Draft Vaping Duty Stamps (Requirements, Reviews and Appeals) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Dan Tomlinson)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Vaping Duty Stamps (Requirements, Reviews and Appeals) Regulations 2026.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. The draft regulations make provision for when vaping products must and must not bear a duty stamp, and ensure that decisions made in relation to United Kingdom representatives are subject to rights of review and appeal. They do so by setting out the stamping requirements that will apply under the vaping duty stamps scheme, and by amending the Finance Act 1994 so that relevant decisions fall within the existing review and appeal framework. The draft regulations provide part of the detailed framework needed for the administration, control and enforcement of vaping products duty and the vaping duty stamps scheme.
At the 2024 Budget, the Chancellor confirmed the structure and rate of vaping products duty; the new duty will be charged at a flat rate of £2.20 per 10 ml on all vaping liquid from 1 October 2026. Vaping duty stamps are the primary compliance mechanism for the new tax, requiring every duty-paid vaping product to carry a highly secure, scannable label. These stamps provide a visible and traceable confirmation that duty has been paid, enabling His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and other agencies to assess compliance, and strengthening enforcement in a market with high risks of illicit activity. They also give retailers and consumers confidence that the products they are purchasing are legitimate.
Let me summarise the three measures in the draft regulations. First, they set out when vaping products must bear a duty stamp. Under the draft regulations, vaping products produced or imported on or after 1 October 2026 must be stamped at or before the point at which they pass an excise duty point. Products produced or imported before 1 October 2026 must be stamped by 1 April 2027.
Secondly, the draft regulations set out where the duty stamp requirement does not apply. They apply exceptions for products possessed by a private individual for that individual’s own use; products to be exported from the United Kingdom; products to be shipped or carried on a ship, aircraft or train as stores; products to be used in an export shop; and products that are afforded relief from excise duty.
Thirdly, the draft regulations provide for reviews and appeals in relation to United Kingdom representatives in the vaping duty stamps scheme. They achieve this by amending the Finance Act 1994, so that decisions relating to UK representatives fall within the existing statutory review and appeal framework. This means that decisions made by HMRC in relation to such representatives—those acting on behalf of overseas businesses for duty stamps purposes—can be reviewed and, where appropriate, appealed in an independent tribunal. This is an important safeguard, as the vaping duty stamps scheme expressly provides a role for UK representatives where overseas manufacturers wish to supply to the UK market.
I hope that members of the Committee will join me in supporting the draft regulations.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
It is a pleasure to be talking about vape duty stamps again, Ms Vaz. We spent hours talking about these provisions during the passage of the Finance Act 2026, and the approach that the Minister has set out broadly follows the one that the previous Conservative Government had in mind. None the less, I have a few questions for him.
The first question is about the implementation timeline. HMRC opened applications from 1 April for manufacturers, importers and warehouse keepers, with the duty obligations due to go live on 1 October and a sell-through period to 1 April 2027. Are the current timelines for implementation on track, particularly in relation to the digital stamps duty system? What assurance can the Minister give legitimate businesses that apply in good time that they will be approved and able to continue trading by 1 October? Can he update us on how many have applied so far?
Having spoken to industry representatives, I know they are working hard to be ready, but the key is getting clear guidance as soon as possible. I have heard concerns about some of the timelines. Can the Minister give an assurance that the appointed supplier of duty stamps will give timely information to the industry ahead of the 1 October deadline?
I turn now to illicit trade and enforcement. In Committee stage of the 2026 Act, I raised the example of Italy, where vape sales reportedly fell by 70% after a similar duty was introduced. That was not because people stopped using vapes; it was because they shifted to black market and unregulated online sellers. Experience with alcohol duty stamps shows the problem of counterfeiting. What has His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs learned from the shortcomings and successes of the alcohol duty stamps regime? The Conservatives supported the powers in the 2026 Act for tougher enforcement to shut down premises, but have the Government considered giving trading standards further powers to seize products and issue penalties directly, rather than having to go through HMRC to do so?
The Minister did not mention the cost of this measure’s roll-out, but it is quite significant. Estimates show that HMRC will spend £140 million to deliver it: £20 million on the IT system and £120 million on staffing and compliance. Add in £10 million for UK Border Force, and the total is £150 million straightaway—a significant sum. What assurances can the Minister give that that will provide value for money?
In the spring statement, the Government revised upward the expected revenue from the vape duty from £120 million to £200 million. Will the Minister explain what underlies that estimate? Finally, can he assure us that appropriate due diligence was done before the appointment of SICPA as the provider of the track and trace software solutions, in the light of the fines previously issued by Swiss authorities in connection with acts of corruption?
Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)
The Minister knows we spoke at length about this subject in Committee stage of the 2026 Act, and I seek confirmation on a few points that we made back then.
We spoke quite a lot in the Public Bill Committee about enforcement action, which will obviously be a key element. We discussed who would face enforcement action if they were selling products that were not licensed and did not have the correct stamps on them. “The seller” was mentioned as the person responsible, against whom enforcement action would be taken. Can the Minister explain who is meant by “the seller”? Is it the shop owner? Is it the brand? Is it the potentially 18 or 19-year-old shop assistant behind the till, who is just doing the job they are told to do? What assurances can the Minister give that, in using the enforcement powers, we will not penalise young shopworkers, who are simply doing their job as directed and who have no power, if they are doing something that is later found not to be compliant because of what their managers or retailers are doing?
Dan Tomlinson
I thank the Opposition spokesmen for their questions and continued scrutiny of this important new measure that the Government are introducing to support our vaping products duty.
I am satisfied that the timelines are appropriate: registration opened on 1 April, giving businesses six months to apply. As I mentioned, products imported to the UK before 1 October this year will have a longer period before they are subject to enforcement.
There is always a risk that increases in rates of taxation will change consumers’ behaviour.
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham North) (Lab)
I declare an interest: I have not smoked for more than a decade, and I vape. Does the Minister agree that we have to be careful that the language we use does not discourage people from changing from smoking to vaping? Vaping has been shown to be successful in getting many people to stop smoking. The health benefits are there. None of us wants young people to vape, but vaping is successful in getting long-term smokers to move off smoking.
Dan Tomlinson
My hon. Friend makes an important point. The emergence of vapes in recent years has provided people up and down the country with a route away from smoking. That is to be welcomed. At the same time, the chief medical officer is right to highlight the risks and health impacts associated with vaping, although they may be lower than the impact of smoking cigarettes.
Vicky Foxcroft
The Minister says they may be lower. I believe it is said that they are significantly lower.
Dan Tomlinson
I am not an expert on the differences in the health impacts, and I trust my hon. Friend’s expertise and experience in this space. However, the chief medical officer is clear that there are still health impacts, and he supports the changes we have made. It is worth highlighting that, although the vaping products duty will be introduced at the rate of £2.20 per 10 ml, we are increasing the duty on cigarettes so that the tax differential is maintained. I thank my hon. Friend for her interventions and the insight she has brought to today’s debate.
On enforcement, HMRC is in the process of recruiting more than 300 new compliance officers. As the shadow Exchequer Secretary mentioned, £10 million of additional funding will be made available for Border Force. We are confident that the cost of implementing this measure will be outweighed many times over by the benefits to the Exchequer of the additional revenue it brings in. Unlike the one-off set-up costs, that additional revenue is there for the long term,. The vaping products duty will bring in £565 million by 2030.
The shadow Exchequer Secretary is always right to mention the need for timely and up-to-date guidance, and I will press officials to make sure we get the guidance out as soon as we can if more clarity is required. When it comes to individual procurement decisions, I am aware of the case he mentioned. HMRC assures me that it followed robust and proper processes in that case, as it does in all procurement. The bids underwent thorough evaluation and assurance process, and we follow strict procurement rules when awarding contracts, ensuring value for money for taxpayers. As for the subject of HMRC enforcement action, we will make sure to enforce against the appropriate person or business in each relevant case.
Question put and agreed to.