Finance (No. 2) Bill (Fifth sitting)

Martin Wrigley Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 3rd February 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Lucy Rigby]

It is good to hear that the shadow Exchequer Secretary will not oppose the clauses. He is right about the policy impetus behind what we are doing. For the first time in the UK, more people vape than smoke. The chief medical officer has been clear that vaping is not risk-free, and those who do not smoke should not vape.

[Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)]

Vaping is a difficult issue, particularly when it comes to recycling. I understand that vape shops are expected to take them back, but local authorities have real problems with the disposal of used vape canister things—I do not know what they are called—with batteries in them. Will the Minister consider helping local authorities with vape recycling, and providing funds to give them more facilities and a way to dispose of them?

[Lucy Rigby]

I am grateful for the hon. Member’s intervention, which I will come to in a second.

On the shadow Exchequer Secretary’s central point about the definition of vaping and the inclusion of nicotine-free liquids, the definition is deliberately broad to reflect how the market operates and to support what we hope will be effective enforcement. Most liquids used in vapes contain nicotine and either glycerine or glycol. The clause therefore focuses on those ingredients and on whether the liquid is intended to be vaped. Bringing into scope liquids that need to be mixed before use closes a potential loophole in a manner that I am sure we all want, because products could otherwise be sold in separate components to avoid their duty. Nicotine-free liquids are included because it would be easy to misdescribe or mislabel liquids and, in doing so, evade the duty.

The approach that we are taking will give Border Force and HMRC clear rules to work with, enabling quick decisions at the border. That is in line with how other excise regimes define products to minimise avoidance.

As to the cost of implementation, the cost of the duty stamps contract was considered in the shadow Exchequer Secretary’s beloved TIINs, but the industry will pay for it through the stamps.

Finally, the hon. Member for Newton Abbot raised a fair point about recycling. We are considering the impact of recycling and existing Government contracts, so this will be considered in the round.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 112 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 113 to 116 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 117

Stamping of vaping products

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Wild]

Clause 126 creates new criminal offences relating to the possession and transfer of unstuck duty stamps. In plain terms, it becomes an offence for anyone who is not an approved stamp holder to possess a duty stamp that has not been affixed to a vaping product, or to transfer such a stamp to someone else. As the Minister says, the Bill allows a defence where the person did not know or have reason to suspect that they were handling an unstuck stamp, and carves out sensible exemptions, such as transfers between UK representatives and overseas principals, or during commercial delivery and returns.

I would be interested to know what assessment the Treasury has made of the level of abuse that it expects under this regime. HMRC and trading standards are being given a budget for enforcement. Underlying that, there is presumably some assumption about the level of abuse of this system, so it would be interesting to have a flavour of that, given that all of us will be familiar with vape shops and associated issues from our constituencies.

Clause 127 creates criminal offences for possessing, transporting, displaying, selling or otherwise dealing in unstamped vaping products. It also criminalises managers of premises who “cause or permit” the sale of unstamped goods. Under the definition in subsection (4), a manager of premises

“is a person who…is entitled to control their use…is entrusted with their management, or…is in charge of them.”

To pick up the example raised by the hon. Member for Maidenhead, if an 18-year-old is in charge of the premises such that they are unlocking on the day and will be locking up, are they the person, the individual, who could get the fine for dealing in the product, even though they may have had no role whatever in securing the stock and are simply there, getting their minimum wage payment to look after the shop? I would be grateful if the Minister could unpack what subsection (4) means in that sense.

It is right that deliberate participation in the illicit vape trade is met with serious, fierce sanctions. We must also make sure that any junior staff who are wholly innocent—who do not know anything about the matter and could not reasonably have been expected to—are not prosecuted for the actions of others. We need some clarity from the Minister on how responsibility in those cases would be apportioned, and we must again ensure that enforcement authorities are operating with clear guidance.

Clause 128 will enable courts, when convicting under clause 127, to make an order prohibiting the use of premises for the sale of vaping products for up to 12 months, and will create a further offence for managers who breach such an order. The power is of course intended to shut down problem premises that are repeatedly used for illicit trading. That is a tool that local authorities and trading standards officers—and, I suspect, Members of this place and our constituents—will very much welcome. There are many examples in constituencies across the country of illegal vapes being sold, and the communities near them suffer the impact of those criminal enterprises.

We support action to deter such enterprises, but we are also familiar with examples in which trading standards, HMRC or others go in and seize the illegal vapes—the police may be involved as well—and in a matter of hours, that same premises will reopen, selling more illegal vapes. It is great to have a power to shut down such premises, but how will it be enforced? Will the resources be in place to do that? Will there be clear criteria on when the powers will be used, and how a change of ownership of a premises could affect a ban? We may effectively see fake transfers of ownership to try to get around it, so it is important that HMRC and trading standards have robust systems in place.

Clause 129 sets out the penalty framework. On summary conviction, in England and Wales the maximum is the general magistrates limit—imprisonment, a fine or both; in Scotland, the maximum is 12 months and a statutory fine; and in Northern Ireland, it is six months and a statutory fine. So there is a little discrepancy there. On conviction on indictment, the maximum is two years’ imprisonment, an unlimited fine or both. That clearly allows for flexibility to distinguish between serious organised criminal offending and smaller scale non-compliance with the law.

Of course, in the Sentencing Act 2026, the Government are effectively legislating to abolish sentences of up to 12 months, with a presumption that those will become suspended sentences. That is still a penalty, but it will mean that people are in the community rather than in jail serving their punishment, as they should be. The reality is that most people breaking this law are unlikely to actually go to prison; they may simply get a fine. Will the sentencing guidance make clear distinctions between organised criminality and smaller-scale offenders?

The final clause in the group, clause 130, deals with the issue of forfeiture. It goes beyond the general rules in clause 121 by allowing all unstuck stamps or unstamped products linked to offences under clauses 126 to 128 to be seized. In some cases, all the stock on the premises—the Minister made this point—may be forfeited if HMRC believes that it is used in a business connected with the offence. That could be a welcome measure, but we need to have some clarity about how unnecessarily broad powers could potentially be used. Will there be a clear route for traders to challenge such forfeiture of legitimate products where they consider that they have inadvertently breached the rules?

Taken together, the clauses introduce serious new powers, which is why it has been worth spending a few moments considering them and how they will actually be used. I think particularly of the power to shut down a premises for 12 months; we must ensure that that is effective, and that people are prevented from seeking to get around it by pretending to sell the business or list a new owner of the business. I look forward to the Minister’s responses to the points that I have raised.

[Martin Wrigley]

I am afraid that my training was as an engineer, rather than as a lawyer, so I apologise if I get points of standard law wrong. However, it is fascinating to read the Bill in such detail. In clause 126(3), it says,

“It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to prove that they did not know”

I am interested to hear how the Minister thinks that somebody might prove that they did not know something. It strikes me that it is something that a person cannot actually prove.

Secondly, in relation to clause 128, when a premises has been banned for 12 months, is there anything that prevents someone opening up the next-door premises and continuing exactly as before?