Tobacco Packaging

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Anna Soubry

Friday 12th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Anna Soubry]

I do not give in to pressure from anybody, and neither does anybody else in my Department or indeed in my Government. We have taken a decision to wait for the emerging evidence from Australia, and that is the right thing to do.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

May I welcome the wise statement made by my hon. Friend today, and remind her that it is often the case that parties in opposition are all in favour of freedom, and when they get into government they are suddenly in favour of the nanny state?

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I did indeed; I was very fortunate. [Laughter.] It is a pity some Opposition Members did not, but never mind.

When liberties are removed, it should always be done, as my hon. Friend says, on the basis of evidence, because freedom is very precious, and the state does not have the right to interfere willy-nilly.

[Anna Soubry]

I agree that the state does not have a right to interfere willy-nilly, but of course standardised packaging does not prevent anybody from buying cigarettes or inhibit their right to smoke cigarettes if that is their choice, so with respect to my hon. Friend, this is not a nanny state argument at all. The packaging would be affected, but people would remain free, as ever, to buy cigarettes and to smoke them.

Assisted Suicide

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Anna Soubry

Tuesday 27th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker; patience is rewarded in this important debate. I will make my own position extremely clear. I start as a Catholic, and I believe that human life is sacred, which I take from the Catholic catechism:

“Human life must be respected because it is sacred. From its beginning human life involves the creative action of God and it remains forever in a special relationship with the Creator, who is its sole end.”

That is my view, but I accept that it will not be the view of all my constituents or of everybody in this country, and that although many of us have personal and deep beliefs, the legislature must think beyond that, to the practicalities involved in the DPP’s advice, and see how that fits with our consciences.

I want to look at some of the areas of concern in the Director of Public Prosecutions’ advice, which is in many ways very sensible. It places a particular obligation on doctors and nurses not to be involved in a suicide, for example, but I am concerned that, in two areas, its flexibility could lead to problems. The first involves the requirement to determine whether the victim has

“reached a voluntary, clear, settled and informed decision to commit suicide”.

In such circumstances, we are dealing with very vulnerable people who are ill and at the end of their lives. How voluntary is that decision really going to be?

[Anna Soubry]

A constituent of mine has written to me at length and with great feeling on this subject. He is a bright, intelligent man at the end of his life who might fall into some unfortunate condition. He therefore has every ability to make a decision, as a grown-up person, about how he wants to end his life. Why should he not have that right?

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

We have to legislate for everybody, not just for my hon. Friend’s most able constituents. We have to legislate for the weak and vulnerable, and for those who have nobody to defend them. Yes, of course we can all cite examples of highly intelligent, capable people who would be able, for example, to resist pressure from family members who might be after an inheritance, but what about those who feel that they have become a burden to society? My greatest concern for the elderly and the frail is that, although they might be enjoying their lives, they might feel that they have become a burden and therefore selflessly propose that their own end should be hastened. That is my concern about the term “voluntary”.

I am also concerned about the terms “clear” and “settled”. People might clearly settle something in their youth, then change their mind as the time gets closer. We read the saddest cases in the newspapers of people who have taken overdoses of paracetamol, then regretted their action and decided that they want to live. As the moment comes closer, how settled is that decision that was taken at an earlier stage?

I am also concerned about the word “informed”, Mr Speaker. Informed by whom? Are you going to set up a committee, perhaps with the two of us, to advise on the different options available to people who are at a late and vulnerable stage of their lives? Or will they in fact receive that advice from people who favour a particular course of action? How will we decide whether that information is fair, reasonable, and sufficient to allow them to make a choice that will protect their friends or family from a prosecution for assisting in their suicide?

The guidelines also state that a prosecution is less likely when a suspect is “wholly motivated by compassion”. Of course the family and the spouses involved should be motivated by compassion, but who in this House clearly knows their own motivations when they do particular things? Most motivations are mixed in a number of ways.