Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Kevin Bonavia Excerpts

Friday 16th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I thank the hon. Member for his point of order, but he will know that that is not a matter for the Chair.

I remind the House that although there is no formal time limit, many Members wish to contribute in this very important debate and it would be helpful if Members could keep their remarks to within the eight minutes that was suggested.

[Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)]

On Second Reading, I voted in favour of the Bill, partly because I believed in the principle of it—I believe the right to choice, and in the right not to choose—and partly because I believed that we needed to have a way of checking somebody’s clear intention. At the moment, horrible deaths are happening and there are no such checks in place, so I was keen to see how this House could come up with a system that, although it would not be perfect, would be better than the terrible status quo we have now.

At that stage, we had two checks by medical practitioners, and then a third layer: the involvement of a High Court judge. Although I was pleased with a third layer, I was not convinced that it was the right way to deal with the matter. I am therefore pleased that that the Bill Committee proposed a panel of experts to make those checks, and the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) has rightly addressed some of those points.

For me, having that panel in place is very important, and it is our job to see how we can strengthen it, so I want to speak to amendments 78 and 79. Amendment 78 would improve this provision by ensuring that there is a unanimous decision in favour of a certificate of eligibility—abstentions would not apply. That is better than what was previously drafted and is certainly better than a High Court judge. Amendment 79 would require those reasons to be set out in writing. There will be scrutiny of those decisions and we do need to have the reasons properly set out.

I appreciate that all hon. Members in the Chamber, and all those who have taken part in this process, have approached it with the best of intentions. It is not easy—it is difficult—and we have constituents giving us examples from both sides. We are doing the best we can to alleviate people’s suffering—that, I hope, is our common intention across the House.

[Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)]

Like my hon. Friend, I found the decision to vote for the Bill on Second Reading a difficult choice, as it was for many, but it was to improve the current situation and to have dignity in dying. Does he agree that we should not impose on the Bill significant restrictions that would render it ineffective if passed?

[Kevin Bonavia]

My hon. Friend is right to think about the impact of restrictions. Today we are all trying, in our different ways, to improve the Bill, whether we believe in it in principle or not. I believe that the amendments to which I am speaking would improve the Bill.

As we all think carefully about the different parts of the Bill, we should ask ourselves this question: would it make things better than the status quo? I believe that it would. I believe that there would be fewer horrible, painful deaths. The amendments help in that direction. I remain a supporter of the Bill, and ask other hon. Members to think carefully too.