Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Gavin Robinson Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 29th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Danny Kruger]

What the Bill actually says is that a doctor means

“a registered medical practitioner…who has such training, qualifications and experience as the Secretary of State may specify by regulations”.

Obviously they are some sort of regulated medic—I recognise that—but they are not necessarily a doctor. We will find out. I recognise that they will have professional qualifications, but it is not clear what those are going to be because it is not in the Bill.

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for the way in which he is engaging in this discussion, in the same spirit as the hon. Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater). We often hear that one of the safeguards associated with the Bill is that medical practitioners would be involved and that a diagnosis of a terminal illness, with six months or less to live, would be required. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that medicine is not an exact science? It is the science of uncertainty blended with the art of probability. There is no exactitude in this. No court will second-guess medical opinion; it will simply look at process.

[Danny Kruger]

I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman; he is absolutely right. I am afraid that the definition of terminal illness is in a sense the essential flaw in the Bill, but I will come on to that.

Going back to the conversation that the patient has with the medical practitioner, the crucial point is that the conversation does not need to be started by the patient, according to the Bill. It could be started by the medic—any medic—perhaps in hospital, who could make the suggestion of an assisted death to a patient who has never raised the issue themselves, whose family have never suggested it and whose own doctor does not think it is the right thing to do. And so the idea is planted.

Then, for whatever reason—and, by the way, there is no need ever to give a reason—the patient says that they want to proceed with an assisted death. They sign a declaration, or rather somebody else can sign it for them. It could be any professional, someone they do not know—maybe a new medical practitioner. A total stranger can do all the paperwork on their behalf. That is what the clause about the proxy entails. Then these two medical practitioners make their assessment.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Gavin Robinson Excerpts

Report stage
Friday 20th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Kevin McKenna), though I will reach a slightly different conclusion from him. Although she is not in the Chamber, may I remark on the principled stand taken by the hon. Member for Lewisham North (Vicky Foxcroft), not only today but in her decision last night? I think it will stand her in good political stead.

My colleagues and I will vote against Third Reading, and that should come as no surprise to Members in this House. We do not do it from a party political perspective, though we will all act as one party, and we do not do it because of a Whip. We will act as one out of our common but personal faith. We are assured that our beliefs will not be a determining factor today. In parliamentary terms, we understand that just because we hold a view, it does not mean that everyone in this Chamber will hold it, and our votes are equal.

The question before us today is not on a principle; it is on this Bill. We heard Members say very clearly and forcefully on Second Reading that they wished to start the parliamentary process to see how the Bill would evolve, how it could be strengthened, and what safeguards could be put in place. We are assured that the Bill is in a worse position today than it was on Second Reading.

We heard 61 Members specify that there should be judicial involvement in the process. Another 20 articulated their support for this legislation on the basis of legal safeguards that have now gone. We have been honourable in listening, but honourably we have to reflect that the Bill is not where it should be; that the assurances offered on Second Reading have been removed; that the balance promised in Committee is not there; and that the protections offered and suggested have been stripped away.

Just yesterday, a constituent told me that when she was diagnosed with cancer for the first time, she approached the matter with a determination that surprised her, and she survived. When she was diagnosed the second time, she approached it with despair, and had this Bill been available to her, she would have availed herself of its measures. She would have satisfied the conditions on the basis of medical advice at the time. She told me this story yesterday, and that diagnosis was in 2012.

The quote I shared on Second Reading is as true today as when it was first said 120 years ago:

“Medicine is a science of uncertainty and an art of probability.”

There is nothing that can be determined to the point of legal certainty—or, from our perspective, moral certainty. I say to colleagues across the House—not those who, like me, have a defined and determined position, and a principled position from which we will not yield, but those who are actively thinking about what to do today—that the parliamentary process has not served us well. Whatever time it takes, the House of Lords will debate and vote on each and every amendment. We were not allowed to, and did not.

To the socialists in this Chamber, I say: you speak proudly of the values of the NHS and the values of welfare, and you want to stand up for those principles, so think about what you do today. To the internationalists, I say: it is not in your tradition to turn the other cheek or walk on the other side of the road. You do not turn your back on the weak and the vulnerable, the oppressed and the burdened, so please do not do it today. This Bill and your say on it will be final, but it will be final in a much more fundamental way for our constituents and our loved ones throughout this United Kingdom. I ask you to approach this Bill and your perspective on it on the basis of your principles alone.

To the trade unionists, I say: what do the trade unions say? Royal college after royal college has expressed its concerns, fear and trepidation; they have said that they will not stand over their members when it comes to this Bill, but they have concerns. We do not need to think in the abstract. In this Chamber, we voted for medicinal cannabis. How many medicinal practitioners are prescribing it? They are not, because their trade unions and their governing bodies do not support them or insure them in that endeavour.

This Bill is not what has been outlined, not what has been promised, and not as good as this Chamber could make it. I hope that colleagues reflect honourably on what they have said, not only on Second Reading, but to themselves. On the basis of the principles that many colleagues hold dear—principles of socialism, internationalism or trade unionism—I hope that they will do what we will do, and vote for light, hope and life.

[Several hon. Members rose—]