Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Debate between Earl Russell and Lord Moylan

Committee stage
Thursday 30th October 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 18 in this group.

There is merit in thinking about the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, which was so effectively moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley. We send very confusing messages generally to young people in society about the age of responsibility. Voting has one age. We recently changed the marriage age. Other things are allowed or prohibited at the age of 16. There is a proposal that the voting age should be reduced to 16, as it has been already in either Scotland or Wales. These are very confusing messages about the age of responsibility. We should not carry on arbitrarily creating bans for young people without some coherence. The amendment tabled by my noble friend certainly brings that to the fore and should be used by the Government to encourage serious thought about this.

Turning to my own Amendment 18, I will take in with it the two amendments in this group in the name of my noble friend Lord Howard of Rising, though glancingly only, as I have not prepared anything to say about them. I rope them in with mine as all three have in common that whenever one introduces a sweeping ban or a blunt instrument, there are cases where unintended consequences arise that should be addressed through some careful attention to what exceptions should be allowed. My amendment focuses on healthcare settings, particularly mental healthcare settings, which will include establishments where people are detained. They may be voluntarily detained, in a sense. I am familiar with these, for reasons which I do not need to go into, having had cause to visit such settings in the past. Even those who are voluntarily detained are gently voluntarily detained. Wandering outside the building is not encouraged, even for voluntary patients, and is not allowed for those who are detained under the Mental Health Act.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, said, such people are very often smokers, and hospital settings are an appropriate place to encourage smoking cessation programmes. That is what many mental health settings actually do.

The essential point I want to make is that we are discussing vaping, and the Bill does not ban vaping. Around this Committee, we have an unclear mental attitude towards vaping. There are those who see it as something almost as bad as smoking, and there are others who see it as a positive solution—as it has been for me personally—for those who want to give up smoking. We need to realise that vaping has a very important place in smoking cessation—it is the Government’s policy to recognise that—and that there are places, such as institutions, where vending machines might be the only means by which people can have access to vape products, which would be beneficial as an alternative to smoking.

My amendment, and I think those of my noble friend Lord Howard of Rising, are intended to probe this issue, to ask the Government whether they recognise that a general ban on vaping machines might have unintended consequences, and to test whether they are willing to listen to arguments and representations about where exceptions might be appropriate.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 21, and I thank my noble friend Lady Walmsley for adding her name in support of it. The amendment would establish a £30 minimum retail price for vaping products. This vital proposal is a means of addressing the mounting environmental crisis from disposable vapes, which are still so cheap that they are used as a one-time product. It is also an effective means of ensuring that these products are out of the range of pocket money prices and are kept out of the hands of our young people.

I support the use of vapes as a smoking cessation aid, and my amendment is in no way intended to stop that purpose. Vaping is a good and proven means of smoking cessation. However, big tobacco has been allowed a free hand to move beyond smoking cessation towards a new business model, and it has free rein to create a whole new generation of young people who are now addicted to vaping products and are future customers, supplying it with profits.

While we support the aim of smoking cessation, big tobacco must not be allowed to continue to put vaping products into the hands of young people. Vaping has exploded in popularity with children and teens across the UK, and these products are deliberately targeted and marketed towards them. In 2025, around 1.1 million 11 to 17 year-olds—20% of young people in this age group—admitted to having tried vapes, with approximately 400,000 currently using vapes and 160,000 vaping on a daily basis.

Alarmingly, nearly one in 10 secondary school pupils are now regular or occasional vapers, a figure that has almost doubled since 2018. Children as young as eight have been found to be using vapes in school, and one-quarter of 11 to 15 year-olds have experimented with these products. Anyone with a teenage child will know the true scale of the problem, and I suspect that the true scale is larger than the statistics bear out.

The aim of the Bill is to create a smoke-free generation. We support that, but the Bill could and should go further by creating a nicotine-free generation. The epidemic of vape use has been fuelled by disposable vapes. They are brightly coloured, child focused, flavoured and available for less than the cost of a sandwich. Marketing and pocket money prices put nicotine firmly within the reach of our children. Despite sales law prohibiting sales to 18 year-olds, the truth is that you can go to any corner store and probably get one.

Vaping can act as a gateway to smoking. Studies have shown that teens who vape are 22 times more likely to take up cigarettes and 33% of vaping teens move on to smoking, compared to just 1.5% of non-vapers. Who said big tobacco could have carte blanche to an ever-growing number of nicotine addicts—new generations for new profits?

Turning to the environmental impacts, the numbers are staggering. Before the supposed ban, 8 million single-use vapes were discarded every week—13 devices every second—resulting in 260 million devices being thrown away annually. Each vape contains plastics and lithium. It has been estimated that, collectively, the lithium lost each year could be enough to power 5,000 electric vehicles. The scale of the waste is enough to fill 22 football pitches. The real consequences are big, with over 1,200 fires at waste sites and bin lorries catching fire. Lithium batteries are dangerous. The plastic and toxic materials spend hundreds of years in our landfill sites, leaching into the environment and polluting our soils and waterways. I do not believe that any device should be made where it is not possible to remove and recycle the battery.

Defra has plans, and those introduced to ban disposable vapes have helped, but they do not go far enough, and the problem has not gone away. Cheap products continue to be bought and used on an ad hoc basis. With a quick look online or a trip to my corner store, I can still get a perfectly compliant vape for £4.99. They are fully compliant, but they will be used once and then discarded. They create waste that we do not need to create.

If we are serious about our environmental responsibilities—the Government are very much championing the circular economy; I welcome and support them in that—we need to take further steps. My view is that minimum pricing is the best way to do that. If we have a higher price for these products, we get better quality products that last longer. The batteries will have longer cycling times, and they will be used regularly by their users.

I recognise the points that the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, made. However, the figures I have seen show that although there is a £30 entry point—which is not much more than a packet of fags—if you refill a vape with liquid the saving can be up to £750 a year. I have another associated amendment that seeks to ban pods. This is not about making vaping more expensive. It will save regular vapers considerable amounts of money; it will give them a better product; and they will be able to vape knowing they are not destroying the planet and environment needlessly.

Price controls are the only effective means of keeping these products out of teenage hands. The truth is that the regulatory systems do not work—they are not enforced and they never will be—and our children will continue to vape. I do not see another way of doing this. I will be honest that £30 was plucked out of the air; I am happy to reduce that amount. A good quality vape probably costs £20 to £25. It could be that the Government will work with me on that, and we can look at setting a lower figure. I do not want to ban entry into this market, but that kind of price range is where it needs to be. It could be that this price has a free bottle of liquid, or something else, to go with it.

I want the Government to look at this seriously. If this Government are serious about the circular economy and about making sure that these vapes do not end up in our children’s hands, they really need to consider these things and take them seriously. I stand ready to work with the Government between now and Report. This is a serious amendment, and I would like the Government to make progress on these matters.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

May I ask for some clarification? There seems to be a contradiction between the idea, on the one hand, that these products save you money in the long run and, on the other, that they price young people out of the market. I cannot see how something that saves you money in the long run prices you out of the market at the same time. I leave that to the noble Earl.

We are discussing a ban on advertising, but I have never actually heard of these products. It is only by virtue of my membership of the House of Lords—which is a restricted market—that I have come to hear about it. From what she said, that is also the case for the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley. The noble Earl made a very good advertisement for these products as money-saving devices. Where do I get hold of them?

Motor Vehicles (Driving Licences) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2025

Debate between Earl Russell and Lord Moylan

Monday 19th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, I will first turn to the regulations and then to the fatal amendment.

The Liberal Democrats broadly welcome these regulations, which represent a sensible step forward in facilitating our transition to zero-emission vehicles. Zero-emission vehicles, or ZEVs, such as those that are fully electric or hydrogen powered, are often heavier than our petrol or diesel equivalents. This additional weight is primarily due to the weight of the batteries. Since weight has been mentioned in this debate, I will just say that although electric vehicles are heavier than cars of the equivalent size, they are not heavier than the vans, buses, lorries or lots of other things that use our roads.

Previously, this extra weight could push these vehicles into higher driving licence categories, such as category C or C1, requiring drivers to undergo additional training, testing and, potentially, medical examinations and professional competency certificates. Regulations introduced in 2018 attempted to address this by allowing category B licence holders to drive alternatively fuelled vehicles weighing up to 4.25 tonnes but only under specific conditions: five hours of additional training, driving only to transport goods and no towing ability. These conditions, however, have proven to be an unnecessary barrier to the uptake of zero-emission vehicles, with the cost, time and training required being prohibitive for businesses.

These new regulations remove these previous conditions, allowing standard category B licence holders to drive ZEVs up to 4.25 tonnes without the additional five hours training or restriction on goods transport only. This will significantly reduce the regulatory and financial burden on businesses and individuals looking to switch to cleaner vehicles. This should be something that the Conservative Party welcomes—I understand that it is a party all about removing unnecessary regulations for business.

These regulations also allow the towing of a trailer, provided the combined weight does not exceed 7 tonnes, bringing ZEVs in line with petrol and diesel counterparts in this regard. Furthermore, important provisions are included to support drivers and passengers with disabilities, allowing ZEVs with specialist equipment to weigh up to 5 tonnes on a category B licence. This is very welcome and ensures equitable access to the benefits of these regulations. There is more to do in this space to ensure equal access in terms of the design placement of batteries, which inherently restrict disabled use and access to future autonomous vehicles by disabled people.

These Benches support the decisions to narrow the scope of this flexibility from alternatively fuelled vehicles to specifically zero-emission vehicles. While alternatively fuelled vehicles produce less CO₂ than petrol or diesel, they still produce emissions. Focusing these licence flexibilities solely on ZEVs aligns with the cross-party consensus and the Government’s commitment for all new cars and vans to be zero-emission by 2035 and our legally binding net-zero obligations. It rightly supports the cleanest vehicles.

However, as we have heard, concerns have been raised about the removal of the five-hour training requirement, which was previously considered necessary, requiring questions about potential impacts on road safety. While the Department for Transport assessed the risk of removing the conditions as very low, based on current, albeit limited data—the Minister mentioned very few cases—concerns have been raised that heavier vehicles could lead to more severe damaging collisions, particularly involving lighter vehicles, pedestrians and cyclists. Indeed, this was an issue that the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee raised.

Against this, we note that these modern vehicles inherently have more safety features, including systems such as collision avoidance. I ask the Minister how the department will

“closely monitor incident data as it becomes available”.—[Official Report, Commons, 2/4/25; col. 375.]

I ask what specific matrix will be tracked and what thresholds could trigger “swift action” to protect the public if a concerning trend does emerge? What is the timeline for publishing the detailed safety guidance? What steps will be taken to actively disseminate it to drivers and businesses, particularly those who run electric fleet vehicles? I call on the Minister to commit to publishing a full and transparent review of all the safety data within two years and for that review to be made public.

Finally, the target for new EVs by 2035 is UK-wide. The Minister has mentioned this, but we have concerns about the fact that this does not extend to Northern Ireland. The Minister has been clear that this is something for the Northern Ireland Assembly. I wish to ensure that we have uniformity of regulations across the whole of the United Kingdom, so I encourage the Minister to continue those conversations with colleagues to make sure that we have the same regulations across our isles.

I turn to the fatal amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

It is not fatal.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

I apologise—the amendment. This seeks to broaden the scope of these regulations to include alternatively fuelled vehicles that are not zero-emission.

I question the perceived need for such a change, to be honest, and what benefits would flow were it to be passed. The Government’s policy, which we support, is rightly focused on promoting zero-emission vehicles in line with our climate targets. Diluting this focus to extend the weight uplift flexibility to vehicles that still produce CO₂ emissions would undermine the clear objectives of supporting the transition to the cleanest vehicles.

Furthermore, alternative fuel vehicles are not subject to the inherent weight disadvantages as they have no need for heavier battery packs, so are not caught out by the previous regulations. They do not have the same excess weight. Gas-powered vehicles such as vans are the main type of alternative fuel vehicles which were in scope of the old regulations but not in scope of the new ones. But, as the Minister has said, the Government’s impact assessment found that as of December last year there were only 28 of these vehicles on our roads in the whole of the UK. Presumably, those drivers have already undergone all their training needs.

The Government’s impact assessment also highlighted that manufacturers do not have provisions to manufacture great numbers more of these vehicles. Therefore, the Liberal Democrats will support the government regulations, but we call for a full safety review to be completed in the next two years. If the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, calls a Division, we will not support it—we will abstain.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

I am very grateful. That is something the Minister should respond to. I shall not comment further on it other than to say that it is a useful thing to know. But the BMW i3 is not £1,500; it costs a great deal more, and that is beyond the scope of the majority of people.

My noble friend Lord Goschen and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, made a point about road safety. The Government have given assurances on this. Although I am happy to accept those assurances for today, they will be held to them. We will expect those changes to be monitored for their road safety effects. The Minister has said that and we will hold him to it—it is a very important consideration.

Concerning the state of the roads, much has been made by the Minister and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, about the fact that a heavy goods vehicle is heavier than a car. I know that. Everybody knows a heavy goods vehicle is heavier than a car. It has the word “heavy” in its name. The key difference is that there are 33 million cars in this country. There are 500,000 heavy goods vehicles. The damage being done to our roads is not, as I said in my opening remarks, because of the occasional passage of a heavy goods vehicle down a lane in Oxfordshire. It is done by the relentless passage of heavier and heavier cars across those roads, which is not only leading to potholes but breaking up the base and creating a huge maintenance and restoration bill for our roads that will not, in my view, be properly addressed by £1.6 billion.

Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, the Government were given the opportunity to reject the notion that they were going to manipulate driving licences and the conditions on driving licences to achieve objectives related not to road safety or vehicles but to net-zero policy. That would open a door to further manipulation in the future, which could well be used to disadvantage—as the price of a BMW i3 already disadvantages—people on lower incomes. The Government took no opportunity to reject that. Indeed, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, endorsed it and thought it was a very good idea. That is a cloud perhaps no larger than a man’s hand, but it will come back—

[Earl Russell (LD)]

I think there is confusion here. This regulation is fundamentally about removing restrictions, not placing them. I think the noble Lord is confused on this point.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

Do I have to read out paragraph 5.6 of the Explanatory Memorandum again? I thought not. I think it is engraved in the minds of most noble Lords that the purpose of the differential lifting of these restrictions is to achieve our net-zero policies. I should not have to read out the whole of the paragraph, because the noble Earl, Lord Russell, read it out verbatim, as if it were part of his speech. In fact, this paragraph was cut and pasted into his speech, so why should I have to remind him? I think he is the one who is likely to be more confused. This is a very dangerous door the Government have opened, and it will cost them votes when people realise what they are doing.

In the meantime, with that remark, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment to the Government’s Motion.