Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Lord Curry of Kirkharle Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 19th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Curry of Kirkharle (CB)]

My Lords, it is a great honour to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter. We are at a crossroads and must decide what kind of a nation we want to be. We have long believed that human life is sacred, worthy of dignity and respect. This has been enshrined in the biblical foundation of our laws. Some would say that this belief in the sanctity of human life is outmoded, and only compelling if you hold old-fashioned religious views. As a Christian, I strongly adhere to those beliefs. What happens if we reject this fundamental principle, which has served this nation so well for so long? Is it not time to bin this old-fashioned view of life? To do so, in my view, would undermine the very foundation of our societal values.

Writing in the Times recently, Matthew Parris argued that the elderly and infirm are a drain on resources and that it would be “a good thing” if they felt the unspoken pressure that their “time is up”. This kind of attitude will lead to an economic evaluation of human life, carried out against the backdrop of the crushing weight of the pressure on the NHS and the nation’s finances. There is absolutely no question that the Bill, if passed, will devalue the importance of human life, and economics will become part of the decision-making process.

The NHS will save money, and families will protect their inheritance, as the noble Lord, Lord Deben, said. It has been estimated that the Canadian Government and their provinces are now saving at least $150 million a year as a result of assisted suicide. As we know, the scope for eligibility continues to be expanded there, and the same will happen here. I am not at all reassured by the Bill’s sponsors about restricted eligibility. The slippery slope will become a reality, for sure.

We must not dismiss the deep concerns that many in the medical profession have expressed about the Bill. So many individuals and organisations have flagged that they are either opposed to the Bill or extremely worried about aspects of it, including most of the royal societies, as has been mentioned a number of times in the debate. This is deeply concerning.

It became apparent last Friday that some supporters of the Bill believe that amendments in the Commons might prove the Bill to be “unwieldy if not unworkable”, to quote the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, who said there is already

“too much bureaucracy and oversight”.—[Official Report, 12/9/25; col. 1797.]

in the Bill. Others—I agree with them—consider that the Bill needs lots of additional safeguards, including to protect those with mental illness, eating disorders, disabilities, communication difficulties and so on. Not only is the Bill currently not fit for purpose; it will become completely unworkable when amended even further.

If we continue down the road enshrined in the Bill, we will not only devalue the precious gift of God-given life; we will see people who could live for years dying early for want of compassion, depriving them, their families and society of their valuable contribution. This is not an exact science. Freedom of information data from the DWP shows that one in five people who qualify for end-of-life benefits are still alive three years later.

The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, referred to his father in his contribution. As I recall, he also did so the previous time we debated this topic, and I referred to our daughter, who died aged 42 in 2013. I would get very emotional if I explored that further. I mention it because we all have personal stories and family experiences that have shaped our views, for or against the Bill, but we have to stick with principles. If we support it, we risk diluting our sympathy and concern for the elderly, the frail, the disabled and the depressed, seeing them as a drain on resources when they opt to live at society’s expense rather than conform to the new norm and opt to die. The Bill is dangerous and a retrograde step.

Social Care: Person-centred Dementia Care

Lord Curry of Kirkharle Excerpts

Monday 17th May 2021 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)]

I think we will have to move on. I call the noble Lord, Lord Curry of Kirkharle.

[Lord Curry of Kirkharle (CB) [V]]

My Lords, I hope I am unmuted. The impact of Covid has reinforced the evidence that early detection and intervention can help defer the worst impacts of dementia and significantly help with the quality of life of those affected, their families and carers. Can the Minister reassure the House that this will be given priority in the long-awaited social care Bill?

[Lord Bethell (Con)]

The noble Lord hits the nail on the head. Our entire response to the pandemic has taught us that early intervention and diagnostics are absolutely critical, and that is at the very centre of not only the NHS Long Term Plan but the departmental priorities for the years ahead. This can indeed make a huge difference to the treatment of and prognosis for those with dementia, Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s, and we are very much focused on taking that forward.

Future of Health and Care

Lord Curry of Kirkharle Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd February 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bethell (Con)]

I will indeed share my noble friend’s tribute to the vaccination programme and to Bedford Hospital for saving Lady Naseby’s life, for which we are all enormously grateful. However, I would probably leave his company on his remarks on GPs; they are extremely effective in the service they provide to their local communities. The patient satisfaction surveys do not support his contention that there is a massive gap there.

We are committing to building new hospitals in order to expand our capacity, but the essence of the measures in this Bill is more about prevention, population health and supporting better outcomes for the kind of public health measures around things such as obesity that ensure that people do not have to spend their time in hospital when they feel ill and, instead, have an early-stage intervention.

[Lord Curry of Kirkharle (CB) [V]]

My Lords, my interests are recorded in the register. This White Paper and proposed Bill are extremely welcome and long overdue, and I very much support the direction of travel. I have been curious and interested to read that reducing unnecessary bureaucracy in the process of change is a key plank of the White Paper. I am interested in how the Minister expects this to be achieved; as a former chair of the Better Regulation Executive, I know how difficult this is. Will there by some form of oversight to ensure that this does take place, and some way of monitoring that fact as well?

[Lord Bethell (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Lord makes a very wise observation. The challenge of reducing bureaucracy has confounded many Ministers in the past, and I would not want to suggest in any way that this is an easy challenge. However, it is our belief that, by getting those involved in primary, secondary and social care, and in public health, working more closely together in integrated care systems, with a culture of collaboration and clearer accountability for the outcomes of the populations in their areas, we can reduce the friction of paperwork, duplication and oversight that has cost the health system dearly, and can build a more effective way of providing healthcare services for individual populations.

Food: Fruit and Vegetables

Lord Curry of Kirkharle Excerpts

Monday 6th July 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bethell]

I thank my noble friend for reminding me of the important Hungry for Change report; I pay tribute to it and to its recommendations. If I understand his question correctly, the food given to schoolchildren falls within the realm of the Department for Education. He makes an important point about offering variety and a wide range of foods, and I am sure that that is on the department’s agenda.

[Lord Curry of Kirkharle (CB) [V]]

My Lords, home production of both fruit and vegetables is declining, with last year being the lowest for 20 years in vegetable production. If we do achieve an increase in consumption, much of that food will come from increased imports from countries that are water deficient. Will the Minister reassure the House that the Government have a cross-departmental strategy to address this, leading to increased consumption matched by increased production?

[Lord Bethell]

The noble Lord is quite right about the home production of food. During the Covid epidemic, Project Defend was put together to ensure that, as a country, we have resilient supply chains for key products, including food. The project will look at this area to assess whether interventions are necessary and will co-ordinate cross-governmental action.

Care Sector

Lord Curry of Kirkharle Excerpts

Tuesday 25th November 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Curry of Kirkharle (CB)]

My Lords, I will be brief. Other Peers have spoken eloquently and very adequately covered this subject. I, too, am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Kingsmill, for leading this debate. My wife and I have a personal interest in this subject. Our daughter had a severe learning disability; she had to be fed, dressed and toileted. She could not speak and latterly had two full-time carers. Hoists were required to lift her out of bed, et cetera. Sadly, she died last year, aged 42.

In 1990, we formed a business with charitable status in the north-east of England to provide care and support for people with learning disabilities, which I chaired until three years ago. At that time, we merged with a larger organisation, Prospects. It is a Christian organisation and I am currently vice-chair of that company. We employ more than 600 wonderful people to care for people with learning disabilities across the United Kingdom. We provide residential care, domiciliary care with personal budgets, and a range of other services for local authorities.

Our biggest challenge by far is recruiting, retaining and adequately rewarding our staff—our carers. The tragedy is that we compete in a market with the stacking of supermarket shelves. The responsibilities bear no comparison. Having to recruit staff on low wages to care for vulnerable people is an unacceptable model. We want to pay the living wage and fully intend to do so, but not only is the relentless economic pressure on this sector driving providers out of business but it is proving difficult to maintain the high standards we want to provide.

The tendering process adds to that economic pressure. Some of our contracts pay £12 an hour. This is to cover not only salaries, management and overhead costs but food, living expenses and training. The sums just do not add up. In some companies in our sector, staff turnover is 20%. Training costs are huge and recruitment costs are high. Dependency on agencies when staff leave adds to the economic pressure because of the high charges we have to pay for agency staff.

I am not making a political point when I say this: this Government and the next have no alternative but to bear down on public expenditure, but every year longevity and costs increase. We need a different model. I hope that the Minister will give this matter his serious attention. We are stretching the loyalty of some of the most amazing people in our society to the absolute limit.