Bishop of Bristol asks Government about funding for relationships support

14.03 Bishop of BristolOn the 22nd June 2015  Baroness Tyler asked Her Majesty’s Government “which Minister has responsibility for family and relationship support policy; and what steps they are taking to deliver the commitment in the Conservative Party Manifesto 2015 to invest at least £7.5 million a year in relationship support.” the Bishop of  Bristol, Rt Revd Mike Hill, asked a further question.
Continue reading “Bishop of Bristol asks Government about funding for relationships support”

Bishop of Bristol- Mental Health (Written Answer)

On 25th March 2015 the Bishop of Bristol, Rt Revd Mike Hill, received an answer from the Government to a written question on places of safety, as designated under the Mental Health Act:

14.03 Bishop of BristolLord Bishop of Bristol: To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many places of safety have been provided under section 136 of the Mental Health Act 1983; and what assessment they have made of the geographic spread of such places.

Earl Howe (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health): The Care Quality Commission has created an interactive web-based map showing the location of designated health-based places of safety in England for people detained under section 136 of the Mental Health Act 1983:

http://www.cqc.org.uk/content/map-health-based-places-safety-0

The current version shows 167 places of safety in England.

(via Parliament.uk)

Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Mitochondrial Donation) Regulations 2015 – speech by Bishop of Carlisle

14.06.09 Bishop of CarlisleOn 24th February 2015 the House of Lords considered a Motion to Approve the Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Mitochondrial Donation) Regulations 2015, alongside a Motion from Lord Deben not to approve the Regulations but to set up a Joint Committee of Parliament to consider the issues in more detail. 

The Bishop of Carlisle, Rt Rev James Newcome, spoke during the debate, setting out his own position and that of the Church of England on the question of Mitochondrial Donation (also known as ‘three parent babies’). 

Earl Howe  concluded the debate on behalf of the government. An extract from his remarks can also be found below.

Concluding the debate, Lord Deben put his amendment to a vote, which was defeated: Contents 48; Not-Contents 280. The Bishops of Carlisle, Ely, St Albans and Worcester voted in favour of the amendment by Lord Deben. The Bishop of Norwich voted against the amendment. The Bishop of Bristol abstained. Continue reading “Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Mitochondrial Donation) Regulations 2015 – speech by Bishop of Carlisle”

Bishop of Bristol takes part in debate on Assisted Dying Bill

On 7th November 2014, the House of Lords held the Committee Stage of Lord Falconer of Thoroton’s Assisted Dying Bill. The Bishop of Bristol, the Rt Revd Mike Hill, spoke to two amendments that he sponsored and co-sponsored. The amendments sought to strengthen the decision-making process surrounding the application and ingestion of the drugs that would be used to enable someone to commit suicide. Following a short debate on the amendments, Lord Falconer agreed to bring back amendments at Report Stage dealing with the period of time between application and ingestion. However, he did not agree to make further changes to his Bill, as he claimed that the Bishop’s concerns were dealt with elsewhere in the Bill.The Bishop did not press his amendments to a vote.

14.03 Bishop of BristolThe Lord Bishop of Bristol: My Lords, I may not be the only one who is a bit confused about what is happening. I stand to speak in support of Amendment 12 tabled by my noble friend Lord McColl, but I would like to address noble Lords’ attention to Amendment 77, which stands in my name. I rather hoped it might have been grouped with Amendment 85, but they stand separately grouped now. I would like to reserve the right to come back to Amendment 85 at a later occasion and I hope a later occasion will occur for that to happen.

Amendment 77 deals with something slightly different. Quite rightly, most of our debate today has focused on the decision to apply for assisted suicide and to sign the declaration. However, it is fair to say that the request for assistance with suicide involves two different and discrete decisions: first, there is the decision to apply for it, and then there is the decision to ingest fatal drugs. The Bill makes it clear that there has to be a minimum of 14 days between the application and the actual ingestion of the drugs, except in the case of somebody who is given a prognosis of a month or less and then the time lag reduces to six days. Continue reading “Bishop of Bristol takes part in debate on Assisted Dying Bill”

Bishop of Bristol speaks against Assisted Dying Bill: raises concerns about ‘unintended consequences’

“Many of us who are opposed to the Bill are greatly concerned by the unintended consequences that it will inevitably bring into play. It is simply not good enough for those who support the Bill to dismiss out of hand this genuine concern. It is for them to give us consistent evidence that our fears are unfounded. Sadly, the available evidence appears to raise, rather than allay, anxiety.”

On 18th July 2014, the Bishop of Bristol, the Rt Revd Mike Hill, took part in the Second Reading debate of the Assisted Dying Bill. The Bishop spoke against the Bill, focusing on the unintended consequences that the Bill would present, if passed.

14.03 Bishop of Bristol

The Lord Bishop of Bristol: My Lords, many of us will speak today in the name of compassion, but, as is clear, we shall take very different views in terms of what compassion looks like in relation to those who are suffering unbearably and, in particular, as to whether my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer’s Bill is fit for the purposes he and his supporters pursue with such vigour. Continue reading “Bishop of Bristol speaks against Assisted Dying Bill: raises concerns about ‘unintended consequences’”

Votes: Immigration Bill (trafficking, citizenship)

House of Lords Division Lobby
House of Lords Division Lobby

Bishops took part in two votes in the House of Lords on amendments to the Government’s Immigration Bill at its Report Stage on 7th April 2014. In both cases the amendments passed, meaning the Government was defeated. Continue reading “Votes: Immigration Bill (trafficking, citizenship)”

Assisted Suicide Debate – Bishop of Bristol Warns Against Change in the Law

The Bishop of Bristol, the Rt Revd Mike Hill spoke during Baroness Jay’s question for short debate assessing the Director of Public Prosecutions Guidelines for prosecution for assisted suicide. The Bishop highlighted number of cases which have been inspected by the DPP and the need to prevent the original intention of legislation gradually slipping into a very different definition and drew attention to the case of Belgium where the law to allow assisted suicide has been recently extended to include terminally ill children. Lord Faulks responded to the debate for the Government and made no new legislativee commitments.

Baroness Jay of Paddington: To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they continue to be satisfied with the Director of Public Prosecutions’ Guidelines on prosecution for assisted suicide.

14.03 Bishop of BristolThe Lord Bishop of Bristol: My Lords, I add my own voice of gratitude to the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, for introducing the debate tonight. The DPP’s guidelines rightly give a central place to compassion in this vexed area. After more than 150 cases have been actively inspected by the DPP, it should now be clear to all that where a suffering patient wishes freely and without coercion to end their life, their family or friends who, motivated wholly by compassion, assist him or her to do so will not be prosecuted. There are many reasons for not moving beyond that legal position as some other countries have, but I shall refer to just one. Continue reading “Assisted Suicide Debate – Bishop of Bristol Warns Against Change in the Law”

Liverpool Care Pathway – Bishop of Bristol receives written answers

On 9th September 2013, the Bishop of Bristol, the Rt Revd Mike Hill, received an answer to two written question on the Liverpool Care Pathway.

14.03 Bishop of BristolThe Lord Bishop of Bristol: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to ensure that quality statement six (holistic support—spiritual and religious) of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence’s 2011 quality standard for end of life care for adults is embedded in the end of life care proposals to replace the Liverpool Care Pathway.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether the Healthcare Chaplaincy is considered a “specialist service”, as referred to in recommendation 22 of the Independent Review of the Liverpool Care Pathway.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe): The Government’s intention is for the Liverpool Care Pathway to be phased out over the next 6-12 months in favour of an individual approach to end of life care for each patient, with a personalised care plan backed up by condition-specific guidance and a named senior clinician responsible for its implementation.

Spiritual and religious support is an essential part of first-class end of life care. However we have yet to set out the specific responses to the Independent Review’s recommendations. Over the coming weeks, the Department will be working with partner organisations, stakeholders and charities across health and care to inform a full system-wide response to the Review’s recommendations later in the autumn.

(via Parliament.uk)

Vote – Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill

On 4th June 2013, nine bishops took part in a division during the Second Reading debate of the Government’s Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill. 

House of Lords Division Lobby
House of Lords Division Lobby

Crossbench Peer Lord Dear moved, as an amendment to the motion that the bill be now read a second time, to leave out from “that” to the end and insert “this House declines to give the bill a second reading”.

Nine bishops voted “content” with Lord Dear’s amendment. They were: the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the Bishops of Birmingham, Bristol, Chester, Coventry, Exeter, Hereford, London and Winchester. A further five bishops attended but abstained from the vote. No bishops voted “not content.”

There were: Contents: 148 | Not Contents: 390 | Result: Government Win

(via Parliament.uk)