Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Baroness Berger Excerpts

Friday 12th December 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Berger]

16A: In paragraph (ca), leave out “been” and insert “had an application to be”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would ensure that someone who so lacks capacity in one area that an application has been made to deprive them of their liberty will not be found to have capacity for the decision to seek assistance to end their own life, which is otherwise a legal possibility under the Mental Capacity Act 2005’s approach to capacity.

[Baroness Berger (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendments 16A and 114A, which were tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Keeley, address the fact that for the last 10 years there has been a substantial backlog of applications for deprivation of liberty safeguards assessments. This backlog grew after there was a Supreme Court ruling in 2014 on Cheshire West. Following that ruling in 2014, the criteria for what constituted a deprivation of liberty assessment led to a surge in applications for DoLS assessments. Back in 2013-14, there were around 13,000 assessments. This grew to over 332,000 applications in 2023-24.

The last reported backlog of deprivation of liberty safeguards assessments back in October of this year was more than 123,000 applications. That is more than 123,000 cases where a person so lacks capacity in one area that an application for a deprivation of liberty safeguards assessment has been made, but our overstretched social workers and local authorities have not been able to process it.

I hope we can all agree that people whose incapacity to make basic decisions is so severe that they are deprived of their liberty, or for whom an application has been made for the deprivation of their liberty, are the most vulnerable members of society, and that the protection of people who lack capacity is a solemn duty. The state looks after their interests because they cannot.

Amendments 16, 16A, 114 and 114A provide a fundamental safeguard to protect this group by excluding them from making a life-and-death decision, both when they have been deprived of their liberty in the last 12 months or—as these amendments particularly seek to achieve—while they are waiting for the assessment to be made to deprive them of their liberty.

In conclusion, while considering these amendments, and in addition to addressing the delays outlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, we might also reflect that our current social care workforce has struggled so much with the backlog of assessments, as I have described, that the last Government were not able to implement the changes to the deprivation of liberty safeguards assessments contained in the Mental Capacity (Amendment) Act 2019. It is worth pointing out that the Bill seeks to create a new and additional role for social workers on the panels, and in that context, I hope noble Lords will consider these amendments.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

My Lords, for the reasons given by the noble Baronesses, Lady Finlay and the Lady Berger, I support all these amendments.

Perhaps your Lordships, and particularly the Whips, will forgive me if, very briefly, I go slightly wider. I am one of the oldest Members of this House. I do not like the Bill but I am here, like other noble Lords, to try to make it work. It needs scrutiny and improvement. However, we must get it to Third Reading. If we do not, there is a very real danger that the reputation of this House, which not only I but all your Lordships care about deeply, will be irreparably eroded.

This morning I listened to the “Today” programme. I agree with every word of what the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, said, but there was a perception that we are being unreasonable. What we can do, perhaps, is not expect to be entitled, exercise self-restraint, deal with the amendments relatively briefly, and not make a point if someone has already spoken on the point you were going to make. We really must get to Third Reading. Forgive me for saying all that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Berger (Lab)]

My Lords, just in advance of withdrawing the amendments, I would like to put on record the magnitude of this issue. In the last recorded year, there were 141,925 people who had the deprivation of liberty safeguards—DoLS—standard authorisations granted, and only 3% of the applications that were fully assessed and completed were not granted; 97% of applications were granted. I have listened very closely to what my noble and learned friend said and I look forward to the meetings that we will have, further to our deliberations today. On that basis, I withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 16A (to Amendment 16) withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness O’Loan (CB)]

I cannot comment on the deliberations of the committee. I think there are others here who possibly can.

[Baroness Berger (Lab)]

My Lords, for the record, I inform the Committee that there was only one vote taken in the Select Committee. The vote was on whether the committee should receive written evidence; that vote was taken and the committee did not receive written evidence, which is a great shame because we would have heard from so many groups that people are raising in their contributions today. So, for the record, there was only one vote taken. There were many witnesses whom people on all sides wished to hear from. There was a deep regret that we were truncated and had only those three weeks to have those 13 panel sessions. If we had had more time, we would have been able to hear from many other groups. Again, for the record, only one vote was taken, which was not to take written evidence.

[Baroness O’Loan (CB)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her intervention, which is very helpful. All I was trying to say is that we are aware of many situations in which people are subject to coercion and where there are financial and other interests that cause people to be subject to pressure or to think that perhaps they are a burden. The autonomy which currently exists in the Bill in terms of decision-making, where there is no provision for access to police and medical records, does not ensure sufficient protection for a vulnerable individual who is making an application for assisted death. That is why these amendments are important, so that the GP who is faced with dealing with the situation and all those involved can have access to other documents.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness O'Loan (CB)]

My Lords, I have put my name to Amendments 22 and 24 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and support the other amendments in this group, which relate to the fact that prisoners, people detained under a hospital order, homeless people and those who are pregnant require special care because of their situations.

Suicidal ideation and depression as a result of incarceration, with limited ability to access outside resources due to imprisonment, are very common among prisoners. One study found that 61% of elderly male prisoners had a mental disorder. Primary care mental health services are still being developed in prisons to provide for conditions such as depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder and learning disabilities. That vulnerability, combined with a terminal illness and probable lack of access to good palliative care, means that their welfare is a special responsibility of the state. Special arrangements must be made to ensure that they do not feel they have no option other than to opt for assisted death.

Suicidal ideation is also very common among the homeless. The noble Lord, Lord Bird, recently spoke eloquently in your Lordships’ House about the problem of poverty, which so often results in homelessness and the hopelessness which accompanies poverty. Solutions to things such as poverty and homelessness should not involve offering people assisted death rather than a home, possibly in sheltered accommodation, in which they may be able to flourish.

The noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, spoke eloquently about pregnancy. I want to add just a couple of things. Pregnancy is not an illness, but pregnant women are at a higher risk of mental illness. The Maternal Mental Health Alliance reported that at least one in five women develops a mental illness during pregnancy or within the first years after having a baby and that maternal death due to mental health problems is increasing and suicide remains the leading cause of death in the first year after birth.

[Baroness Berger (Lab)]

I declare an interest as chair of the Maternal Mental Health Alliance. The figures have been updated; currently, one in four women experiences a mental health condition in the perinatal period, either during pregnancy or in the two years after birth.

[Baroness O'Loan (CB)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her intervention. I also want to raise the risk of domestic abuse, which is much higher during pregnancy. The Maternal Mental Health Alliance says that up to 30% of domestic abuse cases begin during pregnancy.

Ending someone’s life with lethal drugs while they are pregnant raises additional layers of moral, legal and medical concern—for example, consent, the viability of the baby, conflicts of interest, et cetera. Pregnancy causes drugs to be processed differently. The rate of absorption is affected by physiological changes. That could mean a slower or more prolonged death from the approved substances for both mother and child. Women are particularly vulnerable, and the safeguards just do not seem to be in the Bill at present.

The amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, in this group relate also to those up to the age of 25 who have an EHCP, which may be provided to vulnerable children, including those with special educational needs and mental health concerns.

Finally, the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, has told us that young people with complex needs may be at a higher risk of internalising negative societal values about their disabilities. The National Down Syndrome Policy Group states that people with learning disabilities can be highly suggestible and prone to acquiescence bias, agreeing with authority figures to please them.

There may also be diagnostic overshadowing, the risk that a young person’s desire to die might be as a consequence. In this context, a young person with an EHCP, for example, might request assisted dying not because their condition is intolerable but because the social care and support legally promised to them has failed to materialise, making their daily life situation unbearable. That could be misinterpreted by clinicians as a rational choice due to their disability. It is therefore the case that special provisions, such as those identified in these amendments, are necessary to ensure proper support, and that the various vulnerable groups of people do not feel that they have no choice.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Baroness Berger Excerpts

Committee stage
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.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Baroness Berger Excerpts

Committee stage
Friday 21st November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)]

I respectfully accept that position. The problem is that the more I speak, the more I will be intervened on, which is the opposite of what I am trying to do; I am trying to speed the process up.

All I am trying to say is that we all want the best Bill possible. I get that. If that cannot be managed, something else will have to happen. I was only trying to bring in the evidence of three former Directors of Public Prosecutions. One of them, because people had said, “We’ve had no real-life experience”, actually advanced to us, “I’ve got Parkinson’s disease and I’m going to die. I have a terminal illness”. He actually said that to the committee, and added that if the Bill passed he hoped to avail himself of it. That is just one little anecdote from probably the only person who gave evidence who actually has a condition, which he confirmed to us freely. He was not asked to do that.

All I am trying to do is balance the evidence, because a lot of people are quoting evidence. I want to try to redress that a bit and to gently move this on a bit quicker. I have completely failed, because I have been standing up for nine minutes. I apologise to the Committee for taking up too much time.

[Baroness Berger (Lab)]

I am very grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I will make a point that has been raised on a number of occasions, about what happened in the other place and the number of hours that were dedicated to the Bill there. It is important to put on record that this House received a Bill that is very different from the Bill as it was first presented to the House of Commons. Many hours were taken up in the other place on a Bill that was completely altered. I will point to one particular issue. The process massively changed from a judge-led process to a panel. In fact, of the 91.5 hours of debate in Committee in the other place, 62 were on a Bill that still had the High Court process in it. So we have to reflect in our deliberations that many hours were rightly taken scrutinising the Bill in the other place, but we have now received it in a very different form.

[Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)]

I accept the noble Baroness’s position. Perhaps a High Court judge might resolve the issue, then.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Baroness Berger Excerpts

Committee stage
Friday 14th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lords, I shall be very brief. The definition at the beginning is a most important matter. I am quite clear, having heard noble Lords make a number of very sound observations, that “capacity” is an essential term. That is the first thing. However, it is not sufficient, and it has to be added to. I say that because the Mental Capacity Act states explicitly that a person is not treated as lacking capacity merely because they make an unwise decision. That is a very different situation from what we will be dealing with in many cases going forward. I urge the House, when this comes back on Report and preferably beforehand, and the promoters, to consider adding simply “and ability” so that it reads “capacity and ability” because they are different concepts, and they are necessary if this is to work properly in future.

[Baroness Berger (Lab)]

I wish to respond briefly to two points. I have every admiration for the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, and I definitely concur that we have a responsibility in this House. I also gently remind this House that there were a number of Members of the other place who said, both in writing to their constituents and in their spoken contributions in the House, that they were essentially outsourcing the job to this place for us to ensure legislation that is fit for purpose. I regret that that is the case. I think there are many of us on all sides of the debate, on both sides of this House, who would wish to see a government Bill, which has been the case with previous Private Members’ Bills that have been adopted by the Government. We would have more time and opportunity to ensure that we have robust legislation.

In the absence of that, in the process that we find before us, I want to share with the Committee—I was going to bring it up in the next group but in light of the comments and the contributions that we have heard so far I think it is important to share on record—the comments that we heard in the Select Committee from the Royal College of Psychiatrists. It is a professional body that was called to give evidence on behalf of its members as one of the pillars of the process, as one of the pillars of the panel.

We heard from Dr Annabel Price, who is the lead for the Royal College of Psychiatrists on the Bill. She is an eminent expert in this space. She shared with us that the college had very carefully thought through its position and its views and that it had asked for a review of the Mental Capacity Act’s suitability because it believes that the Bill currently states that a person is eligible if they have the capacity to make a decision to end their own life, but this framework has not been tested for this particular decision. There are principles within the Mental Capacity Act that the college is not certain are compatible with this decision and need to be thought through more carefully.

I think we should heed that warning and listen very carefully to that college whose members will be responsible should this legislation go through. Therefore, in the context of the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, I think it is important for us to consider this in terms of how we inform our debate going forward, which is relevant to this group and to the group that follows.

Goodmayes Hospital Mental Health Facility

Baroness Berger Excerpts

Thursday 13th November 2025 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Berger]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of failings at Goodmayes Hospital mental health facility.

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

My Lords, what happened at Goodmayes Hospital was totally unacceptable and I offer my sincere condolences to Alice Figueiredo’s family and loved ones, who have suffered an unimaginable loss. The trust failed in its basic responsibilities to Alice, and I expect—and we are working to ensure—that it will prioritise the safety of its services. I understand that the trust has taken steps to improve services and reduce risk, including changes to ward environments, better training in suicide prevention and investment in recruitment and retention.

[Baroness Berger (Lab)]

I thank the Minister. It was back in July of 2015 that Alice Figueiredo took her own life using a bin bag from a shared bathroom. She was just 22 years old. Recently leaked documents reveal that, just four months later, another young woman from the same ward attempted to harm herself in an almost identical manner. However, these are not isolated incidents. In 2023, three women died in a Priory psychiatric hospital within two months. I ask my noble friend the Minister: what are the Government doing to ensure that therapeutic care is provided, and lessons are really learnt, so that we do not see any further tragic loss of life from any aspect of the mental health in-patient estate?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend for raising this in this way. National guidance is being developed, which is expected soon—in January—on plastic bag use in mental health settings. The Thirlwall inquiry has also recently reviewed progress against the important recommendations of the report of Professor Williams, which were very much addressed at the role of healthcare regulators of NHS bodies and the CPS. In addition, the NHS national oversight framework now gives a transparent assessment of the performance of every trust in England, which means that those with the greatest challenges or concerns will receive enhanced support. In addition, it means that the CQC, as we move it to a new intelligence-led model, is able to conduct rapid response inspections where concerns are identified, so that we can get on top of problems before they produce the tragic consequences my noble friend refers to.

Artificial Intelligence: Safeguarding

Baroness Berger Excerpts

Tuesday 4th November 2025 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Berger]

To ask His Majesty’s Government, following recent reports by Open AI that many people have exhibited signs of suicidal ideation or other mental health emergencies while messaging a generative artificial intelligence chatbot, whether they have plans to safeguard such individuals.

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

My Lords, safeguarding people experiencing suicidal ideation or a mental health crisis is a priority. We recognise the growing use of generative AI chatbots and the potential risks that they can pose, particularly when people seek support during moments of acute distress. Whether content is created by AI or humans, the Online Safety Act places robust duties on all in-scope services, including those deploying chatbots, to prevent users encountering illegal suicide and self-harm content.

[Baroness Berger (Lab)]

My Lords, ChatGPT is giving British teens dangerous advice on suicide, eating disorders and substance abuse. A report from the Center for Countering Digital Hate found that, within two minutes, the AI platform would advise a 13 year-old how to safely cut themselves; within 40 minutes, it would list the required pills for an overdose; and, after 72 minutes, it would generate suicide notes. Can my noble friend confirm that Ofcom will treat ChatGPT and other chatbots as search engines under the Online Safety Act, and assure the House that the regulator has both the powers and the will to enforce the protection of children code when it comes to generative AI platforms such as ChatGPT?

MBRRACE-UK Report 2025

Baroness Berger Excerpts

Thursday 23rd October 2025 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Berger]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the MBRRACE-UK 2025 report Saving Lives, Improving Mothers’ Care 2025: Lessons learned to inform maternity care from the UK and Ireland Confidential Enquiries into Maternal Deaths and Morbidity 2021–23.

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

My Lords, although the maternal mortality rate has slightly decreased recently, this report makes it quite clear that further urgent action is needed. That is why this Government have launched an independent investigation into NHS maternity and neonatal services, with interim findings expected in December. Moving from care to prevention, the publication of a new maternal mortality care bundle planned for next month targets the five key areas that disproportionately contribute to maternal mortality.

[Baroness Berger (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend the Minister for her reply. I want to ask specifically about the issue of late maternal deaths, which were significantly higher in this reporting period. Deaths linked to mental health issues, including suicide and substance use, were the leading cause of late maternal deaths. Almost half of women who died by suicide were from the most deprived areas. What can we do to stop it being the case that if you are from a poorer background, you are most likely to take your life during this period? Would the Minister consider introducing an urgent referral pathway for women with complex social needs?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

My noble friend is quite right in her observation. The maternal care bundle will be a real focus for change and tackling inequalities. Maternal mental health is one of the areas that has been identified for urgent action, because of the ability to improve outcomes and reduce inequalities. Identified pathways, as she describes, are part of the solution that we have under way.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Baroness Berger Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 19th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Berger (Lab)]

My Lords, there are passionately held views on the subject before us, and the informed and respectful deliberation so far shows your Lordships’ House at its best. We are being asked to legislate for autonomy, but we also have a duty to set out that principle within the reality of our unequal society. I am deeply concerned that the Bill as it stands would not only ignore but deepen those inequalities.

My views are shaped in part from learning about my mother’s work as a counsellor in a palliative care unit and the hours I spent at the bedside of three of my grandparents as they neared the end, including as they took their last breaths. While I am one of the younger Members of this place, and I hope I have at least another 50 years ahead of me, I have thought about the end of my life. Ideally, I would like to die naturally at home, with, if needed, access to the high-quality palliative care that everyone deserves.

While I would not want an assisted death, I recognise that some noble Lords do, as expressed during this debate. We are fortunate: as noble Lords, we have a voice, above-average resources, and agency—the ability to make our own choices, free from interference, prejudice, coercion or undue influence. But assisted dying, if introduced, would exist as a choice not only for us and other comparatively fortunate people; it would enter the lives of those most at risk—people already overlooked, unprotected and vulnerable at the end of life.

It was a privilege to be a Member of Parliament for almost a decade, and I have so many fond memories of my former constituents. But some of the most searing moments I experienced as a Member of the other place came at my weekly surgeries. The first time I heard someone speak openly, in the most unsavoury terms, about wanting a family member dead, I shook. I was appalled, and I could not believe what I was hearing. I was naive to think that this would be an isolated case. I have also not forgotten the words and realities of too many former constituents: people isolated and abused in their own homes, sometimes for decades, in fear for their own lives; people who felt like a burden because of long-term illness or serious mental health conditions, especially the elderly; and people treated as though their lives were worth less because they had a disability. Many were from low-income backgrounds, facing not only poor health but the crushing stress of unaffordable care costs.

These voices still ring in my ears and motivate me profoundly as I consider this Bill, alongside the many powerful representations we have heard in recent weeks, including, as we have heard from other Members, that there is no organisation of or for disabled people in this country that supports the Bill. In considering who the Bill might benefit by giving them more autonomy, we must equally consider who it may harm by taking their autonomy away.

We have a duty in this House to test the Bill’s safeguards when they meet reality, and I think we must also consider the role of family members and carers. The Bill does not require their involvement. It does not even guarantee they will be informed. Yet these are exactly the people who know a patient best, and who may spot signs of coercion, confusion or fear that professionals might miss. Their exclusion is not just a procedural oversight; it is a moral failing.

In conclusion, if the Bill passes, the relationship between vulnerable people and their doctors and the state would change for ever. There would be no going back. This Bill touches the deepest and most exposed moments of human life. It demands our utmost scrutiny, not just in principle but in practice—and, in practice, it currently falls short. We cannot legislate for irreversible decisions on the basis of incomplete protections. We have important work to do.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Berger]

At end insert “but that the Committee of the Whole House shall not commence before a report has been received from a select committee appointed by the House to consider certain aspects of the bill.”

[Baroness Berger (Lab)]

My Lords, I have spoken already about how my experience as a Member in the other place has made me very concerned about this Bill, and more determined that it must not be a cause of further harm to vulnerable people. Many unanswered questions about the Bill before us have been raised during the course of this important debate. This is why I have tabled the amendment and the following Motion to hold a Select Committee before Committee of the whole House begins.

This is a significant and complex piece of legislation by any definition. It demands a process that can withstand the weight, but it is clear that there are serious shortcomings, as both the Constitution Committee and the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee noted in their reports last week. Indeed, I am concerned that the legislative process is being asked to compensate for the absence of robust policy-making before the Bill was published: no comprehensive review; no public consultation or prior engagement with professionals and other stakeholders; no Green Paper or White Paper, which we would have seen had it been a government Bill—I understand the case made for why it is not a government Bill, but that has diminished what is before us today; and no published analysis of international experiences. Instead, Parliament has been asked to grapple with questions about implementation, safeguards and NHS implications without this groundwork, which we would usually turn to for a law change of this magnitude.

Back in March, Jill Rutter of the Institute for Government—which is neutral on the principle of assisted dying—said:

“We’re expecting Commons scrutiny to do far too much—things it simply can’t do … Commons scrutiny is being left to solve a whole range of problems it isn’t equipped to deal with”.


We have seen the dropping of key but expensive safeguards, such as the review by a High Court judge, and whole new clauses and schedules introduced to replace them with very little opportunity for thorough scrutiny.

It was a clear pattern in the other place that when significant concerns were raised that had not been anticipated, the response was often to add another delegated power. There are now, as we know, 42 delegated powers contained within the Bill: 42 areas where government will work out the detail later, with Parliament largely excluded from the conversation. The result is a Bill that is today substantially different from when the Bill Committee in the other place took evidence in January this year, but now with less clarity.

I do not wish to detain the House any longer than is necessary, but I have been asked many questions on the process about what is before us, which I will seek to address. My amendment ensures that we can have some evidence, expertise and insight on the Bill before us today. We need this information before we commence line-by-line scrutiny.

Noble Lords will have received a letter setting out a condensed list of witnesses that I and other supporters believe this House must hear from, including my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton and those who will bear the responsibility for delivering the Bill, should it pass, and setting out how they would use their delegated powers. These witnesses are to include the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the chief executive of NHS England, the Secretary of State for Justice and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury.

We must also take evidence from the professional bodies whose members will be asked to carry out the functions that the Bill sets out: the Royal College of Psychiatrists, the Royal College of Physicians, the Royal College of General Practitioners, the British Association of Social Workers and the Law Society.

We are, of course, not able to hear from serving members of the judiciary, but may hear from the former Chief Coroner of England, Thomas Teague KC, and Sir James Munby, President of the Family Division of the High Court. We must also ensure that we understand the impact of the Bill on our hospices and care homes, through Hospice UK, the Association for Palliative Medicine and Care England.

A previous suggestion of a Select Committee in parallel, alongside a Committee of the whole House, would not achieve—

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

I apologise, I do not want to detain the House any longer than is necessary. Just to clarify, will all the evidence before the Select Committee be published?

[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.

Amendment to the Motion agreed.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Berger]

That it is desirable that a select committee be appointed to consider the safeguards and procedures contained in the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill; that the Committee shall hear evidence from professional bodies, those with professional experience of coronial services, and Ministers; that the Committee, notwithstanding the usual practice of the House, may report by drawing the attention of the House to the evidence received without making recommendations; and that the Committee do report by Friday 7 November.

[Baroness Berger (Lab)]

I beg to move.

Motion agreed.

Suicide Reduction

Baroness Berger Excerpts

Monday 8th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

The noble Lord is right that there is disparity, which is often linked to priority risk factors, including, for example, financial difficulty, physical health, alcohol and drug abuse, harmful gambling, domestic abuse, social isolation and loneliness. Those priority risk factors are, sadly, more at play in the more disadvantaged areas to which the noble Lord referred. As we seek to develop further the effectiveness of the strategy—we have made great progress so far, but it is not enough—we need to ensure that the whole country is attended to and that we address the risk factors for suicide for everybody.

[Baroness Berger (Lab)]

My Lords, I too extend my warm welcome to my colleague; it is fantastic to see my noble friend back on the Front Bench. In our country, the greatest killer of women in the year after birth is suicide. What are my noble friend and her department specifically doing, within the suicide prevention strategy, to look at this very serious issue? What can we do to stop these tragedies, which affect not only the mothers but their children?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for her comments and kindness. She is quite right that maternal health is absolutely key and to speak about the impact not only on mothers but on their children. We have developed a considerable programme for mental health well-being. We are also recruiting 8,500 mental health workers to reduce delays and provide fast treatment, because we need to ease pressure on what are incredibly busy mental health services. The area to which my noble friend referred is key and will be part of our development on maternity provision.

Perinatal Mental Health

Baroness Berger Excerpts

Wednesday 25th June 2025 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Berger]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the spending on perinatal mental health services in England in the financial year 2024-25.

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

My Lords, this Government recognise the importance of perinatal mental health services. Spending on specialist community perinatal mental health services continued to increase in 2024-25. The latest NHS figures show that integrated care boards spent £212 million that year, which is an increase of £18 million from 2023 to 2024. This does not include spending on mother and baby units. The final spend for those in 2024-25 is not yet available, but £58 million was spent in 2023-24.

[Baroness Berger (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend the Minister for her reply and declare my interest as chair of the Maternal Mental Health Alliance. It is heartening to hear the Government’s assessment that there have not been any real terms cuts to perinatal mental health services this year. That is in spite of evidence from the Royal College of Psychiatrists. I listened very closely to what my noble friend said. She will know that maternal suicide remains the leading cause of maternal death in this country six weeks to a year after birth. Will the Government look to reintroduce the target to increase access to perinatal mental health care, which was dropped from the 2025-26 NHS planning guidance, to ensure that commissioners do not divert funds elsewhere?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I pay tribute to my noble friend for her work as the chair of the Maternal Mental Health Alliance. I share her great concerns about the rate of suicide among new mothers in particular. The NHS planning guidance is not an exhaustive list of everything the NHS does. I am sure my noble friend will remember that the Darzi review highlighted that one of the problems in the NHS was too many targets. We have reduced the number of national priorities by focusing on what matters most to patients but, as my noble friend acknowledged, maternity funding has not been cut. Indeed, healthcare systems leaders now have more autonomy to meet the demands of their local populations.