Chamber and committees

I am not entirely familiar with reusable devices that would work only a couple of times. It seems to me that, if you were going to invest in something of a certain price that was designed to be reusable, you would want it to last, so I think that consumer choice will come into play.

Do my officials have anything to add? I am not entirely sure how we can predict how consumers will react.

I will keep it brief, convener. Thank you for the invitation to give you evidence this morning.

We want to ban the sale and supply of single-use vapes in order to make our communities greener and healthier. Research commissioned by the Scottish Government found that up to 26 million disposable vapes are consumed in Scotland in just one year, and that that consumption involves between 800 tonnes and 1,000 tonnes of packaging. It also found that, of those vapes, an estimated 10 per cent were littered and more than half were incorrectly disposed of.

It is not just a problem in Scotland: across the UK, 73 per cent of vapers say that they throw away single-use vapes, which leads us far from the circular economy that we are all trying to build. The lost lithium is equivalent to throwing away the lithium in 5,000 electric vehicle batteries every year. Some 5 million single-use vapes are thrown away every week in the UK, and it is estimated that, of the single-use vapes that are returned to shops or sent to recycling centres, only 1 per cent are recycled, due to the complexity of doing so. Batteries from electrical items, including vapes, have been responsible also for approximately 700 fires in bin lorries and at recycling centres in the UK, and that impact has been felt keenly in Scotland.

This year, 54 per cent of vape users under 18 said that a single-use vape was the vaping device that they use most frequently, so action clearly needs to be taken. In last year’s programme for government, we therefore committed to take action to tackle the environmental impact of single-use vapes. We have consulted on the policy proposal, the draft regulations and impact assessments, and we have worked very closely with the respective Governments across the UK to align our policies, and we have laid the draft regulations before you today, in keeping with our commitments.

If the draft instrument before you is passed by the Parliament, it will ban the sale and supply of single-use vapes in the course of business in Scotland from 1 April 2025. That date was agreed with the other UK nations, which are also implementing a ban. We are the first to lay regulations for the policy, and each nation will bring its own legislation in due course. The ban will reduce waste and the number of single-use vapes littered, and it will tackle our throwaway culture by encouraging more sustainable behaviour.

We have worked very closely with trading standards officers to ensure that they have the necessary powers to enforce the regulations, which reflects their feedback through our various consultations. We will continue to work closely with them as we move towards implementation.

From litter on our streets to the risk of fires at waste facilities, single-use vapes are increasingly an issue for our environment, local communities and young people. The draft instrument is a crucial step in tackling their environmental impact, and I urge you to support it. I am happy to take any questions.

As with any regulations, anyone who is trading in the UK is subject to the laws.

I think that taxing the devices was considered as an option. Zero Waste Scotland’s scoping report looked at the options for managing the environmental impact of single-use vapes, but it concluded that, although taxation might support the policy objectives, it would have a limited effect if it was not tied to waste management outcomes. When it comes to the possible implementation of a duty on vapes, consideration would need to be given to the people who access them for smoking cessation and the equality impact that such a measure would have.

It could be argued that the higher the price of something, the less likely people are to buy it. However, we must recognise that, although vaping has health implications, because it involves people taking nicotine into their bloodstream—obviously, I am not a health minister, so I will not go into too much detail on this—if we make vapes too expensive, that could affect a lot of people who are trying to quit smoking, who see vapes as an alternative. Vapes are not prescribed as a smoking cessation tool. They have been brought in by manufacturers as an aid. Most smoking cessation tends to involve the use of patches, gums and so on.

In the round, the four nations thought that introducing regulations on single-use vapes would be the best first step, and that it would represent quite a large step in getting rid of the litter problem. However, that does not stop us looking at what might happen after 1 April and how consumer behaviour might change. The convener made that point, and you are making a similar point. How might behaviour shift? What might the design of reusable vapes look like? What littering implications might a shift to reusable vapes have? Although the regulations relate to single-use vapes, in the future we will have to monitor how they work and to look at some of the consequences of the kind that you have described with regard to what happens to reusable vapes.

Of course, we are looking at how we dispose of electrical items in general as part of all the waste management strategies that are in train under the Circular Economy (Scotland) Act 2024. As vapes are one example of such items, they will be taken into account as part of that. However, I think that the regulations, in taking disposable vapes off our streets, out of our bins and out of circulation, will have an enormous impact and will be a major first step.

I am not sure whether it is quantifiable, so I will look to my officials.

There are a number of things in there. All four nations have tried to engineer the regulations to future proof them to make sure that the definition that was developed alongside all the other nations takes into account the kind of feedback that you have just given. Single-use vapes are defined in the regulations as products that are “not rechargeable” or “not refillable”. In effect, in order not to be caught by the regulations, the vape has to be rechargeable and refillable. In order to be considered rechargeable, it has to have a rechargeable battery and, separately, a replaceable coil. That seems to be quite a narrow definition, and I hope that it addresses some of your points.

Notwithstanding that, there is a huge industry associated with the manufacture of single-use vapes. It is not in the UK; it is usually in China. Are there going to be attempts to re-engineer them in a way that takes the regulations into account? Potentially, yes. We are alive to that. The very fact that they are in the regulations means that, as the four nations implement the ban, we will have to keep a keen eye on any innovations that in effect work around the regulations. We want to be able to respond to any risks that might arise, such as those resulting from innovation.

However, the regulations are quite tight in identifying the type of products in the market today that we want to take out of the system, as well as what is not a disposable vape. That addresses Jackie Dunbar’s point that, for many people, using rechargeable and refillable vapes is part of their journey away from smoking.

I do not want to go too much into DRS, but I will give you an update. Obviously, DRS regulations will be completely separate from the EPR regulations. It is another area in which we are working very closely with the other three nations of the UK, and we have signed up to work with the UK Government on DRS regulations. When the new UK Government came in, I wrote to it to reiterate our stance on DRS.

I will hand over to my official to talk about the interaction between the EPR regulations and DRS.

I think that we are on record as saying that we aim to publish that by the end of the year, so nothing has changed in that respect.

No. We will take things as they come. I have asked for clarification first. I have mentioned that that mechanism exists. I do not want to have to use it; I want us to go together.

That is a fair assessment.