Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Andrew Selous and Christine Jardine

Thursday 26th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Selous]

One might think that Lichfield cathedral was the only cathedral in the Church of England, because my hon. Friend is one of the very few Members who regularly stands up for his cathedral. Running a cathedral, as he rightly says, is not only a major spiritual undertaking to proclaim the good news of Jesus, but a huge management task, which is why we require all new deans to undertake a component of an MBA module before taking up office.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

8. Whether the Commissioners have held discussions with senior Church leaders on allowing clergy to conduct blessings for same-sex couples.

[Andrew Selous]

With you permission, Mr Speaker, following my response to the urgent question on Tuesday, the advice I was given then was by the Church legal office, and I was yesterday asked to make a small clarification. A simple majority in each of the three Houses of the General Synod could suffice to pass a measure and amending canon to change the definition of marriage in ecclesiastical law, but circumstances could also arise in which two-thirds majorities in the House of Bishops and the House of Clergy would be needed, and, as with all authorised forms of service, a two-thirds majority in each House would be required for the approval of the Synod as a form of service for the marriage of a same-sex couple. I apologise, Mr Speaker, but I was only informed yesterday. Given that I was answering questions today, I thought you would find it acceptable that I put that slight clarification on the record.

In answer to the question from the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine), it is the case that the General Synod of the Church of England can make its own decisions on these matters. Members of the Synod will have a chance to make their own views clearly known, having listened to the very forcible views expressed in this House on Tuesday. I repeat that the Church of England has apologised for past behaviours, and welcomes and values LGBTQI+ people unreservedly and joyfully.

[Christine Jardine]

I thank the hon. Member for that clarification and for his comments about welcoming the LGBTQI+ community joyfully. But can I ask him to clarify then why it is that a man and a woman who do not believe in God and do not regularly attend church are welcome to marry in the Church of England—indeed, the Church’s website says, “God’s blessing is the main attraction for many couples”—but a couple in a same-sex relationship, both of whom may have worshipped in the Church all their lives and live in the spirit of Christian faith, are denied the same right in the Church, even though similar denominations in Scotland offer that opportunity? Can the hon. Member inform the House whether the Commissioners have discussed that inequality with the Church of England?

[Andrew Selous]

The hon. Lady is right to raise this issue. These matters will be very livelily debated at the General Synod between 6 and 9 February. I can also tell her that each province in the global Anglican communion is autonomous. The majority of the provinces in the communion provide neither blessings nor marriages for same-sex couples: the Scottish Episcopal Church provides marriages, the Church in Wales provides blessings, and the Church of Ireland provides neither for same-sex couples, so the hon. Lady can see that there is a variety of practice within these islands. But I have heard what she has said and, more importantly, I will make sure that the General Synod is very well aware of her views and those of others in this House.

Equal Marriage: Church of England

Debate between Andrew Selous and Christine Jardine

Tuesday 24th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Selous]

I do not take away for one moment the seriousness with which hon. Members on all sides of the House view this issue, and I see the numbers who have come in for this urgent question today. It is a deep and serious issue and I absolutely get that. My right hon. Friend is also right that the mission of the Church of England is to save souls, and we need to get on and do that as well.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

I have grown up with a deep respect for the Church, but I have to say that the hon. Member for Rhondda (Sir Chris Bryant) spoke for a great many of us when he said that we cannot understand how a Church, and a faith so rooted in the belief of love and goodness, can still accept that it can make some of its own parishioners and its own clergy feel that they are somehow less worthy. I am afraid that I am one of those people who is less than happy with this, and feels that it sends the wrong message to an awful lot of people in this country about what the Church actually stands for and risks separating the Church from a great many people who might otherwise be part of it. Does not the hon. Gentleman agree?

[Andrew Selous]

I hear what the hon. Lady says. I just repeat the apology made by the bishops and the fact that the bishops welcome same-sex couples unreservedly and joyfully. Perhaps you will allow me, Madam Deputy Speaker, to quote briefly from something the Archbishop of York said. He said that the Church expresses its

“deep sorrow and grief at the way LGBTQI+ and those they love have been treated by the Church which, most of all, ought to recognise everyone as precious and created in the image of God. We are deeply sorry and ashamed and want to take this opportunity to begin again in the spirit of repentance which our faith teaches us.”

I know that that does not go far enough, but I ask the hon. Lady to recognise the spirit in which that statement was made and the fact that it was a big change, albeit not far enough for some, that the Church made last week.

Assisted Dying Law

Debate between Andrew Selous and Christine Jardine

Thursday 23rd January 2020 Westminster Hall

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the law on assisted dying.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Graham. I wanted specifically to examine the law on assisted dying as it stands, given that it affects not just those who want to have some control over the manner of their death, but those closest to them. The current law in this country simply is not working. I hope that we can begin to address today the effect of that law on terminally ill people and their loved ones, and on public servants such as doctors, health and social care professionals, police and coroners. They are all, in different ways, profoundly affected by our laws on assisted dying. I am well aware that this issue is hugely evocative, can involve issues of faith and puts the medical profession in the most difficult of positions. It is also, of course, the most personal, intimate and ultimate of decisions.

Like many people—possibly many people in the Chamber—I have been on a journey over this issue. I am not sure when it began, but I know it started with the point that it was not up to me. I did not know whether I would ever be in the position to have to make the decision, but I knew I had no right to interfere with anyone else. I suppose I could have been described then as a passive supporter, but over the years there have been several landmarks on my journey, to the point that I now see it as incumbent on me—on all of us, particularly all of us here—to ensure that our law is the best and most supportive law we can have, and that it puts the interests, needs and wishes of individuals first.

[Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)]

Does the hon. Lady agree that we need to be very careful to ensure that old and sick people do not feel a pressure to end their lives, perhaps from their children, who might want to inherit their assets and to whom they may feel they are being a burden?

[Christine Jardine]

I fully appreciate that point. That is why I am so concerned that we should have a very narrow and precise definition if we change the law. However, it has been ascertained that a third of patients who request assisted dying and meet the eligibility criteria in Oregon, for example, do not actually take the life-ending medication. They request it as an insurance policy—not because they feel they are being a burden, but because they want to have the opportunity to make the choice themselves.

As I said, there have been several landmarks on my journey to this point. The final one was just a few weeks ago, when I was chatting to a friend. We were talking about nothing in particular, but we decided that when people say, “You only live once,” they are not quite right; actually, you can have many lives. I certainly have, and I am sure many other hon. Members have. I been a journalist, a mother, a university lecturer and a politician, and I hope one day to be retired, but I will only have one death. When my time comes, I would like it to be the easiest possible for me and my family, and I would like to be able to choose for it to come at the end of a happy day.

The first step on my journey was, as I am sure it was for many other people, watching someone I loved go through an experience far from that: a long, painful death, which I still wonder about now, more than a decade later. Could it somehow have been eased? It took me years to come to terms with the emotional conflict between the despair over losing my mother and the relief I felt that she was no longer going through the pain of having her lungs destroyed a little bit every day. I have to be honest: I do not know whether she would have wanted the choice of how or when to end her life. Frankly, there would have been no point even asking, since it is not a choice allowed by the current law here, with its blanket ban, and most people cannot afford the fees to travel to Switzerland or elsewhere.

That is not in any way to criticise the standard of care in our hospitals or hospices in this country. Both provide a marvellous service.