Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Baroness Watkins of Tavistock Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 19th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)]

My Lords, I thank all those who have sent me opinions and information on this issue. I declare my interests as a registered nurse and a fellow of the Royal College of Nursing, which has adopted a neutral stance on the Bill, recognising the wide disparity of opinion within its membership.

The fury expressed by some people that they will be coerced into asking for assisted dying is real. The concerns are particularly strong among marginalised communities, as so amply demonstrated by the previous speaker.

Many people with severe disabilities who believe that they may become a burden to other family members, as well as those living alone who express fear about the future and the difficulties of living with a progressive condition, do not like the Bill. However, considerable safeguards in the Bill are designed to ensure that undue pressure concerning assisted dying is never placed on individuals. If a patient is given the opportunity to discuss their future options when planning the last months of their life, this should include the right to refuse further treatment and receive compassionate palliative care.

Patients must be given the chance to explore the options available to them. One of the many issues raised in this House, and in correspondence with the public, is that many people fear staying with the uncertainty about dying—not necessarily about when they will die but how their health and bodily functions, including continence and mental capacity, will deteriorate. People report being fearful of incontinence, speech difficulties and losing capacity, so that they are unable to express their wishes as they become increasingly dependent.

Let us encourage society to discuss and complete advance directives relating to future care, in the way that we are encouraged to make wills. This approach would enable those who would never want to discuss or consider assisted dying to make that clear in their personalised advance directive, and vice versa. Nurses and care workers are often those who are asked about assisted dying by patients, frequently during intimate procedures, including, for example, changing soiled bedding and washing.

I recall, when I was a district nurse, a patient saying something similar to me: “My kind husband just can’t cope with washing me, so I wait for you and I do not tell him I am dirty below but just lie here in it. He does not know, nurse, because he does not sleep in the bed with me any more. We were so happy together. We are worn down with it. Can’t you hurry it up for me?” The Royal College of Nursing has published excellent guidance on how to respond to such a request to hasten death. It states that

“nurses should acknowledge and act on all concerns raised”,

investigating and escalating them to the doctor responsible for the patient’s care and treatment.

The Bill is designed to establish a system for terminally ill adults to access assistance, yet no mention is made in it of the responsibility of health professionals to refer patients to an appropriate medical practitioner for preliminary discussion, to be recorded in the person’s notes when such requests are made.

When the process works well and advance directives have been made, agreed active treatments may be stopped and compassionate, excellent palliative care interventions accelerated. Early clarity on the patient’s position on assisted dying would be helpful to everyone. However, if the patient’s wishes have not been recorded, and they choose an assisted dying pathway in the late stages of their illness, should the Bill pass, there could be challenges from relatives who are vehemently against assisted dying for religious and/or ethical reasons.

I am broadly supportive of the Bill, but I would hope that we can consider the two issues I have raised—advance directives and other healthcare professionals’ involvement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Berger (Lab)]

I am very grateful for the intervention, and I was just about to come on to that, but I will answer that now. The answer is yes, absolutely. The intention is that all the evidence accumulated and amassed during that time will be published for everyone in the House to interrogate and consider in advance of us going into Committee of the whole House. To confirm, this Select Committee cannot take place in parallel in order that we can receive evidence on vital parts of the Bill before we go into debate, so that we are not in the unenviable position of knowing what is wrong with the Bill but being unable to amend it.

My Motion provides that a Select Committee would be intended as a focused piece of work, hearing vital expert oral evidence, as I have just set out, rather than it being a more time-intensive open exercise. It may report by simply publishing that evidence before we go into Committee of the whole House, in order to inform our detailed consideration of the Bill. As I understand it from the clerks, the revised timetable allows the committee to hold six meetings over three weeks, with two panels of witnesses on each of the days, to begin the week commencing 20 October and allowing it to conclude by 7 November. The revised timetable ensures that the Bill can progress to its next stage and maintain the opportunity for four sitting Fridays before Christmas.

We have, over the past two Fridays, shown the determination of your Lordships’ House to discuss the Bill in a considered and constructive way, and it is my strongest hope that we can continue to do that. If my amendment is accepted, I do not intend to speak on the Motion that will follow, which contains the detail that I have just set out. I am grateful to my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton—

[Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)]

Is the list to give evidence that the noble Baroness has detailed finally determined or would it be possible for us to add the Royal College of Nursing with its 500,000 nurses?

[Baroness Berger (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her intervention. As I understand it, it is within the gift of the Select Committee to determine who will be called for evidence. I have sought to set out the key people, but of course there will be many other suggestions. Obviously, conscious of the tight timetable, we will not be able to have an extensive list, but I am sure that the chair, when appointed, will consider the suggestion that has been made.

I return to expressing my gratitude to my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton for being prepared to work with me to reach an agreement that would allow the House to engage carefully with the substance of what is being proposed and the powers we are being asked to bestow on Ministers. I am grateful to the many noble Lords who have already indicated in their speeches their support for my amendment and my Motion. I beg to move.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Baroness Watkins of Tavistock Excerpts

Committee stage
Friday 14th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Gove (Con)]

My Lords, I support the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, in raising this question. Whether or not the suggestion from the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, is the right way of addressing this issue is genuinely a moot point. But she is absolutely right to raise the whole question of the fitness for purpose of the Bill, given the nature of our devolution settlement.

I speak with a modicum of experience. For just over four years, I was the Conservative Government’s Minister for Intergovernmental Relations, responsible for seeking to make the devolution settlement work at a time when we obviously had a party of one colour in government in Westminster and parties of very different complexions in Belfast, Cardiff and Edinburgh. Prior to that, as Secretary of State for Justice, Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, I had to navigate the thickets of our devolution settlement.

It requires care to make it work. In order to do so, we have to take account of conventions, of legislative competences, of precedents and, as my noble friend Lord Harper pointed out, of the interwoven nature of the lives of communities that live on our borders. It is absolutely right that we should do so, both as a revising Chamber and as a revising Chamber considering legislation of such moment.

As everyone has pointed out during the passage of the Bill, strong feelings are engaged on every side. If we are thinking about fundamentally changing the responsibility of the state and our NHS when it comes to the balance between alleviating pain, prolonging life and, in certain circumstances, ending life, then we must proceed with care.

It was the explicit wish of many in the House of Commons, including in Committee, that the Bill takes seriously the operation of the legislation—so it is not finicky, an abdication of responsibility or something to be criticised when raising these specific and precise questions. It is our role.

Of course, many of us recognise, whatever our feelings on the Bill, that the House of Commons clearly gave its express wish that those who are living with a condition that means that their life will soon end in any circumstances should be able to choose the timing and manner of their death. I respect that clearly expressed wish. Some of us may take a different view about that imperative sent to us from the House of Commons as a matter of first principle, but all of us have a responsibility to look at how the legislation operates, because we are not in the business of simply recognising and respecting a sentiment, no matter how sincere; we are in the business of introducing legislation that must work and be made to work. Therefore, it is our responsibility in the days ahead to look in detail.

That is why I make no apology for specifically referring to the operation of the Sewel convention. Introduced by Lord Sewel of Gilcomstoun, a fellow Aberdonian and a former Labour Minister, it is a convention that broadly governs how we and the Government should legislate with respect to devolved matters. The Sewel convention makes clear that the Government should not normally legislate in areas that are strictly devolved without the full consent of the devolved legislative chambers—the Senedd Cymru, the Holyrood Scottish Parliament or the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Because it is a convention, of course it is the right of Westminster—Westminster is ultimately sovereign—to legislate without that consent. But the broad convention, on which the success of our devolution sentiment rests, is that that should be exercised only sparingly. This point was made very well and repeatedly by the promoter of the Bill in this House himself, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer. On a variety of occasions in the past, when the Government of which I was part sought to legislate in a way that may have caused disquiet or opposition in devolved legislatures, he has pointed out the importance of the Sewel convention, and he is not alone in doing so.

The former Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, in a report commissioned by the current Prime Minister in the other place on the operation of the Sewel convention, recommended that the Sewel convention be made justiciable and that it should be the case that it should move from a constitutional convention to be a legislative part of our constitution. The Government have not yet taken that step, but it is the stated intention and policy of the Government to ensure that, if one did choose to legislate without the consent of a devolved legislature, that would be capable of challenge in the courts, which it is not yet.

In stressing the importance of making sure that we proceed with care, I am doing no more than expressing not just my experience of how important it is to respect the devolved sentiment but my acknowledgement of the direction of travel that the Government had set out with their belief in making the devolved settlement work better.

The point has been made that our devolved settlement with regard to Wales is complex, and indeed it is, as a number of noble Lords have pointed out. Crime and justice are not devolved, but health is. But again, even in the area of crime and justice, there is no settled will.

I participated in the convention looking at the future of the constitution with regard to Welsh devolution, led by the former Archbishop of Canterbury, Lord Williams of Oystermouth—Rowan Williams. In it, he made the case—I believe it is a case that exercises the sympathy of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd—

[Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)]

My understanding is that the Senedd is undertaking its usual processes around legislative consent, with reports from the health committee and the justice committee to be published soon. A date for agreeing legislative consent has not been set, but it is likely to be either shortly before or immediately after Christmas. It normally would take place before Report, so that amendments can be drafted in line with the feelings of the Senedd at the time. I wonder whether we need to look forward rather than historically.

[Lord Gove (Con)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for making that point, because it takes me to two of the points that I was about to make about the two committees in the Senedd that have looked at this: the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee and the Health and Social Care Committee. Both have explicitly raised concerns about this legislation.

The point that I was making about criminal justice is that, if there is a broad view among what one might call progressive parties in Wales—and certainly those parties that are likely to form a majority after the next Senedd election—it is that crime and justice should be devolved. That is not the case at the moment. It should not govern how we legislate in this House. But if we have to have regard to sentiment and to making the devolution settlement work, as I believe we should, we should be aware that legislating without the consent of the Senedd in areas such as crime and justice is certainly putting an additional strain on the devolution settlement. Let me put it no more highly than that.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Baroness Watkins of Tavistock Excerpts

Committee stage
Friday 5th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[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 ---

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

I hope that noble Lords will show the customary courtesy, particularly with regard to views to which they have objections.

[Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)]

Would the noble Baroness consider joining the meeting with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, to talk about her additional points? I think the majority of the Committee is keen to move on so that we can facilitate further groups.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her question, and I certainly will consider it, but I think it is important that we have a discussion about what I regard as a compromise Motion, which may be useful in the discussions noble Lords have with the sponsor or those who wish to proceed in that way.