Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Debate between Baroness Gerada and Baroness Fox of Buckley

Report stage
Tuesday 24th February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Gerada (CB)]

My Lords, I am also against these amendments. I will disclose a conflict of interest: I started smoking when I was 16—and 33 years later, like many of us who start to smoke at that age, because it is a childhood disease, I gave up.

We know and have heard about all the health effects of smoking, but we also have to realise that smoking is an easy addiction to start. I have looked after every addiction—heroin, cocaine, alcohol—and smoking is the easiest. You need only two cigarettes for 80% of people to be addicted, like me, for 33 years, and many people, like me, try to give up.

It is not just addiction that is the problem. It is not even about death, although death is a bad outcome to have. It is also about all the other complications. Like many smokers, I have lost many of my teeth. Our eyesight goes. We have skin problems. Smoking causes all sorts of things.

As a GP for nearly 30 years, I am pleased that I have seen a massive reduction in people with smoking-related diseases. My surgeries used to be full of what we call blue bloaters and pink puffers and full of people with premature heart disease. It is not an accident that I no longer see that in my consulting room; it is because of the hard work of our Chief Medical Officers, the Department of Health, ASH and many others to stop normalising smoking.

On the issue of the black market, there is of course a price differential. Wherever there is a price differential you will get a black market, whether it is diesel, cigarettes, alcohol or whatever. But the Bill is about stopping people starting—as the noble Lord said, preventing the next generation that has not even been born from starting. We have to focus on prevention, which is what the Bill is about.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, called this a world-leading policy. It is world-leading, because no one else in the world has chosen this policy. One wants to know why. At least the noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Birmingham, admitted that this was novel and therefore untested. Can we at least have a little humility by admitting that the Bill is an experiment? It is a risk.

How you do age verification, as rather wittily described by the noble Lord, Lord Clarke of Nottingham, is a bit untested. How will we cope with the 84 year-old versus the 85 year-old—will there be a scrap? It is said that it is not going to happen for many years, but I thought the idea of legislators was that you were meant to think about the future, not just tomorrow, and the long- term implications of policies that pass.

Let us be honest: there is no good practice to copy with this Bill. There is no evidence about exactly how it will work or whether it will work. The claims on its behalf are largely based on modelling and speculation, and that is not evidence; it is not scientific. Therefore, the moral high ground and the sense of certainty deployed by those who are enthusiastic about the Bill, and the disdain towards those of us who are sceptical about it, are just a little misplaced.

I therefore request that, as we go through the very short Report stage, because a lot of us have been through a longer Committee stage, we are honest about things such as cost-benefit analysis—what is lost, what is gained—and, rather than moral righteousness, consider whether this is actually fit for purpose, even the purpose of those people who are putting the Bill forward. Whatever the intentions of those promoting the Bill, many of the clauses in it are counterproductive.

I know we are not on this section yet, but as an ex-smoker who started vaping, I am utterly distraught that we now have a Bill that, to all intents and purposes, treats vaping and tobacco as interchangeable, despite a denial by the Government. I do not think that there will be the health gain that is claimed.

My final point at this time—because I will be back —is that it is a little rich to sneer about freedom. Saying the word “libertarian” gives certain people a thrill; they can feel as though they are morally virtuous. I do not consider myself to be a libertarian, despite what Wikipedia says. However, I fully embrace living in a free society. I do not think that freedom is something I should be embarrassed about, nor that saying that people should be given choices about their lifestyles makes you to the right of Genghis Khan, or whatever it is that people are implying—or, worse, in the pay of big tobacco, which is the inference of many of the contributions. At some stage relatively soon, lots of adults—the 84 and 85 year-olds, because these kids do grow up to be adults—will be denied a choice. This Bill affects adults.

People can make choices about whether they take risks in their health. I suspect that practically everyone I know is using those weight-loss injections. To me they are a bit risky—I think, “Are they safe?”—but I am not mounting a campaign yet, because half this House would be out. People say it is worth the risk. A lot of people do daft things such as going skiing—mad; too risky for me. There are all sorts of things. People have been known to have the odd extra pint or eat the odd greasy breakfast. People take risks and make choices about their health all the time.

I do not want more people to smoke, but I also think that, in a free society, we have to give a certain degree of room for people to make choices—even the wrong choices. We live in a free society. Deciding the right and wrong choice is what happens in authoritarian regimes, but in a free society we say, “I don’t think you should do that, but I’m not necessarily going to legislate so that you can’t do everything I personally disapprove of”. We should not even say, “You shouldn’t do that, because I know best for your health what you should and shouldn’t do”. In medical ethics, there are times when you go to your doctor, who says, “Take this”, and you say, “I decline to take that medication; I do not want that intervention”. In a free society, a doctor cannot force you to do what you do not want to do—even the virtuous health professional who we are all meant to revere.

As we carry on this Report stage, can we all show a bit of humility? Living in a free society puts before us difficult moral decisions. There is no necessarily right or wrong. We are allowed to scrutinise a Bill that is put before us without being accused of somehow being evil because we do not go along with the Bill. Just because the Conservative Government, when they were in, and the Labour Government now agree—if that is the basis on which we should not scrutinise, we might as well all go home. I am sad to say that, for some of us, the Conservative Party has had far too much agreement with the Labour Party over recent decades.

Crime and Policing Bill

Debate between Baroness Gerada and Baroness Fox of Buckley

Committee stage
Monday 2nd February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Gerada (CB)]

My Lords, until recently I was head of the Royal College of GPs. Our college is fully in favour of decriminalisation of abortion. As Professor Hawthorne said:

“No woman should face prosecution under antiquated laws that were created before women were even allowed to vote. This change in the law is a vital piece of protection for the reproductive and health rights of women”.


I would like to pick up a few issues. I have been fortunate enough to work in the NHS, in a legal state in terms of abortion, which has been absolutely fabulous, because I have seen many young women and girls and older women coming and needing terminations of pregnancy and I have guided them through it. I want to talk about a few things—for a start, telemedicine and “medicines by post” and the assumption that this is somehow a bad thing. I would like to turn it all round and say that this is a patient-centric initiative. Imagine having to travel far and to have to go past your abusive husband or abusive partner to say where you have been all day. This is humane and patient-centric and about 50% of women choose this option.

It does not mean that they do not get a proper assessment. Many people are assuming yet again that it is a sort of tick box. It is an hour-long consultation with pre- and post-termination counselling and at any point the woman can be seen face to face. I have also been hearing an assumption that it is an unsafe procedure. I think that I heard—I may have misheard—that one in 17 women end up having complications from having had a medical termination. That is not the figures from the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. It says that, under 10 weeks, one in 1,000 women have heavy bleeds and at, over 20 weeks, four in 1,000 do. Those women are in hospital. Clearly it is very different. It is nothing like one in 17. You also have to compare that—we have the comparator—with women who miscarry at home without having an abortion, who probably end up in hospital, as I did twice as a young woman when I had miscarriages. I also want to pick up the issue that somehow telemedicine is a process without any legal requirements. Of course it has legal requirements. It is currently, and will continue to be, regulated under the abortion law. What we are doing is decriminalising it.

I then want to talk about foeticide or foetal sex selection. Foetal sex can be determined as early as 10 weeks and many women choose, for one reason or another, to know the sex of their child. Both my daughters-in-law—I was going say my sons but, of course, for the purpose of this, boys cannot become pregnant—chose to determine the sex of their child, just as many people do. It is perfectly legal to determine the sex of your child—at the 20-week scan, anyway, you can choose to determine the sex. Women can then choose to have a legal termination if they so wish, though I am struck by the noble Lord, Lord Winston, saying that there are legal implications. This is conflating the issue of decriminalisation and sex selection. I personally am against sex selection, but it is not part of this argument about decriminalisation.

I would also just like to address the under-16s and compulsory safeguarding assessments under what I assume would be a multi-agency assessment, including the police and social workers. As the law stands, women under 16 can obtain an abortion and obtain sexual health advice and contraception without safeguarding implications—clearly noble Lords all know about Gillick competence and Fraser guidelines. This would be a retrograde step. These young girls would not come to see us. They would probably end up like one patient who I saw very late in pregnancy. She presented with a rash on her abdomen, which is the rash with stretch marks; she was 32-weeks pregnant. She was so terrified—and this was before the law changed—of admitting that she had had unprotected sex and had not had her period. Compulsory safeguarding is a retrograde step and has nothing to do with this decriminalisation, which I fully support.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I mainly want to defend Clause 191 remaining in the Bill, but with some reservations. Before that, I want to acknowledge public interest in this issue and a popular worry that it is all about legalising abortion up to birth. That is what is being discussed. Worse than that, people believe that somehow this legal change was rushed through the other place almost by the back door. Legalising abortion up to birth is not what is contained in Clause 191, but I have sympathy with the public’s confusion over that and criticism about how the clause was added to the Bill in the other place.

The noble Lord, Lord Carter, spoke about some of this and everybody else has now mentioned just how little time was spent discussing this in the other place. More important, most people did not know it was coming. Most members of the public were not expecting such a big change in the law. Wherever you stand on this, abortion might be a settled entitlement for women—most people accept that abortion exists in society—but it is still a morally charged, difficult discussion. For some, conscience is involved. There are contestations, certainly about when life begins.

We cannot deny it: if anything talks to going beyond 24 weeks—and, as we have heard today, even 24 weeks is contentious or becoming so; it should not be, but it is—the public are perfectly right to be a bit furious and feel that somehow the democratically accountable system has been snubbed. I say that because this debate needs more discussion and depth. I am glad to hear that we are getting some of it here, but we certainly did not get it when the clause was brought into the Bill in the House of Commons. That has led to a big backlash, which, as it happens, is not necessarily the best atmosphere in which to conduct a rational, reasoned debate.