Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Lord Johnson of Marylebone Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 19th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Johnson of Marylebone (Con)]

My Lords, I was one of 118 Members of the other place who voted unsuccessfully in favour of the Assisted Dying (No.2) Bill a decade ago when it was thrown out by that House in September 2015. Notwithstanding many powerful speeches that I listened to last Friday, and again today, my position on this subject has not changed. I support this latest effort to legalise it. As we have all heard, assisted dying has strong public support. It also has the mandate of the elected House in our Parliament. We should give it a fair hearing today and speed it on its way.

People who suffer from an incurable condition should not be forced against their will to endure intolerable suffering. The case for change, I believe, remains strong. It will provide terminally ill adults with the choice and dignity of a compassionate death within the law, and it will provide autonomy to those who feel that they are lacking agency and control over their lives.

There is also strong agreement in this House that the Bill is not yet perfect, and a desire to use our best efforts to improve it. That is what we should all focus on in the coming weeks. One area where it might benefit from further debate is the rather arbitrary, in my view, six-month threshold for eligibility. It will be worth us debating carefully whether there is not a case for instead having a test based on clinical progression, so that assisted dying is available to adults with a progressive disease, illness or condition from which they are unlikely to recover and which can be reasonably expected to cause their death.

Either way, I am confident that this House will do its job: it will scrutinise the Bill carefully and improve it where possible and where necessary.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Johnson of Marylebone Excerpts

Tuesday 18th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

We retain that target of 5,000 more GPs. We have managed to increase the number of staff working around GPs, because a GP does not need to do everything in primary care, so we have a more mixed workforce with physios and practice nurses working alongside GPs. There is more work still to do, and the NHS long-term plan sets out how we will make that happen.

[Joseph Johnson (Orpington) (Con)]

The leadership team at King’s College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust has asked for assistance from NHS Improvement to put in post a clinical director at the emergency services department, which has just been rated inadequate by the Care Quality Commission. This vital post, however, remains unfilled. What assurances can my right hon. Friend give that NHS Improvement can help trusts when they request assistance in this way?

[Matt Hancock]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. This is a vital post in a hospital and a hospital trust that does amazing work—some of the best medicine in the world is done at King’s—but it also has significant challenges with delivery, especially with respect to meeting financial targets and delivering value for money. King’s needs that support, which we are putting in place. I will raise the specific issue of the post he mentions with the head of NHS Improvement.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Johnson of Marylebone Excerpts

Tuesday 17th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

As the hon. Gentleman will—I hope—be fully aware, the view of Ministers is clear: any reconfiguration of services must be driven not by cost but by a need to improve clinical outcomes for patients; must be in line with the commissioning intentions of the local commissioning group; must be on the basis of strong patient and public engagement; and must protect the choice available to current and prospective patients. To that extent, I hope that all the necessary information to support those four tests is in the public domain.

[Joseph Johnson (Orpington) (Con)]

GP commissioners in Bromley have opened a consultation on the future of services currently provided at the Orpington hospital site. Will the Secretary of State ensure that the administrator recently appointed to South London Healthcare trust takes account of the consultation’s findings when drawing up his proposals for how best to put SLHT on a sustainable clinical and financial footing?

[Mr Lansley]

I hope that my hon. Friend is aware that when I appointed the trust special administrator and set a timetable for his work, I specifically added 30 days on an exceptional basis to the timetable for the production of his first report, one of the exceptional reasons being that an accelerated consultation should take place locally on the future of Orpington hospital.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Johnson of Marylebone Excerpts

Tuesday 7th December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

They will respond positively to patient choice and GP referral.

[Joseph Johnson (Orpington) (Con)]

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for agreeing to visit Queen Mary’s, Sidcup, tomorrow, recognising the strength of local opinion there about the closure of accident and emergency and maternity services temporarily over the winter period. I hope that on his return he will reassure my constituents in Orpington that the closure will not mean that the review of reconfiguration of local NHS services will be prejudged and will not put neighbouring hospitals such as those in my constituency under undue pressure.

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful. Tomorrow, I hope to assure myself, among other things, that the closure is temporarily demanded by virtue of the inability to secure enough staff to maintain a safe service for the time being and that it will not and does not pre-empt the question of availability of services at Queen Mary’s, Sidcup, on which a decision has not yet been reached locally or referred to me.