Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Lord Johnson of Lainston Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 12th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)]

My Lords, I feel pretty humbled by the debate so far and by the many people who wrote to me; I thank them for doing so. I feel certain that the nation is looking to us here today in this House to deliver on this final liberty—that of being able to decide how, in certain specific circumstances, one leaves this world. I know that there are rightly concerns about the Bill and how, in practice, the prospect of giving people this right will operate, and I do not take this lightly.

Obvious and reasonable objections have been well raised today, and these concerns must be answered by the body politic. We must be aware that people may feel pushed to end their life early, as we have just heard. Vulnerable people must be protected, and I am always sceptical as to how the state can be genuinely compassionate. Safeguarding, well-being and other such nomenclature are often simply a mechanism to protect institutions and facades behind which officials hide.

These are not technicalities. We should also not use this, as has been well raised, as an excuse to reduce funding for palliative and end-of-life care. For this to be right and proper, it must indeed be a genuine choice, not a false one. However, in reality, this Bill is more about decriminalising those who help me with a choice that I want to make than about giving me that choice in the first place. As the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, has just so eloquently said, we already have that choice, but it is absurdly complex and solitary, and those who love us are removed from the process.

This Bill changes that. It allows us to have access to proper care in this country; it enables us to have real dignity in our departure; and it ends these, in my view, absurd situations we currently endure, where a spouse is arrested, potentially at Heathrow, having taken their partner to Dignitas. The fact is that this is happening today, already, in the worst possible way, and this Bill, with however many issues it contains, is at least fundamentally better than the situation we currently suffer. To this end, we in this House must not let the complexities defeat us. We should not use the technical needs of regulation as a block on the principle. I, who fundamentally dislike all forms of regulation, actually, in this instance, support proper clarity for doctors and a structure for families around this urgent need. We should be more fearful of failing to deliver this freedom than of the risks that the freedom of choice may entail, because with freedom always come risks. It behoves us to use all our talents to find a way to deliver on this last and final right of our citizens.

I am an optimist. Legislation can be revised and reviewed. Secretaries of State can take common-sense decisions, it is true, and the medical and other professions can pride themselves on really owning the process over which they have control. This is all possible. People often ask: what is the House of Lords for? I say it is precisely for situations like today, where we focus on solving complex and highly sensitive problems with a single goal in mind, which is to allow people to live their lives as they want, free from pain and suffering, from the moment they are born to the very end. I look forward to working through this Bill with that single objective in my mind.

Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill

Lord Johnson of Lainston Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 27th June 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

I add my recognition to the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, for the extraordinary attention to detail and persistence that she has shown in taking forward this very important issue. I know that the Minister will talk to us about the review that is coming in, but there still remain certain aspects that could be brought in immediately—for example, an expectation that every company at least has a policy on whistleblowing. We do not have to wait for a review to achieve that.

We have heard some extraordinary testimony through the debates on the Bill, and the real heartache and personal cost that have befallen people who have not had a good experience. As the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, said, too many people wait until their job or career comes to an end before they give any details, if they do at all, on the issues that concern them.

This is an extraordinarily important issue. We need to make sure that the pressure is on. I ask the Minister to give us some reassurance about the review, what will happen when it is concluded, and what the mechanism will be to make sure that its findings are put into practice.

[The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade (Lord Johnson of Lainston) (Con)]

Before I speak to the amendment in this group, I draw your Lordships’ attention to my interests as set out in the register.

I turn to Amendment 136. I personally thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, for raising the very important matter of whistleblowing. I have been extremely grateful for the time that she spent with me ahead of this debate, and look forward to continuing being an important conduit for her into the Government, trying to seek a good resolution around the noblest of intentions. I am also grateful to my noble friend Lady Altmann and the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, as always, for their useful, contributory, collaborative comments.

This Government recognise how valuable it is that whistleblowers are prepared to shine a light on wrongdoing and believe that they should be able to do so without fear of recriminations. This entire process fits within the spirit of the ECCT Bill. I pay tribute to the courage displayed by individuals who blow the whistle on wrongdoing.

I appreciate that there is real strength of feeling on this topic, but the Government’s position is still that it is premature to make legislative change ahead of the review of the whistleblowing framework, which has been mentioned in this debate. The Government recognise that there are different proposals for an office for the whistleblower, and the roles and functions that such a body could have.

The office risks duplication and confusion within the established whistleblowing framework. It is not necessarily clear how the office would interact with the existing prescribed persons, many of whom have regulatory powers in specific sectors. It may duplicate their role and responsibilities. It is also not clear how the office would interact with the current approach to detriment protection for whistleblowers and the role of the employment tribunal, and how whistleblowers and employers would be affected.

Secondly, there is an issue around the costs associated with establishing and running a body. It is not clear how the body would be funded, and we should think very carefully before committing taxpayers’ money, even though this is clearly a very important cause that deserves significant amounts of attention.

Finally, I would not want the Government to take such a dramatic step before they have fully considered the effectiveness of our existing framework as well. As I am sure noble Lords would agree, it would be premature to make legislative change before the ongoing review of the whistleblowing framework has concluded and the Government have assessed the evidence.

It is worth pointing out that we were one of the first countries to introduce a whistleblowing framework, and our framework is well established. Internationally, we are regarded as a leader in whistleblowing policy and our framework has been used as a model for other jurisdictions, such as Australia and Ireland. The whistle- blowing framework recognises that workers are actually the first line of defence for employers to detect and take action where wrongdoing is taking place or has the potential to do so. Workers who believe that they have been dismissed or otherwise detrimentally treated for making a protected disclosure can make a claim to the employment tribunal, which can award unlimited compensation.