Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Baroness Wheeler Excerpts

Committee stage
Friday 27th February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lords, I wish to speak to 21 amendments in this group. It is my misfortune that they have all been shoved together, giving me around 30 seconds on each one.

It is really important that the powers of the panel are clearly defined and that what we end up with is in accordance with what Parliament wants and intends. Each of the amendments that I have put down comes from either the Law Society or the CLADD group; to this extent, I endorse entirely what my noble friends Lord Murray and Lord McColl just said. The management of evidence gathering in the process is vital. My amendments aim to try to put that into some sort of proper regime that is set out on paper before the Bill becomes statute.

Amendment 929A is aimed simply at panels being able to consider cases with expertise appropriate to the particular nature of the case. It says that

“the Commissioner must have regard to the nature of the expertise required to determine the particular circumstances of the person”

in question. We know that there is a lack of psychiatrists in this country—it is in the public press all the time—so it is important that, when this process kicks off, there are sufficient psychiatrists who are willing and able to sit on these panels and to devote the necessary time, because they will have to make assessments. There is a risk that the commissioner may struggle to find enough of them.

Amendments 922 and 923A ask that there be sufficient people and say that they must be specified in regulations. In particular, they must have expertise in relevant matters as set out in regulations, so the Secretary of State would have to identify what expertise will be required and who is to address it.

Amendment 927A asks that one of the panel’s members

“must be a legal member”.

We cannot possibly have panels that do not have a lawyer on them. There must be a legal member with the expertise to deal with the particular case. Indeed, I note that, in giving evidence to the Select Committee, Sarah Hughes of Mind said that

“it is really clear that the safeguards described in the current Bill are not adequate”.

The British Association of Social Workers has also said that the current safeguards are not enough. Those are disinterested, important bodies with expertise in this area.

Amendment 928 aims at the target of medical expertise. There must be someone on the panel who can take a properly informed view of the diagnosis being given to the applicant.

The point of Amendment 473 is to insert the word “evidence”, which is very important, because it is not clear what the status of these panels and of the material given to them will be. The word “evidence” means that, or will have the effect that, the panel will clearly operate as a formal body. It would not make it a tribunal, but it would make the process formal and the panel act properly.

Amendment 479 would enable the panel to

“require a local authority or an NHS body to arrange for a report to be made dealing with such matters relating to the person as the panel may direct … or … such other person as the authority, or the NHS body, considers appropriate”.

There is more to it. This is the equivalent of Section 49 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005, which gives the power to the Court of Protection to get reports from the NHS or local authorities in order to allow it to discharge its inquisitorial powers. We need something similar here. It would reinforce the seriousness of the panel.

There are other provisions in this amendment to make it plain that the panel can appoint an expert to test evidence if it does not have its own expertise. It needs to have that power. In an appropriate case, the panel may hear evidence on oath, but it will be under no obligation to. That is in my proposed new paragraph (h). There may be cases where it is very anxious about some of the things it has heard, and it may think that putting someone on oath makes them think very seriously about telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

I will move on. I am trying to take this at a gallop.

Amendment 465 is another Law Society amendment. It would show that, although the panel is not a court, it is a formal body by using the word “evidence” in the provisions. That word will make the panel take it seriously. I am not suggesting that the people on it will be lightweight people, but the process is important. Those of us who are lawyers in particular will know that process is important, and it affects how panels and tribunals conduct themselves. If it is not to be called evidence, it will not have that same effect. The Law Society suggests that it is currently unclear precisely what status the information being received will have. It will not be a court, but it will be a formal body, and that provision occurs in some other amendments—Amendments 470 and 476, and possibly elsewhere.

How does the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, understand the panel’s evidence-gathering powers? Will it be exempt from the normal rules of medical confidentiality and data protection? Will it be able to gather evidence from witnesses even if the patient does not want details to be shared? Will it be an executive public authority, subject to the limits that apply to the Government, or will it be a judicial body with unique powers? To say it is quasi-judicial does not answer the question; it is either one or the other. We need to know what powers it will have. Will it be those of an independent tribunal or not? This picks up the observation made by my noble friend Lord Murray.

Amendment 494 would mean that the panel would have to notify relevant bodies if it considers that the person meets the criteria but the request was made because the service provisions had failed in the past. This would be important in monitoring the Bill’s impact on health and social services. It would show whether someone has come for this because provision has not been made. That would be important in looking forward and seeing how we can improve the delivery of health services to the public. It is not a barrier, but it will provide valuable information.

Amendment 934, another Law Society amendment, would require the Secretary of State by regulations to make provision for how the chair of a panel is to decide whether to grant a person’s request that the panel sit in private, including the factors to be taken into account and the processes to be followed. Will it be sitting in private? Will it be sitting in public? How is this to be addressed? These are important practical questions that are bound to arise on the ground.

Amendment 934A, another Law Society amendment, states:

“For purposes of the law of contempt, where a panel determines a referral in public, then unless the panel provides to the contrary, publication of information about the person to whom the referral relates shall be treated as contempt of court, as if (in any relevant legislation) for the word ‘court’ were substituted ‘panel’”.


The panel will not be a court, but it will be hearing very sensitive information in public hearings by default. These amendments seek to ensure that such information about a person is not made public. The late and, I would suggest, great Sir James Munby remarked that

“judges are kept up to the mark by two things—having to comply with proper procedure and being exposed to the public gaze”.

He said that the same thing should apply to panels.

The Law Society told the Select Committee:

“What is unclear at the moment is where the panels will be held and how people would know about them”.


Obviously, consideration about whether the panels are private or public, and then where the powers would come from potentially to restrict the information and then being able to be made—

[Captain of the King’s Bodyguard of the Yeomen of the Guard and Deputy Chief Whip (Baroness Wheeler) (Lab)]

Will the noble Lord please wind up? He is over his time.

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

I hope the Committee will indulge me a little. All I will say is that I ask noble Lords to read carefully my amendments, which all come from the Law Society or CLADD. I will say one thing. I hope noble Lords will forgive me, but it is clear that this group will go beyond today, I would have thought, looking at the number of amendments there and the fact that we only have two hours left. If I need to leave—

Court Reporting Data

Baroness Wheeler Excerpts

Wednesday 11th February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Keen of Elie (Con)]

My Lords—

[Captain of the King’s Bodyguard of the Yeomen of the Guard and Deputy Chief Whip (Baroness Wheeler) (Lab)]

My Lords, this is a 10-minute Urgent Question, so questions must be brief. We will now move on to the Lib Dems.

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)]

My Lords, we are all committed to open justice, but so we are to the protection of sensitive personal data. Minister Sackman told the Commons yesterday, as has the Minister here, that Courtsdesk had been sharing with an AI company, no doubt for commercial purposes, personal data of defendants and victims, including full names, personal addresses and birth dates. Minister Sackman said that at least 700 individual cases were involved in that direct breach of contract by Courtsdesk, which Courtsdesk has accepted was a breach.

I suggest that we accept both Ministers’ accounts as accurate, as, notably, did Conservative MP Sir Julian Lewis, who, unlike his Front Bench—and indeed the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen—rightly described this as a “cause of great concern”. How and when do the Government propose to replace Courtsdesk with an alternative provider? Meanwhile, can the Minister say how HMCTS will deliver accurate information in a more easily accessible and digestible form? By all accounts, journalists are currently finding the MOJ’s presentation of data to be fragmented, impractical and difficult to navigate.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Baroness Wheeler Excerpts

Committee stage
Friday 9th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)]

My Lords, could I just put one thing to the noble and learned Lord? Granted that the panel and the court-based system have a great deal in common, six months to live and mental capacity are clear and settled decisions—

[Captain of the King’s Bodyguard of the Yeomen of the Guard and Deputy Chief Whip (Baroness Wheeler) (Lab)]

Could I ask the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, to write to the noble and right reverend Lord about those things? We have had enough explanation from the noble and learned Lord. We need to move on to the noble Lord, Lord Carlile.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak very briefly in relation to Amendments 186, 251 and 380, all of which were tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, and two of which are supported by me. The noble Lord has asked me to give his apologies to the Committee; his wife has suffered an accident and he is, quite rightly, looking after her at home.

I know that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, would have agreed, as I do, with many of the speeches that have been made to the effect that palliative care knowledge must be a prerequisite in any person’s decision-making. There have been many excellent speeches. I simply refer to two as examples: one from the noble Baroness, Lady Brown of Silvertown, and the other from my noble friend Lord Carter.

I represented a constituency in rural Wales that consists of 839 square miles with no general hospital. I absolutely take the point made by my noble friend Lady Watkins that a great deal of the skill and knowledge in relation to palliative care does not depend on there being a general hospital and can be supplied by nurses; for example, those who work in the area concerned. However, it is extremely important that nobody—whether they live somewhere remote, or they live somewhere populous but feel remote—should be deprived of a contribution from, and knowledge of, palliative care before ever making such a decision.

[Baroness Wheeler (Lab)]

My Lords, it is now 2.33 pm. I suggest that the Committee might like to hear from Front-Benchers now to ensure that we can conclude proceedings in an orderly manner, as planned, around 3 pm.

[Lord Goodman of Wycombe (Con)]

I have an amendment to which I have not yet been able to speak. Surely it is right and proper that those of us who have tabled amendments should be able to speak—especially where, as is true in my case, a noble Lord was a member of the Select Committee that examined this Bill. If the Committee will allow it, I would like briefly to quote some of the evidence that we heard.

[Baroness Wheeler (Lab)]

My Lords, the House generally rises around 3 pm on Fridays. To go beyond 3 pm, we would need the consent of the Committee.

[Lord Goodman of Wycombe (Con)]

I will be extremely brief but, as I said, I have tabled an amendment and have been waiting patiently to speak to it, if I may. My Amendment 394 would require the assessing doctor to arrange, and require the person to attend, a consultation with a palliative care specialist. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, who moved the lead amendment in this group, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, who spoke earlier, I was on the Select Committee. I will not repeat the evidence that the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, quoted, but I shall very briefly quote a little more, because the merit of having these Select Committee reports is that the House hears them.

The Royal College of General Practitioners said:

“It is essential to ensure that every patient approaching the end of life has access to high-quality palliative care”.


Secondly, Professor Mumtaz Patel of the Royal College of Practitioners said:

“What I really fear is that people are making sometimes these choices because of the lack of provision around good palliative care”.


Thirdly, Hospice UK, in its written evidence to us, said:

“Should the Bill progress, it is therefore essential that Government does far more to ensure equitable access to and provision of palliative care ahead of the introduction of assisted dying in practice”.


I could quote more, but because of the time constraint, I will come to a conclusion, as requested.

My conclusion is this. When the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, gave evidence to our committee, he stressed at the start that the guiding principle of the Bill is autonomy, but autonomy is compromised if there is not real choice. To those who say that you cannot have real choice between assisted dying and palliative care because the palliative care is not available, my response is that that is precisely why this should have been considered by a royal commission, rather than being brought into this Bill, which has been so heavily criticised by two Select Committees of this House. However, we are where we are, this is the Bill as we have it, so I wait to hear from the sponsor of the Bill which of these amendments he is prepared to accept and, if he is not, which amendments he himself will bring forward in due course.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, this is a self-regulating House, and that does not mean that a Government Whip can regulate who can speak and who cannot. I echo the point made by my noble friend. If the only way one can speak in these debates is to sign amendments, I know what to do in future.

I spoke for five minutes on the Friday before Christmas and said not a peep in the debate earlier today because it was not my speciality. I have been waiting here for two hours to make a speech on palliative care, and we seem to have been refused the right to do so because the Government Whip wants us not to say anything so that we can finish at 3 o’clock. I agree that we can finish at 3 o’clock—it is a simple matter for the House to adjourn and come back to polish off this matter next Friday morning—but it would be absolutely outrageous for noble Lords who have not had a chance to speak at all on palliative care to be refused the right to do so because the Government have imposed an arbitrary timetable on us.

[Baroness Wheeler (Lab)]

My Lords, it is not an arbitrary timetable. Many people have spoken on palliative care both at Second Reading and today, and I respect that totally. I am just saying that we need to respect the rules of the House to be able to adjourn. It is better if we finish this amendment so that we can start the next session with a new debate.

European Convention on Human Rights

Baroness Wheeler Excerpts

Thursday 17th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Whitaker (Lab)]

My Lords—

[Captain of the King’s Bodyguard of the Yeomen of the Guard and Deputy Chief Whip (Baroness Wheeler) (Lab)]

My Lords, we will hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Winterton.

Humanist Weddings

Baroness Wheeler Excerpts

Monday 30th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Meacher (CB)]

My Lords—

[Captain of the King’s Bodyguard of the Yeomen of the Guard and Deputy Chief Whip (Baroness Wheeler) (Lab)]

We will hear from the Conservative Benches, then from the noble Baroness.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

I am grateful. Has the Minister refreshed his memory as to what he said on this subject on 25 April 2022 when he was in opposition? This is what he said:

“My Lords, the Liberal Democrats clearly support this change; the Labour Party supports this change; the Government in Wales support this change; the Government in Scotland support this change … so why are the Government waiting for the Law Commission’s report?”.—[Official Report, 25/4/22; col. 9.]


Can he now answer his own question?

Arbitration Bill [HL]

Baroness Wheeler Excerpts

3rd reading
Wednesday 6th November 2024 Lords Chamber

I had the honour, many years ago, of presiding over a committee assessing the law—

[Baroness Wheeler (Lab)]

This is Third Reading. We do not do long speeches. Please wind up. This is not appropriate.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

Yes, this is Third Reading.