Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Baroness Berger Excerpts

Friday 5th December 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Berger]

4: Clause 1, page 1, line 6, leave out “18” and insert “25”

[Baroness Berger (Lab)]

My Lords, my Amendments 4, 249, 257, 304, 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 in principle, why we should assume that 18 is the right age for eligibility for an assisted death. It is not only an arbitrary starting point; it is contrary to the mounting evidence of when the brain is fully formed, which I shall come to in 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 18 being used as a cliff edge for eligibility under the Bill, she answered:

“The reality of life on the ground, as 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 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, whom 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 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 EHCPs—education, health and care plans—that provide support for them until the age of 25. The reason they do that is that they are vulnerable, whether it is mental health concerns, whether it is because they have had terrible lives and might have all sorts of problems, including suicidal ideation. It is a real concern”.


Noble Lords will know that local authorities are responsible for preparing and maintaining EHCPs 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. It was more than a decade ago that the Department of Health, in its document Future in Mind, recommended an extension of child and adolescent mental health services up to 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 and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, 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 that 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, which 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 which suggests that the brain is fully developed only in our early 30s. I believe that we are here to make good law, and one way 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 be available only to young people with a six-month prognosis, but we know that it is not always accurate. It is, as I have learned, particularly difficult to get right with young people, who can go on to live for years beyond an initial terminal diagnosis. In its written evidence to the other place, the charity Together for Short Lives wrote:

“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-limiting and 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 EHCPs—education, health and care plans—will be affected.

The Bill as it 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 well-being 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 the confused and dangerous message that 18 year-olds are instead now ready to choose and plan their own deaths. 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 healthcare in general, as evidenced by the National Child Mortality Database. In its learning disabilities and autism study, it exposed the fact that children aged four 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.

There are challenges with a health service that misses lots of health issues for this group of children and young people because of communication and advocacy barriers. The 2023 report, Learning from Lives and Deaths—People with a Learning Disability and Autistic People, 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 were shared with 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 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 err 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”. We must amend the eligibility for assistance under the Bill to 25. I beg to move.

[Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)]

My Lords, I support this amendment in principle, based on the research in relation to cerebral development. I think it is well made and an example of something that we are really here to think through to enhance the Bill. However, I point out that the Bill excludes anybody with a lack of capacity, so several of the people that the noble Baroness referred to would not be entitled to consider assisted dying.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

I guarantee to the noble Baroness that the age is not going to go down from 18 as far as this Bill is concerned. The future is not in my gift, unfortunately. However, as far as the future is concerned, it is extremely unlikely that a subsequent Parliament is going to reduce that age.

[Baroness Berger (Lab)]

My Lords, this has been an important debate that really has encapsulated what this House is here to do. There are, of course, other amendments in this group from the noble Baroness, Lady Goudie, and the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, that we have not discussed. It is worth just putting on record that these seek to prevent discussions with children and will be an essential question to scrutinise and discuss in the next group.

I just wish to very briefly respond to three points that have been made during this group, because it is relevant and important to conversations that will no doubt continue because of the weight of opinion and support that has come forward for these amendments.

I listened very closely to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, and I just want to make clear that, for all these young people, it is not the exception. It is impossible to imagine a young person who would not have an EHCP. That is the context in which I presented and spoke to these debates. It is not just a small group: we anticipate all of them, apart from a young person who might receive a terminal diagnosis over the age of 25 and will not have time to have an EHCP. Otherwise, we are considering all young people in this context of an EHCP that local authorities have a statutory responsibility for, and it is in that context that I make those representations.

I listened very closely to my noble friend Lord Winston, and he did make some important comments. It is clear that there are some elements of brain development that do evolve and complete by the age of 18, but there are many others that do not. Global experts and authorities on adolescent brain development such as Professor Laurence Steinberg, Professor Casey, who is the expert on neurobiological maturation, and Professor Jay Giedd, who is the MRI pioneer in adolescent brain research, all say that the prefrontal cortex responsible for executive functions does not reach its maturity until the early to mid-20s, continuing to develop well past the age of 18, and that an 18 year-old does not yet have the capacity.

I am reminded again that we have heard a lot of comments from Professor Sarah-Jayne Blakemore. She is the leading UK neuroscientist on adolescence, and she has said that an 18 year-old does not yet have the fully mature capacity for long-term planning and evaluation of consequences that characterises adult executive functioning. We should listen to her comments very closely.

Finally, my noble friend Lady Hayter said that young people would not be asked—it would be something they would request. I would point out that the Bill does enable a doctor to raise this with anyone from the age of 18. It is in that context that I have brought forward these amendments.

I will not refer to all the other important contributions and comments that have been made, but I want to make one final point. It has been very clear from the debate in the other place that even some of those most in favour of assisted dying in principle are highly concerned about the risk of children and young people being drawn into it. The amendments in this group have sought to act on both their concern and the evidence that this House took during our own Select Committee. In all the debates we have had on the Bill, and will no doubt continue to have, we have to grapple with the simple fact that there is no going back if we get it wrong. For young people in particular, we should, as we have been asked to do, err on the side of caution.

I am very glad to hear that my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer will consider an assessment for those aged 19 to 24, but I urge him to accept the simplest and strongest safeguard of all, which is to raise the eligibility to 25. I look forward to further discussions on these matters. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment standing in my name.

Amendment 4 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

from the Bill.

[Baroness Berger (Lab)]

My Lords, I will very briefly raise my serious concerns about the three amendments that remove the specification for domestic abuse training. They are Amendments 290, 366 and 931. In the Commons, this was a significant area of concern for all MPs, specifically the risk to those suffering domestic abuse, and, as such, the sponsor of the Bill there accepted the amendment that introduced explicit requirements for training on domestic abuse, including

“coercive control and financial abuse”.

I listened very closely to the intervention from my noble and learned friend about the definition contained in Clause 56(2) that refers to control and financial abuse. But just because the definition of domestic abuse in the Bill includes coercive control and financial abuse, that does not mean training on domestic abuse will always include both those things. A training provider would not have an obligation under the Bill to cover all aspects of the definition, whereas the Bill, as currently drafted and as we received it, includes specifically both coercive control and financial abuse in that training. I urge my noble and learned friend to reconsider those amendments, based on the contributions in the other place, and to ensure that training covers and encompasses all those specific elements.

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)]

My Lords, I have some questions for the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, about his Amendment 6, because my concerns also relate to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. It does not seem to reflect the way that seriously ill children behave.

I have looked after children dying of malignancies. They knew that they were dying and asked really straightforward questions. They would ask about how they would die and would want to have in-depth conversations. I recall one little boy who asked me if he could play football in heaven, after another little boy in an adjacent room had died a few weeks earlier. These children asked for explicit details and wanted to have lots of conversations. Another one said that he would die after his goldfish died. Sadly, that was prophetic and when he was close to death, he asked his divorced parents to come in and promise to look after his siblings together. These children know each other; they want to ask questions and need to have them answered.

I am not sure how, with Amendment 6, doctors are meant to respond to these children when they ask questions. At the moment, you respond gently and openly, and explore with them what they are really asking about in an age-appropriate way. I have a concern that this could make people feel risk-averse about having open communication with these children, and let children remain isolated with their fears. They hear about assisted dying on the news and in the media; the ethical aspects are part of the senior school curriculum in some areas. I am really concerned that Amendment 6, while well-intentioned, and the adjacent amendments, might actually make the day-to-day looking after of these children as they are dying more difficult.

Amendments 170 and 405 seem to lower the threshold for communication. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, for pointing out that whenever an interpreter is used they must be a registered public service interpreter, to avoid the poor communication scenario which I referred to last week. Speech and language therapists are essential, so can the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, explain how with one would judge “effective”, as is listed in his amendment, and assess “reasonable steps”? These seem very subjective and I am not sure how they would be monitored. Others have spoken to the other amendments, so I look forward to hearing the comments from the noble and learned Lord.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful for all the interventions. These changes are only drafting changes. Some legitimate points were made, particularly by the noble Baronesses, Lady Finlay and Lady Lawlor, but they did not really go to the drafting points.

I go to the concerns various Members have expressed. Amendments 6 and 7, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, would prevent doctors having a conversation with people—I am not saying this in a bad or a good way, but that is what she wants to do—particularly before they reach 18. There is a point there, but it is nothing to do with the change I have introduced in my Amendment 6. My amendment would simply make it clear that there has to be a preliminary discussion before you can go ahead to assisted death. I have done that to make it clear that it is one of the eligibility conditions; it says nothing about what should be talked about or whether such a conversation should take place under the age of 18.

In fact, as the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, said, Clause 6 states:

“No registered medical practitioner or other health professional shall raise the subject of the provision of assistance in accordance with this Act with a person under the age of 18”.


I do not think that the noble Baroness’s amendment would add to that protection. The key point is that all Amendment 6 is doing is saying that you have to have a Clause 5 discussion.

The next point, raised by a number of Peers, is that I am watering down the protection in relation to domestic abuse. That, as a matter of drafting, is wrong. It is only a matter of convenience that, having defined domestic abuse as including everything so defined in the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, you get coercion, control and economic abuse as forms of domestic abuse. To avoid having to repeat that every time the Bill refers to training, I have simply referred to domestic abuse, and that is then defined at the top of page 41. I very much hope that people will accept that that is the position.

The noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, who is shaking her head, raises a different point about the position in relation to abuse that is not domestic. Perhaps your lawyer is exercising undue influence on you. That is a point that I will respond to in writing, but it is not a point raised by my drafting change, because all the restrictions have been in relation to domestic abuse, not to what the lawyers would call undue influence. But it is a perfectly legitimate point, which I will come back to in correspondence with her.

[Baroness Berger (Lab)]

On this very point, and for the record, I think many noble Lords will want to hear specifically how my noble and learned friend’s Bill will ensure that, when it comes to the training, all elements of domestic abuse as set out will be covered in that training, particularly given the concerns raised both here and in the other place.