take interventions on interventions, and if a noble Lord is intervened on it, is for a brief questions of clarification, not a speech .4.29 on page 60 makes that clear for all members. I am sure all noble Lords will want to show the House at its best. I urge all noble Lords participate in participating to continue to debate the issues before the House, with the usual courtesy and respect that we all expect, and not to let themselves at a house down by doing anything other than that.
I remind the House again, as I did last sitting Friday, that the microphones in the House are sensitive. Noble Lords should also take care. In remarks made during conversations in the chamber that they would not broadcast live. If you wish to speak to other colleagues, please do so outside the chamber. To avoid disrupting the debate, I can recommend the Long Room, the Peers Guest Room and the Royal Gallery as ideal places to go. Finally, to help colleagues in planning their day, I expect the House to rise again at a convenient point around 3 p.m.
It could be slightly before that or slightly after, but that will end around that time. I will return to the house this afternoon to make a further statement to help colleagues conclude the debate. colleagues conclude the debate.
I would hope that noble Lords can make much greater progress today, to ensure that a wider range of important amendments can be scrutinised in the time available. I remind our laws that there is significant public interest in the bill, and there are strongly held views both for and against the bill. It is right all sides that we undertake detailed scrutiny, but also we seek to make much more progress. My Lords, this is Committee stage, so participants in the debate should address their remarks to the amendments under consideration and not make long Second Reading speeches going way beyond the substantive amendments being debated.
This should help us make progress at the Committee stage many times before standing at this Dispatch Box as Government Chief Whip and previously standing the opposite Dispatch Box as Opposition Chief Whip, I have stressed the importance of the companion to assist us on our debates, and I do so again today. In particular, I refer noble Lords to page 143 .8.81, which makes clear that noble Lords should not summarise or repeat others at length, not make Second Reading speeches and the points made should be relevant to the amendments being discussed and .8.82 on page 143 that when withdrawing amendments, noble Lords should be brief.
We also do not take interventions on interventions, and if a noble Lord is intervened on it, is for a brief questions of clarification, not a speech .4.29 on page 60 makes that clear for all members. I am sure all noble Lords will want to show the House at its best. I urge all noble Lords participate in participating to continue to debate the issues before the House, with the usual courtesy and respect that we all expect, and not to let themselves at a house down by doing anything other than that.
I remind the House again, as I did last sitting Friday, that the microphones in the House are sensitive. Noble Lords should also take care. In remarks made during conversations in the chamber that they would not broadcast live. If you wish to speak to other colleagues, please do so outside the chamber. To avoid disrupting the debate, I can recommend the Long Room, the Peers Guest Room and the Royal Gallery as ideal places to go. Finally, to help colleagues in planning their day, I expect the House to rise again at a convenient point around 3 p.m.
It could be slightly before that or slightly after, but that will end around that time. I will return to the house this afternoon to make a further statement to help colleagues conclude the debate. colleagues conclude the debate.
10:19
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Labour)
-
-
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Labour)
Could I thank the Chief Whip for his statement? Could I also express the gratitude of the whole House, particularly those involved in this, for the work done by his office, in particular Mr. Michael Blakeley, for getting groupings in a very, very difficult situation? I pay a tribute to him. We have approximately seven days left to get through the Committee stage, which I believe we can do with goodwill. From my part, that means I must ensure that I demonstrate and listen to the concerns of this house, which I will do.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
House. House to be again in committee on the terminally ill
**** Possible New Speaker ****
committee on the terminally ill adults. End of life bill, Lord Falconer of Thoroton. I beg to move that the House do
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into a committee upon the bill. The question is that the House do now again resolve itself into a do now again resolve itself into a committee upon the bill, as many of that opinion will say. Content the contrary, not content. The contents contrary, not content. The contents have it. Clause one, amendment four Baroness Berger.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
House. House to be again in committee on the terminally ill
**** Possible New Speaker ****
committee on the terminally ill adults. End of life bill, Lord Falconer of Thoroton. I beg to move that the House do
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into a committee upon the bill. The question is that the House do now again resolve itself into a do now again resolve itself into a committee upon the bill, as many of that opinion will say. Content the contrary, not content. The contents contrary, not content. The contents have it. Clause one, amendment four Baroness Berger.
10:20
-
My Lords, I rise to speak to the group of amendments that begin with amendment four to clause one. My amendments four, two, 492, 53, oh amendments four, two, 492, 53, oh four, 337, 446 and 448 raise the eligibility for the provision of assistance under the Bill from 18 to 25. There is no reason, either in law or principle, why we should assume that the age of 18 is the right age for eligibility for an assisted death. It is not only an arbitrary starting point, but it is also contrary to the mounting evidence of when the brain is fully formed, which I will come to in
10:20
Amendment:4
Baroness Berger (Labour)
-
Amendment:4
Baroness Berger (Labour)
just a moment. When I asked the Children's Commissioner, Dame Rachel de Souza, whose role it is to promote and protect the rights of children and young people, what she thought of the age of 18 being used as a cliff edge for eligibility under the bill. She answered that the reality of life on the ground is those of you who work with health will know is that 18 is not really a thing when it comes to the most vulnerable. That is extended to 25.
She went on to say, I think that we are missing a trick by thinking somehow 18 is the cut off. I really do strongly think that I would like the committee to consider that noble Lords will be aware that there are a range of existing circumstances where the age of 25 is already seen as a threshold to adulthood, instead of 18. This is particularly relevant when we consider vulnerable young people with a terminal illness that we need to consider in this legislation, lest we forget that children are not currently mentioned in the bill.
The point was forcefully made to the to the select Committee. The Children's Commissioner said. They are the children. I am worried about children with special educational needs, children who are already in hospital with life limiting diseases, children who have education, health and care plans that provide support for them until the age of 25. The reason that they do that is they are vulnerable, whether it is mental health concerns, whether it is because they have had terrible lives, they might have all sorts of problems, including suicidal ideation.
It is a real concern. Noble Lords will know that local, local authorities are responsible for preparing and maintaining EHC for children and young people with special educational needs up to the age of 25. Our local authorities have a statutory responsibility for young people up to this age, particularly those in care and those with special educational needs. And it was more than a decade ago that the Department for health, in its document feature in mind, recommended an extension of child and adolescent mental health services up until the age of 25 to end the practice of discharging young people out of mental health services at 18.
In the context of criminal justice, I am mindful of the words of the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner himself, who said in his speech in 2021 on the police, crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill that a whole life term should never be imposed on an offender aged 18 to 20, but only on somebody unequivocally an adult. I hope he will agree with me that death is not a less weighty matter than life in prison. We have heard concerns during the progress of this bill from experts who work with teenagers and young adults that it will be safer and more in line with the evidence to raise the minimum age for assisted dying to 25.
It is by this point that the brain is more fully developed and decision making capabilities are more secure. In general, the brain does not finish developing until a person is in their mid 20s, and this is particularly the case for the prefrontal cortex, which governs our decision making functions and our ability to think flexibly about potential outcomes. Noble Lords may have seen research announced only last week by the University of Cambridge to suggest that the brain is only fully developed into our early 30s.
I believe we are here to make good law, and one of the ways we do this is to listen when experts speak and to take their counsel. The simple fact of having enabled experts to give their evidence to this House over recent months does not amount to adequate scrutiny. If that evidence simply languishes on the pages of Hansard, instead of being used to shape our work. Of course, I know that an assisted death would would only be available to young people with a six month prognosis, but we know that it is not always accurate and is, as I've learnt, particularly difficult to get right with young people who can go on to live for years beyond an initial terminal diagnosis.
In their written evidence to the Other place, the charity together for Short Lives wrote that we are concerned that the requirement for an accurate prognosis to be provided for a person to be considered as terminally ill may result in ambiguity when considering the eligibility of young people with life threatening conditions whose prognosis is uncertain. Whilst the majority of adults only need palliative care at the end of their lives, many young people with life limiting and life threatening conditions require palliative care over a much longer period, often from birth or even in the womb.
During this time, it is common for their conditions to fluctuate, meaning many young people may experience relatively long periods of stability. It is therefore much more difficult to provide an accurate prognosis and identify when a young person is moving towards their end of life, stage together for Short lives also recommends that under this bill, we consider how those aged 18 to 25 with the education, health and care plans how they will be affected. The bill, as it currently stands, is at risk of pushing young people with life limiting conditions into thinking that reaching the age of 18 means that they are not obliged to consider whether they should continue to live or not.
What does this say about how we value their lives? We also cannot ignore the unique responsibilities faced by young people today. We know that social media has become a powerful driver of harm. Research from the Molly Rose Foundation, a suicide prevention charity, shows that vulnerable young people are disproportionately exposed to posts that glamorise suicide or present suicidal thoughts as normal, appealing or even fashionable. Alarmingly, 68% of young people with low wellbeing are being served this type of content.
In such an environment, how can we claim to be safeguarding young people if, beyond the hospital bed, the digital world is telling them that their lives are not worth living? If this content is impacting young people when they are well, how much more so will it play on the mind of a terminally ill young person to allow access to assisted dying at an age when external pressures are so pervasive, and when identity and resilience are still forming risks compounding vulnerability rather than offering protection.
When families, carers and local services should be striving to provide the very best care, we would instead be sending them confused and dangerous message that 18 year olds are instead now ready to choose and plan their own deaths. This list. This is of particular concern when we consider young people with learning disabilities, and how competence should be established in those cases, particularly given the fact that young people with learning disabilities receive worse health care in general, as evidenced by the National Child Mortality Database, which exposed in their Learning Disabilities and Autism study that children aged 4 to 17 with a diagnosed learning disability accounted for 31% of all deaths, despite only 2.5% of children in the UK having a diagnosed learning disability.
And the challenges with the health service that misses a lot, that misses lots of health issues for this group of children and young people. Because of communication and advocacy barriers. The 2023 learning from Lives and Deaths. People with a Learning Disability and Autistic People report found that 42% of deaths of people with a learning disability were rated as avoidable, compared with 22% for the general population. It is in this context, and for all the other reasons I have set out, that I am strongly persuaded that raising the age of eligibility to 25 is the right thing to do.
I am also haunted by the words of one child that was shared with us at the select committee. The young person said, I'm in care. I've got disabilities. The government will pay for me to die under this bill, but it won't pay for me to live. I conclude with a final contribution from the from the Children's Commissioner, where she said I would far rather that we erred on the side of caution, protecting those who have had terrible lives, terrible experience, experiences, have been abused, have had their families turn them out.
Protecting those who are suffering from extreme mental illness. Protecting those with special educational needs and disabilities, protecting anorexic children who are heading into adulthood and saying, let's on the side of caution and go for 25. I am clear that we must continue to say to children and young people, yes, your life matters. Even if it will be a short life, it matters.
She went on to say, I think that we are missing a trick by thinking somehow 18 is the cut off. I really do strongly think that I would like the committee to consider that noble Lords will be aware that there are a range of existing circumstances where the age of 25 is already seen as a threshold to adulthood, instead of 18. This is particularly relevant when we consider vulnerable young people with a terminal illness that we need to consider in this legislation, lest we forget that children are not currently mentioned in the bill.
The point was forcefully made to the to the select Committee. The Children's Commissioner said. They are the children. I am worried about children with special educational needs, children who are already in hospital with life limiting diseases, children who have education, health and care plans that provide support for them until the age of 25. The reason that they do that is they are vulnerable, whether it is mental health concerns, whether it is because they have had terrible lives, they might have all sorts of problems, including suicidal ideation.
It is a real concern. Noble Lords will know that local, local authorities are responsible for preparing and maintaining EHC for children and young people with special educational needs up to the age of 25. Our local authorities have a statutory responsibility for young people up to this age, particularly those in care and those with special educational needs. And it was more than a decade ago that the Department for health, in its document feature in mind, recommended an extension of child and adolescent mental health services up until the age of 25 to end the practice of discharging young people out of mental health services at 18.
In the context of criminal justice, I am mindful of the words of the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner himself, who said in his speech in 2021 on the police, crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill that a whole life term should never be imposed on an offender aged 18 to 20, but only on somebody unequivocally an adult. I hope he will agree with me that death is not a less weighty matter than life in prison. We have heard concerns during the progress of this bill from experts who work with teenagers and young adults that it will be safer and more in line with the evidence to raise the minimum age for assisted dying to 25.
It is by this point that the brain is more fully developed and decision making capabilities are more secure. In general, the brain does not finish developing until a person is in their mid 20s, and this is particularly the case for the prefrontal cortex, which governs our decision making functions and our ability to think flexibly about potential outcomes. Noble Lords may have seen research announced only last week by the University of Cambridge to suggest that the brain is only fully developed into our early 30s.
I believe we are here to make good law, and one of the ways we do this is to listen when experts speak and to take their counsel. The simple fact of having enabled experts to give their evidence to this House over recent months does not amount to adequate scrutiny. If that evidence simply languishes on the pages of Hansard, instead of being used to shape our work. Of course, I know that an assisted death would would only be available to young people with a six month prognosis, but we know that it is not always accurate and is, as I've learnt, particularly difficult to get right with young people who can go on to live for years beyond an initial terminal diagnosis.
In their written evidence to the Other place, the charity together for Short Lives wrote that we are concerned that the requirement for an accurate prognosis to be provided for a person to be considered as terminally ill may result in ambiguity when considering the eligibility of young people with life threatening conditions whose prognosis is uncertain. Whilst the majority of adults only need palliative care at the end of their lives, many young people with life limiting and life threatening conditions require palliative care over a much longer period, often from birth or even in the womb.
During this time, it is common for their conditions to fluctuate, meaning many young people may experience relatively long periods of stability. It is therefore much more difficult to provide an accurate prognosis and identify when a young person is moving towards their end of life, stage together for Short lives also recommends that under this bill, we consider how those aged 18 to 25 with the education, health and care plans how they will be affected. The bill, as it currently stands, is at risk of pushing young people with life limiting conditions into thinking that reaching the age of 18 means that they are not obliged to consider whether they should continue to live or not.
What does this say about how we value their lives? We also cannot ignore the unique responsibilities faced by young people today. We know that social media has become a powerful driver of harm. Research from the Molly Rose Foundation, a suicide prevention charity, shows that vulnerable young people are disproportionately exposed to posts that glamorise suicide or present suicidal thoughts as normal, appealing or even fashionable. Alarmingly, 68% of young people with low wellbeing are being served this type of content.
In such an environment, how can we claim to be safeguarding young people if, beyond the hospital bed, the digital world is telling them that their lives are not worth living? If this content is impacting young people when they are well, how much more so will it play on the mind of a terminally ill young person to allow access to assisted dying at an age when external pressures are so pervasive, and when identity and resilience are still forming risks compounding vulnerability rather than offering protection.
When families, carers and local services should be striving to provide the very best care, we would instead be sending them confused and dangerous message that 18 year olds are instead now ready to choose and plan their own deaths. This list. This is of particular concern when we consider young people with learning disabilities, and how competence should be established in those cases, particularly given the fact that young people with learning disabilities receive worse health care in general, as evidenced by the National Child Mortality Database, which exposed in their Learning Disabilities and Autism study that children aged 4 to 17 with a diagnosed learning disability accounted for 31% of all deaths, despite only 2.5% of children in the UK having a diagnosed learning disability.
And the challenges with the health service that misses a lot, that misses lots of health issues for this group of children and young people. Because of communication and advocacy barriers. The 2023 learning from Lives and Deaths. People with a Learning Disability and Autistic People report found that 42% of deaths of people with a learning disability were rated as avoidable, compared with 22% for the general population. It is in this context, and for all the other reasons I have set out, that I am strongly persuaded that raising the age of eligibility to 25 is the right thing to do.
I am also haunted by the words of one child that was shared with us at the select committee. The young person said, I'm in care. I've got disabilities. The government will pay for me to die under this bill, but it won't pay for me to live. I conclude with a final contribution from the from the Children's Commissioner, where she said I would far rather that we erred on the side of caution, protecting those who have had terrible lives, terrible experience, experiences, have been abused, have had their families turn them out.
Protecting those who are suffering from extreme mental illness. Protecting those with special educational needs and disabilities, protecting anorexic children who are heading into adulthood and saying, let's on the side of caution and go for 25. I am clear that we must continue to say to children and young people, yes, your life matters. Even if it will be a short life, it matters.
10:29
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (Crossbench)
-
-
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (Crossbench)
Year noble Lady wishes to move >> Year noble Lady wishes to move the amendment. Amendment proposed. Clause one, page one, line six. Leave out 18 and insert 25.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I want to stand to support in principle this amendment based on principle this amendment based on the research in relation to cerebral development. I think it's well made, and I think it's an well made, and I think it's an example of something that we are really here to think through to enhance the bill. However, I would enhance the bill. However, I would like to point out that the bill does exclude anybody with a lack of does exclude anybody with a lack of capacity.
So several of the people that the previous Baroness referred to would not be entitled to consider assisted dying.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I want to stand to support in principle this amendment based on principle this amendment based on the research in relation to cerebral development. I think it's well made, and I think it's an well made, and I think it's an example of something that we are really here to think through to enhance the bill. However, I would enhance the bill. However, I would like to point out that the bill does exclude anybody with a lack of does exclude anybody with a lack of capacity.
So several of the people that the previous Baroness referred to would not be entitled to consider assisted dying.
10:30
Lord Winston (Labour)
-
-
Lord Winston (Labour)
I thought, may I suggest that the noble Lady meaning absolutely well and obviously clearly a very emotional area, has actually forgotten the real science. She's not a neuroscientist, and indeed, I don't think that the commissioner is a neuroscientist, the greatest expert in the United Kingdom on teenage neuroscience is almost unquestionably Sarah-jayne Blakemore, who works partly in London, partly in Cambridge, and, of course, has been working extensively in the United at UCL for a long period of time.
She has studied teenagers in great detail, and it's very clear from her work on teenagers making decisions that they can make decisions in the right environment and in the right circumstances, and I think one has to be very, very careful about making assertions about teenagers. There are many people who are well over the age of 25 who cannot make these decisions either. And I think we have to be quite clear that we may need to take this sort of thing into consideration, but I don't think it's necessarily relevant in this amendment.
She has studied teenagers in great detail, and it's very clear from her work on teenagers making decisions that they can make decisions in the right environment and in the right circumstances, and I think one has to be very, very careful about making assertions about teenagers. There are many people who are well over the age of 25 who cannot make these decisions either. And I think we have to be quite clear that we may need to take this sort of thing into consideration, but I don't think it's necessarily relevant in this amendment.
10:31
Baroness Stroud (Conservative)
-
-
Baroness Stroud (Conservative)
Thank you. speak in support of the noble Lady Baroness Virgin. And I will limit my remarks, because some of them have already been referred to in previous comments by speakers. But I think the reality is that maturity is a scale, and choosing to proceed with assisted dying at the age of 18 poses difficult questions, which we must grapple with about the neurological maturity required for true, settled and informed consent on a matter of such gravity, and not just particular circumstances.
I intend to speak to a subsequent grouping in relation to amendment 22, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-thompson, but some of the points I will make then are also relevant to this grouping. I note that research undertaken by the Sentencing Council in 2024, which focussed on aggravating and mitigating factors in sentencing guidelines, has this to say with regard to age and maturity, age and or lack of maturity can affect the offender's responsibility for the offence and the effect of the sentence on the offender.
Either or both of these considerations may justify a reduction in the sentence. The report goes on to note that, in particular, young adults typically aged 18 to 25 are still developing neurologically and consequently may be less able to evaluate the consequences of their actions, limit impulsivity, and limit risk taking. Young adults are likely to be susceptible to peer pressure, and are more likely to take risks or behave impulsively when in company with their peers. My Lords, I do not want to cross over into debate on the subsequent group, but this seems highly relevant to our deliberations on on age and the appropriate age for assisted dying.
Of course, age and maturity are mitigating factors only and therefore discretionary. But it seems extraordinary to me that the principle of maturity is one which is accepted in a legal context, and there remain calls for dedicated sentencing guidelines for 18 to 25 year olds in recognition of this. Yet the bill, as drafted, does not seem to adequately account for this in a similar manner, with regard to the permanent decision to end one's own life. So I would be grateful if the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, could comment on this when he responds to the debate.
My Lords, the autonomy on which this bill is purportedly built must be grounded in safeguards commensurate with the irreversible nature of the proposed act. With regards to the age of eligibility, I do not believe the bill as drafted meets this standard. For these reasons and more, I support the amendments in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Birger, Noble, Baroness, Lady Lawlor, as well as those in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Gowdie and noble Lord Lord Moylan.
I intend to speak to a subsequent grouping in relation to amendment 22, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-thompson, but some of the points I will make then are also relevant to this grouping. I note that research undertaken by the Sentencing Council in 2024, which focussed on aggravating and mitigating factors in sentencing guidelines, has this to say with regard to age and maturity, age and or lack of maturity can affect the offender's responsibility for the offence and the effect of the sentence on the offender.
Either or both of these considerations may justify a reduction in the sentence. The report goes on to note that, in particular, young adults typically aged 18 to 25 are still developing neurologically and consequently may be less able to evaluate the consequences of their actions, limit impulsivity, and limit risk taking. Young adults are likely to be susceptible to peer pressure, and are more likely to take risks or behave impulsively when in company with their peers. My Lords, I do not want to cross over into debate on the subsequent group, but this seems highly relevant to our deliberations on on age and the appropriate age for assisted dying.
Of course, age and maturity are mitigating factors only and therefore discretionary. But it seems extraordinary to me that the principle of maturity is one which is accepted in a legal context, and there remain calls for dedicated sentencing guidelines for 18 to 25 year olds in recognition of this. Yet the bill, as drafted, does not seem to adequately account for this in a similar manner, with regard to the permanent decision to end one's own life. So I would be grateful if the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, could comment on this when he responds to the debate.
My Lords, the autonomy on which this bill is purportedly built must be grounded in safeguards commensurate with the irreversible nature of the proposed act. With regards to the age of eligibility, I do not believe the bill as drafted meets this standard. For these reasons and more, I support the amendments in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Birger, Noble, Baroness, Lady Lawlor, as well as those in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Gowdie and noble Lord Lord Moylan.
10:34
Baroness Hollins (Crossbench)
-
-
Baroness Hollins (Crossbench)
Thank you my. Lord.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
You support the noble Lady
**** Possible New Speaker ****
You support the noble Lady Baroness Berger in this. I'd like to just add to earlier comments the to just add to earlier comments the transition from children's to adult services at 18 is well known to be services at 18 is well known to be a very confusing and destabilising period, during which key clinical period, during which key clinical relationships are lost and important elements of a young person's history may not be carried forward. These factors are directly relevant to assessing decision making capacity and identifying safeguarding concerns for individuals aged 18 and above who may seek assisted dying.
I think also raising the minimum age to a higher age would allow for any medical advances. For example, with emerging new treatments that might change a young person's prognosis. And so it's important not to be too hasty. I was also going to comment on the Scottish Sentencing Council, and I just wanted to add that. The sort of something, again, about the developmental process which is still underway, which can increase susceptibility to influence and vulnerability to risk taking, and the likelihood of short term, emotionally driven decision making.
Just have to think about the the fact that in that age group, the biggest cause of death is actually accidental death. The research done by the Sentencing Council, you know, also shows that also further research shows that maturity may be delayed by adverse childhood experiences. And it's therefore reasonable to assume that some young adults with serious illness may carry such developmental vulnerabilities into their decision making around the end of life. And I think the Sentencing Council guideline suggesting lower culpability and a greater capacity for change than older adults really does endorse the suggestion that we should we should change the age, the minimum age to 25.
This is an irreversible decision. We need enhanced safeguards for this age group, and I support the amendments.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
You support the noble Lady
**** Possible New Speaker ****
You support the noble Lady Baroness Berger in this. I'd like to just add to earlier comments the to just add to earlier comments the transition from children's to adult services at 18 is well known to be services at 18 is well known to be a very confusing and destabilising period, during which key clinical period, during which key clinical relationships are lost and important elements of a young person's history may not be carried forward. These factors are directly relevant to assessing decision making capacity and identifying safeguarding concerns for individuals aged 18 and above who may seek assisted dying.
I think also raising the minimum age to a higher age would allow for any medical advances. For example, with emerging new treatments that might change a young person's prognosis. And so it's important not to be too hasty. I was also going to comment on the Scottish Sentencing Council, and I just wanted to add that. The sort of something, again, about the developmental process which is still underway, which can increase susceptibility to influence and vulnerability to risk taking, and the likelihood of short term, emotionally driven decision making.
Just have to think about the the fact that in that age group, the biggest cause of death is actually accidental death. The research done by the Sentencing Council, you know, also shows that also further research shows that maturity may be delayed by adverse childhood experiences. And it's therefore reasonable to assume that some young adults with serious illness may carry such developmental vulnerabilities into their decision making around the end of life. And I think the Sentencing Council guideline suggesting lower culpability and a greater capacity for change than older adults really does endorse the suggestion that we should we should change the age, the minimum age to 25.
This is an irreversible decision. We need enhanced safeguards for this age group, and I support the amendments.
10:36
Baroness Rebuck (Labour)
-
-
Baroness Rebuck (Labour)
Lord Dear let me just. >> State that for very different reasons. I have a great deal of respect for both the noble Ladies, Baroness Lawlor and Baroness Berger, Baroness Lawlor and Baroness Berger, but in this instance, I have serious qualms about these amendments in relation to raising the minimum age for receiving assistance to end one's own life to either 21 or 25. I think we need to hold on to the standard age that we consider adult responsibility to begin.
That is 18 as indeed the bill does. I actually worry we are already getting ourselves into a tangle on age issues. For example, the proposals to lower the voting age is now to 16, and I wonder how the sponsor of the bill will hold the line at 18, when those newly enfranchised 16 to 18 year olds start demanding equal entitlements from 16. I mean, logically, those teens will have a point when they argue, if you trust us to decide on the future of our country, why not trust us to decide on the future of our own fate if we fit the other eligibility criteria? So I would like some reassurances from the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, that this age slippage won't happen, but also that the age 18 is a watertight age in terms of eligibility.
And there's other amendments later on. Conversely, can I ask the noble Baroness Cass, is there a danger of unintended consequences of using the argument that the young brain hasn't developed sufficiently at 18 to make such important decisions? It does make me anxious when neuro development research is cited about cognitive development and a lack of maturity about anyone under the age of 25, and that's used to challenge the decision making capacity of anyone between the ages of 21 or 25.
I mean, I fear that that could be used regressively. I mean, how can we trust 18 to 25 year olds to vote or be asked to take on any adult responsibilities if their brains are still developing? So where are we going to end up? So I think we need to avoid unintentionally institutionalising state paternalism that robs young adults of their individual rights and limits the the choices on their own fate in various ways. The cultural shift to infantilize the post 18 cohort, which is a broader problem, is, in my opinion, regressive.
And just finally, I am very sympathetic to the concerns that have been raised here already. I do think it might be worth considering some kind of a carve out for 18 to 25 year olds on E.H. but that would be an exception, not a rule. I understand that viscerally. The idea of any young person, 1920, having a terminal diagnosis and then being offered the choice of an even earlier death fills me with horror, gives me the chills, and it's tragic.
But I still think 18, if tightly protected by the sponsors of the bill, is adequate in relation to age safeguards. There are plenty of other safeguards I'm worried about without adding to them. And I also think there's a problem of a culture being created for the young in general of suicidal ideation. By this bill. However, I would say that these amendments don't resolve those broader problems that I have.
That is 18 as indeed the bill does. I actually worry we are already getting ourselves into a tangle on age issues. For example, the proposals to lower the voting age is now to 16, and I wonder how the sponsor of the bill will hold the line at 18, when those newly enfranchised 16 to 18 year olds start demanding equal entitlements from 16. I mean, logically, those teens will have a point when they argue, if you trust us to decide on the future of our country, why not trust us to decide on the future of our own fate if we fit the other eligibility criteria? So I would like some reassurances from the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, that this age slippage won't happen, but also that the age 18 is a watertight age in terms of eligibility.
And there's other amendments later on. Conversely, can I ask the noble Baroness Cass, is there a danger of unintended consequences of using the argument that the young brain hasn't developed sufficiently at 18 to make such important decisions? It does make me anxious when neuro development research is cited about cognitive development and a lack of maturity about anyone under the age of 25, and that's used to challenge the decision making capacity of anyone between the ages of 21 or 25.
I mean, I fear that that could be used regressively. I mean, how can we trust 18 to 25 year olds to vote or be asked to take on any adult responsibilities if their brains are still developing? So where are we going to end up? So I think we need to avoid unintentionally institutionalising state paternalism that robs young adults of their individual rights and limits the the choices on their own fate in various ways. The cultural shift to infantilize the post 18 cohort, which is a broader problem, is, in my opinion, regressive.
And just finally, I am very sympathetic to the concerns that have been raised here already. I do think it might be worth considering some kind of a carve out for 18 to 25 year olds on E.H. but that would be an exception, not a rule. I understand that viscerally. The idea of any young person, 1920, having a terminal diagnosis and then being offered the choice of an even earlier death fills me with horror, gives me the chills, and it's tragic.
But I still think 18, if tightly protected by the sponsors of the bill, is adequate in relation to age safeguards. There are plenty of other safeguards I'm worried about without adding to them. And I also think there's a problem of a culture being created for the young in general of suicidal ideation. By this bill. However, I would say that these amendments don't resolve those broader problems that I have.
10:40
Baroness Butler-Sloss (Crossbench)
-
-
Baroness Butler-Sloss (Crossbench)
I understand very much the points made by the noble Lord Winston and the noble Baroness Fox. I come to this issue from a rather different position. I used to try a lot of cases, some of them of terminally ill young people, generally from the ages of 15 up to 25 or more. And there were a number of cases of undoubtedly those with capacity with terminal illness who were also suffering, not very surprisingly, from depression or confused as to what it is they really wanted.
And they came before me for all sorts of reasons, unconnected with whether they should live or die. From their perspective, what I was looking at was what the medical evidence was as to the sort of support that they ought to have. And I just raised, despite the neuroscientist issue, which I think is an important one, and despite the point that 18 is the age of so far being able to vote and down to 16 with the present government. But whether you are looking at how much you care about the future of this country, and when you're looking at what you care about you yourself, and do you want to die because you are going to die in the next few months? The doctors may be right or wrong as to six months, and we know many diagnoses are actually inaccurate.
I think that may be the most important of all decisions that has to be made, which is life and death. And consequently I am concerned about 18 from my own experience, whether it should be 21 or 25, I think is arguable, but I am worried that it sticks at 18. that it sticks at 18.
And they came before me for all sorts of reasons, unconnected with whether they should live or die. From their perspective, what I was looking at was what the medical evidence was as to the sort of support that they ought to have. And I just raised, despite the neuroscientist issue, which I think is an important one, and despite the point that 18 is the age of so far being able to vote and down to 16 with the present government. But whether you are looking at how much you care about the future of this country, and when you're looking at what you care about you yourself, and do you want to die because you are going to die in the next few months? The doctors may be right or wrong as to six months, and we know many diagnoses are actually inaccurate.
I think that may be the most important of all decisions that has to be made, which is life and death. And consequently I am concerned about 18 from my own experience, whether it should be 21 or 25, I think is arguable, but I am worried that it sticks at 18. that it sticks at 18.
10:42
Lord Moore of Etchingham (Non-affiliated)
-
-
Lord Moore of Etchingham (Non-affiliated)
My Lords, I rise in support of the noble Baroness, Lady Burgess Amendment, and I do think it's reasonable to have these considerations about the different way people think and feel at different times in their life. One of the big discussions we have more broadly about this bill is how do what are the cognitive capacities of old people very important in the freedom of their decision? In a similar way, I think it's reasonable to talk about the cognitive capacities of very young people, and I think in particular, that one of the things that makes very young people different from older people is that they, naturally enough, have very little encounter with death.
They're much less likely to have come across situations in which people die and people that they know have died. They simply don't know what it involves. And by the way, I think if if it was banned all through the world, that anybody under the age of 25 would fight in a war, we would hardly have any wars, because one reason the soldiers were prepared to fight in wars is because they don't understand death. When they're very young, they're ready for they're ready for anything.
And I think and I think we can we can tell that, that there is very often a culture of suicide that's very strong in young people because it's a romantic idea. And indeed, the poet Keats expressed it absolutely beautifully in his ode to a Nightingale when he speaks about being half in love with Easeful death and the joy of ceasing on the midnight with no pain. And of course, he knew of what he spoke because in a sense, because he was suffering from a terminal illness, and he indeed he died before he was 25.
So I think we need to and I thought Baroness Berger brought this out and others too. We need to think about what are the influences on young people which may go in that direction. If they suffer from a terminal illness that becomes even more acute. They, because of their lack of experience and in these matters, and they will be under greater pressure, quite possibly, to feel that suicide is is the way out and is somehow a noble thing to do.
I remember at school I was a very brilliant boy who was 18, and he wrote a very short poem which he just said, if I should die, think only this of me or Nwe. And. Was a very clever thing to write. And he did subsequently commit suicide, aged 19. I do ask noble Lords to think about what it actually might be like in such a situation at such an age. My Lords.
They're much less likely to have come across situations in which people die and people that they know have died. They simply don't know what it involves. And by the way, I think if if it was banned all through the world, that anybody under the age of 25 would fight in a war, we would hardly have any wars, because one reason the soldiers were prepared to fight in wars is because they don't understand death. When they're very young, they're ready for they're ready for anything.
And I think and I think we can we can tell that, that there is very often a culture of suicide that's very strong in young people because it's a romantic idea. And indeed, the poet Keats expressed it absolutely beautifully in his ode to a Nightingale when he speaks about being half in love with Easeful death and the joy of ceasing on the midnight with no pain. And of course, he knew of what he spoke because in a sense, because he was suffering from a terminal illness, and he indeed he died before he was 25.
So I think we need to and I thought Baroness Berger brought this out and others too. We need to think about what are the influences on young people which may go in that direction. If they suffer from a terminal illness that becomes even more acute. They, because of their lack of experience and in these matters, and they will be under greater pressure, quite possibly, to feel that suicide is is the way out and is somehow a noble thing to do.
I remember at school I was a very brilliant boy who was 18, and he wrote a very short poem which he just said, if I should die, think only this of me or Nwe. And. Was a very clever thing to write. And he did subsequently commit suicide, aged 19. I do ask noble Lords to think about what it actually might be like in such a situation at such an age. My Lords.
10:45
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Labour)
-
-
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Labour)
About a. Dying there. not being offered. They're going to be asking, and I think to think of a 23 year old, 24 year old in pain, about to die, possibly within weeks or months. And we turn round and say, I'm really sorry you've had children, you've taken big decisions in your life, you've taken career decisions. You've seen, you know, your parents, whatever has happened to them and to then say, but I'm sorry, you're 24 years of age and you cannot be helped in your last few days or months, weeks, possibly because you're only 24, I find extraordinary, I think that we, you know, the age of 18 is probably the right one, but can we just remember these people are dying and they're suffering.
Those are the people who are going to be applying for this.
Those are the people who are going to be applying for this.
10:45
Lord Sandhurst (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Sandhurst (Conservative)
My Lords, I rise with some caution. But because these I think are deep waters. But I think we should on the side of caution, I support Baroness Berger because this is an entirely new process. If, assuming the bill comes into form in some form, then the age can always be lowered in the light of experience and also in which experience I mean that of the human brain and how people are considering these things. And what has prompted me to say this in particular is the report in the Times on the 25th of November of the study by Cambridge's MRC Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit, which compared the brains of 3802 people between 0 and 90 years using data sets of MRI diffusion scans, which map neural connections by tracking how water molecules move through the brain tissues.
My Lords, what this found, very simply, is that the childhood brain, its topology, runs from birth until the turning point at the age of nine, and then it transitions into the adolescent phase, an era which it found. This is completely dispassionate, lasts right up to the age of 32 on average early 30s. See the brain's neural wiring shift into the adult mode, and I emphasise that word adult male. This is the longest era, which lasts over three decades.
A third turning point, around the age of 66, marks the start of an early ageing phase. And for those of us who are a bit older, the late ageing brain takes shape at around 83 years old, and I would simply conclude, my Lords, by reading this and I quote from the report, while puberty offers a clear start, the end of adolescence is much harder to pin down scientifically. Based purely on neural architecture, we find that adolescent like changes in the brain's structure end around the early 30s.
My Lord, if that is the architecture, then this stage in this bill we should be looking at 25 and not a younger age.
My Lords, what this found, very simply, is that the childhood brain, its topology, runs from birth until the turning point at the age of nine, and then it transitions into the adolescent phase, an era which it found. This is completely dispassionate, lasts right up to the age of 32 on average early 30s. See the brain's neural wiring shift into the adult mode, and I emphasise that word adult male. This is the longest era, which lasts over three decades.
A third turning point, around the age of 66, marks the start of an early ageing phase. And for those of us who are a bit older, the late ageing brain takes shape at around 83 years old, and I would simply conclude, my Lords, by reading this and I quote from the report, while puberty offers a clear start, the end of adolescence is much harder to pin down scientifically. Based purely on neural architecture, we find that adolescent like changes in the brain's structure end around the early 30s.
My Lord, if that is the architecture, then this stage in this bill we should be looking at 25 and not a younger age.
10:48
The Lord Bishop of Leicester (Bishops)
-
-
The Lord Bishop of Leicester (Bishops)
Amen. I'd like to rise to support this amendment, and I do support this amendment, and I do also do so with some caution, noting that these are deep waters. But I hope, my Lords, that you will But I hope, my Lords, that you will forgive me for pointing out the blindingly obvious that as I look around your noble Lords house, I around your noble Lords house, I don't see any 18 to 25 year olds sat on these benches, and the voices of children and young people are, seems to me vital in such a debate.
The role of Children's Commissioner was created in order to ensure that the voices of children and young people were heard within your noble Lords House, and indeed within the other place. Therefore, when the Children's Commissioner, who I know personally, who's visited my own diocese, who I've seen at work listening to children and young people, she is herself and her staff are superbly skilled at that work. And when she urges us to be cautious in this, I believe we should listen. And therefore I urge consideration of that note of caution.
The role of Children's Commissioner was created in order to ensure that the voices of children and young people were heard within your noble Lords House, and indeed within the other place. Therefore, when the Children's Commissioner, who I know personally, who's visited my own diocese, who I've seen at work listening to children and young people, she is herself and her staff are superbly skilled at that work. And when she urges us to be cautious in this, I believe we should listen. And therefore I urge consideration of that note of caution.
10:49
Baroness Berridge (Conservative)
-
-
Baroness Berridge (Conservative)
By Lords. Lords. to which I added my name. I note that the private member's bill in the in the name of the noble and learned Lord also has this requirement, as well as this bill of the safeguard of a six month prognosis. But I am interested when one looks at this in relation to those over 18, what pre-legislative scrutiny or consultation that the noble and learned Lord had, or the other bill sponsor from the other place had? In terms of the science.
Now, I'm not a scientist, but I have taken I have a researcher as a scientist. So I took advice on how to treat the science. When one speaks in a debate with those who have great eminence, such as the noble Lord, Lord Winston, because it is relevant, I believe, having looked at that to the age limit under the bill, there will be specific groups of vulnerability for certain groups of young people as the noble Lady, Lady Fox outlined. But those are in later groups, from peer reviewed studies, from peer reviewed studies, which I am told is the best way to begin to treat the science.
It is that the brain reaches the full size physically the age of 14, but the neural circuitry does not develop to enable the enhanced decision making and cognitive function until the age of 25. I am also informed, and I'm sorry to disagree with my noble friend Lord Sandhurst, that the study that was quoted by the BBC is viewed as an outlier from the peer reviewed studies that we have in this regard. And we also need to look at whether terminally ill adolescents. And I'm grateful to the noble Lady, Lady Hamer, for for reminding us of that.
We also need to consider, though, that there are psychological reports that there may be an unrealised concept of the finality of death, which I think is relevant to what the noble Lord Lord Moore said. As the Children's Commissioner, in her evidence to the select committee, stated in her letter of evidence, and I quote, compelling arguments have been made about the additional difficulties present in diagnosing young people in this age group and predicting with certainty certainty the chance of living for six months, which could, of course, if that's wrong, lead to an earlier untimely death if assisted dying is made available to them.
So I was really intrigued by that statement and sought to look at the evidence, the scientific evidence. And I have found peer reviewed papers, one particularly from the University of Manchester, reporting historical data that finds that even with advanced diseases such as thyroid cancer, they this group have a better rate of survival than adults over the age of 25. Reporting that the report outlines that it could be a more efficacious response to treatment, as a younger body may be better to receive, better able to receive it.
It may be due to an elevated sense of hope that is often reported in young adults. And it might also be because such a devastating diagnosis at that age is hard to fathom, as it's not a disease they think would ever happen to them. And that sense of hope possibly contributes to a positive impact on the immune system, thus resulting in that better response to the administered medication. The second reason that I outlined in addition to this is that as the noble Lady, Lady Hollins did briefly allude to is that there is significantly increasing life expectancy in terminally ill young adults due to these incredible advances that we're beginning to see in treatments such as advanced immune therapies and personalised genotype directed treatment, both of which have seen an increased survival
Now, I'm not a scientist, but I have taken I have a researcher as a scientist. So I took advice on how to treat the science. When one speaks in a debate with those who have great eminence, such as the noble Lord, Lord Winston, because it is relevant, I believe, having looked at that to the age limit under the bill, there will be specific groups of vulnerability for certain groups of young people as the noble Lady, Lady Fox outlined. But those are in later groups, from peer reviewed studies, from peer reviewed studies, which I am told is the best way to begin to treat the science.
It is that the brain reaches the full size physically the age of 14, but the neural circuitry does not develop to enable the enhanced decision making and cognitive function until the age of 25. I am also informed, and I'm sorry to disagree with my noble friend Lord Sandhurst, that the study that was quoted by the BBC is viewed as an outlier from the peer reviewed studies that we have in this regard. And we also need to look at whether terminally ill adolescents. And I'm grateful to the noble Lady, Lady Hamer, for for reminding us of that.
We also need to consider, though, that there are psychological reports that there may be an unrealised concept of the finality of death, which I think is relevant to what the noble Lord Lord Moore said. As the Children's Commissioner, in her evidence to the select committee, stated in her letter of evidence, and I quote, compelling arguments have been made about the additional difficulties present in diagnosing young people in this age group and predicting with certainty certainty the chance of living for six months, which could, of course, if that's wrong, lead to an earlier untimely death if assisted dying is made available to them.
So I was really intrigued by that statement and sought to look at the evidence, the scientific evidence. And I have found peer reviewed papers, one particularly from the University of Manchester, reporting historical data that finds that even with advanced diseases such as thyroid cancer, they this group have a better rate of survival than adults over the age of 25. Reporting that the report outlines that it could be a more efficacious response to treatment, as a younger body may be better to receive, better able to receive it.
It may be due to an elevated sense of hope that is often reported in young adults. And it might also be because such a devastating diagnosis at that age is hard to fathom, as it's not a disease they think would ever happen to them. And that sense of hope possibly contributes to a positive impact on the immune system, thus resulting in that better response to the administered medication. The second reason that I outlined in addition to this is that as the noble Lady, Lady Hollins did briefly allude to is that there is significantly increasing life expectancy in terminally ill young adults due to these incredible advances that we're beginning to see in treatments such as advanced immune therapies and personalised genotype directed treatment, both of which have seen an increased survival