Single-use Vapes - Post-Adoption Statement

4. How opinions expressed on the consultation have been taken into account

4.1 Overview

51. Consultation lies at the heart of any meaningful assessment or appraisal process and is based on the key principle that plan and programme making is better where it is transparent, inclusive and uses information that has been subject to public scrutiny. In this context the Scottish Government has sought to ensure that those with an interest in, or who will be affected by, the restrictions should have the opportunity to present their views on the consultation documentation.

4.2 Public consultation

52. Public consultation was held from 2 April 2024 to 14 May 2024 to obtain the opinion of public individuals and organisations on the proposed policy, and the possible impacts of such an approach. Views were obtained through the completion of a questionnaire hosted on the Scottish Government’s Consultation Hub. ^[28] The consultation documentation also included the Environmental Report along with online links to a Partial Business Regulatory Impact Assessment, the Islands Communities Screening Assessment, am interim Fairer Scotland Duty Scoping Assessment and an interim Equality Impact Assessment.

53. An analysis and response to the completed public consultation has been published by the Scottish Government in a separate document. ^[29]

4.3 Consultation on the Environmental Report

54. The Environmental Report was published to accompany the public consultation documentation on the restrictions to the sale and supply of single-use vapes.

55. To direct consultee responses, the consultation included the following 6 questions on the Environment Report:

56. What are your views on the accuracy and scope of the information used to describe the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) environmental baseline set out in the Environmental Report?

57. What are your views on the reasonable alternatives set out in the Environmental Report?

58. What are your views on the predicted environmental effects as set out in the Environmental Report?

59. What are your views on the findings of the Environmental Report and the proposals for mitigation and monitoring of the environmental effects?

60. Do you have any general comment or feedback on our Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) Environmental Report? These were also repeated in the public consultation. A sixth question (from the public consultation) was also considered relevant to the analysis:

61. A total of 45 responses were received to the consultation, 43 of which were received via Citizen Space with a further two via email. A total of 27 individuals, and 18 responses on behalf of organisations provided a response. These included responses from public bodies (9 in total; 20% of total responses), industry (5 in total; 11% of responses from organisations) and health interest groups (4 in total; 9% of responses from organisations). Responses were received from between 18-23 respondents who commented on aspects of the Environmental Report.

Statutory consultees responses

62. Feedback from the statutory consultees on the Scoping Report indicated all were content with the proposed scope and approach to the assessment.

63. Extracts from each of the consultee’s feedback on the proposed scope and content of the assessment are set out in the table below.

64. No changes were suggested to the proposed approach set out in the Scoping Report.

65. The below list provides extracts from statutory consultees' feedback on the Scoping Report:

• Nature Scot: We are content with the scope and level of detail proposed for the assessment. We note the proposed topic-by-topic assessment methodology and we are supportive of this approach.

We welcome the stated intention to offer suggestions on maximising environmental benefits, in addition to exploring mitigation options.

• SEPA: We agree with the proposed scope of the assessment and are satisfied with the suggested reasonable alternatives. We are content with the proposed assessment methodology to consider environmental impacts on a topic by topic basis.
• Historic Environment Scotland: In light of the information and reasoning set out within the screening and scoping report, we agree with your view that there unlikely to be significant environmental effects for the historic environment.

66. No further feedback on the Environment Report was received from the Statutory Consultees.

Public consultees responses

67. The key findings from the analysis of the public consultation to the questions in the Environmental Report are as follows.

68. The consultation on the proposed policy included five questions on the accompanying Strategic Environmental Assessment Environment report. The following paragraphs provide summaries to each of the question responses.

69. A number of common themes across responses to various questions emerged. These included:

70. actions needed to maximise recycling and responsible disposal of refillable vape components (and packaging);

71. enforcement against the illegal sale of single-use disposable vapes; and

72. further research and monitoring of human health impacts as well as environmental impacts of the ban.

73. Highlights from the responses received against each of the consultation questions are set out in the following paragraphs.

What are your views on the accuracy and scope of the information used to describe the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) environmental baseline set out in the Environmental Report? - Please give us your views

74. A total of 23 responses were received for question this question. The majority (13) voiced support for the content and accuracy of the Environment Report, or more broadly on the policy itself, with a number focusing in on specific areas such as litter impacts on biodiversity and visual assets. A further seven responses incorporated feedback such as ‘no comment’. Two responses appeared to have negative views on the Environment Report, with one specifically disagreeing with estimated future emissions figures.

What are your views on the reasonable alternatives set out in the Environmental Report?

75. A total of 23 responses were received for this question. 11 responses appear to be supportive of the reasonable alternatives included. However there appears to be some misunderstanding by 1 respondent around what is meant be ‘reasonable alternatives’. Eight responses incorporated feedback back such as ‘no further comment’. Four responses offered that they did not agree with the reasonable alternatives, although two of these left no reasoning as to why. The final two comments highlighted that the alternatives were looked at in isolation rather than as a joint approach.

What are your views on the predicted environmental effects as set out in the Environmental Report?

76. A total of 23 responses were received for this question. 12 responses agreed with the predicted environmental effects laid out in the Environment Report, however some responses agreed with the policy proposal itself under this question. Eight responses incorporated feedback back such as ‘no further comment’. Three responses indicated they did not support the predicted effects, however two of these were simply ‘no’ answers. The remaining responses indicated they believed a full public health assessment was required, however no feedback on predicted environmental effects.

What are your views on the findings of the Environmental Report and the proposals for mitigation and monitoring of the environmental effects?

77. A total of 18 responses were received for this question. Eight responses appeared to favourably view the findings and proposals for mitigation and monitoring of the environmental effects in part or in entirety. However a number of these responses agreed with the policy itself rather than specifically the SEA findings. Seven responses incorporated feedback back such as ‘no further comment’. Two responses, neither making it clear if the agreed or disagreed, provided further feedback. One highlighted that sufficient funding for Trading Standards would be crucial to achieve full positive impacts, the other response highlighted that there are already sufficient burdens between WEEE EPR and boundaries of what vapes business can communicate on the industry.

78. One response suggested that monitoring should be undertaken by an independent body to ensure objectivity.

Do you have any general comment or feedback on our Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) Environmental Report?

79. A total of 18 responses were received for this question. Four responses appear to agree with content of the assessment. Some agreed with policy rather than SEA specifically. Three of these responses provided minimal additional information. The other response commended the accuracy and scope of the assessment, and went on to highlight issues with non-compliance under the current business-as-usual system. Three responses welcomed the SEA Environment Report, but mentioned missed opportunities to either go further, or conversely that a full ban is not required as other options were available. One response highlighted the issues associated with disposal of refillable vapes and their packaging. One response expressed concern that the full public health impact was not fully understood and that both engagement with the sector and a full understanding of the market were lacking.

80. Eleven responses stated 'no comment', or provided with no additional useful feedback on the SEA.

81. The main opportunities identified by respondents are summarised as follows:

• That the ban will bring a reduction in environmental harm resulting from the use of, and in particular the littering of, single-use disposable vapes; and
• That the ban could improve public health, including among young people.

82. The main risks of concern which could jeopardise the success of restriction, by number of respondents, are:

• That the ban may lead to an increase in re-usable vapes or their components being littered or incorrectly disposed;
• That public health implications of the ban are not fully understood; That non-compliance and illegal sales of vapes could undermine the success of the ban.

83. The main recommendations proposed by respondents include:

• That actions should be taken to improve recycling and collection infrastructure for reusable vapes to reduce the risk of littering and incorrect disposal;
• That environmental and human health outcomes should be monitored and evaluated by an independent body;
• That research into the human health implications of the ban should continue;
• That communications campaigns targeted at both retailers and consumers should be led by the Scottish Government;

That data on fires caused by disposable vapes should be collected as well as the indicators proposed in the Environment Report.

Responding to the consultation

84. The responses to the consultation were welcomed by the Scottish Government. While there were a limited number of responses to the latest consultation which the Environment Report was published alongside, the earlier UK-wide consultation^[30] which included proposals around restricting the sale and supply of single-use vapes received nearly 28,000 responses, with a significant majority in favour of the ban.

85. The introduction of restrictions on the sale and supply of single-use will be taken forward as outlined in the Environmental Report and this Post Adoption Statement. The restrictions will be applied in full, with no exemptions.