Speeches – The Church of England in Parliament

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill: Archbishop of Canterbury restates principled opposition to bill

The Archbishop of Canterbury also spoke in the final debate on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill on 24th March 2026, reiterating her opposition to the bill and the need for a different approach to scrutiny and debate should the bill return to the House:

The Lord Archbishop of Canterbury: My Lords, I shall briefly make some reflections. It is a great privilege to follow my friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Rafferty; I thank her for her contribution. I recognise the enormous amount of work that has gone into this Committee stage. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, for meeting me; I thank him for the time that he has given me.

Noble Lords will know that I oppose the Bill in principle, both as a priest and as a nurse, but it is clear that some things unify us. Whether we support the Bill or oppose it, we are unified by the fact that we want people to die in a dignified, pain-free and compassionate way, with the least possible fear. I also believe that we are unified in the belief that there needs to be investment in palliative care now. I welcome the new modern framework for palliative care that the Government have introduced, but recognise that financial investment still needs to occur.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill: Bishop of Newcastle speaks to concerns surrounding gravity of the bill

On 24th April 2026, the Bishop of Newcastle spoke in the final committee debate on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill before the prorogation of Parliament, stressing the serious nature of the issues contained in the bill and the concerns raised by the ongoing debate in the House of Lords:

The Lord Bishop of Newcastle: My Lords, I speak as one of the Lords spiritual and as a member of the Select Committee that examined the Bill. I do so with a deep sense of responsibility for the integrity of our legislative process and for the dignity and protection of those whose lives may be most directly affected by what we decide. I have been deeply moved by the personal stories that have been shared by noble Lords in recent months and wish to acknowledge the stories that my noble friend shared with us just now. My own dear cousin died earlier this week from a condition that could at many stages have been described as terminal. She continued resolutely to live life to its fullness, and her sudden death is a matter of great sadness to me.

In our context, where questions of life, death, care and conscience are so closely intertwined, the quality of our scrutiny is not a procedural detail. It is a moral necessity. Some may dismiss my contribution as one grounded in a faith, but this is as legitimate and significant as any other viewpoint, whether grounded in faith, belief or none. While my faith informs my alarm at our designation of dignity or the lack of it, it is from my experience on the Select Committee that I have found that, the more closely we have examined this Bill, the more concerns have come into focus, not fewer. For a Bill of this magnitude in terms of societal change, the highest level of scrutiny is imperative. Within our proceedings, there has been an acknowledgement, even from those closely involved in the Bill, that it is not yet in a settled or satisfactory form. When such admissions are made, it is incumbent on us to listen with care.

Bishop of Manchester highlights role of faith communities in civil preparedness

The Bishop of Manchester spoke in a debate on civil preparedness on 20th April 2026, speaking on the role of faith groups and the importance of civil liberties:

My Lords, I share the gratitude already expressed to the noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond, for securing this debate. In the short time available I will make just three brief observations, and I assure the Minister that none of them would lead to much expense.

First, on faith communities, I applaud that documents often refer to faith communities, but sometimes we appear to be wrapped up into a generic voluntary, community and faith sector. Faith groups are not just another example of voluntary or community activity; their reach goes much deeper into every corner of society. Their numbers far outweigh other bodies. They have different decision-making structures and are often networked in complex but effective ways, and many have significant links to the memberships of international bodies.

Our faith groups can and will have a major role to play in any situation that requires civil engagement and response, but that requires them to be seen as what they are, not lumped into a more convenient category. I am very grateful in my own diocese that the Greater Manchester Combined Authority fully recognises that distinctiveness. Having a very informed and supportive mayor means that we are recognised for who we are, and I believe that we make a major contribution already to civil society, as we could in terms of preparedness for a war situation.

Bishop of Chester speaks in debate on civil preparedness for conflict

The Bishop of Chester spoke in a debate on civil preparedness for war, stressing the need to rebuild trust and social support in society on 20th April 2026:

The Lord Bishop of Chester: My Lords, I add my gratitude to the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, for bringing this vital Question forward, and I declare my interest, having served for a brief while in chaplaincy in our Armed Forces. Both the SDR and the 2025 resilience action plan raise this whole-of-society approach as a “fundamental element” of our national security. We have heard comparisons with the Nordic states. I would also draw comparisons with such countries as Ukraine and Taiwan, except the difference is that social inequality is far greater in this nation.

I had intended to make some erudite points about faith communities, which are brought in by the resilience action plan—I am sure that my right reverend friend the Bishop of Manchester will make them far more eloquently than I could—but I was hijacked by an accidental focus group that I found myself conducting over the weekend. As I discussed this matter with my nieces, nephews and godchildren—a group of highly intelligent 18 to 27 year-old adults—some clear and, for me, shocking themes emerged.

Bishop of Southwark supports regret motions on changes to immigration regulations

On 14th April 2026, the Bishop of Southwark spoke in support of two regret motions regarding the Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules published on 5^th March 2026, expressing concern regarding the impact of the changes on refugees, family reunion, and discourse surrounding migration:

The Lord Bishop of Southwark: My Lords, it is a privilege to follow noble Members of this House speaking with wisdom, compassion and conviction. I understand that, in the current polarised climate, the Government want an immigration policy that is not only capable of exercising control over migration into this country but is demonstrably seen to be doing so. In that endeavour, the recent summary of immigration statistics, published for the year ending 31 December 2025, indicates a marked reduction in inward migration in most categories, although that of illegal channel crossings—itself not the largest category by some margin—remains stubbornly immune to downward pressure.

I wish to offer some observations from these Benches that, while sympathetic to where Ministers find themselves, none the less owe a debt of gratitude to the regret Motions from the noble Lords, Lord German and Lord Dubs, for making it possible to have this debate—for which I express thanks.

Bishop of Southwark pays tribute to departing Clerk of Parliaments

The Bishop of Southwark joined in tributes to the departing Clerk of Parliaments, Simon Burton, on 13th April 2026:

The Lord Bishop of Southwark: My Lords, from these Benches I echo the comments of those noble Lords who have gone before me. I pay tribute to Simon Burton, whose service as Clerk of the Parliaments has been of lasting value to the House.

The strength of our parliamentary life depends not only on those who speak in debate but on those who ensure that our work is carried out with integrity, order and constitutional faithfulness. In that vital task, Simon has served with distinction. As Clerk of the Parliaments, he has been both guardian of ancient custom and wise guide through modern complexity. He has exercised that responsibility with clarity of judgment, intellectual rigour and an unfailing sense of proportion.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill: Bishop of Southwark supports amendments on conscientious objections

The Bishop of Southwark spoke in support of an amendment to the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life Bill) intended to provide a framework for conscientious objections and opt-outs to the bill for a wider range of health and social care staff on 27th March 2026:

The Lord Bishop of Southwark: My Lords, I am glad to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, because I added my signature to Amendment 673 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Fraser, as did the noble Lords, Lord Carlile and Lord Hunt of Kings Heath.

Bishop of Newcastle raises issue of equal access to care during debate on access to healthcare for those with learning disabilities

The Bishop of Newcastle spoke in a debate on access to health and social care for those with learning disabilities on 26th March 2026, highlighting the need for equality of access to care:

The Lord Bishop of Newcastle: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, for bringing forward this Question for Short Debate. I acknowledge his very personal connection to this topic and echo the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsey of Wall Heath, in paying tribute to his powerful opening speech. I also express gratitude to the organisations that have written to me; I am particularly grateful for the extremely helpful briefing document from Mencap.

The topic of our debate has been on my mind since I sat on the Select Committee in your Lordships’ House as part of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill process. Persistent health inequalities for young people—well, for people generally—living with a learning disability and those with Down syndrome were raised on behalf of the National Down Syndrome Policy Group by Ken Ross, who gave evidence to the Select Committee describing

“a systemic direct and indirect bias shown within the health service, which could also be linked to a lack of understanding of the needs, wishes, health, learning and communication profiles of this particular group”.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

The Bishop of Manchester spoke in support of amendments on the topic of community rights during a debate on the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill on 26th March 2026:

The Lord Bishop of Manchester: My Lords, I think I have been cued in. I will speak to my Amendment 318A as—yes, still—the Bishop of Manchester. There is a vacancy in London, but I think I am too old to be considered.

Over the last 18 months, I have been chairing the Manchester Social Housing Commission. Central to our work has been the contributions that local residents and communities representing their neighbourhoods make to our thinking and, eventually, our recommendations. We have seen how empowered communities make a real difference. They are the people who know what it is like to live where they do. They can shape local services for the best results.

Far from being a problem for authorities to manage, communities continually demonstrate how they respond to the cost of living crisis or the epidemic of loneliness. People in communities are vital in driving their own solutions. As I go around my diocese, I see again and again how local people taking the initiative really make a difference.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill: Bishop of Southwark supports amendments on protection of those with communication difficulties

On 20th March 2026, during a debate on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, the Bishop of Southwark spoke in support of amendments to the bill focused on providing protection for those with speech, language, and communication difficulties:

The Lord Bishop of Southwark: My Lords, I support the amendments in this group, particularly Amendment 171 in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Nicholson of Winterbourne and Lady O’Loan.

Clause 5, as we have heard, introduces a key element in the infrastructure of assisted dying in this Bill by providing what is intended to be a safe, but not mandatory, introduction to the subject of death with the assistance of another human being. For proponents of the Bill, the advantages of such an introduction are obvious. In their minds, it will remove a good deal of unnecessary distress on the part of those who wish to proceed with such an option and on the part of those who do not. However, as we have heard from those of us who have long experience of pastoral encounters, the experience is likely to be rife with pitfalls.

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: