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.