Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Lord Pannick

Committee stage
Friday 5th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, we have completed three groups of amendments, which is fewer than I had hoped for when I spoke in the House this morning. All noble Lords need to reflect on that before we resume consideration of the Bill next Friday.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

Before the noble Lord adjourns proceedings, can I ask him whether he would give anxious consideration to how we are going to complete Committee on this enormously important Bill, which this House may well want to amend and may well wish to disagree with at Third Reading? It is surely essential that this House is provided with the time that enables us to do our job, because if we do not do our job, it will be enormously damaging to the reputation of this House. Is there any way in which he can give thought to this over the next few days?

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

I am very happy to give thought to that. When I came to this Dispatch Box a couple of weeks ago and announced the extra days, I hoped that that would assist the House, but at this rate of progress I think we may still struggle. I am very happy to consider that. My door remains open to anybody for whom I can give assistance on that. The point that I keep making is that, at the end of the day, this is a Private Member’s Bill and the Government remain neutral on the Bill itself.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Lord Pannick

Committee stage
Friday 14th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, as it is nearly 2.30 pm, it might be helpful to the Committee to know that, when my noble friend Lady Merron has responded for the Government Front Bench and my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer has responded, I intend to invite the House to resume; that will bring today’s debate to a close. That is my intention but, obviously, it is a matter for the Committee to decide what it wants to do.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

Can the noble Lord give some guidance on the issue of timing? As has just been indicated, if it were not obvious before this morning, it is now perfectly obvious that four days is not going to be enough for the Committee stage of this Bill. There is unanimity that this is an exceptionally important Bill and that this House has to carry out its constitutional function of scrutinising it. It would be enormously damaging to the reputation of this House if, because of timing, we were unable to do that task. Will the Government make government time available?

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

I thank the noble Lord for that point. As I said at the start, the Government remain neutral and will not be providing government time for this Bill. Obviously, we will look at things when we get to the end of our four days in Committee. I will then work with the usual channels to see what other time can be made available from non-government time, but we will have to see whether we will move on over the next few days.

Equality and Human Rights Commission: Draft Updated Code of Practice

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Lord Pannick

Wednesday 5th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords—

[Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)]

We will hear from the Cross Benches.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

Does the Minister agree that, today, it is the obligation of all persons, whether private or public, to comply with the judgment of the Supreme Court, whether they agree with it or not, and without waiting for guidance?

Gaza: Ceasefire

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Lord Pannick

Tuesday 18th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)]

We will hear from the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, next and then from my noble friend Lord Grocott.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that the tragedy of Gaza is going to continue until Hamas is removed from power? Can he explain what he wants to say on this subject to Ayelet Epstein, who is watching these proceedings and whose son Netta was murdered by Hamas on 7 October when he successfully shielded his fiancée from a grenade?

Arrangement of Business

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Lord Pannick

Wednesday 15th May 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, I fully endorse the comments from the Government Chief Whip. As I have said before, if we follow the Companion we will get more interventions from Members across the House. As she said, Question Time is Question Time; it is not speech time.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, let me point out that the problem yesterday was that Front-Bench questions were so long that there was no time for any Back-Bench contribution.

Crime (Overseas Production Orders) Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Lord Pannick

Ping Pong (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 11th February 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Pannick]

I am entirely in agreement with the noble and learned Lord. All I was saying was that I would not wish to assert to the House that it would be a breach of our international obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights to provide information to another state in circumstances where we are not extraditing a person to that state. The courts and the European court may take a different view. I have no doubt that in the legal proceedings arising from the case referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, one of the grounds of challenge would have been that this is a breach of the human rights of the individual concerned, who, as a consequence of our providing the information, may face a death penalty. That is why I should like the Minister to give any further assistance to the House on what the court said.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, I make clear at the start that we support the Bill, as noble Lords throughout the House have. My party and I oppose the death penalty. I fully accept that the Government and the noble Baroness have moved forward, and in that sense the new clause before us today is welcome. The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, has set out the treaties, conventions and obligations that we have signed, which underpin the intention and support of the British Government to oppose the death penalty.

This House has many important functions, and asking the Government to think again is one of them. It is right to do so again here: we need to look at this issue once more. I have expressed concern many times from this Dispatch Box about this risk; particularly around Brexit, whatever else we do, we must never allow a situation where we are helping criminals or terrorists. I ask the House to think again. It is not about helping criminals or terrorists; it is about ensuring that we support the things that we, as a country, believe are right. It was the Labour MP Sydney Silverman whose Private Member’s Bill in 1965 abolished the death penalty for murder. For treason and other offences, it was not until 1998 that it was finally abolished completely.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, set out some serious legal matters about where we are going with this. In the context of those, and the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, it is right for this House to ask the Government to think again. I entirely accept that when the Bill is passed nothing will happen until the treaty is signed, but it is not wrong, at this stage, to ask the Commons to look at it once more. I also understand that the amendment is about information going to other countries.

In conclusion, this is an important amendment. If the noble Lord divides the House, we will support him.