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.