West Lothian retailers told to prepare for single-use vaping products sale ban
The Scottish Grocers' Federation (SGF) is helping retailers across the region to ensure they are ready to stay on the right side of the law.
Shop staff in West Lothian are being urged not to be caught out by the upcoming ban on selling single-use vaping products.
The Scottish Grocers' Federation (SGF) is helping retailers across the region to ensure they are ready to stay on the right side of the law.
Single-use vapes - including those which are non-refillable and non-rechargable - will be banned from June 1, with the Scottish Government bringing in the new law in-line with the rest of the United Kingdom.
SGF, the convenience store trade body, has issued an updated retailers' guide on regulations for vaping and tobacco compliance, as well as a poster which it is encouraging members to display in their stores.
Pete Cheema, SGF's Chief Executive, said: 'Our members - including those across West Lothian - are committed to responsible local retailing and operating within the law. It's important that we do all we can to help ensure they are fully prepared for this significant change, so that staff and customers are all properly educated about what the new law entails.
'There is no transitional period in play here. From June 1, it will be an offence for a person or business to supply or offer to supply single-use vapes - or have them in their possession for supply.
'Any leftover stock come that date must be discontinued and stored separately from items for sale, clearly marked as 'not for sale'.
'We are recommending that any of our members with concerns about complying with the ban contact their local trading standards team to ensure they are operating within the law.'
SGF is working with Police Scotland and trading standards nationally to help ensure its members comply with the ban - as well as to clampdown on any illicit trade after June 1.
Those found to have broken the law could face a fine or a prison sentence of up to two years.
The new law - The Environmental Protection (Single-Use Vapes) (Scotland) Regulations 2024 - is the first of two major legal changes around the use and sale of vaping products.
Further regulations are expected to be introduced through the UK Government's Tobacco and Vapes Bill, which is currently being debated in the House of Lords. This is expected to be introduced in Scotland through secondary legislation in the Scottish Parliament.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Herald Scotland
42 minutes ago
- The Herald Scotland
Here is the real reason River City is being axed by BBC bosses
The letter's subject was BBC Scotland cancelling River City, an act I had previously described as cultural vandalism. My correspondent had a cooler disposition and a better way with words. Summing up how the soap had been brought low in recent years, she wrote: 'Its viewing figures were adversely affected by stop/start production runs, erratic scheduling and a general lack of promotion.' Spot on. And then came this: 'I began watching River City out of loyalty to my city, but came to the view that it makes an important contribution to the culture of central Scotland.' BBC Scotland HQ at Pacific Quay Watching out of loyalty to my city. How wonderful, how generous, how Scottish is that? Of the thousands of words written and spoken about River City, all the BBC statements, the petition to save the show, the debate in the Scottish Parliament, not one sentence hits home as hard as that contribution. Watching out of loyalty to my city. There writes someone who 'gets' what River City means, and why it is not just another programme that can be binned by BBC Scotland because its face no longer fits. But what do you know, no one is listening. Not to my correspondent, not to those who have signed the petition, not to MSPs, or ministers. It seems the main arguments in favour of keeping River City - that it provides jobs and training for working-class Scots who might otherwise never get a start in TV, as well as being a pretty decent drama beloved by its audience - are not enough for BBC Scotland to change its mind. We know this because the executive who made the decision appeared before Holyrood's culture committee at the end of May and said so. Hayley Valentine, director of BBC Scotland, told MSPs that River City, with its 200,000 viewers in Scotland compared to Shetland's 700,000 'did not pass the value for money test'. But the money saved by axing River City would help to fund three new short-run dramas, she confirmed. Though these will 'absolutely cost more to make', the BBC would 'expect' them to deliver much bigger audiences than River City and 'really hope' they will. Expectations and hope. In other words, BBC Scotland is taking a punt. Making all those people redundant on a gamble. Having said that axing River City was a creative decision, it really does come down to money. As for River City being a way into TV, Ms Valentine said opportunities would still be offered across a wide range of other programmes. So that's okay then. Nothing more to see here, folks. Except it is not okay. It is very far from okay. Cancelling River City has always been about more than the end of one programme. It's about BBC Scotland fighting Scotland's corner within the corporation, and making sure the BBC represents and is reflective of all those who pay for it. Read more On the former, was London asked for more money to fund the short-run dramas? Was there ever a chance of building on the UK-wide iPlayer audience for River City by running a promotion campaign? Where are the figures showing potential job and training opportunities lost versus those created? Was there any analysis or was this simply a case of executives thinking they knew best? I understand BBC Scotland's ambition. It wants another Baby Reindeer. It wants the next Adolescence. But it doesn't have the money of a Netflix or an Apple+, which makes it all the more important to ensure that it is making decisions for the right reasons. When it comes to River City, I'm not sure it is. Just as to govern is to choose, running the BBC is all about choice. Who is out and who is in, who gets the money and who doesn't. BBC Scotland decided, ultimately, that River City was expendable. It has made the arguments about viewing figures and opportunities offered elsewhere, but I think there is another factor at work here. For my money - £174.50 licence fee - River City was vulnerable because it was a Scottish working-class soap made by working-class casts and crews. No one thought there would be the backlash there has been. It wasn't like cancelling Question Time with its well-connected panellists and audiences (now there's an idea). The class ceiling exists in the media in general - heck, in society as a whole. It's not just BBC Scotland. Indeed, BBC Scotland has done more than most to widen access and should be commended for it. Now and then, a youngster will appear who doesn't sound like your typical BBC sort. They thrive on the attention and encouragement, but then at some point they hit that class ceiling. They don't get invited into the room where it happens, so they can't shape the corporation's future, and the story of inequality rumbles on. Representation matters. As the old saying goes, if you can see it, you can be it. For many working-class Scots, River City was 'their' soap, and therefore 'their' way into TV. Doors opened that had too often been closed, and if it could happen for the guy down the road, it could happen for you. You cannot put a price on that kind of positive PR. The same goes for viewer loyalty. Fans of River City have had their patience tested to a degree that would not have happened with any other show. Yet they've kept faith with the programme. Even now, they trust executives will repay that faith and cancel the cancellation, but will they? Back to you, BBC Scotland. Alison Rowat is a senior politics and features writer on The Herald. Contact
Sky News
an hour ago
- Sky News
Why doesn't Musk like Trump's ‘Big Beautiful Bill'?
👉 Follow Trump100 on your podcast app 👈 It's day 135 of Donald Trump's second term, and our US correspondents Mark Stone and Martha Kelner discuss Elon Musk's exit from his Department of Government Efficiency role last week, and his harsh criticism of Trump's 'big beautiful' spending bill in a furious X post on Tuesday. Plus, Hamas and Israel have reacted to Mark's Monday interview with former State Department spokesman Matt Miller, who said that 'without a doubt' war crimes had been committed in Gaza by Israel, which is in stark contrast to what he said in office. If you've got a question you'd like the Trump100 team to answer, you can email it to trump100@ You can also watch all episodes on our YouTube channel.
The Herald Scotland
2 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
Scots tourism chiefs 'very sceptical about visitor levies'
City of Edinburgh Council leader Jane Meagher has previously declared the levy, capped at five nights in a row, will provide a 'once in a lifetime opportunity to invest tens of millions of pounds towards enhancing and sustaining the things that make our city such a great place to visit – and live in – all year round'. Businesses will be required to apply the levy to any advance bookings made from October 1, 2025, for stays on or after July 24, 2026. While council chiefs agreed to push the start date back by three months to give businesses more time to prepare, the prospect of visitors being taxed on overnight stays, and hotels being handed the responsibility of collecting the tax, is continuing to rankle within the tourism and hospitality industry. Industry chiefs wrote to Minister for Public Finance Ivan McKee last week warning that legislation allowing councils in Scotland to introduce tourist taxes will 'fail at the first hurdle' and harm Scotland's economy and businesses. The letter, spearheaded by the Scottish Tourism Alliance, urged the Scottish Government to change the Visitor Levy (Scotland) Act to remove from businesses the burden of collecting the tax by introducing a QR code system paid directly to local authorities. 'We share the Scottish Government's ambitions to build a stronger economy and to make Scotland a world-leading visitor destination but are frustrated and very concerned that the visitor levy in its current form risks undermining that success,' the letter states. 'Taking a different approach to the rest of the UK on this policy is putting the sector at a competitive disadvantage and causing considerable complexity and unnecessary cost to businesses. Unfortunately, it is another example of a well-intentioned policy being badly implement.' Preparations for the levy are being made as hotels, bars, restaurants, and visitor attractions are continuing to battle a cost of doing business crisis which was recently exacerbated by sharp increases in employer national insurance contributions and national living wage that came into in April. Domestic tourism in Scotland has also failed to recover from the pandemic as strongly as the overseas market, as UK consumers continue to feel the pressure of the cost of living crisis. Read more: Leon Thompson, director of UK Hospitality Scotland, told The Herald that the industry is concerned the levy will undermine the competitiveness of Scottish tourism on the world stage, and highlighted the burden it will place on businesses at a time when they are grappling with high costs. 'Our position has always been that we are very sceptical about visitor levies, not just in Edinburgh but generally,' he said. 'The reason for that is just around costs [and] price competitiveness. It is possible for destinations to price themselves out of the market. We are very keen we don't see that happening anywhere in Scotland. 'The levy also comes with some costs for our businesses as well. They will have to collect the money on behalf of the council so therefore I think it is really imperative there is some financial benefit coming to businesses. The most obvious way to do that is to ensure that there is a steady flow of visitors coming to the city so that there are opportunities to increase revenue right across hospitality but particularly for the accommodation businesses that are going to need to collect the money.' Marc Crothall, chief executive of the Scottish Tourism Alliance, raised concern over the cost of the levy due to be introduced in Edinburgh, and shares Mr Thompson's concerns about the responsibility to administer the scheme being delegated to businesses. He told The Herald: 'Whilst there is a recognition that there is a need for more monies to be invested in the tourism and visitor experience and a transient visitor levy is a means to raising such monies, it is all about striking the right balance – both in the timing of the introduction of a levy, the amount that would be charged to the person staying overnight, and fully assessing the economic and competitiveness risk before introducing it. 'The 5% levy charge being applied on top of the accommodation rate is being mooted by many as too much, [as] most had expected a levy fee to be circa £3-£4pp [per person]. Nor is the percentage methodology approach acknowledged as being simple and easy for business and the visitor to work with, as well as it being costly to administrate. 'It is the firm view of many in the sector and among some local authorities that a much better approach to the charging and collection of a levy would be to apply a flat rate per person and for the levy to be paid via a digital-first approach, using QR code technology. In adopting this approach, the visitor pays straight to the authority, which takes away the cost, time burden and VAT (valued added tax) implications for the accommodation business, and benefiting the authority, who gets the money into their account quicker to spend. Read more: 'Most importantly, when levies are raised, they should only be used for investing in projects that directly enhance the visitor experience. Currently there remains concern [held] by many about where monies will be spent, the cost of administration and that the levy will be too much on top of already high costs, especially for Scottish and domestic visitors but not excluding international tourists, who may well go elsewhere or have a reduced stay. 'We also continue to be concerned that without more weight being given to the visitor levy forums, set up to advise on how the monies raised will be invested in enhancing the visitor experience and made up of representatives from both the sector and communications, then there is a risk that Edinburgh councillors could spend the revenue on local vote winners rather than on how the legislation intends.' Neil Ellis, group operations director Places Hotels in the capital and chair of Edinburgh Hotels Association, agreed that it is vital any revenue raised by the tax is used to enhance the visitor experience in the city. 'Business, leisure and event visitors are all contributing significant sums over the next few years so Edinburgh must communicate its intentions as loudly as possible,' he told The Herald. 'The majority of visitors to a destination don't mind paying as long as they know and can see where their money is being spent. I'm confident the new Visitor Levy Forum will succeed in ensuring a balanced approach is taken when reviewing and proposing levy projects.' Mr Ellis, who runs the Place Hotel on York Place, highlighted business rates and the recent rise in employer taxation were among other challenges currently facing the industry, noting that business rates are higher in Scotland than England, where relief is in place for hospitality firms. Michael Golding, chief executive of the Association of Scottish Visitor Attractions, said a recent survey of businesses had underlined the depth of concern about financial pressures in the sector. Some 78% of Scottish attractions said they were being affected by financial challenges, including the rising cost of energy, staff and reduced funding for the public sector and charities that make up a large portion of the sector. Just over half (51%) of attractions highlighted challenges around transport as a barrier to progress, following by staffing (35%), and seasonality (20%). Mr Golding said: 'There is widespread recognition across Scotland that investment is needed in our infrastructure as well as to fund the ambition of our national tourism strategy to be world leaders in 21st century tourism. However, we are in a post-pandemic economy, with high cost pressures, a lack of funding, staffing issues, seasonality, transport and more. 'Focussing on the combination of the cost of business, and the ability of our visitors to spend, making Scotland more expensive does create a risk that less people visit, or that they stay less long, and most importantly for attractions that visitors ability to spend on activities is reduced. So, we must seek to balance our need for investment, while mitigating the risks, that should be underpinned by a well evidenced economic impact study to show that the benefits.' One other ongoing challenging facing tourism and hospitality operators in the city concerns is access to labour supply. Mr Thompson hopes that the UK and EU reach agreement on a youth mobility scheme which would allow young people from countries within the bloc to sample life and experience work in Scotland. The UK and EU recently agreed to work towards agreement on a youth experience scheme that would make it easier young people from the bloc to work and study and vice versa. 'We still have some issues around workforce supply, so it is quite heartening to see the UK Government is looking very favourably upon an extension to the youth mobility scheme to help ensure our businesses can access young people from the EU to come and work here,' he said. 'I think a place like Edinburgh would do very well from being able to attract that talent from across Europe. That's a positive development in that space. If it does happen, certainly Edinburgh will be well placed to take advantage.'
