Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Earl Russell Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 30th October 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I agree with Amendment 12 moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, but I want to speak to Amendment 192, which proposes the introduction of a levy on tobacco manufacturers.

When products cause harm, the polluter should pay. That principle was introduced by previous Conservative Governments; the landfill levy was introduced in 1996 and the soft drinks levy in 2018. After the Grenfell tragedy, we introduced the Building Safety Act to make the construction industry pay for the remediation of high-rise blocks. We should apply the same principle to tobacco.

In a report commissioned by the last Government, Javed Khan looked at three options to raise funds to implement his conclusions. He wrote:

“Introduce a ‘polluter pays’ industry levy on profits from cigarette sales, which can directly fund the full range of comprehensive measures to help us reach smokefree 2030 and make smoking obsolete. This is my preferred option … A tobacco ‘polluter pays’ levy could be introduced in the form of a charge applied as a percentage of these profits”.


It would not impact on the CPI or the cost to the consumer, and it would raise hundreds of millions of pounds.

We debated exactly that proposition on 16 March 2022, Amendment 158 to the Health and Care Bill, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, whom I am delighted to see in his place. He said about that amendment:

“This new Clause … would require the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to carry out a consultation about a statutory scheme for the regulation of prices and profits of tobacco manufacturers and importers. Funds raised by the scheme would be used to pay for the cost of tobacco control measures”.—[Official Report, 16/3/22; cols. 287-88.]


That is precisely what Amendment 192 proposes.

Responding to the amendment, the Minister, speaking then from the Opposition Front Bench on behalf of her party, said:

“This strikes me as wholly pragmatic; a wide-ranging consultation would undoubtedly help to strike the right balance between all the parties involved … The scheme proposed in this group of amendments would provide a well-funded and much-needed boost, and a consultation would allow this proposal to be tested, refined and shaped. I hope that the Minister will accept the opportunity of a consultation but if the will of the House is tested, these Benches will support the amendments”.—[Official Report, 16/3/22; col. 297.]


She was as good as her word: she supported the amendment, along with the Leader of her party and the Chief Whip, and the amendment was carried, later to be overturned in another place. I was therefore surprised that the noble Baroness did not add her name to this amendment when I tabled it, and I look forward to her compelling speech in its favour.

Amendment 192 would require the Government to consult on the introduction of a “polluter pays” levy. Tobacco is a uniquely addictive and lethal consumer product, and this creates a perfect storm for consumers. The tobacco industry in this country continues to be in good health, unlike its customers, and companies continue to make significant profits: an estimated £900 million per year in the UK alone, with average profit margins of around 50% compared to 10% for manufacturing margins.

There are various estimated costs to society of smoking. That from ASH is £43.7 billion a year—perhaps the Government could share their own estimate—and it is the taxpayer who picks up the tab: costs to the NHS, costs to social care, lost productivity to our economy, and higher welfare bills. A “polluter pays” levy ensures that those who can and should pay, do, and implementing it would raise up to £700 million a year.

So how would it work? The Treasury consulted on a levy in 2014 and did not proceed, but what is proposed now is quite different and, crucially, it would not allow the industry to pass costs on to the consumer and would have no impact on the RPI.

The levy model proposed by the APPG on Smoking and Health would introduce a price cap on tobacco similar to what we do with utilities. That would limit the prices to manufacturing costs plus, say, a 10% profit margin. This would be in line with other consumer products and more than generous for an industry responsible for such high levels of harm. The Government would then introduce a new levy on the industry, to be paid for from its profits.

A consultation would allow this model to be “tested and shaped”, providing a much-needed boost to public finances. The public too share our support for this proposal, with 76% of adults in England in favour of a “polluter pays” levy.

I note that the amendment from the noble Earl, Lord Russell, on this same subject proposes to put the proceeds into

“a dedicated fund held by the Department of Health and Social Care”.

I have not included such hypothecation in my own amendment, but I fully support what he seeks to do. Some £700 million a year could be used to support 2 million more smokers to quit just in this Parliament and accelerate progress towards a smoke-free future. It is likely that funds would be left over, which could be used for other public health activities, helping the Government achieve their mission of reducing the gap in life expectancy between the richest and the poorest.

This is a measured, fair and practical proposal. It would protect the consumer, prevent industry manipulation, provide much-needed funding for the Treasury, and ensure that those who profit from an addictive and lethal product made a proper contribution to repairing the damage it causes. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, my Amendment 194, on a tobacco industry levy and new industry obligations, offers a vital and practical mechanism to make the Bill stronger, fairer and more effective in public health and social justice terms. I am sure there is not a Member present whose family has not been impacted by nicotine addiction, and my family is no exception. The Bill presents an important opportunity to redress the balance between corporate profits gained from selling products that by their very nature kill two-thirds of their users and the burdens placed on wider society that are felt by our health and care systems. Other amendments in this group are based on similar ways of addressing these wider problems and I welcome them. These are problems that, if not addressed, will persist long after the Bill is passed.

My amendment would quite simply make those who profit from harm contribute directly towards repairing it. The tobacco industry continues to generate vast profits from the products it sells and it has huge economic and human suffering costs. I acknowledge that accurate statistical data in these areas is complex, but it has been estimated that the four largest tobacco manufacturers made approximately £900 million in profits annually in the UK, according to one 2023 estimate. I well recognise that tobacco duties are a significant source of government revenue, raising an estimated £8.1 billion in 2025-26, which represents 0.7% of all government receipts and is equivalent to 0.3% of national income. However, this revenue goes towards general taxation.

The health impacts of smoking and nicotine are estimated to cost the UK economy billions of pounds annually, with estimates for England alone reaching up to £43.7 billion if the total societal costs are included and some £2.5 billion in direct service costs for the NHS. These figures are significant and productivity loss and health impacts have big societal impacts. My amendment would require the Secretary of State to introduce by regulation a levy on companies’ profits derived from income from the manufacture or sale of tobacco products in the United Kingdom. The levy would apply annually and would be based on profits attributable to tobacco sales here. The funds raised would be paid to a dedicated ring-fenced account held by the Department of Health and Social Care. As has already been mentioned by the noble Lord, every penny collected would be used solely for the purposes of either smoking cessation services, public health campaigns focused on reducing tobacco harm or healthcare services to treat people living with smoking-related diseases.

It is worth stressing what this amendment would not do. It would not set the rate or the structure of the levy. I have left these details entirely for the Government to determine. The measure is not prescriptive; it would simply establish the legislative framework and would allow Ministers to design and introduce a fair and proportionate levy. It would give the Government flexibility to decide, for example, whether the levy should be assessed by company profits, by market share or by a combination of the two approaches. It would equally be left to the Treasury to investigate and decide, with Ministers, the best way to implement it. The principle of the amendment is the important point, and it is clear. The principle is that the tobacco companies, and not the general taxpayer, should contribute directly the greatest proportion of the cost of the harm that their products cause. It would align, as has been said on other amendments today, with the “polluter pays” model, which is endorsed by health experts across the field. The estimate is that £700 million could be generated annually to help transform smoking cessation services and public awareness campaigns, services that have been hit by cuts.

Although the level of smoking is reducing, some 13% of the UK population still smokes. This has significant impacts. For example, Imperial tobacco holds 40% of the UK market; that market is worth £30 billion annually. Meanwhile, on the other side, the NHS and the Treasury have to deal with the societal consequences of what tobacco does.

--- Later in debate ---

The amendments in this group raise serious issues, but they also demonstrate the delicate balance that we need to strike in this area. We want transparency, but we do not want bureaucracy; we want accountability, but not overregulation; and we should favour effective public health measures that do not crush legitimate, responsible businesses.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

I appreciate the noble Earl’s point about duties versus levies. Might he be open to considering a percentage of duties being hypothecated for smoking cessation? Might that be a way of squaring the circle?

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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?

[Earl Russell (LD)]

I am grateful for the noble Lord’s intervention. My first amendment would introduce a greater price point for entry into the market, but my second amendment is about banning little, plastic, pre-filled pods that have to go into supposedly reusable vapes and for which the manufacturers charge a premium. I would get rid of that, so that people could use a bottle to refill the vape. You would have a slightly more expensive base unit, but the daily running of that unit would be cheaper. Therefore, the savings generate over time. That is the fundamental proposition that I am putting forward.

The noble Lord makes a valid point about advertising. The better option is not to use the word “advertising” but to use the phrase “health education”. There is not enough knowledge about these products, and it would be good if people had better options to choose from.

I will also comment, very briefly, on the other amendments, which I forgot to discuss earlier. I have sympathy for Amendment 17A and for Amendment 18, which is in the names of noble Lord, Lord Moylan, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox. These are important issues for people who are in mental health institutions or other institutions, where they are not free fully to leave or to get access to vaping products. It would be a mistake to restrict their ability to access those products.

[Baroness Northover (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 28, which concerns free samples of tobacco and vaping products. I thank my noble friend Lady Walmsley for adding her support.

Although I understand that Clause 15 will take action on this issue, it is such an important matter and such a significant gap in current regulation that I wish to address it directly with my amendment. The promotion of tobacco and vaping products through the distribution of free samples is wholly unacceptable. The Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Act 2002, with which I was involved, explicitly banned that practice for tobacco. It is exactly what I saw in Africa when I was a DfID Minister, with primary age children given cigarettes as the tobacco industry saw its market decline in the West and sought to addict children in other parts of the world. If vapes were really only used for smoking cessation, why would they be so clearly targeted at children, as we have heard?

Since vapes have come on to the market, there have been multiple reports of such products being handed out to young people to get them addicted to nicotine. It is the route that my nephew, to whom I referred on Monday, and his friends, who are now unable to kick the smoking habit, arrived at cigarette smoking—via colourful vapes. It would be useful to publish the sales data, and we will see whether we have some useful data on potential upticks among children smoking as a result of vapes.

Public health campaigners have long called for the closing of the loophole that allows vapes to be given to children as part of a promotional activity. As far back as 2010, the Guardian reported that a 17 year-old had been given a free sample of BAT’s vape brand, without being told that it contained nicotine or being asked for age verification. Such promotions are often carried out by third-party marketeers at festivals, train stations and in city centres, with young, vibrant staff enticing people with their free products—but with limited explanation of the risks. Trading standards can do nothing about this, as vapes are not currently covered by existing restrictions.

My amendment came as a result of sitting on the Tube on 7 May this year and looking up and seeing the advert for Zyn that I am holding up. I know we are not supposed to use props, but this makes the point. Zyn, it says, is a “flavour you feel”. “No smoke, no vapour, no tobacco” is what that advert says in large type. Sounds benign, does it not? However, there is an asterisk to very small print that says it is derived from tobacco. Then there are the flavours: chilli guava, icy blackcurrant, citrus, black cherry, cool mint. Then it says, “Claim your free sample today”, with a double asterisk to another tiny warning and a minute warning underneath saying that it is not risk free—an understatement—that it contains nicotine, which is addictive, and that it should only be used by adults who would otherwise continue to smoke or use nicotine. Oh yes, just look at this advert. Do they put those warnings in bold colours and letters? Oh no, they do not. So do not tell me that this is not targeted at young people.

I was so angry to see that and that is why my amendment came forward. How can anyone justify seeking to draw children and young people in with an advert like that and sleep soundly at night? It is welcome that this Bill will finally address this issue, but it has taken an unacceptably long time to reach this point. The industry is, as ever, using all sorts of arguments to water this down, and we should not buy that. Young people who have never smoked should not be using vapes, as my noble friend Lord Russell has just said. Yet, 20% of 11 to 17 year-olds have tried vaping and 160,000 children at least vape daily.

I would be grateful if the Minister would confirm the following. First, will the Bill be robust enough to capture any future innovations the industry might devise? We have seen time and again how the tobacco industry exploits loopholes and adapts products to evade regulation. It is essential this practice of giving out free samples to hook young people on to addictive products ends with this Bill. Secondly, could the Minister comment on the timeframe and the reasoning behind it? I note that no further regulations are required but that the measure will come into force six months after Royal Assent. Is there any possibility that we could bring this forward? We have already waited five years for this change. I share the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, about time slipping on this. This is one of the most insidious forms of marketing, and we should crack down on it as swiftly as possible.

--- Later in debate ---

Amendment 21, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, seeks to introduce a minimum price of £30 for vaping products. Again, I understand the intent behind the amendment, and I certainly share the noble Earl’s concerns about low-cost vaping products being targeted at children, but, as identified by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, it would see the price of many vaping products increase many times over. It would potentially —in fact, as it is set out, it would—make vaping significantly more expensive than smoking. This would undermine the critical strategy of ensuring a price differential between vapes and cigarettes to incentivise adult smokers to quit.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Earl Russell]

22: After Clause 12, insert the following new Clause—
“Prohibition on the manufacture, supply and sale of pre-filled single-use vaping pods(1) A person must not manufacture, supply, or offer for sale any pre-filled nicotine pod intended and designated for use in a vaping product.(2) For the purposes of this section, a “pre-filled nicotine pod” means a sealed cartridge that—(a) contains a nicotine-containing liquid,(b) is not intended to be refilled or reused, and(c) is designed for single use and disposal once the liquid is exhausted.(3) The prohibition in subsection (1) applies to—(a) manufacturers, importers and retailers, and(b) both physical and online sales and supply.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment prohibits the manufacture of reusable vapes which contained pre-filled nicotine pods.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, in opening this group on single-use vape products, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and my noble friend Lady Walmsley for their support for my Amendment 22, which seeks to prohibit the manufacture, supply and sale of pre-filled single-use vape pods. For those who do not understand, these are the sealed plastic cartridges that contain nicotine liquid and which are often discarded once they are empty. They are a pre-filled pod that is plugged into a vape, from which all the nicotine is discharged and it is then thrown away. At first glance, this might seem like a small regulatory change, but it is quite important to our environmental sustainability and to the circular economy. These are key principles which the Government are promoting through the work of their own task force.

Single-use vape products are part of the disposable culture of the nicotine world. They are also the key means that big tobacco uses to extract exorbitant profits from their vaping products, profits that have been estimated to be up to 37.1% for vaping products, compared to margins of 8.5% for tobacco products. It is the use of pods that drives these excessive margins. Each tiny cartridge contains plastic, metal and residual nicotine liquid—a trio that makes them almost impossible to recycle effectively, even if somebody was minded to do so. Therefore, each year, millions of these pods end up in landfill or littered on our pavements and in our parks and rivers. They contain materials from lithium to plastic fragments, and they can leak harmful substances into the environment, damaging our ecosystems. Keep Britain Tidy has noted that discarded vapes and waste associated with vaping are one of the fastest-growing forms of street litter.

I believe that they should be banned. There are a number of vapes on the market which are refillable from a bottle. This creates a captive market and excess profits for tobacco companies. It is the state that is left to deal with the rubbish and the environmental damage.

As I said, this amendment relates to the one I spoke to in the previous group—the two go together. If as a vaper you use liquid, you are saving yourself considerable amounts of money. Some people estimate that, depending on the type of vape used, that could be up to £750 per year.

This is a sensible thing to do. It goes along with Amendment 21 and fits with the Government’s desire to have a circular economy. This is not about attacking vapers—this would make it cheaper for those who vape regularly. It would also be better for the environment. I really do not see why the Government do not do this. These products exist. This would not put a particular strain on the manufacturers of vapes; all it would do is stop them getting excess profits and causing unnecessary environmental damage.

This is obviously part of a broad sweep of matters being considered by the Circular Economy Taskforce. Is the Minister in a position today, or perhaps at a later stage in the Bill, to update us on where the task force is in relation to pods and vaping and, more generally, on disposable vapes?

I would like progress on this issue. I do not think that the process we have now is sustainable. I think we need change and I stand ready to work with the Minister and anybody else, from any party, who wants to take action on these matters.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

Vaping, as a mechanism for smoking cessation, is now recommended by NICE as the first-line quit method. It has been endorsed by the NHS and it has formed the backbone of the Government-funded and the already discussed and, indeed, boasted about Swap2stop scheme for local authorities. Vaping is very much part of government policy, it seems to me.

Vaping has enabled millions of UK smokers to quit over the last five years. The way that that has happened and that single-use vapes revolutionised smoking cessation was through being easy and cheap enough to swap to quit. Inevitably, with such a revolutionary success story in innovation on the horizon, what did the Government do? They banned them.

As I explained at Second Reading, the ban on single-use vapes, which the noble Earl, Lord Russell, explained very well in relation to his amendment, was brought in for environmentalist, green reasons. That is fair enough, but health did not even come into the ban on single-use vapes; it was not even discussed. I think that that shows that although, in some of the discussions, it is as though, whatever the freedom or civil liberty considerations, the most important thing is always public health, suddenly, there are things where public health is given secondary consideration to a different set of political priorities.

I am therefore opposed to Amendment 22. Even though we have now banned single-use vapes, the amendment intends to ban the reusable vapes that are on the market and actually being sold. The amendment is interesting because it is at least honest—the noble Earl, Lord Russell, has been honest throughout the day—because, in the heading of his amendment, the word “prohibition” is used. Absolutely. Noble Lords might be delighted to know, because my own person experience might fuel these prohibitionists, that I objected to the ban on single-use vapes. Now, of course, because we are no longer able to buy them, I use reuseable vapes, but, guess what, I use them as disposable. Because nobody really thought beforehand what the point of this ban was. Despite huge inconvenience to manufactures—and just to clarify, not all manufacturers of vapes are tobacco manufacturers—all sorts of independent of vape makers have had to completely redesign everything; it has completely disrupted a successful, innovative product that was a brilliant smoking cessation tool. We have gone through this big law change, and not very much has happened.

This brings me to my amendment, which suggests that the single-use vape ban, which was brought in as a piece of legislation, should be assessed before we discuss what we are doing with the Bill in relation to vaping. It is vital that the ban on single-use vapes is subject to a comprehensive impact assessment as to its impact on public health and any effects that the ban has had on public health. According to the figures, 17% of people are purchasing illegal single-use vapes that are still being sold on the black market where I live, and in other places too. Some people have now given up on those vapes, because they saw all the kerfuffle about single-use vapes, and reverted to smoking.

So it is imperative for the Government, before the Bill is passed, to review the outcome of the single-use vape ban, as proposed by my Amendment 145. It happened and I do not think it has made the kind of difference that the Government anticipated—but nobody ever talks about it any more. If you go into a corner shop or whatever to buy a vape, you will see similar-looking products that are reusable, but many people use them as if they were disposable—and even I think that that was not quite what the Government had in mind, so they should at least consider the outcome.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

I did not want to speak to the noble Baroness’s amendment before she had spoken to it but, now she has, I will briefly respond. I have no problem with her overriding concern that there should be a review of the ban on disposable vapes. Information is important. Obviously, the regulations were done by Defra, so I do not quite know where we are with that.

I will make two further points. The first is in relation to Swap to Stop; it is really important that the Government continue to fund that programme and that people are given proper, long-term vapes, because that is what they need.

With respect to the noble Baroness, I think she is the exception. On the one hand, we have had the ban on disposable vapes, but the problem is that there has not been that much change, as she says. I think we need to go further and move to proper, reusable vapes that cost slightly more but are a one-time purchase that give consumers long-term value. The trouble is that we have not gone that far; this has been a bit of a fudge. If we had a clearer distinction between what was once a one-time, disposable product and what we need to move towards, which is a long-term, reusable product that you would save money from by not needing pods and things like that, we would end up in a clearer and better place.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

The noble Earl, Lord Russell, is good at advertising the product that he is promoting. If anyone is interested in doing PR on anything, this is your man.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

Amendment 22 withdrawn.