Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Lord Darzi of Denham Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 3rd March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Udny-Lister (Con)]

My Lords, my Amendment 136A deals with the rapid emergence of devices with a very high puff count—so-called “big puff” devices—which are clearly designed to circumvent the spirit of existing regulation. The Tobacco and Related Products Regulations 2016, approved by this House and the other place, set a 2-millilitre limit on vape tank size. That limit was deliberate. It was intended to restrict the volume of nicotine liquid immediately accessible within a device. Yet now we see devices incorporating multiple pods or attaching 10-millilitre refill containers directly to the unit. These create systems with an effective capacity far beyond 2 millilitres. If the law says 2 millilitres it should mean 2 millilitres, not 2 millilitres multiplied by clever engineering.

These are no longer niche products. Millions are now sold weekly. They are cheaper per puff than standard devices and they are particularly attractive to younger users. Research indicates that almost half of 16 to 34 year-olds who vape are opting for these devices with a higher puff count. We now see products on the market claiming to deliver 100,000 puffs. To put that into perspective, that is broadly equivalent to the puff volume of something like 8,000 cigarettes all contained within a single device. The concentration of nicotine exposure in one unit on that scale should give us all very serious cause for concern.

I do not believe this is simply a matter of marketing exaggeration. Some of these devices contain several times more liquid than traditional products, materially increasing the potential volume of nicotine consumption and moving far beyond what Parliament envisaged when it established the 2-millilitre limit. We also see superficial attempts to comply with the ban on disposable vapes. Devices are fitted with USB charging points but retain non-replaceable coils, so that once the coil burns out, the entire device is discarded. This is disposability in all but name.

I anticipate that the Minister may suggest that the Bill already contains sufficient powers to regulate such devices through secondary legislation. If that is so, this amendment merely makes explicit what the Government believe is already implicit. Parliament has previously set a clear quantitative limit. It is entirely reasonable to reaffirm that limit in unambiguous terms, particularly where the market has moved to exploit perceived gaps.

The Minister may also say that the Government have launched a call for evidence and that legislation at this stage would be premature. However, the concern here is not about developing future policy but about the exploitation of the existing framework. The 2-millilitre limit is already law. The issue is whether that settled position can be circumvented in practice through structural design. This amendment does not stifle legitimate reusable products. It does not prohibit refill bottles sold separately. It does not alter the 10-millimetre refill rule. It does not interfere with lawful refillable systems. It simply ensures that a single device cannot be engineered to exceed the 2-millilitre limit through multiple tanks or attached containers.

Effective enforcement depends on legislative clarity. Trading standards officers should not be left to debate whether what is in effect a 12-millimetre system technically complies with the 2-millimetre rule. Clear drafting reduces ambiguity and strengthens compliance. At the very least I hope the Minister will be able to reassure the House that there will be no undue delay in addressing devices that are clearly designed to sidestep the intent of the current rules and that prompt action will be taken to close this loophole and uphold the 2-millimetre limit in practice.

[Lord Darzi of Denham (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I strongly support the Bill and the ambition to create a smoke- free generation. Throughout my clinical and academic career, I have consistently argued for bold preventive action, because nothing would do more to reduce preventable death and health inequality than ending tobacco addiction. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, for Amendments 125 and 134. I understand the instincts behind them, but I cannot support them. These amendments would limit the Government’s power to regulate flavour descriptors—the words on the packet rather than the chemical ingredients that create the flavour. Put simply, we would be regulating the label, not the substance.

The Chief Medical Officer’s evidence note is clear. Flavoured vaping products contain a wide range of chemicals, many of which are safe to eat but dangerous to inhale. The long-term effects of inhaling these substances are simply not known yet. Restricting regulations to descriptors alone would deny the Government’s ability to act as new science emerges. As we have heard, flavour is one of the principal drivers of youth uptake. If we regulate only what the packet says and not what the product contains, manufacturers will simply reformulate to maintain the same appeal. We would be inviting a regulatory game of cat and mouse, and it is a game that children will lose.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

I hate to interrupt the noble Lord, but Clause 91 gives the Secretary of State powers to regulate the substances that may be included in a relevant product. I am not proposing that we change that at all. I am simply suggesting we change “flavour” to “flavour descriptor”, because flavour is inherently subjective. The substances which may be toxic or harmful would remain in scope of the legislation in the language the Government have chosen to use, irrespective of my amendment. I interrupt the noble Lord only because I am not entirely sure that he has grasped the effect of my amendment, and I thought he might want to reflect on that.

[Lord Darzi of Denham (Non-Afl)]

If I have not, then I apologise. I still believe it is not clear on paper. I feel it is the flavour that is being bound, but if the noble Lord’s amendment is correcting that, that is fine. Narrowing the powers before the science is settled is another issue. There is very little scientific evidence on the impact of the taste or whatever the inhaler contains. This has not been utilised before, so we do not know the dangers of the substance that is being inhaled. The prudent course is to retain the widest possible powers and to act on evidence as it emerges. To do otherwise will leave our children exposed to risks we could have prevented. I urge the House to at least look at these amendments or reject them.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I shall be brief, because the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, has explained what his amendment is trying to do. I just want to query whether narrowing the powers before the science is settled is an admirable aspiration. That gives authoritarian power to the Government to do anything they want because there is no science and it is not settled. How is that evidence-based policy? It is the opposite and I think that is very dangerous.

I want to more accurately emphasise that flavours are part of smoking cessation, but I am only going to do that briefly. The reason why I want to do that is to quote ASH, because—guess what?—ASH says that flavours are a very important way in which adults vape and therefore give up smoking. So, for once, I am quoting ASH in a positive way to say that flavours cannot be demonised and we have to be very careful what we wish for.

Medical Training (Prioritisation) Bill

Lord Darzi of Denham Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 12th February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Winston (Lab)]

My Lords, I too am a little bit concerned about unintended consequences. It is a real pleasure to see my noble friend Lord Darzi in his place, because I hope he will have comments on this issue.

I trained as a clinical academic. Indeed, we know that clinical academics have had a unique value to the health service. They work part-time in the health service with a reduced salary and do research at the same time. I am very concerned that many of the clinical academics we have had at Imperial College, for example, have been from overseas. They were medically qualified elsewhere but had not yet been in Britain and were still junior doctors, in a sense. I am really concerned that there are many such people who come to Britain, do a postdoctoral degree such as a PhD and, in the meantime, keep their medical skills flowing, as I did myself. I was seven years in this situation with the Wellcome Trust. I remember it very well. I was overseas but at least knew that I could come back to Britain. But I was a British subject—that was easy.

There are so many of these people. To give just one example, Professor Jan Brosens at Warwick University is undoubtedly one of the key people who have contributed massively to female health, particularly on implantation of the ovum and in his magnificent work on endometriosis. He came as a junior doctor from Belgium, from Leuven University, to what was then Hammersmith Hospital, which is now, of course, Imperial College. Now, he is a very distinguished professor at Warwick University with a very large team. His recruitment made a very big difference to the whole field. His is not an isolated example; there are many such people I can think of. I hope the noble Baroness can suggest some way of dealing with this problem of unusually good graduates from elsewhere, who may not be British citizens, perhaps, in the current priorities, but who would really be deserving of serious consideration for certain specialty jobs. Not to do that would be a great loss to the health service.

[Lord Darzi of Denham (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, many of you will know that I did my medical training in Ireland. In fact, I exercised some of my skills in this Chamber back in 2007. Irish medical education is excellent, and many of its graduates have gone on to distinguished careers in the NHS. I speak today to ensure we strike the right balance in this Bill, specifically by securing fair treatment for doctors who hold degrees approved by the Irish Medical Council.

As drafted, the Bill would exclude graduates of the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland at its medical campus in Bahrain, for example—a campus that was established more than 20 years ago. Let me be clear about what that institution delivers: it has the same curriculum, the same examinations and the same quality assurance as Dublin, leading to a single national University of Ireland degree. Its programme and clinical training sites are also accredited under Irish regulatory oversight by the Irish Medical Council. I urge that, on Report, wording be introduced to bring graduates of this institution within the priority group. Such a clarification would sit squarely alongside the amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Gerada, and the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Mendelsohn. These seek to ensure that medical graduates of a UK university holding a GMC-approved degree and following the same curriculum and assessment, but studying outside the British Isles, are included in the priority group. It would also be consistent with the similar amendment tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Forbes and Lord Shipley, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Finlay and Lady Hollins.

I draw a further anomaly to your Lordships’ attention. The unamended Bill would place graduates of the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland’s campus in Penang, Malaysia—a joint programme with University College Dublin—within this priority group. These students study an Irish Medical Council-accredited, GMC-recognised degree, completing half their education in Ireland and half in Malaysia. Yet the well-intentioned clarifying amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, requiring at least 60% of the time to be spent in Ireland, would inadvertently exclude them.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, it has been many years since I last spoke in a health debate. There is a sense of déjà vu in seeing the noble Earl, Lord Howe, on the Opposition Front Bench. It is also an absolute pleasure to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Darzi, and to hear the arguments he has made, which are very consistent with those we will be making later in the group of amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Gerada.

I rise to speak to the amendments in this group, but particularly to Amendment 2, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, and the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Patel. On Amendment 2, while I understand the intent of the noble Baroness to protect the domestic workforce, we on these Benches cannot support the introduction of citizenship as a primary filter for medical training priority. To do so would undermine the central logic of this Bill, which is to protect the taxpayers’ investment in training, not to police the passport of the trainee. If a non-UK citizen comes to this country, trains in our medical school for five years, often paying significant international fees—my noble friend made an extremely good point about the value of that to our universities—they cross-subsidise our universities and then commit to the NHS. They are a UK medical graduate in every sense that matters to workforce planning. Their training is identical; their clinical exposure is identical. We on these Benches believe that to deprioritise them, based purely on nationality, would send a disastrous signal to the global talent pool that our NHS has always relied upon. It would also contradict the argument we will make later regarding the amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Gerada, on the Queen Mary University of London Malta Campus: that it is the content and quality of the qualification that matters, not the geography or the nationality.

Regarding the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Patel, I sympathise with his desire to ensure that UK graduates are prioritised. That is, after all, the purpose of the Bill, and while we can argue about the definition of a UK graduate, we must be careful not to make the legislation so rigid that it removes any flexibility for the Secretary of State to address shortages in specific specialties, or where international talent is essential. Several noble Lords have mentioned that we have all received correspondence from doctors in hard-to-fill areas who warn that absolute exclusion could leave rotas empty. Prioritisation must not constitute a blockade.