Authority over death belongs to God alone, Church of England leader warns
The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill cleared the House of Commons last month in a historic vote, bringing assisted dying closer to becoming law in England and Wales.
It has now moved to the House of Lords where it will undergo further debate and scrutiny.
In the immediate aftermath of the June vote, Bishop of London Dame Sarah Mullally, who sits in the House of Lords, said peers 'must oppose' the Bill when it reaches them due to the 'mounting evidence that it is unworkable and unsafe'.
She is among those opposed who have called for more work to improve funding and access to 'desperately needed' palliative care services instead.
Bishop of London Sarah Mullally said peers 'must oppose' the Bill when it reaches them (PA)
Addressing the Church of England General Synod – also known as the Church's parliament – on Friday, Mr Cottrell voiced his staunch opposition to the Bill.
He said there was a 'compelling narrative of what it means to be human – and in all our glorious diversity, made in the image of God, and living Jesus-shaped lives – that will enable us to withstand, and even turn back, those utilitarian tides of opinion that risk making, for instance, assisted dying a reality in our national life, changing forever the contract between doctor and patient, pressurising the vulnerable, and assuming an authority over death that belongs to God alone'.
Mr Cottrell – who is the temporary leading religious voice of the Church while the appointment of a new Archbishop of Canterbury is awaited – thanked Dame Sarah and 'other Lords Spiritual for their principled and persistent opposition to the assisted dying Bill in Parliament'.
It is expected Synod members will engage in a debate on assisted dying during this five-day session.
Making the case for assisted dying ahead of last month's vote, a terminally ill Christian preacher criticised the 'nonsensical' religious argument against assisted dying that suffering must be part of life.
Church of England lay preacher Pamela Fisher, who is terminally ill with cancer, made an impassioned speech against the religious arguments made by some who oppose assisted dying.
Pamela Fisher, a Church of England lay preacher, has argued in favour of assisted dying (Jonathan Brady/PA)
Speaking to reporters in June, she said: 'I completely reject the assumption that the sanctity of life requires terminally ill people to undergo a distressing and painful death against their will.
'I disagree with those that say it is God alone who decides how and when we die.
'Yes, life is a gift from God to be honoured but it's nonsensical to say that assisted dying is wrong because suffering is part of God's plan for us.'
The proposed legislation would allow terminally ill adults in England and Wales, with fewer than six months to live, to apply for an assisted death, subject to approval by two doctors and a panel featuring a social worker, senior legal figure and psychiatrist.
Elsewhere in his opening address to Synod, Mr Cottrell acknowledged, in an apparent reference to controversy around the handling of abuse scandals over the years, that the Church of England had been 'humbled' of late.
He said: 'God has humbled us in so many ways this year.
'It has not been easy, but if it has made us more penitent, more determined to put victims and survivors first, more resolved to sort out all sorts of things to do with clergy discipline and accountability, terms of service, independent safeguarding, and other things besides, then, Synod, God the Redeemer, who believes in his Church, is at work among us.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Spectator
10 hours ago
- Spectator
Why the Lords doesn't have to accept the Assisted Dying Bill
In an effort to hasten the Assisted Dying/Suicide Bill on to the statute books, Esther Rantzen and Lord Falconer have offered a novel interpretation of the role of the House of Lords. Falconer suggested that the Lords must 'uphold' what 'the Commons have decided to go ahead with'. Meanwhile, Rantzen said of Parliament's upper chamber: 'Their job is to scrutinise, to ask questions, but not to oppose.' Someone like Rantzen may be forgiven for playing so loose with conventions, but a former Lord Chancellor may not. Labour's manifesto made no reference to assisted suicide nor assisted dying The reality is that both the House of Commons and the House of Lords play an equal role in the passing of legislation, except when it comes to matters of financial privilege. For legislation to become law, it must be approved by both Houses; where there is disagreement on the detail, there is negotiation through 'ping pong' until agreement is reached or the Bill falls. This encourages both Houses to compromise and find a way through. Both adopt the same legislative stages, requiring MPs and Peers to approve the Bill as a whole, as well as the detail. If the Lords were not entitled to take a position on any Bill, then second and third reading would simply not exist. The second major convention of the Lords is the Salisbury-Addison Convention, which holds that the Lords does not try to vote down at second or third reading a government bill which implements a manifesto commitment. That convention is founded, as Viscount Cranborne spelt out in the 1940s, on the principle that 'it would be constitutionally wrong, to oppose proposals which have been put before the electorate'. In the case of the Assisted Dying/Suicide Bill, these conditions are not met. Labour's manifesto made no reference to assisted suicide nor assisted dying. Nor is this a Government Bill, despite the Prime Minister's personal support for the legislation. At every stage of the Bill's passage through the Commons, ministers told MPs that the Government is neutral on the Bill and the Bill represents the policy intent of the sponsor and not ministers. The Noble Lords are also entitled to feel frustrated that Lord Falconer expects the more diligent of the two Houses to cut short scrutiny. On legislation of any significance the Lords will typically take twice the time that the Commons does. The Commons took 15 days in Committee, two days for Report stage, and a day for Third Reading. The brevity of report stage was achieved only by curtailing debate, and the procedural controls that exist in the Commons. As such, while more than 90 concerns were identified by MPs at report stage, 80 were not even selected for a decision, eight were rejected, and just two that were not in Kim Leadbeater's name were accepted. If the sponsors of the Bill had been serious about securing the quick passage of the Bill through the Lords, more work should have been done in the Commons to ease the responsibility of the second House. The Lords should also be comforted that the end of the session is penciled in for May 2026. This means that they can take the time to look at the detail of the legislation. The thirteen sitting Fridays set aside in the Commons for the consideration of private members bills will have already run their course before second reading, which is due to take place on 12 September. The Lords is therefore under no pressure to return the Bill to meet a specific date, and it is the Government that will need to makeshift – should it chose to do so – to provide more time when the Bill completes its passage through the Lords. Nor is there any impact on the Government programme as the Bill can be dealt with on sitting Fridays, while Government legislation steadily progresses on other days. Finally, we turn to the risk that the Lords are not done with the Bill by the time the session ends. This is plausible: there might be simply too many problems to patch, particularly in the absence of any consultative work to guide deliberations. Here all sides should take comfort in the existence of the Parliament Acts and the specific provisions. The Royal Commission on Lords Reform concluded that the Parliament Acts – which enable the Commons to 'achieve almost any result it desired' – provided 'another reason for the existence of a second chamber sufficiently confident and authoritative to require the House of Commons, at the very least, to think again'. Should the Bill flounder in the Lords with too many unanswered questions, it would be perfectly permissible for the Government to take responsibility for setting up a Commission or Committee similar to the Warnock Commission or Peel Committee for IVF and Abortion to test the validity of the provisions and the policy approach taken in the Bill. If it was established that the Bill was safe, MPs could return with the same Bill. If the Bill was established as inadequate, a revised version could be developed. In the former scenario, Peers need not worry that amendments made the first-time round would be lost if the Parliament Acts were used. The Acts and Erskine May are clear that if the Bill were to be reintroduced a second time, it can include amendments 'made by the House of Lords in the former bill in the preceding session'; and if the Commons wished to propose further amendments recognising the debates in the Lords and indicating that the Commons is prepared to compromise, the Commons could also suggest these for insertion into the Bill. On three occasions, bills have been introduced in a second successive parliamentary session to potentially allow the Parliament Acts to be used – only for the Lords to agree to the bills, with the passage of time helping to establish a way forward. There are more than adequate mechanisms for the Commons to prevail should it wish to do so, but the Lords must not be bludgeoned into signing off a Bill of such complexity and significance. To do so is to abdicate responsibility and risks sacrificing some people, particularly the vulnerable, to secure the choice for others.
Telegraph
a day ago
- Telegraph
Second World War civic kitchens could fix our sick nation
My hero will be raising a toast from beyond the grave. Fred Marquis, ennobled as Lord Woolton in June 1939 so he could join the cabinet via a seat in the House of Lords, was made Minister of Food by Neville Chamberlain in April 1940. Having efficiently run a newly formed Ministry of Supply since September 1939, as director general of equipment and stores, the prime minister felt that having clothed the British army, he might make a good fist of feeding it, the British nation and her empirical dependents. He is my hero because having heard of that culinary misery, the Woolton pie, and discovering that no one had ever written a book about the man who leant his name to it, I took on the task. It was a showstopping untold story of the battle on the home front and over the course of many months, I got to know Fred rather well. I discovered unpublished diaries, prized open his wife's locked journal that had never been read and discovered a treasure-trove of newspaper cuttings kept diligently by his proud secretaries. Woolton cared little for what other politicians thought of him, cared a great deal about publicity and marketing, managed the ration and food supply like a zealous retailer (he had been the boss of the country's largest department store chain, Lewis's, for several decades) and proudly presided over a nation that was, at the end of the war, healthier than it had ever been. And his thoughts on how to preserve the health of the nation and alleviate poverty could, today, come straight out of the mouth of Jamie Oliver. His campaigning zeal entirely matches that of Henry Dimbleby, the latter forever imploring government to implement his School Food Plan. 'To preserve the health of the future nation,' Woolton wrote in his war diaries, 'I wanted to secure that every child, in every school, got at least one good hot meal a day, and I saw no other way of securing this than through the schools.' And in March 1941, one of his greatest innovations was announced: 'British Restaurants In Over 100 Towns' was the headline in one newspaper. Woolton's ambition was to create 10,000 state-run cafés. These were to be not-for-profit eating centres. He never got to his ambitious number, but by 1943 there were 2,160 serving 650,000 midday meals, breakfasts and suppers. One such establishment in Liverpool, the Byrom Street Restaurant, sold main courses like fish pie, beef and dumplings or minced beef with carrots and parsnips as well as currant of milk puddings. A main course cost 6d, around £2 in today's money. This week, Nourish Scotland announced the impending opening of two taxpayer-funded eateries in Nottingham and Dundee where, in an attempt to combat food poverty and malnutrition, cheap and nutritious food will be offered. Anna Chworow, the deputy director of the study, working with the University of Sussex, says: 'The project team hopes that the local authorities and the national governments, at the UK and devolved level, would be interested in continuing the two sites after the pilot is over and in rolling them out more widely.' How wonderful that would be for us and for the memory of Woolton. His passion project was one for which he lobbied hard with Prime Minister Winston Churchill. Churchill gave him the go-ahead but with one proviso, that Woolton abandon his plan to call them Communal Feeding Centres. 'It is an odious expression suggestive of Communism and the workhouse,' he wrote. 'I suggest you call them British Restaurants. Everybody associates the word 'restaurant' with a good meal.' Woolton was sad to see his scheme dwindle and die in the years after the war. He was also powerless to stop the feverish abandonment of the beige food of war time in the ensuing decades. Today, with more choice of ingredients, more knowledge of nutrition and exercise, the fatter, sicker and poorer we are. The only diet imposed upon an entire nation that proved successful in beating poverty and obesity was the ration diet. But we are so far down the road of obesity, that even in a war scenario, the government would struggle to impose rationing. But what it can do is support a new type of British restaurant. Nourish Scotland's idea is clever because it will feel like an ordinary restaurant from the point of view of a customer, providing much-needed dignity, with the subsidy supporting staff overheads and costs, while each meal is priced just above the cost of ingredients. 'The more popular they are, the more viable they become,' says Chworow. 'The model is for the funding to be given to the operator of the restaurant.' The sticking point being that the funding comes from local authorities, which rely on national government. But such is the ultimate cost to government of poor health and poverty (obesity costs more than terrorism) this may be an innovation they can't ignore. I hope they don't – and I would challenge the fast-food giants to contribute. These are not places to dine in every day; McDonald's, Nando's, KFC and Domino's Pizza will still get the lion's share of people's spend, but they ought to club together in the name of tackling poverty. Such were the daily dilemmas of Lord Woolton in World War Two that I called my book on him Eggs or Anarchy. Our poverty and obesity crisis posits similar precarious options. The good egg of a sensible restaurant is a better choice than the chaos that will otherwise come.
Telegraph
a day ago
- Telegraph
Stop businesses funding Israeli settlements, bishop urges Government
The Bishop of Gloucester has urged the Government to stop British businesses funding Israeli settlements. The Rt Rev Rachel Treweek was responding to calls for the Government to ban trade and investment in Israel's settlements in the West Bank. The bishop, who sits in the House of Lords, has asked the Government to set out what steps it is taking to ensure UK businesses are not encouraging 'the establishment or maintenance of Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories '. The UN published a list of companies it claimed had business ties to Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories in 2020. This included the British digger maker, JCB, and Opodo, an online travel agency which was previously based in London but is now headquartered in Madrid. Israel has occupied the West Bank and East Jerusalem since 1967 and there has been mounting violence in the region since the Hamas terror attack on Israel on October 7 2023, which sparked the ongoing Israel-Hamas war. The settlements, which are civilian communities built in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, are considered illegal under international law, although this is disputed by Israel. Bishop Treweek made her comments warning against the funding and support of Israeli settlements in response to written questions submitted to the General Synod, the Church of England's legislative body, which is convening in York. The Rev Andrew Yates, of the diocese of Truro, asked whether bishops would consider 'writing to the UK Government requesting a ban on trade with and investment in Israel's settlements on the West Bank given the impact such investment has on Palestinian people resident there'. In response, Bishop Treweek said: 'Bishops have been clear in their interventions that all governments need to comply with their obligations under international law and take concrete steps to address Israel's ongoing presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.' She added that she has also now tabled a series of written questions in the House of Lords asking the Government to explain how it is ensuring businesses are following human rights laws 'with respect to their activities in or in relation to the establishment or maintenance of Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories'. The Government has previously said it 'does not encourage or offer support to economic and financial activity in the settlements'. Hamish Falconer, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Middle East, Afghanistan and Pakistan, said while answering Parliamentary questions in March: 'We routinely update our guidance to British businesses on the Overseas Business Risk website and advise British businesses to bear in mind the UK Government's view on the illegality of settlements under international law when considering their investments and activities in the region.' In October last year, David Lammy, the Foreign Secretary, announced sanctions targeting three illegal settler outposts and four organisations that have supported and sponsored violence against communities in the West Bank. 'Deeply concerned and horrified' The Bishop of Gloucester's comments came as the Rt Rev David Innes, the Bishop in Europe, who is also General Synod's representative at the World Council of Churches (WCC), made an address to the Synod expressing his 'disappointment' there was no allocated time nor opportunity 'for debate on Palestine'. Speaking to the chamber, which applauded his speech, he said: 'All of us, I'm sure, are deeply concerned and horrified about the situation in Palestine / Gaza. 'I'm slightly disappointed that there's no opportunity for debate on Palestine this Synod. I appreciate the constraints … we're operating under, [...] so I do wonder whether the business committee may find some way that time may be given to this appalling international situation.' The House of Bishops released a statement on the situation in Gaza in May calling for an end to the Israel-Hamas war, and criticised the 'sin' of violence. It stated: 'The death, suffering and destruction being inflicted on Gaza is a grave sin that violently assaults God-given human dignity and the very integrity of God's creation… 'We support and applaud all those Jewish voices, both inside and outside of Israel, that are courageously pressing the Israeli government to end the war. We add our voices to those urging the government of Israel to turn away from its current trajectory and to affirm life and human dignity for all.' The United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) says there are around 700,000 Israeli settlers living illegally across 279 settlements in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem.
