Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Debate between Lord Gove and Lord Pannick

Committee stage
Friday 21st November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Gove (Con)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 52, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson. I do so as the Government Chief Whip who helped ensure that the Serious Crime Act 2015 was placed on the statute book, and as the Justice Secretary who was responsible for some of its provisions thereafter.

I am hugely grateful to the noble Baroness for raising the vital question of domestic abuse and violence in the context of coercion. I do not believe that this has been suitably explored, canvassed or analysed before. I would be grateful for the reflections of the Bill’s sponsor on how we might protect some of the most vulnerable in our society.

I will respond very briefly to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, who pointed out that there may well be inadequate protections for those people who are coerced or persuaded into declining treatment that might prolong their life at the end of their life. There may well be inadequate protection and a case for stronger protection but, as has been pointed out before, there is a world of difference between declining treatment that might preserve your life and having a lethal injection that will end your life. It is a point that the medical profession fully understands and one that should be firmly borne in mind.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

This is at the heart of the Bill. Is there really such a profound difference between an individual being able to say, “I’m going to stop chemotherapy” or “I’m going to stop eating because my life is intolerable”, and that person saying to the doctor, “I wish to have a potion that will have the same result”? There is a difference, but the main difference is that the person can die with dignity.

[Lord Gove (Con)]

I think there is a profound difference, but the noble Lord has made his point and I shall allow others to judge whether the narrowness of the distinction that he draws is appropriate.

On the whole question of domestic violence, the legislation that was introduced in 2015 specifically introduced the idea of coercive and controlling behaviour as an aspect of domestic violence: the idea that domestic violence need not require physical harm. It was an advance in the law that was brought forward by my friend Robert Buckland in that legislation. It was absolutely vital and it made us a world-leading jurisdiction in recognising the danger of this particular type of abuse and violence.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Debate between Lord Gove and Lord Pannick

Report stage
Wednesday 9th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Gove (Con)]

My Lords, I hesitate to rise in this debate and was not intending to, but since no other Member of this House has spoken in opposition to the amendment from the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, I shall do so very briefly.

I hesitate to do so because when I was Education Secretary, I introduced legislation to deal with persistent absentees, and therefore it might be thought that I was in sympathy with the intent behind this amendment. But one of the reasons why I am very cautious about seeing this amendment go further is this. It is based on a false premise that we hear often, which is that this House has too many Members and new schemes must be found somehow to identify those who should be expunged or removed at any point. If we look at the Division lists in the votes that we have just had, the numbers are lower than one would expect in some of the Divisions in the other place. The suggestion that there are too many Members can often be a means of trying to get rid of those Members whom the Executive or others, for whatever reason, ideologically or otherwise, find inconvenient—a stone in the shoe. We in this House should not be seeking to reduce the range of voices, to limit the number of Members or indeed, potentially, to forfeit expertise.

That takes me to my second point. Many of those Members of this House who will not be here for 10%, 11% or 12% of the time—or whatever arbitrary percentage figure we choose—will be people of eminence who will be occupied outside in deploying their expertise for the public good or who will have achieved eminence in a particular role. They may be, for example, former Prime Ministers. Would it be right if we found that, for example, Theresa May—the noble Baroness, Lady May —had attended this House for only 8% or 9% of Sittings in a given year and should somehow be expelled? That would be an outrage, but that is what would happen if we followed this arbitrary proposal.

That takes me to my third point. I know that this amendment comes from a place of courtesy and consideration and that the Cross Benches are anxious to ensure that this House can accommodate the request for reform that comes from the other place and from outside. That is why I am so cautious in pushing back. But, rather than seeking to bend the operation of our House to those who are not in sympathy with it, we should seek to ensure that it operates effectively in challenging faulty legislation and in making sure that expertise is deployed—not in attempting to regulate our numbers but in attempting to regulate the flow of legislation that comes from the other place which is faulty and which benefits from the expertise here. If we lose a single voice that is expert and authoritative in challenging that Executive, we undermine the case for this place. That is why, with the greatest respect, I oppose this amendment.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, we undermine respect for this House if we continue to have people who do not turn up more than once in each Session. The answer to the point from the noble Lord, Lord Gove, about previous Prime Ministers is that the rule is not absolute, because Section 2(3)(b) of the legislation being amended provides that the House may resolve that the period of attendance should not apply to the particular Peer

“by reason of special circumstances”,

so there is already a statutory provision that allows for exceptions.

My other point in answer to the noble Lord is that we have already accepted the principle. Section 2(1) requires that each Peer must attend at least once during a Session, so we have accepted that people who do not comply with the timing position must go. The only question is whether that is a realistic limit. I entirely agree with the convenor that a once-in-a-Session provision is not an appropriate rule. A much more appropriate rule is to require people to be here 10% of the time.