Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Lord Bishop of Newcastle Excerpts

Friday 12th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Bishop of Newcastle]

My Lords, this is not the first country in which I have lived and worked during such a debate as this. I was a Bishop in New Zealand ahead of the referendum on a similar Bill there five years ago. I witnessed the arguments, heard the reassurances and have since followed its implementation, including the pressures on healthcare professionals and the unforeseen consequences from a lack of clarity around process.

Only recently, New Zealand published its five-year review of the Act, highlighting significant practical challenges, concluding that the review committee is ineffective as an oversight body and recommending reforms. Five years on from the passing of a Bill much like the one before us, it would be irresponsible not to take its findings seriously. Most strikingly, the report highlights confused principles for the service and even recommends that the New Zealand Government establish specific principles to underpin the Act. This is no small matter—to be five years into providing the service without clarity on the principles on which it was built. For legislation where the consequences of poor drafting are so high, it is alarming that such principles were not defined from the outset. Yet, almost a year into the passage of this Private Member’s Bill, we are still discussing core concepts, without sufficient detail on how a state-sponsored suicide service would be implemented. That should trouble us all.

In that regard, I will support the amendment put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Berger, to enable at least more scrutiny by professional bodies. While such uncertainty remains about how the Bill would operate alongside our most important end-of-life care institutions, we should not legislate at this speed or in this way. Our first responsibility must be to ensure that palliative and end-of-life care is accessible and effective for all. Last week, I visited a hospice in Newcastle. I saw and heard at first hand how an affirmation of life and dignity matters for all of us. Proponents of the Bill say that it is about choice, yet I cannot see how this is true when it is both unsafe and unworkable in its current form.

Within the Judaeo-Christian tradition, the idea of being human begins with God, as my right reverend friend the Bishop of Southwark has asserted—the sense of transcendence that informs personhood. Our obsession with selfhood and individual choice belies our dignity and respect for others. In being human, we begin not so much with selfhood but with the idea of the other and of who we are in the realisation of community and society.

Surely, the moral imperative is to help people live. I recall the words of my Bishop, growing up in the north-east, David Jenkins—words now written on his tomb:

“God is. He is as He is in Jesus. So there is hope”.


It is this that deepens and enriches my vision of life and faith, a vision of hope in humanity shared with those of other faiths and none, which are inextricably bound together. I cannot support the Bill and urge other noble Lords to resist it too.

Employment Rights Bill

Lord Bishop of Newcastle Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 13th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Bishop of Newcastle]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, for tabling Amendments 78 and 79, to which I have added my name in support. My comments will be brief. I add my voice to those of other noble Lords in the Chamber in appreciation of the debates that we have heard today on the detail of the Bill, which in many ways indicate the interrelatedness of the issues before us, and about what it is to live well together to enable the flourishing of every person throughout their whole lives.

I am very grateful to the Minister for her engagement with me over several months on the matter of kinship care, and I acknowledge the Government’s evolving view on how best to ensure consistent and sustainable support for kinship carers. I appreciate that the Minister is open to further conversations, and I look forward to them.

Part of the challenge is providing a clear, agreed and workable definition of kinship care, and there is more work to be done on this, recognising that Amendment 79 sets out in some way to go about this task. It is about finding the right balance to achieve what is needed in supporting kinship carers and is not so open as to be unworkable in law and unrealistic in affordability. That, to me, is a challenge—it is around the parameters of what kinship care is—but I do not think that it is unresolvable.

However, the longer we take to get to this point, the more lives are being impacted. Kinship carers are overrepresented in the health, education and social care sectors, so the withdrawal from this labour market has an obvious impact on wider society. The north-east region, which I serve, has the highest rates of children in kinship care. The impact of this in real terms, given multiple and systemic factors of inequality, is immense.

Amendment 78 would grant kinship carers the right to take statutory paid leave, as the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, said, akin to the entitlements of adoptive parents. It would allow them to spend a period of protected time with the children entering their care as they settle into their new arrangements. Further, it would enable caregivers to remain in employment while they adjust to their new responsibilities and continue contributing to the economic growth that this Government strive for.

I again thank the Minister for her willingness to meet me and engage with these amendments. I urge her to carefully consider the difference these amendments would make to the lives of kinship carers, to those growing up in their loving care and to wider society.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the right reverend Prelate, who makes a strong case for more support for kinship carers. I added my name to Amendments 135 and 144 to demonstrate cross-party support for a squarer deal for carers.

Before I add a brief word to what has already been said about carers, I add a quick word about Amendment 77, on foster care. A long time ago, my wife and I were registered foster parents in the London Borough of Lambeth. We did short-term fostering, typically when a mother went into hospital to have a child and somebody needed to look after her existing child or children. It is not quite clear from the wording of Amendment 77 how short-term foster parents might qualify if the amendment became law.

If the definition in Amendment 78 was used—namely, that the fostering of a child had to last a year—then short-term foster parents would not qualify, even though they might have been providing short-term fostering for up to a year with a series of different children. Short-term fostering can last from two days to two years. On the other hand, should a two-day short-term fostering spell qualify for leave on its own? Probably not—so, we need a bit of clarity on entitlement if this is to go further.

Domestic Abuse: Victims and Survivors

Lord Bishop of Newcastle Excerpts

Thursday 12th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Bishop of Newcastle]

My Lords, homes and relationships should be places where people feel safe and loved but, with Northumbria Police receiving about 115 calls about domestic abuse per day, this is sadly not the case for many. The north-east has particularly high rates of domestic violence, at 19 per 1,000 population according to Health Equity North, while the average for the whole of England is 13.

Steps are being taken to reduce this number, with Northumbria Police having placed domestic abuse specialists in their emergency call rooms since 2022. The project has received positive feedback, and I welcome the Government’s plans to introduce this more widely through Raneem’s law.

At the end of May, I met the family of Holly Newton, a 15 year-old girl who was stalked and murdered by her ex-boyfriend in Hexham, Northumberland, which is in my diocese. The noble Baroness, Lady Chisholm, mentioned Holly in her opening speech. The law states that this case was not one of domestic abuse, as both the victim and the perpetrator were under the age of 16, and it was classified as knife crime. This places an emphasis on the weapon rather than the build-up to the crime, which showed clear signs of domestic abuse.

In light of the recent Youth Endowment Fund survey of teenagers aged 13 to 17, which found that 49% had experienced some form of violent or controlling behaviour in their relationships in the past year, what consideration have the Government given to lowering the age limit to include those under 16 in the definition of domestic abuse?

I commend the Government’s ambition to halve violence against women and girls in a decade, but I fear that it is not possible without more focus on prevention. Holly’s family have raised the need to improve relationship education. The YEF survey also found that only 40% of respondents had lessons on building healthy, respectful romantic relationships, and even fewer teens received practical advice on recognising or addressing unhealthy relationships. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that teenagers receive high-quality education on healthy relationships and spotting signs of violence and coercion?

Bold ambitions require bold actions. I hope that this Government have the courage to take the necessary actions, centring the voices of victims and survivors.