The Bishop of Durham received the following written answers on 22nd November 2021:
The Lord Bishop of Durham asked Her Majesty’s Government:
whether family reunion rights will be restricted for all group 2 refugees as a result of the proposed changes to the law in the Nationality and Borders Bill.
assessment they have made of the impact of the proposed changes to family reunion rights in the Nationality and Borders Bill on the number of (1) men, (2) women, and (3) children, who will come to the UK via family reunion; whether they expect the number of such people to be lower than in previous years; and if so, by how many.
The Bishop of Durham received the following written answer on 22nd November 2022:
The Lord Bishop of Durham asked Her Majesty’s Government whether they sought planning permission from Shepway District Council for the continued use of Napier Barracks to house people seeking asylum; and if not, why not.
The Bishop of Durham received the following written answer on 17th November 2021:
The Lord Bishop of Durham asked Her Majesty’s Government what is the definition of an accommodation centre applied by the Home Office; and what are the reasons Napier Barracks is not classified as such.
The Bishop of Durham received the following written answers on 16th November 2021:
The Lord Bishop of Durham asked Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the potential impact on integration of housing people seeking asylum in Napier Barracks.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con, Home Office): The ongoing use of Napier Barracks is necessary to meet the demand to accommodate asylum seekers who would otherwise be destitute. The support and integration of asylum seekers accommodated in Napier is the same as those accommodated in other types of accommodation.
On 10th November 2021, during a debate on amendments to the Police, Crime, Sentencing & Courts Bill, the Bishop of Durham, on behalf of the Bishop of Derby, spoke in support of an amendment tabled by Baroness Massey which would ensure that children would not be affected by the imposition of changes to mandatory minimum sentences under the bill:
The Lord Bishop of Durham: My Lords, I speak on behalf of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby on this occasion, who could not be here today. I add my support to Amendments 198, 199, 200 and 201, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, which deal with tariff starting points or DHMP sentences as they relate to young people. The noble Baroness laid out well the case for amending Clause 104 so that it takes into account evidence on maturation. I will briefly add the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby’s perspective as a Lord spiritual and as part of a team of Bishops focused on Her Majesty’s prisons, particularly young offender institutions. She also declares an interest as vice-chair of the Children’s Society.
Children ought to be treated as children, and we resist any erosion of that in law. If we are to argue to the contrary we must be content to go against the trajectory of every other arena of English law. Eighteen is soon to become the age at which people can legally marry, leave education and join the Armed Forces. I urge noble Lords to reflect on this. If we project from this that children are to be protected from making decisions about marriage, education and even enlisting in Her Majesty’s Armed Forces until they reach a maturation point of 18, then the same logic surely must continue to apply in this instance.
On 10th November 2021, the House of Lords debated the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill in the seventh day of the committee stage. On behalf of the Bishop of Gloucester, the Bishop of Durham moved amendment 181, which would ensure that “reasonable efforts” would be made to support interventions to prevent offenders under community cautions from reoffending:
The Lord Bishop of Durham: My Lords, I am moving the amendment in the name of my friend the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester, with her permission, as she is, sadly, unable to be here. I declare her interest as Anglican Bishop for Prisons in England and Wales, and we are very grateful for the support of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, and the noble Lord, Lord Beith.
I should say first that, while there are many parts of the Bill with which I take some issue, I do by and large consider it a welcome feature of the Bill that it places a new emphasis and focus on diversionary and community cautions, and on simplifying the previous regime. Done well, these out-of-court disposals, with helpful conditions attached, can be an effective solution that strikes a balance between punishment, the protection of communities and supporting the offender to successfully seek restoration in their community.
The Bishop of Durham received the following written answer on 1st November 2021:
The Lord Bishop of Durham asked Her Majesty’s Government how many cases of COVID-19 there have been at Napier Barracks since April.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con, Home Office): Twelve people have tested positive for coronavirus whilst accommodated at Napier Barracks since April 2021.
The Bishop of Durham received the following written answer on 26th October 2021:
The Lord Bishop of Durham asked Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to support countries that are vulnerable to disruption caused by climate change; what discussions they have had with the government of Burundi about the impact of rising water levels of Lake Tanganyika on the displacement of people; and what support, if any, they intend to provide to that country to mitigate the effects of climate change.
The Bishop of Durham received the following written answer on 25th October 2021:
The Lord Bishop of Durham asked Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the extent to which the proposed new Rwandan High Commissioner to the United Kingdom, Busingye Johnston, upholds international law; whether they intend to accept his diplomatic credentials; and what discussions they will have with the government of Rwanda about upholding international law.
On October 22nd 2021 Peers debated the Assisted Dying Bill of Baroness Meacher, at its Second Reading.
The Lord Bishop of Durham: My Lords, I begin by noting the simple courtesy that has been expressed so far during the debate today. We know that humanity at its best always wants the best for the people we love, and we act to protect them where we can. It is natural to want to ease hardships and burdens for our loved ones, especially in a time of pain, but also in a time of rising care costs and stretched health services. But human beings do not always act in the best way. We are flawed creatures.
There is a very real danger that individuals will feel that they have become a burden and thus think that the dutiful option to their families is to end their life. In Oregon and Canada, where assisted dying has been legalised, fear of being a burden to family actually frequently accompanies the requests. The scope for abuse and pressure for people to end their lives is significant. It is not a giant leap but a small step. The practice of weighing the value of lives against emotional and financial cost simply is dehumanising.
The consequences of the Bill to the most vulnerable have to be deeply considered. If the value of people’s lives is called into question, it is likely that those who have been historically undervalued and overlooked will be again. Those with disabilities and mental health issues, and other minorities, are already vulnerable, and the difference of experience between those groups and others has again been evident during the pandemic. The Bill acts on the principle that people should have the ability to act upon their will to end their lives, but we have seen instances over the pandemic, as reported by the Care Quality Commission, of “do not attempt CPR” decisions that have been made either without or against the will of the vulnerable. Perhaps even more troubling was the aspect of the report by the CQC, which said that those decisions
“were being applied to groups of people”.
In a stretched and overwhelmed health service that has supported us over a long pandemic, safeguards against oversight cannot be guaranteed. What would have been the outcome of the pandemic if the medical stakes had been higher?
We must not overlook the cultural implications of passing a Bill that leads anyone to measure the worth of someone else’s life. Who are we to put a value on human life or determine that, in some instances, the person is not worth the cost? Let us not abandon the imperative principle that is innate to us of valuing every human life and protecting and caring for the vulnerable.
If I may, I have a reminder for the noble Lord, Lord Vinson:
“But when they came to Jesus and found that he was already dead, they did not break his legs”—
The Church of England in Parliament 
You must be logged in to post a comment.