Tobacco and Vapes Bill

(Limited Text - Ministerial Extracts only)

Committee stage
Thursday 30th October 2025 Grand Committee

[Earl Howe (Con)]

It certainly could be—it sounds a very interesting way forward. I did not take it that the noble Earl was suggesting introducing a levy as a substitute for tobacco duty but as an addition to it, so, in the nature of things, if this were accepted, that is the mix we would get.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)]

My Lords, I am most grateful for the debate today on this group of amendments, which seek to impose regulatory obligations on the tobacco industry. Although in general I would certainly say that I have sympathy for the aims behind these proposals, I suggest that, for the reasons I will go on to outline, they are not necessary in respect of the Bill.

Amendment 192, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, seeks to require the Secretary of State to consult on proposals for regulating the prices and profits of, and to raise funds from, tobacco manufacturers and importers. Similarly, Amendment 194 from the noble Earl, Lord Russell, seeks to require the Secretary of State to introduce regulations to raise funds from tobacco manufacturers and retailers.

The noble Earl, Lord Howe, made the first point that I was intending to make. I feel that in many ways —I know not all noble Lords will share this view—we already have a “polluter pays” tax on tobacco, which comes in the form of tobacco duties, as the noble Earl outlined. Overall, throughout, I am very focused on what impact will be made on improving public health and driving down rates of smoking, as I know we all are. I also appreciate that there are different opinions as to how that might be done. It has been pointed out regularly to the Government that the UK has some of the highest tobacco taxes in the world. Duty rates on all tobacco products were increased by 2% above inflation in the Autumn Budget last year, with an additional increase for hand-rolling tobacco to reduce the gap with cigarettes, and this duty raises about £8 billion a year.

I am aware that the noble Lords, Lord Bourne and Lord Scriven, in addition to other noble Lords, are very supportive of these amendments. I am sure that noble Lords who have quoted me accurately today will probably say I should have looked at this before, but I refer back to, as the previous Government will be aware, a previous consultation in 2014, which showed that going down this road would not raise the significant amounts being referred to when you take into account lost duties.

I have spent quite a lot of time with officials and others going through the detail of all this, not least because of my previous comments. Certainly, having had the chance to review the detailed government advice and all that comes with it, which I now have access to as a Minister, I think that the way to reduce the profits of the tobacco industry is to reduce the use of tobacco—I believe I said that on day one in Committee—and by creating a smoke-free generation. That is not just a prize in itself but will have a great impact, in the way I think noble Lords seek, on the industry. It is unclear to me how an additional levy on tobacco industry profits could be implemented without the costs being passed on to consumers—again, there was some concern about that in this debate—or without regulating prices.

The noble Lord, Lord Young, referred to a price cap on tobacco products. Certainly, my investigation into this shows that regulating pricing would be extremely complicated to design and implement, and difficult to shield from abuse and challenge by the global tobacco industry. Therefore, given that, as I just said, our focus is on implementing our smoke-free generation, our judgment is that the benefits do not outweigh the costs.

Therefore, at this stage, to do the job that I believe most people—not everybody, I know—is focused on, our preference would be to continue with what is a proven, effective and understood model of increasing tobacco duties. This approach provides an incentive to those who currently smoke. It incentivises them to quit, which is what we want to focus on, as well as generating revenue to be put back into a full range of public services, including public health and the National Health Service.

I say to the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, who I know is extremely well aware that I am about to say this, that of course tobacco taxation is a matter for His Majesty’s Treasury, and decisions on taxes are reserved for fiscal events. I would be extremely unwise, in my position, to speculate in advance of a forthcoming Budget.

Moving on to Amendment 12—

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

Houdini would be jealous of the way the Minister ingeniously escaped the trap I set for her earlier, as she tried to reconcile her previous position with what she is now saying. But does she accept that the amendment does not at all ask the Government to introduce a levy? It says:

“The Secretary of State must consult and report on the desirability”.


That would enable the Government, and indeed others, to look at some of the issues that the Minister has raised. The 2014 exercise she referred to consulted on a totally different levy, which would have been passed on to the consumer. The difference between the “polluter pays” principle as we propose it and the one that she proposes is that in the case we prefer, it would be the tobacco manufacturers that would pay, whereas relying on the duty, as the Minister seems to, means that the consumer pays.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I agree that Amendment 192, tabled by the noble Lord, would require the Government to consult on introducing a tobacco industry levy, but, as a former Minister himself, he will be aware of the use of consultation. It remains the case that we believe that the most effective model of dealing with tobacco products is through increases in tobacco duty, so it would not be logical to accept an amendment that requires a consultation on something the Government do not wish to pursue. Amendment 194, in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, would require the Government to make regulations to introduce a tobacco industry levy.

Amendment 12, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, would require the Secretary of State to lay regulations requiring tobacco manufacturers and importers to publish quarterly data relating to the sale of tobacco products across England and Wales. Similarly, Amendment 148, also tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, would require regulations made under Clause 95 to require the provision of certain information, including sales data from producers or importers of relevant products. The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, also spoke in support of these amendments.

This is perhaps an opportunity to refer back to the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox. I heard her concerns about what I said on day one. This is not a question of labelling an industry in any way, but we take very seriously our obligations as a party to the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. I and the Government are very sympathetic to attempts to increase and improve the transparency of the tobacco industry.

I certainly agree with the observations of the noble Baroness, Lady Northover. We know that deprived areas are more likely to have lower life expectancy and higher smoking rates. That is why we particularly need to press forward with this legislation. It is also why we routinely and proactively publish correspondence received from and sent to the tobacco industry, and have produced guidance for the Government on engagement with the tobacco industry, which protects health policy from the commercial and vested interests of the tobacco industry and encourages transparency in all interactions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

That is an important point. When will the consultation end? Will we have its results before we are asked to give this Bill its Third Reading?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I will gladly come back to the points that the noble Lord has just made, if he will allow me. In the meantime, there is no doubt as to the intention and ambition of each of the amendments before us, but it is the Government’s view that they either are unnecessary, due to existing powers, or would risk introducing complexity and unintended consequences; they would not do the job that I know we all want them to do. Once again, I assure noble Lords that we remain committed to reducing smoking, to improving public health and to ensuring transparency around the tobacco industry’s activities.

In so doing—this is perhaps the overall point of this group—I can say that the answer to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, it is 3 December 2025 on which we can set that date for the call for evidence to close. What I am trying to say to noble Lords is that that is very soon. In answer to the noble Lord’s concerns about how long these things might take—

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

My question to the Minister was slightly different. It was not about when the consultation will close. It was about whether we would have the results and the Government’s view before Third Reading. That is the critical question—not, “When will the consultation close?”

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

The noble Lord will be glad to know that I am reminded of what I should know already: matters in relation to the dates for Third Reading are matters for business managers. It will also depend on how much progress we make.

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

I ask for a brief clarification. Is the Minister claiming that Amendment 12 is not necessary because she will accept Amendment 148?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

No, that is not the case. I urge the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Northover (LD)]

My Lords, this group is about the polluter paying and responsibility across a wide range of areas. On Amendment 12, on the practice of disclosing sales data, it is already in place in the United States—full data to the Government and partial to public sources. It is also the practice in Canada, so there is precedent for that. It is not seen as an unreasonable burden, but it is a useful public health tool. It is important to know, for public health reasons, which I and others have outlined, where sales are high.

The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, referred to growth. She might want to consider the economic and growth consequences of the ill-health costs to individuals, families and the NHS and the death that results for so many consumers of tobacco products, then factor that in when she is looking at growth in the United Kingdom. Tobacco kills, which she rightly referred to. I do not need to refer her to the cancer registries—that is self-evident. It is therefore appropriate that we address this. As a former student of Marx, as she identifies herself, she will be very familiar with the notion of exploitation, particularly of the poor and already disadvantaged, to which I have referred, and the difference at the moment in outcomes between groups in terms of equality.

This is an important area. We are seeking to strengthen the Government’s arm, as is always the case when you move from “may” to “must”. We look forward to further discussions with the Minister on how best we do that. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Patel (CB)]

It comes from tobacco.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions on this group of amendments exploring the part of the Bill that relates to the sale of vaping products. I will make a general point to start with, which may be helpful as it has come up a number of times in the debate. It is true to say that vapes are less harmful than smoking because they do not contain tobacco and have fewer harmful chemicals. However, because there is a nicotine content and there are unknown long-term harms, there is a risk of harm and addiction that comes with vaping. That is particularly acute for adolescents whose brains are still developing.

There is a careful balance to be struck in taking action against youth vaping, by which I mean children and young people, while ensuring that vapes absolutely remain accessible to adults who are seeking to quit. Noble Lords will have heard me refer before to the Chief Medical Officer, who is clear that if you smoke, vaping will be a better option; but if you do not smoke, do not vape. It could not be clearer.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Russell (LD)]

I welcome the Minister’s response. However, she said that my amendment would make vaping significantly more expensive than smoking but I want to fundamentally challenge that. That is not the case. The £25 would be a one-time deal; after that, you would save every time you refilled your vape. You would just spend £25 once in your lifetime. That is not making vaping more expensive than smoking in any way at all.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I appreciate the clarification that the noble Earl has made. If that is the case, though, I have to say that that would send a complex pricing message to people, and we are not seeking to add complexity to where we are going. I am not sure I agree with the analysis but I am happy to look at the point that he is making.

Perhaps it will be helpful if I reassure the noble Earl that we are already acting to pick up the point that he rightly raised and which the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, was keen to emphasise, which is to ensure that vapes are not sold for pocket-money prices. Indeed, the Chancellor has confirmed the introduction of a vaping products duty from 1 October 2026. That will set out a single flat rate of £2.20 per 10 millilitres on all vaping liquids, and it will be accompanied by a simultaneous one-off increase in the rate for tobacco duties.

The noble Earl, Lord Russell, raised a number of points about the environmental damage done by vapes. I will be pleased to hear and respond to the debate in the next group about single-use vaping.

The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, asked about vapes being prescribed as a quit aid. We have a world-first scheme here, Swap to Stop, to help adults to ditch cigarettes as part of a 12-week programme of support, as I highlighted earlier in response to the noble Lord, Lord Moylan.

Amendment 28, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, would prohibit businesses from providing free samples of tobacco and vaping products. The noble Baroness said herself that Clause 15 already bans the free distribution of any product or coupon that has the purpose or effect of promoting a tobacco, herbal smoking, vaping or nicotine product as well as cigarette papers, and that includes free samples. It should never have been the case that addictive nicotine and vaping products could have been legally handed out for free, and I am glad to say that the Bill closes that loophole. Clause 15 also states that products cannot be sold at a substantial discount, which will ensure that businesses cannot heavily discount products to the point where the price is no longer such a relevant factor for a prospective purchaser. So the noble Baroness is quite right to seek to close that loophole, and I am grateful to her for raising the issue, but I can confirm that the Bill already achieves her intention.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

To pick up on that, I ask the Minister to clarify the issue that was left slightly in the air earlier about the derivation of nicotine. While nicotine can be synthetically produced, it is derived from tobacco, but the point made by definition in the Bill is that a vaping product is a distinct product from a tobacco product. So the advertisement seen by the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, which I agree is highly regrettable, may be accurate in saying that the product is derived from tobacco but is not a tobacco product. Is that correct?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

My Lords, if we take the logic of the noble Baroness’s argument about nicotine being derived from tobacco, does that drive a coach and horses through the distinction between tobacco products and vaping products? Wherever you stand on this argument, are we now arguing that vaping products are, in fact, tobacco products because the nicotine in them is derived from tobacco? We all have to clarify this, whichever side of the argument we are on.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I fear to tread here—I will be brief. The Bill distinguishes between tobacco products, nicotine products and vaping products. They are separate products. I emphasise the point that I made earlier: vapes are not risk-free, although they are less harmful than smoking. They do not involve burning tobacco, which releases tar and carbon monoxide. However, I must say, having heard the range of debate, I feel that it would be very helpful for me to write to noble Lords with further clarity on these points.

[Noble Lords]

Hear, hear.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I look forward to doing so.

I turn to Amendment 16, which was moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, and tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson. It seeks to probe the reasoning behind the age of sale for vapes and nicotine products set out in Clause 10, as well as why this differs from the proposed new voting age. The Bill restates the existing age of sale of 18 for nicotine vaping products; it also extends this restriction on the age of sale to nicotine products and non-nicotine vaping products, to which no age restrictions currently apply.

On the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, the age of sale for these products and the voting age serve completely different purposes. The age of sale for vaping and nicotine products aims to prevent children and young people becoming addicted to harmful products at a very young age. The risks of harm and addiction from vaping and nicotine products are, as I mentioned earlier, particularly acute for adolescents, whose brains are still developing, so an age of sale of 18 is proportionate to the risks posed.

The age of sale of 18 is indeed distinct from extending the right to vote to 16 and 17 year-olds. In the latter case, which we have yet to debate in the House and the other place, extending the right to vote allows them to have a say in shaping their future and engaging in our democracy. We are looking at completely different criteria. The Government have set out their plans to bring forward their legislation on electoral reform, and I am sure noble Lords look forward to debating those proposals in due course. For all these reasons, I hope noble Lords will feel able to withdraw their amendments.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

May I probe a little on the noble Baroness’s response to my Amendment 18? On the one hand, she seemed to take a hard and unrelenting line on vending machines, particularly in enclosed mental health premises. On the other, the noble Baroness said towards the end that she was still working on it, and I wondered to what extent one could look for hope. I am sure the noble Baroness said that she was still working on these issues. I appreciate that she has consulted the National Health Service, but I think she probably means NHS England, a vast organisation at some distance removed from patient contact. In fact, it has no patient contact at all. The noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, said that representations have been made by a certain number of mental health trusts on just this issue. Their views need to be considered, because they are very much closer to real life. May we hope that the Minister will come back at a later stage with something that modifies the severity and comprehensiveness of the ban that is, as she says, in a Bill that we are here to change?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I will be happy to check exactly what I said but, to be clear, we are not continuing discussions about vapes in hospital and mental health settings, in respect of vending machines. As I said, that is in the Bill. I hope I was making the point that discussions are continuing in respect of vape-free places, and that will be a matter for regulations. I assure the noble Lord that NHS England was in full consultation with the relevant parts of the services. It does provide services and it is the right organisation. As the noble Lord knows, we are bringing NHSE into the department in any case in the future. I am sure he will welcome that, as I certainly do.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

This has been a wide-ranging debate and I thank the variety of noble Lords who spoke. There has been some clarity: it might not be clarity that I am happy with, but we heard the noble Earl, Lord Russell, say that his aspiration is a nicotine-free generation, not just a tobacco-free one. There has been some confusion about the conflation of tobacco and nicotine. The Bill, at least, makes a distinction between those things. It is possible that the Minister—and every other Lord who wanted to get rid of that distinction—wants to challenge the nature of the very core of the Bill, but I assure them that the Bill makes that distinction. If that is not true, it would be interesting to hear what has happened there.

Also, medical scientific discussion on this makes the distinction very clearly and endlessly, particularly, by the way, by oncologists. Those who work with people who have developed cancers from smoking are very enthusiastically promoting nicotine products. As I understood it—as I was assured at Second Reading by the Government and noticed in other communications —we should not be fearful that vaping was a target of prohibition from the Bill. But the more the conversation goes on, and the more it is treated the same, then that is the direction of travel. I would still argue that when one says that the evidence is not in on whether something is helpful, it is not a scientific way of approaching it. The evidence is not in on a wide range of things that are happening in the world. It is evidence that we base evidence-based policies on, not the lack of it.

In the discussion on young people, we ended up discussing whether we are protecting children in a variety of the amendments, through to 20 and 30-somethings in a nightclub who should not be let near a vending machine with vapes in it. My point was not that they would be recreationally vaping because they would be having a good time and therefore it was very dangerous. Although, I have to say that having a good time in a nightclub is not yet, I think, illegal. Having a drink and a cigarette outside a nightclub is, as yet, not illegal—although it might well be by the end of the Bill. The point about vaping was that young people having a good time will often have a social cigarette, and the vaping vending machine might encourage them to do something less harmful. That was my point, rather than me trying to get them all vaping or forcing them to vape.

The conflation of children and young adults needs to be sorted out. In that sense, although I am sure I did not do remotely as good a job of moving Amendment 16 as the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, would have, we need to be clear that voting in elections is not a technical matter; it is philosophically about saying that someone is an autonomous adult. Therefore, we have a conflict in who we consider children and adults when it comes to health.

I finish by saying I am genuinely, totally disappointed by the attitude to mental health provision and vending machines. Many mental health charities are concerned about this. The age-gating issue is not an issue in mental health hospitals. This idea that there will be hordes of children wandering around accessing vapes from a vending machine—it just seems cruel and inhumane. I do not understand why that exception would not be made. It is true that mental health charities and family groups have suggested that having the odd vending machine in a hospital where people are restricted from leaving would be helpful. It would be kind and compassionate. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, the first amendment in this group, in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Grey-Thompson and Lady Walmsley, shines a spotlight on a fascinating question: when is a reusable vape not a reusable vape? The ban on single-use vapes came into force on 1 June this year, as we have heard. Single-use or disposable vapes are clearly defined in the guidance: they are vapes which are not designed or not intended to be reused. For all the reasons given by the noble Earl, especially the environmental reasons, that ban is soundly based. A reusable vape is one that possesses two key features: it must have a battery which can be recharged and the e-liquid container—that is, the cartridge or the pod—can be either refilled or replaced with a separately sold item, which is where the amendment comes in.

The regulation explicitly states that a device is not refillable or reusable if it has a single-use container, such as a pre-filled pod, that you cannot buy separately and replace. In other words, the law at present tries to capture in the definition of a disposable vape all devices that look and function like a disposable vape. So far, I hope, so clear, but as we have heard from the noble Earl, this leads on the ground to some grey areas of interpretation. A vaping device may be packaged in such a way as to claim that it is intended to work with replaceable pods—and hence that it should be classed as refillable and reusable. In practice, however, that claim can sometimes be a fiction. If, in reality, the replacement pods are not readily available for purchase separately, the device is at risk of falling foul of the legal description of a reusable vape. Enforcement authorities will also check whether the battery is genuinely rechargeable and whether a replaceable heating coil is genuinely replaceable.

More and more reports suggest that in some shops, replacement pods are either not available at all or are in very short supply. Furthermore, so-called reusable devices are priced similarly to the former disposable vapes. The net effect is that the user is tacitly encouraged to throw away the entire device, including the battery and the pod, once they have finished using it. Functionally, the supposed reusable vape has become a disposable vape.

The question therefore is: is there a need to change the definition of what counts as a disposable vape? The noble Earl suggests in his amendment that part of the answer is to ban pre-filled single-use vaping pods. The problem with that suggestion is that some vaping devices properly classified as reusable devices genuinely depend on the supply of replacement single-use pods and are thereby genuinely reusable. Banning all single-use pods would mean removing those types of reusable vaping devices from the market, a step which, on the face of things, appears rather severe.

What, therefore, is to be done? If it is true that many devices currently on the market technically tick the box of being refillable or reusable but in practice behave like disposables, how are we to address that loophole? Is the answer to reframe the regulations, or does the answer lie in intelligent enforcement by local authorities and trading standards? I will be interested to hear the Minister’s reply.

That point links neatly to the second amendment in this group, Amendment 145, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, which I think makes a sensible and pragmatic case, pace the noble Baroness, Lady Carberry, to whom I listened very carefully. In introducing further regulations in this area, we would be well advised to take stock of the prohibitions that have already been introduced and examine their impact in practice. The single-use vape ban that came into force on 1 June provides us with an opportunity to do that. We will no doubt debate at later stages the regulation-making powers designed to control flavours, and so on. I align myself with the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, in wanting to tread cautiously, reflecting on how the single-use ban came in as quickly as it did and whether some unintended consequences have ensued from it.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

My Lords, I am most grateful to noble Lords for the debate on this group of amendments. I will start with Amendment 22, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, which seeks to ban all “pre-filled single-use vaping pods”.

We understand the concerns being raised about the environmental harms of single-use products. The ban that was introduced by Defra came into force on 1 June, which was not so long ago. Under that ban, vapes must be rechargeable and refillable, while any coil must be replaceable. A vape is not considered refillable if it has a single-use container, such as a pre-filled pod, that you cannot buy separately and replace. Pre-filled pods that can be replaced are therefore not captured, to the points raised by a number of noble Lords, as the ban focuses on tackling the greatest environmental harms. Those are posed by batteries and the surrounding elements contained in the vapes. I acknowledge that vaping creates waste; that is true when users fill up a tank or pod themselves using refill bottles, as the noble Earl described, as well as when pre-filled pods are used.

However, to minimise the environmental impact, since April 2024 it has been compulsory for all businesses selling vapes and vape products, including pods, to provide their customers with a recycling bin and to arrange for these products to be collected by a verified recycling service. I hope that makes a helpful contribution in answering the points raised by the noble Earl, Lord Howe. Since this obligation came into force, some 10,500 vape takeback bins have been introduced into stores. I say to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that Defra is monitoring the impact of its regulations and will consider the environmental impact of any new vaping regulations brought in using the powers in this Bill.

I hear the concerns about the appeal of single-use pods to children. The Bill contains powers to regulate vape devices. Importantly, we have recently launched a call for evidence that seeks information on the role that different sizes, shapes and features of devices play in the appeal of vaping to young audiences. As part of that, we would welcome evidence on any types of vaping device that particularly appeal to children. I assure the Committee that we will use the evidence to inform future proposals on potential restrictions to devices.

Amendment 145, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, seeks to place additional requirements on the Secretary of State before regulations can be made on contents and flavour. I note that part of these requirements involves evaluating the impacts of the ban on single-use vapes, which came into force on 1 June. Defra is monitoring the impact of its regulations and a post-implementation review will be undertaken in line with statutory obligations.

Turning to the impact of future restrictions on contents and flavour, we recognise that vape flavours are an important consideration for smokers seeking to quit. We will therefore consider the scope of restrictions very carefully to avoid any unintended consequences on smoking rates. I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Carberry for her contribution on this group.

As I said, to support all this, the call for evidence was launched on 8 October. It includes questions about the role of flavours, their contents and the associated risks. I assure noble Lords that before any restrictions are introduced on contents and flavours, we will conduct an impact assessment. We will also undertake a consultation on our policy proposals, and Parliament will have the opportunity to scrutinise the regulations. I hope that this response allows noble Lords not to press their amendments.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response to my amendment and the other amendment in this group. It has been an interesting group. I also thank the noble Earl for his response to my amendment. He speaks absolute truth: the reality for most people is that, if you have a legal vape with a pod in it and you are minded to not use it as a one-time product but to replace the pod, most shops do not sell them. You cannot get them, they are not available, and the reality is that big tobacco is skirting these regulations and selling only the vapes, not the pods—and, even if you buy the pod, they cost almost the same as buying a new vape.

I recognise the need to review the regulations, which are very recent, and I welcome the fact that Defra is monitoring that, but the real trouble here is that the regulations did not go far enough and there is no clear blue water. They are neither fish nor fowl. It is too easy to skirt these regulations. You just stick a charging point on, stick a pod in it, and you have met the requirements of the regulations, but the reality is that you are still selling a product that is extremely cheap, is used once and thrown away. These matters need further thought.

I asked the Minister whether she could update us on the work of the circular task force. Perhaps that is something we could do before Report. I am happy for that to be done in writing, but more needs to be done. I recognise the call of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, for more evidence; the Minister has given some reassurance on that. However, I do not support holding up the Bill while we wait for that evidence. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.