Official Report 951KB pdf
Food (Promotion and Placement) (Scotland) Regulations 2025 (SSI 2025/303)
Good morning and welcome to the 32nd meeting of the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee in 2025. We have apologies from Sandesh Gulhane, so Sue Webber is joining us as a substitute.
Our first agenda item is to take evidence from a panel of stakeholders on the Food (Promotion and Placement) (Scotland) Regulations 2025. I welcome: Professor Alexandra Johnstone, a nutrition scientist at the Rowett institute at the University of Aberdeen; Ewan MacDonald-Russell, deputy head of the Scottish Retail Consortium; and David McColgan, chair of the NCD Alliance Scotland.
We will move straight to questions, beginning with Emma Harper.
Good morning to youse all. I get to go first and am interested in your thoughts about the fact that the restrictions on the promotion and placement of certain foods are not being presented in primary legislation. We are doing this by further regulation and in guidelines. What are your thoughts about that?
That is a good question. We need to think about why we have the regulations, which is because we know that two thirds of people in Scotland are overweight and that about a third are classified as living with obesity. We know that the food environment has a major influence on a healthy weight, so the regulations are coming into force in an attempt to change the food environment and make it easier to have healthy and environmentally sustainable eating habits.
We also know that obesity is not equitable—a topic that will come up again later—and that we have higher rates of obesity in the most deprived areas and particularly among females. Instead of thinking of this as a nanny state approach, it is really a way of taking the blame and responsibility away from individuals by trying to change our food environment in Scotland.
I would usually have concerns about doing this through secondary legislation and a negative instrument, because we broadly think that there is merit in having the opportunity to look at regulatory changes in detail.
However, this is unusual and we would probably consider it to be bit of an exception, because the way that the regulations have been drafted is relatively straightforward. Most of our members have implemented such regulations elsewhere or have clear practice on how to implement them, which means that they should be relatively straightforward.
The benefit of using secondary legislation is that it can happen far more quickly. We have been talking about the issue for some time and the retail industry is supportive of the regulations being brought in next October, about 10 months after they pass through the Parliament. That is very tight and we would usually want longer to implement policy, but, in this instance, and after a lot of discussion, we would quite like to get on with it. In this unusual instance, we support the regulations, although I might give a different answer on other occasions.
Members of NCD Alliance Scotland take a pretty similar view. We have been talking about this since 2017 or 2018. The policy intent has been slowly shaved over the years and there is probably a PhD to be done on commercial influence on public health policy.
From the alliance’s point of view, we just want to see it done, if I am honest. Introducing the regulations in their current state is better than holding out and waiting for them to be watered down even more following further consultation.
Professor Johnstone, you mentioned stigma and shame. I have worked on issues relating to stigma and overweight people feeling shamed and as though they are being blamed for being overweight. Can you speak a wee bit more about that?
That issue is incredibly important. There are many reasons why people gain weight, and the food environment has an important role in that regard. The regulations are about the retail food environment, product placement and the way in which food is sold to citizens in Scotland, and I highlight that shoppers with children and those who experience food insecurity are more susceptible to product placement and price promotions in the retail food environment. Therefore, the types of strategies that we are talking about are particularly important in targeting consumers who face food poverty and have low incomes.
The narrative of stigma and individual responsibility has existed since the tobacco industry used it in the 1950s and 1960s, and the food, alcohol and gambling industries are copying the tobacco industry’s tactics. The regulations lay bare the role of commercial interests in influencing people’s habits. For example, producers use temporary price reductions to increase their brand share, not to make it cheaper for people to purchase food. The regulations lay bare the need for commercial actors to take responsibility for the actions they take that influence the everyday decisions of citizens in Scotland.
You mentioned commercial aspects, which I was going to ask about. The policy has already been implemented in England and it will soon be implemented in Wales. Are there differences between what is proposed for Scotland and the policy in England? In relation to commercial aspects, there are issues relating to the influence of the big food giants in determining which products we see and which are promoted. They even have an influence on policy makers. The whole food system needs to be tackled, and what we are talking about is only part of that.
On the influence of industry, the reality is that there are 10 industry lobbyists for every one public health lobbyist—that is the world in which we operate. Those lobbyists have a role in their organisations to do as they see fit.
The challenge involves considering where the public good lies. What are we doing for the benefit of people in Scotland? NCD Alliance Scotland uses the World Health Organization’s big bangs, which consider marketing, availability, price and promotions. A number of those points are included in the regulations.
We need to consider how commercial actors, whether they are multinational or national organisations, operate to create a food system. The regulations relate to only a small part of the food system in which we operate, so they are not a silver bullet, but we are trying to create an environment that is more conducive to people in Scotland making healthy choices.
Good morning. I will start with an easy question—well, it is an easy one to ask. How will the regulations support population health?
As a researcher, I have already conducted a robust evaluation of the effectiveness of the regulations in England.
The policy came into force in 2022 and the implementation of the legislation was split. In 2022, restrictions on location in store were introduced and, on 1 October 2025, volume price restrictions—what we call, in slang, the BOGOF offers: buy one, get one free—were introduced.
The research that I have been doing, which is funded by UK Research and Innovation, has involved obtaining data from four major retailers: Asda, Morrisons, Sainsbury’s and Tesco. It is very much a big-data approach, and I will give you the scope of that. We looked at 480 stores in Scotland, Wales and England and at 11.6 billion items sold, including 6.8 billion kilograms of food. It was a huge spreadsheet. The magnitude of effect was that, when we compared 18 months pre-regulation and 12 months post-regulation in England, 2 million fewer of the products that were in scope—those high in fat, sugar and salt—were sold per day. That meant a reduction of 220,000 tonnes of food. This is the first study to independently evaluate the effectiveness and equitability of the HFSS legislation in relation to its impact on supermarket sales data in the UK.
Your question was about how the regulations will impact on population health. Scotland’s population health framework was announced in June this year. The regulations very much fit in with the framework, because its scope is preventative strategies, which is what the regulations are about. Its scope is also access, and the regulations are about access to healthier foods. The framework is person-led and, less so, about equality of healthcare. The framework emphasises reducing the stigma around individuals living with obesity. It also makes particular mention of improving the retail food environment. Finally, it embraces the reformulation of foods to reduce the levels of fat, sugar and salt. The regulations very much embrace the ethos around producing a healthier population in Scotland.
I want to dig into that a bit, because these ideas have been around since the 2011 Christie report. It is hardly groundbreaking to say that, if we continue to follow a diet of ultra-processed foods—foods high in sugar and salt—we will be unhealthy or unhealthier. My concern is that, instead of looking at how we can promote a better diet and physical activity, especially in youth, we seem to be looking at how to prevent people from accessing ultra-processed foods. How do we encourage a healthier lifestyle? The regulations are all about banning stuff. I absolutely agree with prevention in marketing, but where is the balance in the legislation?
In my experience, consumers, and indeed retailers, would tell you that we need further regulation and subsidisation of healthy products. I agree with you that the regulations are about the restriction of unhealthy products. The balance to that, which is what consumers are looking for, is to make healthier foods cost less. That is particularly important for those who face food insecurity and food poverty, because those are the consumers who are attracted by meal deals, and offers that are often on products that are high in fat, sugar and salt.
With all due respect, the regulations do not cover ultra-processed food. In the United Kingdom, we do not yet have any regulations around processing or ultra-processed food. If you went into a store and I asked you to identify which products are high in fat, sugar or salt, you would find it quite difficult. Those aspects are not aligned with the traffic-light labelling on the front of the pack; you would have to use something called the nutrient profiling model, which is actually quite confusing. I would find it difficult, as an expert in nutrition, to truly identify those products. If it is confusing for me, it will be confusing for other consumers who are less educated in nutrition.
09:15
I am glad that Professor Johnstone mentioned the nutrient profiling model first, so that I do not have to try to explain it. It contains myriad complexities; the SRC has produced guidance to help our members with it, because it is confusing.
I agree with all of what has been said, but I would add that the regulations create an incentive in the supply chain around how businesses are operating because, ultimately, they do not want their marginal products to fall within the restrictions. Some products are always going to fall within the restrictions—if you are selling a bag of crisps or a chocolate bar, you cannot really make them non-HFSS, and that is fine.
However, a lot of products can end up being a little bit more marginal, and reformulation can provide an opportunity to get them out of the restricted space. That is interesting with regard to the way in which we set up incentives. There is stuff that Government decides to ban. There are also areas in which we want to nudge businesses to remove the unhealthy and problematic elements of products in order to let consumers make healthy choices by stealth. Reformulation has been really successful. When that sort of policy-making is done cleverly, it can help to encourage people across the supply chain—retailers, producers and so on—to make changes on the margins. That is just a small point about the food environment.
Finally, I would say that some of what we are discussing is not mutually exclusive. We can put restrictions on stuff that has explicit health harms; that does not prevent us from running healthy campaigns and promotions. Retailers, the Government and Food Standards Scotland all do some of those things. More can probably be done collectively in that space, in particular by public and state bodies, but that does not exclude our doing things to get rid of some of the difficult bits, too. I am aware that I am making the pro-regulation argument here—in this instance, I am quite comfortable doing so.
Before I bring in David McColgan, I go back to Professor Johnstone’s points. If the labelling is confusing, why are we not legislating to make it easier to understand? Why are we focusing on calorific intake, when that does not necessarily result in a healthier diet? Why are we not looking at—I keep saying this—the need for people to be physically active, especially when they are young? Why are we not looking at preventing people from falling into an obesity trap in the first place?
I absolutely agree with regulation, but that is my concern. We have known about these aspects since around 2011—it is hardly groundbreaking—but we are still not looking at how we help to educate people, or create an educational environment that enables them, to know what healthy food is. If labelling is the problem, why are we not looking at that?
Education is key, so that we inform consumers to enable them to make the correct choices. The area in which labelling is tricky concerns the categorisation of products that are high in fat, sugar or salt. You need to collect data from brands, and that means that retailers need to collect nutrition information from other companies such as NielsenIQ brandbank for the brands that they are stocking. The retailers do not necessarily have all that information to hand. We do not have a public database that we can all log into and check, and that makes enforcement tricky. The nutrition information on products that are being sold in the retail food space uses the nutrient profiling model.
With regard to the reason why we are focusing on calories, I will give an example. Nesta conducted a review and estimated that the regulations would have an impact, per person, of a 60 kcal per day reduction in energy intake, which could potentially lead to a 16 per cent reduction in obesity. For me, that is one of the primary end points. I accept that we need better diet quality, but we also need to help to nudge consumers into consuming fewer calories in order to reduce the current public health crisis in relation to obesity and people being overweight.
If someone went for an hour’s walk, they would burn 600 calories. Why are we not addressing both of those things?
The two approaches are not mutually exclusive. We need an environment that encourages green space and thinking about transport, and that is where the whole food system becomes quite complicated. There is not one solution to the obesity epidemic—it involves multiple solutions to address issues throughout the life course.
We have not touched very much on children—I work mostly in relation to adults—but the first 1,000 days of a child’s life are incredibly important, as are the school, hospital and work environments. Our discussion today, however, is specifically about the retail food environment and the impact that that has on consumers making healthy choices.
I have not brought in David McColgan yet, but I have to say that my problem is this: the outcomes are important. We are the most obese country in Europe, and one of the most obese countries in the world, so we are not doing very well, either in terms of diet or being physically active. It is all very well to say that we are going to bring in these regulations, but surely the only measure is the outcome, and the outcome tells us that that approach is not working.
I would echo the findings of the study that was done by Nesta. There is clear evidence that backs up what we are discussing today: that, on the back of these regulations, there will be a positive outcome with regard to obesity in Scotland. No one involved in the debate thinks that, when the regulations are passed, we can all go and be happy with what is happening. There is a whole range of issues at hand. There are promotions that are not even included in the regulations, and which NCD Alliance thinks should be, such as meal deals and temporary price reductions.
There is a major issue with regard to physical inactivity and its contribution to health, and we have had many discussions on that. One could, I am sure, argue that one of the challenges with physical inactivity is that it is not commercially driven, whereas we are looking at a retail food environment that is being commercially manipulated in a way that influences people. In an analysis from Obesity Action Scotland, 43 per cent of people said that they were buying impulsively because of temporary price reductions; they were buying things that they did not need, just because those products were on offer. If we start to change that environment, we will start to see calorific intake going down.
There is a big challenge that NCD Alliance is grappling with all the time. The easy approach would be to say, “We should regulate the bad thing”, but the hard question is: how do we promote the healthy aspects? How do we make fruit and vegetables cheaper and easier to access? There are communities in Scotland that cannot access fresh fruit and veg easily, and we have to look at how we can make them more readily available. It is not a case of saying, “This is it—we’re all done.” The regulations that we are discussing today are a step forward, but it is a step on a long journey.
I agree. It is ridiculous that a coffee and a sandwich can cost me less if I add in a pack of crisps. That is absolutely bonkers.
This is where I am coming from. Again, I support the regulations, but I can give you an example of what has been done in Japan to positively influence the food environment. Every school in Japan has a nutritionist, and children are not allowed to eat anything in school that has not been passed by a nutritionist as being extremely healthy. Japan’s level of obesity is 4 per cent.
I go back to the idea that what we really want to do is change the environment in which obesity is an issue. Scotland is not Japan, but that sort of example shows that, if the political will is there, we can make significant changes to our communities. That is what I am pushing back on—the regulations are just scratching round the edges, and we are not making the big changes that we need to make in order to improve public health.
The good food nation plan will create opportunities for local authorities to bring in new measures that protect vulnerable groups in society—for example, in schools.
I think that the school environment, along with the 1,140 hours of early learning and childcare, is absolutely the battleground on which we should be fighting.
The area that was being covered towards the end of that line of questioning is roughly the one that I want to move on to. I was involved in the legislation back in 2018, when there was a major consultation; David McColgan has said that it feels as if, every time there is a consultation, the legislation is being weakened, and I have to say that the current measures do not feel anything like as strong as the proposals that we had back then. Are we still confident that they will make a difference? It feels to me that they are better than nothing, but they do not go nearly as far as we should be going. I guess that I am agreeing with Brian Whittle’s point.
The phrase “better than nothing” is probably the one that we would use at the alliance. I have been in the Parliament many a time talking about the legislation. For example, Scottish Government data shows that there could be a 600-calorie reduction per week from restrictions on price promotion and marketing, but it also shows that, when the measures cover only multibuy promotions, the figure drops to 115 calories.
We could talk about certain language and words being cut out of the legislation as we go, but its intent is being weakened, too. There is clear evidence that we have cut back the provisions, whether it be because of political will to stand up to industry or because of the industry’s power. If we do not include meal deals and temporary price reductions, we will see loopholes all over the place. Three-for-two deals will suddenly become 30p off for three weeks, which will equate to the same issue.
There is also a huge discussion about brand loyalty discounts, which I do not think appeared in the original legislation. Most supermarkets now have brand loyalty cards and, everywhere you go, you see the discounts. Those are not included, either.
The public health community wants action. The regulations are a baby step compared to the steps that we could have taken—by which I mean, the proposals in 2017 and 2018, which would have been a giant leap.
I am not coming back to the Parliament next year, as I am not standing in the election. It will be for those colleagues who come back next year to look at how the legislation is working and what more can be done.
Ewan MacDonald-Russell has said that there is a lot of good practice. In many parts of the retail industry, some of the things that are being proposed are already happening, and there are examples of supermarkets promoting more healthy food deals for vegetables. How do we make that the norm? The point of regulation is, I hope, to level things up. Do we need regulation for absolutely everything in order to push the retailers who are not following good practice?
If it is okay, I want to come back slightly on a couple of things that David McColgan mentioned. As the industry lobbyist in the room, I never realised that I was so powerful.
The first thing that I would say is that the approach can be iterative. We support the regulations; indeed, there are similar regulations in other parts of the UK, which give us a baseline. That means that, by October next year, the three nations in Britain will all have the same approach. For retailers of scale and the majority of the retail industry—even smaller retailers—the supply chain will be similar, and we will now be working from that baseline. We can then look at the next thing.
We are not saying that we should never have regulation again; obviously, that is not reasonable. Public health issues have been raised, and they are real. The regulations will not deal with every public health issue, but they are a good starting point, and they are also something that we can do quickly. We are supportive of that, and we are happy to continue the discussion.
As for meal deals, I think that the Government’s proposals on meal deals were meant to be aimed at lunch-time volume, or multibuy, sandwich deals. That is one type of promotion. However, the measure was framed in such a way that it covered a whole gamut of things—everything from a volume promotion of things in the freezer area to a dessert deal or a barbecue deal. Some of those deals involve foods high in fat, salt and sugar, and some do not. One of our members went away and dug into the issue properly, but they stopped when they got to 3 million combinations of items. That does not mean that we cannot do this—it is just very complicated and complex.
If we had included meal deals, we would have needed a definition, as the term is not legally defined at the moment. That stuff all takes time, but that does not mean that we cannot do it. Indeed, I imagine—I hope—that Government officials are working on what some of that might look like. However, the “how” is quite difficult, even if you accept that it is a good idea.
Our members probably have different views on that—they have a very broad range of views. We probably do not have a coherent view; after all, some members would be commercially advantaged if such regulation came forward, because they do not offer such deals, or they offer them in a way that has less of an effect. However, some retailers would lose part of their business, because they do only a lunch-time meal deal.
There is a complexity to the issue that probably deserves examination. We have talked about secondary legislation not always being the appropriate approach, and this is probably a good example of an issue where you need quite a lot of input. However, I can speak only for the retail part, not the follow-on issue.
09:30Secondly, the multibuy provisions cover pre-packaged food, not fresh food or food prepared at a certain point. That, too, will have an impact. It addresses one quite narrow area of the food environment—the easiest area—but there is, absolutely, a way in which it can push further.
Thirdly, on the scope of the regulations, they apply to shops with an area of more than 185m2—that is, 2,000 square feet—or those that have more than 50 employees. A chunk of businesses will therefore be unaffected. Some of them are responsible retailers and will probably have enacted similar things, just as there are lots of retailers that have not done BOGOF deals for years. However, some will not enact them. Some businesses based in the communities that probably have the most need for the regulations will be unaffected, because the Government and the Parliament have, broadly, taken a view that the onerous burden of implementation should not be applied to the smallest businesses.
However, not taking a level-playing-field approach will have a public health impact, too—that is a consideration that is perhaps not always made. Again, some businesses that are not retail businesses that sell food will have an impact on that environment; we represent some of them, too, so we are in there.
Finally, we think, philosophically speaking, that temporary price reductions are good. They encourage competition, including between brands and between retailers, and in our view, that keeps prices down. We think that keeping prices down for customers is good, and we think that competition between retailers keeps prices down across the market.
I want, finally, to say a little about that food environment. If you look at price—
Please say it very briefly.
I am sorry—I beg your pardon. Quite a lot of points have come up.
There is huge price competition in healthy products and healthy food—and you will find out exactly how acute that competition is when you go and buy vegetables for Christmas.
I remind members that the session finishes at 10 o’clock, and four members still have substantial questions, so I ask that we be concise in our questions and our answers.
My question is for David McColgan and Professor Johnstone. You have talked a lot about obesity and the retail environment. Are you perhaps a little disappointed at the fact that some of the food that can be delivered to people’s homes via Just Eat and Deliveroo bikes, and its accessibility, do not fall within the scope of the regulations? Might putting them in scope make a positive impact on what you are trying to achieve?
Yes, to be brief. We are grappling extensively with that area, especially online delivery of food that is high in fat, salt and sugar, as well as alcohol, which is a major issue. It is an emerging area, and we are looking at it, but we would probably have to go to a fifth and sixth consultation to have it included. I welcome Ewan MacDonald-Russell’s remarks that the approach might be iterative, and these things might come further down the line. We need to consider that ease of access, and the fact that you do not even have to move off your couch.
Indeed.
Food Standards Scotland recently presented data showing that the out-of-home environment plays a hugely influential role in healthy weight and nutrition. During Covid, there was an increase in ordering through those online systems, and they have become more commonplace since then. I agree that we need further consultation, with a whole-system and evidence-based approach, so that we can think about how we manage what I would call a novel and evolving way of ordering food. We should also think about advertising, which is often targeted at young people, for example.
Good morning. Is the Scottish Government’s assessment of health benefits of £2 billion to £2.4 billion over 25 years realistic?
Assessments are modelled and looked at, so they are always open to interpretation. We know the scale of the challenge around obesity and its contribution to heart disease, cancer, stroke, diabetes and other non-communicable diseases.
We could look at the pounds and the pence, but we could look at the human factor, too. We know that the majority of non-communicable diseases can be prevented and that obesity is the largest growing area contributing to NCDs.
The policy has the right intent, but the outcome and the expense on our side are debatable. I always remember Sir Harry Burns saying to me once, “Don’t tell me that you will save the national health service money. Tell me the difference you will make in people’s lives.” For me, this piece of legislation is about the environment that people will exist in and the impact that it will have on their lives thereafter.
In light of the experience of using the guidance accompanying the regulations in England, what, if any, changes should be considered for the guidance procedure for the regulations?
The guidance procedure in England was lengthy and rather painful, and the guidance itself is imperfect, although the working version that we have is probably quite good.
I would make two points about that. First, I am concerned that, in Scotland, we do not have a devolved primary authority model, which means that there is a risk that different local authorities might take different views on how the policy is enacted. We have not spoken about enforcement, for example. Enforcing this in England has barely happened, to be honest, because it is very complex. The Government has a working group on the guidance, and we are on it.
A second point is on symbol groups and whether retailers are, or are not, part of franchises. The legislation in England broadly bodged that question, which allowed different organisations to have different views on it. That might be a sensible approach; if the Government tries to rewrite it, the odds are that it will have lots of different impacts. Those are the two particular bits that I wanted to highlight, but we have put together pretty significant guidance on the products that are in scope.
My final point is this: can we please not change the nutrient profiling model at least until we have got this up and running? It has taken a huge amount of work to get it going.
In the research that I have done—and which I would like to submit as written evidence—as part of the food insecurity in people living with obesity project and the diet and health inequalities food project, the retailers to whom we have spoken, and who are based in England, interpreted the regulation instead of following the letter of the law, shall we say.
We have seen evidence from England of the high-profile, end-of-aisle area being used for exempt products such as baby food and alcohol, which is not the ethos that we are trying to promote. Digital and print advertising—for example, stickers on the floor—was used in that area, and we know that the food-to-go section was moved to other areas away from the front of the store, which is the prime area, and that seasonal lines were moved into an aisle instead of being at the front of store or on pallets. Last but not least, some stores even changed the layout of their store and shrunk its size to make the total store area less than the legislative cut-off, and they built bigger in-aisle promotion spaces.
The spirit of the regulation, therefore, might not be being upheld. At the end of the day, retailers are there to make a profit, and there are other ways of promoting those types of in-scope products in store.
My final question is aimed at Ewan MacDonald-Russell. The Scottish Government undertook extensive financial and business modelling on the impact of the regulation on businesses. Do those assumptions, that modelling and those predictions match those of the industry, presuming that businesses have conducted their own modelling?
They seem about right, I guess. It is quite difficult, because bringing this into Scotland means that we need to worry about the thin bit of the iceberg, such as the in-store changes and how to do them. However, it does feel as though this will not be particularly onerous per business.
That is our assumption, but there are caveats. Obviously, there are assumptions for businesses that have not had to do this before and which will be affected. That sort of thing will not affect retailers at scale, but a smaller retailer might not have gone through the process. That would be my one question.
Certainly, the hard part was product identification—that is, which products were in and out of scope—and it was incredibly difficult. That should not be an issue. We are quite confident that it can effectively be done within 10 months, although it will have been a year since the announcement. As I have said, the assumptions feel right, but I do not have definitive data to confirm that.
Good morning. I want to move on to enforcement. Obviously, the ideal would be that enforcement is not necessary and there is just compliance, not only with the letter, but with the spirit of the regulations. However, as we have heard, that is not happening down south.
Assuming that enforcement is necessary, I am curious about your attitude to the penalties that are included in the regulations and whether they will be adequate—that is, whether local authorities will find that the fines that roll in are enough to pay for regulation, or whether it will take additional resource for local authorities to be able to enforce the regulations.
I will start with you, Professor Johnstone, because you talked about your work on studying the impact of the regulations down south. Are the big retailers simply rolling the policy out at a company-wide level? Is the regulation in England already having an effect on their behaviour in Scotland, or are they just doing whatever is allowed within the law in the different jurisdictions?
That is an excellent question. The answer to it is yes, as we can see that the legislation in England is already having an impact in Scotland, with sales of in-scope products having already decreased as a result. It is understandable that, if retailers are instigating reformulation of products, those products are not just held within England but are rolled out across all stores.
I come back to evaluation and the work that we have done with the Institute of Grocery Distribution. It is not aware of any enforcement or any fines involving any retailers in England.
None at all?
None. Enforcement is incredibly hard. There is no portal or app that enforcement officers can use to assess whether a product is in scope or out of scope.
If I read between the lines, it sounds as though you are saying that we cannot know whether the rules are actually being broken, rather than seeing voluntary compliance to a level where fines are not necessary.
Yes. The retailers coined the phrase that it was a force for good—but. So yes, there are a number of loopholes.
That leaves me turning to you, Mr MacDonald-Russell.
I agree with all of that, because that is our experience. I said that there has been little to no enforcement purely because it is possible that there has been some, but we do not have any experience of it.
I would say that, from a Scottish perspective, the issue is wider than just the regulations. We already see that there is a problem with local authorities not enforcing a large amount of regulations—for good reasons of resource, of course. My small-format retailers complain about the disposable vapes ban being de facto not enforced, with a large number of retailers still selling them. That creates a pernicious environment in which responsible retailers who follow the regulations are, in effect, disadvantaged.
We are relatively comfortable with the criteria, but we think that enforcement is needed and that it needs resourcing. It needs the technical resourcing that Professor Johnstone spoke about, so that people understand which products go where and how things should be laid out. On top of that, there simply need to be enough people to do the enforcement. Trading standards officers will need training and support—they need that for these regulations.
I hope that the Scottish Parliament will push the Government to do more across all regulations. Regulatory burden is one thing, but if regulation is not enforced, it just disadvantages responsible businesses.
How much of the responsibility for enforcement lies with the industry?
First, I think that retailers should be following the regulations. They are the law, and retailers absolutely should be following them. If they are not doing so, I hope that they do not expect me to defend them for that.
Retailers of scale will follow them. There will be mistakes, because the regulations are complex. Some retailers will find gaps in them, because they want to push things.
The committee has heard that some retailers have introduced the policy in Scotland. Others have not done so because they see a commercial advantage—it is a market decision. That is why you need that two-tier approach. On the one hand, retailers probably should do so, and a lot of retailers will, for brand or consumer reasons—they want to be seen as doing the right thing. Others, though, need enforcement to ensure that they do the right thing. That is probably as big an issue with small independent retailers as it is with retailers of scale.
Leaving it to individual businesses to decide the extent of their compliance and how they will enforce the policy within their own business is not adequate, is it? What responsibility would your organisation have in identifying the extent to which the industry as a whole is complying, providing that information and making sure that businesses know that they are in the wrong when they have not complied?
There are only two of us in Scotland, so the number of shops that we are able to check ourselves is finite. We provide guidance and support, and we try to bring members together with the Government, enforcement agencies and regulators to discuss the regulations. We will make sure that we are briefing them and we will give them the information, but we are not able to take any role beyond that.
However, I agree with where you are coming from here, because regulation that is unenforced is not regulation that will be effective. We want the Parliament to produce good law and we want that law to be enforced properly. That will create a level playing field that advantages responsible retailers. That is what we would support.
09:45
I will probably ask the minister how we ensure the adoption of the principle that the cost of regulation falls on the industry that is being regulated.
I will move on to talk about how we might expect the regulations to work alongside the other aspects of how the industry is regulated. Can we improve compliance with the regulations by aligning them with other aspects of what local authorities do to regulate the industry, whether that is on environmental standards or other aspects that they already have responsibility for? Can we get a more effective bang for our buck, if you like, from the resources that local authorities have available to make sure that we achieve compliance in a more coherent way?
To echo Ewan MacDonald-Russell’s point, for years, one of the biggest challenges in public health policy has been the lack of discussion around the resourcing of enforcement. We speak to colleagues about enforcement in relation to alcohol, tobacco, vaping and, increasingly, the food environment. We are piling more on to the back of the same person, which becomes a major challenge.
I would welcome an open conversation, whether that is here in the Parliament or across Government, about the landscape for our trading standards and environmental health colleagues. I know that there are major workforce issues regarding the number of officers who are coming up to retirement age and those who are coming into the industry. To again echo Ewan’s point, regulation without enforcement is just setting the regulation up to fail. A serious conversation on enforcement would be welcomed by everyone.
You have already mentioned to members on a couple of occasions that you have concerns about the narrow scope of the regulations and the aspects that were not included. My final question is why you think that they are narrow in scope. What is the Government’s rationale? Is it simply taking the path of least resistance, or do you think that there is some other reason why it has decided that this approach is the right one?
Given the weight of evidence about the potential impact of acting on price promotions for food that is high in fat, sugar and salt, the only logical conclusion is that the Government just wants to get the regulations over the line so, yes, it is the path of least resistance. If you look over the consultation responses, you will see that there was huge resistance to acting on temporary price reductions and meal deals. Ewan MacDonald-Russell narrated that point well. There is an industry narrative on meal deals of, “Oh, they are difficult to define—we would need to do this or that.” The truth is that regulation can happen if there is the political will. The best examples of that are the ban on smoking in public places and minimum unit pricing. Industry told us that the world would end if we did those things. There is a playbook that industry uses and that is shared around.
We need to be aware that we are talking about a piece of public health legislation. Why would a turkey vote for Christmas if you told it that that would impact its pocket? For us, it is about health over wealth; for others, it is the other way round. As I said, there is a PhD in this topic, but you can absolutely go through the policy and see that.
There is a challenge for everyone in Scotland. Industry absolutely has to be involved in conversations about the implementation and delivery of policy, but if we as a citizen body say that we want to prioritise public health, that has to be the priority when it comes to this kind of legislation.
I will come back to Ewan MacDonald-Russell—
Briefly, please.
Very briefly, convener.
I do not want to be at all personally unpleasant about this, but I think that you are saying that we should be more comfortable if the industry representative at this meeting were to be less comfortable with such a degree of regulation.
Yes. Ewan MacDonald-Russell and I had a conversation on the way into the meeting about a meeting that we both attended that was largely uncomfortable. However, we are all grown-ups.
Look—Scotland is a democracy, and everyone has a right to say what they want, and to have an input. When policy goes through the meat machine, it comes out in a certain way. We are not happy with the way that it has come out this time, but that does not mean that we will give up.
NCD Alliance Scotland has a very strong action on our hands around tackling conflicts of interest in public health policy.
Should the Scottish Government be making you a bit less happy, Ewan?
I am very happy with the Scottish Government making me happy on this occasion—it is unusual.
Briefly, the SRC would simply argue for public health actions to be proportionate, so that we balance the cost to industry against the public health benefit, erring on the public health side.
Secondly, I want to make a slight correction. Since I have been in post at the SRC—since 2016—we have been comfortable supporting minimum unit pricing of alcohol. That is a good example of a public policy intervention that is proportionate. I just wanted to be accurate on that.
Thank you, convener.
Thank you for being brief. I bring in Elena Whitham.
Good morning. I know that we only have a short amount of time for this item, so I will be brief. The regulations are quite narrow; they seek to have an impact on just one part of the commercial determinants of health. I am interested in understanding how they will impact on the social determinants of health, both in a positive way and in terms of any potential negative impacts that we might see on health inequalities.
Perhaps you can start, David. How do you feel that the regulations will impact on health inequalities?
We know that obesity is disproportionately represented in our most deprived communities. Taking a regulatory approach and an environment approach is about changing the environment in which people live and operate.
One of our concerns about the regulations relates specifically to the exemptions for companies with fewer than 50 employees and below a certain floor area, because those are traditionally the stores that are accessible to people who live in the most deprived communities. By taking that decision, there is a risk that we create a gap, or widen the gap, in health inequalities relating to obesity. We raised that issue in our response to the consultation and in our evidence to the committee. We would encourage the Government to look at that aspect again.
It is important to get that on record. You alluded earlier to the fact that we have food deserts, with a lack of fresh food in some of our communities. That is not just in urban settings—it can be in rural settings, too. Even if people have the skills, knowledge and ability to cook fresh, healthy food and know what to do with it, they may not have access to it. Is it a real concern for NCD Alliance that some health inequalities may be slightly exacerbated if we do not work on the rest of the food environment in which people are living?
Absolutely. For us, the regulations are a small sliver of legislation that was probably bigger when it was first proposed. We need to accept that, if they go through as they are, that is fine, but it is not the end of the conversation. The food environment has major challenges around transport and access, and even marketing and availability. We know that people are more likely to be marketed to if they live in a deprived community.
For us, the regulations address a small part of the issue, which is the price and the promotion element. A huge part of it is about access to and the availability, or overavailability, of products that are high in fat, sugar and salt. There is also the marketing element.
The legislation is a start, but a wider conversation needs to be had. I hope that the regulations will be the icebreaker that will lead to conversations about the wider food environment in Scotland.
Professor Johnstone, I will ask you about the impact, too. Looking at individuals who have health issues or disabilities, is there any concern that the regulations could have not only a positive impact but maybe even a negative impact? I am thinking about individuals who are neurodivergent and have associated health issues such as avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder; they might be reliant on foods that come under HFSS guidance and would therefore be subject to the restrictions. Is there any concern in that space?
I am sorry—I do not have any data on that particular group of people, but I can address the wider issue of whether the regulations are equitable. The last thing that we want to do is introduce regulations that increase dietary health inequalities, which may impact the groups that you mention.
We have done work on that, looking at the transaction data across England and Scotland. I am pleased to report that, where we saw an impact in the form of a reduction in sales among retailers, it was equitable across different areas of deprivation. That means that all areas were affected equally.
People may argue that we want the regulations to benefit some consumers more than others. However, we are in a situation where at least those findings—which I can submit in written form—are promising and demonstrate that restricting the placement-based promotion of less healthy foods can lead to a meaningful change in sales.
We have not done any research into specific types of consumer, beyond those living with food insecurity and obesity. I would urge the ministers to think about evidence-based decision making. As my colleague David McColgan has said a few times, there is a PhD in this. I will volunteer—I will lead that research for you so that we can ensure that the legislation will be equitable for all.
I will now go to Ewan MacDonald-Russell for the industry perspective.
We have had the population health perspective explained clearly—it is about zooming out and looking at it from that population health perspective and not, perhaps, from the perspective of individual groups of people.
What can industry do to support healthy options for people who experience food insecurity and who find themselves in those food deserts and being serviced by those smaller shops that—as David narrated—fall out of scope? What can industry do to support people to make the best choices?
I will answer incredibly briefly.
Regulations such as these, which have a limited economic impact, mean that jobs, shops and stores are not particularly affected, and that there is not an impact on food prices. It makes trading more economically beneficial.
More broadly, a large number of financial levers is involved if we want to have more shops in communities. One way to look at the issue is to treat it as one that is wider than a health issue and to ask how Government fiscal policy is aligned to incentivise investment in those communities and whether that would offset the potential health costs. In that way, businesses would not lose out but would be incentivised to do better things.
That was a very short answer.
Thank you. It was very short.
I thank the witnesses for their attendance.
I will briefly suspend the meeting to allow for a changeover in witnesses.
09:57 Meeting suspended.
We continue taking evidence on the Food (Promotion and Placement) (Scotland) Regulations 2025.
I welcome Jenni Minto, the Minister for Public Health and Women’s Health, and, from the Scottish Government, I welcome James Wilson, unit head, population health strategy and improvement, and Rosie MacQueen, solicitor. The minister has a brief opening statement.
Thank you. I am delighted to be here to provide evidence on the regulations, which were made on 29 October and laid before the Scottish Parliament on 31 October.
As the committee will be acutely aware, in Scotland, we have an issue with high levels of overweight and obesity, and poor diet. Those factors cause and contribute to many health problems that impact on people’s quality of life. Given that around two thirds of adults are overweight or living with obesity, addressing obesity is a public health priority to ensure that Scotland is a place where we eat well and maintain a healthy weight.
Restricting the promotion of less healthy food and drink is a population-level intervention that is expected to have a positive impact on public health across all population groups. The policy seeks to reduce the public health harms that are associated with the excess consumption of calories, fat, sugar and salt, including the risk of developing type 2 diabetes, various types of cancer and conditions such as cardiovascular disease, as part of a wide-ranging suite of actions to support healthier diets and healthy weight.
The regulations have been published alongside a full suite of impact assessments and were developed with valuable input from a range of stakeholders, both in response to the four earlier public consultations, and through targeted engagement with key groups. The regulations will make it easier for people to make healthier food choices, by targeting those food categories that are significant contributors of calories, fat and sugar to the Scottish diet and of most concern in relation to childhood obesity, as described in the UK-wide reformulation programmes.
The regulations will restrict promotions of pre-packed food and drink products in targeted food categories that are high in fat, sugar or salt; restrict certain price promotions of targeted HFSS foods, such as multibuy offers—buy one, get one free offers, for example—and free refills of soft drinks with added sugar; and restrict the placement of targeted HFSS foods in prominent locations in store and online.
The regulations align with equivalent policy in England and Wales and will come into force on 1 October 2026, ensuring that businesses have sufficient time to prepare. However, it is important to note that no single intervention can turn the tide on Scotland’s high levels of overweight and obesity. That is why the Scottish Government is taking wide-ranging action to improve diet and support people to be a healthy weight. The regulations form part of our longer term, whole-system system approach to preventing high levels of overweight and obesity, and poor diet, which cause and contribute to many health problems that impact on people’s quality of life.
I am sure that the committee will agree that the regulations, the first of the actions delivered under “Scotland’s Population Health Framework 2025-2035”, are a key and necessary measure to improve the health of people in Scotland.
We will move straight to questions.
Good morning. I am interested in the regulations on high fat, sugar and salt foods and how they may link in the future to ultra-processed foods and how we deal with the advertising, marketing and display of those. Is the Government’s rationale for introducing measures in regulations, rather than in primary legislation as previously proposed, that we will be able to expedite the changes in a more timely manner?
I recognise the work that you do on ultra-processed food. You are right that, initially, the Scottish Government thought that the measures would have to be introduced through primary legislation. However, work that has been done across the years has shown that regulations are the best way to introduce such provisions. Regulations will allow the changes to take place more quickly and, to take a phrase from Ewan MacDonald-Russell and David McColgan on the previous panel, we need to see it done. That is why we are implementing the measures through regulations.
I have set my timer, convener, as I am conscious of the time.
I am aware that England has already introduced the measures and that Wales is about to. How do the regulations align with England, Wales and the EU? Are those regulations similar to what is being proposed in Scotland?
Yes, they are, is the short answer. We did a lot of evaluation and consultation. It was felt that the appropriate way to follow what has been done in England, as the Welsh have done, was to introduce product placement regulations and regulations for the buy one, get one free price promotions at the same time. That is what we are introducing.
Basically, product placement is part of it. How will we measure whether the regulations are working?
That will be absolutely key. The committee has just heard some evidence about the importance of the work that the University of Leeds has done on the implementation of regulations in England. We have asked Public Health Scotland to ensure that it is doing the right evaluation and to look at how the regulation ties into our population health framework.
I will leave it there.
Good morning. The minister will understand my interest in this topic. My frustration is that we have known about this for a long time: the Christie Commission’s report was published in 2011; and Harry Burns has done a lot of great work on this. As much as I welcome any move to tackle what is a huge issue in Scotland—we are the unhealthiest, most obese country in Europe—and to reduce and ban the use of unhealthy foods, where is the work around the promotion of what is healthy? Where is the work on the erosion of our opportunities, especially for kids, to be physically active? There is a huge symbiotic relationship between activity and diet. Where is the work to look at that in preschool, where children receive 1,140 hours of funded childcare, and into primary school, where we create those habits? In the end, it will take much more than the regulations and much greater political will to make the significant changes that we need.
We have had many conversations about this topic. I am very clear that I am pleased that we are introducing the regulations at this time. Do I think that we can go further? Yes, I do, and we are continuing to do that work, certainly through one particular piece of legislation—the Good Food Nation (Scotland) Act 2022—and the population health framework. I think that you are right: there is no one solution that will improve the health of people living in Scotland. There has to be a much wider and more rounded whole-person approach.
Just yesterday, I spent some time in Dunoon in my constituency with people from the Argyll and Bute youth action council. We were talking about the importance of healthy food in their diet, having lessons on cooking healthy soups and so on. I do think that we need that whole-person approach. I should say that we were also talking very much about the importance of activity and recognising the importance of getting out in nature. In fact, there were some young people from Helensburgh—which is not in my constituency—who were part of a group who climbed to the top of Ben Nevis, and that gave them a lot of learning points. They learned from the exercise about the importance of having good nutrition to keep their energy levels up as they were climbing the hill, as well as about the importance of teamwork and working together to improve health and wellbeing.
That is great, so why are we reducing those opportunities for kids? We know what health is, and how to be healthy; we know that we have to move about and eat better. The concern here seems to be more about calorific intake than the make-up of those calories. I know that you are passionate about this, too, but I hear a lot about what we could do, and about what being healthy actually is. Why are we reducing the opportunity for this sort of thing to be universally accessible across our country?
I have just given you an example of where that sort of thing is happening across Argyll and Bute, and where we are working to ensure that children get the right education, which I think is part of this.
Absolutely.
I have said on a number of occasions that I find this to be one of the most difficult areas of my portfolio, because I love food, and I was lucky to have an upbringing in which the education side of things was explained to me. Indeed, that is why I am passionate about looking at this from a whole-environment perspective and ensuring that when families go to the shops, they see healthy food first and that, when they pay for their shopping, they are not seeing the treats that might push them into a less healthy environment.
You have just taken evidence on the pressure to spend more money on high in fat, salt and sugar items because of buy one, get one free offers. What we want to do with the regulations—they are a nudge in that direction—is ensure that people use their available budgets in the best way possible, so that they get the healthier meals and the healthier food environment that will, hopefully, allow them to be healthier.
As for getting sport on the agenda, I think that last week’s result against Denmark has really put sport front and centre. I would also mention the curling that is going on in my constituency just now, the world stone skimming championships and so on. There is a lot of sport going on that the Scottish Government is supporting, as required.
If sport is important, we need to stop cutting the sports budget. In fact, we need to double it, as was declared in a previous manifesto. My final question is—
I am sorry, Mr Whittle, but we have to move on.
Good morning. What will be the financial impact of the regulations, in terms of both cost and benefits to health?
When we introduced the regulations, we carried out a partial business and regulatory impact assessment that set out where we felt they could impact on consumers, and we found that the impacts were minor. It is important to recognise that.
I think that it was David McColgan who talked about the relationship between wealth and health, and vice versa. I am very clear that, by introducing the regulations, we are allowing people to make the right health choices and ones that, according to the business and regulatory impact assessment, will not impact on their budget too much. As I referenced to Mr Whittle, sometimes the buy one, get one free offer means that people are spending more of their resources on the high in fat, salt and sugar foods than on healthier options.
10:15
The modelling used for health benefits has focused on calorie reduction. Is that an appropriate approach, and do you think that it underestimates or overestimates the health benefits of the regulations?
I have had a lot of conversations with officials, third sector organisations and public health areas and businesses. My understanding is that most people recognise what calories are, so they can make informed decisions when calories are on the product. Again, we have received evidence from Food Standards Scotland and Public Health Scotland, and more widely through Nesta and Obesity Action Scotland, about the impact of diets that are high in fat, salt and sugar on health outcomes, whether it be type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular issues and so on.
Good morning. My internal red flag went up when I saw that the industry representative was entirely comfortable with this level of regulation, which leaves me worried that it will not be robust enough. One of our witnesses said earlier that, although this is better than nothing, you are taking the path of least resistance, particularly in relation to the scope and aspects of harmful activity that will not be covered. Why is that?
When we were gathering evidence for the regulations, I hosted a number of round-table events to support the decisions that I finally made. Those events included people from third sector organisations—NCD Alliance Scotland, for example—and business and health stakeholders, such as Food Standards Scotland and Public Health Scotland. I was very clear at the start of those events that this had to be a whole-system approach. We cannot have a healthy Scotland without healthy people or healthy businesses, and we need healthy people to operate healthy businesses. A circular requirement exists for everything to be ensured.
In those round-table events, you would have heard people arguing that temporary price reductions, meal deals, freestanding displays and other aspects should be included in the regulations. However, you decided not to do so. Why is that?
For a number of reasons. You are right that I heard those explanations. Meal deals are more difficult to define—they are not simply a sandwich, a fizzy drink and crisps. I recognise that having a meal deal and getting a free packet of crisps is not the best thing to do, which is why we are continuing to explore those specific things under the population health framework.
The definition would take a bit longer. Does that mean that you will do that work? Is that a commitment for the next parliamentary session? Is the Government’s position that you will do this first and that more will come?
I have been clear that this has always been the first step in relation to all the food environment regulations. As I said, we are considering the matter, taking evidence on it and exploring it under the population health framework.
I come to enforcement. Ideally, enforcement would not be necessary and you would get complete compliance, but the experience from England suggests that that is not happening. Local authorities already have a significant burden of responsibility and do not feel resourced enough in relation to existing issues such as food crime, environmental health and so on. Would you accept the principle that, if an industry requires to be regulated, it should pay for the cost of that regulation? Does local government have the tools to ensure that the activity of regulating generates enough income to pay for itself?
Enforcement is one of the areas that we have to get right, which is why we have pulled together a group to consider it. We work very closely with COSLA and local authorities to ensure that they have the right support to do the enforcement.
Does COSLA agree that it has enough support?
We are exploring ways to ensure that it has the right support to enable it to focus on the areas that it considers the biggest risk.
I am trying to be very specific in a limited amount of time. Did you say that you are working with COSLA and that the intention is that it will be given enough resource to enforce the regulations, and that COSLA will be satisfied with the amount of resource that it will have?
We have to be clear and understand the resource that COSLA believes that it needs.
Do you mean that we need to be clear about what it is, understand it and also provide it?
I cannot comment on that now. I accept where you are coming from, especially based on the evidence that Professor Alexandra Johnstone gave.
I think that I have got two minutes left, if I am timing correctly.
No, you do not. You are just about at five minutes.
This is my very last question, then. How do you intend to measure and monitor the impact of the regulations? How will that be evaluated so that we know what needs to happen next?
We have been very clear with Public Health Scotland that that is within its remit, and we are working with it to ensure that the evaluation is done.
You are quite right that there is no point in bringing in regulations if we do not do an evaluation to understand the differences that are made, which would then provide the evidence that would allow us to take additional steps as required.
Good morning. I want to spend a little bit of time considering the impact that the regulations could have on inequalities.
Earlier, we heard from David McColgan from the NCD Alliance about food deserts and the impact that the lack of availability of fresh food can have on people who are experiencing inequalities. Can you explain how the population health framework and other food-related policy will mitigate any potential skewing effects of the regulations on inequalities? If we think about minimum unit pricing, although that had a good effect on the population, there could be a different impact on individuals.
When we were gathering evidence, I recognised that it was important to get feedback from areas where people live with higher deprivation. We had two round-table discussions with the Poverty Alliance to understand how it felt that the policy could impact such areas.
It comes back to what I said earlier about the whole environment that people are shopping in, and we need to look at how we reduce the poorer health outcomes of those in poverty. We did an equality impact assessment, alongside a fairer Scotland duty assessment, to ensure that we were bringing in recommendations and regulations that did not impact too negatively on people’s available budgets; I have spoken about that.
We heard evidence that buy one, get one free offers resulted in people making unplanned purchases, which is why we wanted to review that area and bring in regulations to cover that.
We have also got to recognise that the Scottish Government does a lot outwith the food regulations to address inequalities. We have provided £3 billion to tackle poverty, 1,140 hours of free childcare and free school meals as well as investing in community food networks to ensure that people have access to high-quality, healthy food.
As I touched on earlier, what I saw yesterday, and what I have also seen in a number of food pantries, is the ability to educate people on how to cook healthier meals. There is a whole-system approach.
The Scottish Pantry Network—and access to community grocery stores and so on—is something that we should be supporting and helping to flourish.
Given that a lot of convenience stores not only in some of our remote and rural areas but in population centres where there is a lot of deprivation will fall outwith the scope of what the regulations will deliver, how can the Government support such retailers to offer healthier food to the individuals whom they serve?
We have put in place a healthier food initiative through the Scottish Grocers’ Federation, and we have invested just over £300,000 in that this year for the promotion of healthier foods. I have been to primary schools in areas of higher deprivation where I have heard it explained that healthier food is brought in at breakfast time and for breakfast clubs to support children in choosing healthier options. As I have said, this is a whole-system approach.
Finally, is the Government going to monitor any impacts on inequalities and then bring that work back to the Parliament for scrutiny? It is really important that we understand the impacts of the regulations, positive and negative, on individuals who have disabilities and how they access food.
I agree. That would be part of the work that I would expect Public Health Scotland to be carrying out in its evaluation.
Thank you.
I thank the minister and her officials. We will continue our meeting, but you are free to leave at this point, minister, if you wish to do so.
Agenda item 2 is consideration of three negative instruments, the first of which is the instrument on which we have just taken evidence—the Food (Promotion and Placement) (Scotland) Regulations 2025. As we have heard, the purpose of the regulations is to restrict the promotion and placement of targeted foods that are high in fat, sugar or salt, where they are sold to the public.
The Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee considered the instrument at its meeting on 11 November and made no recommendations, and no motion to annul has been lodged. If members have no comments, I propose that the committee make no recommendations in relation to the instrument. Are members agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
Official Controls (Import of High Risk Food and Feed of Non-Animal Origin) Amendment (Scotland) Regulations 2025 (SSI 2025/335)
The purpose of the instrument is to amend Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1793, on the temporary increase of official controls and emergency measures governing the entry into the European Union of certain goods from certain third countries. It will give legislative effect to the minister’s decision in respect of the outcome of a review of regulation (EU) 2019/1793, which lays down requirements that apply to certain high-risk food and feed commodities of non-animal origin on entry into Great Britain.
The Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee considered the instrument on 18 November and made no recommendations, and no motion to annul has been lodged. If members have no comments, I propose that the committee make no recommendations in relation to this negative instrument. Are members agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
National Health Service (Charges to Overseas Visitors) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2025 (SSI 2025/280)
The purpose of the instrument is to ensure that overseas visitors who have been medically evacuated from Gaza for NHS treatment via the Gaza medical evacuation scheme can receive relevant healthcare services provided by NHS Scotland at no charge.
When the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee considered the instrument on 28 October, it made no recommendations. However, it drew the instrument to the Parliament’s attention under reporting ground (j), because of the failure to lay the instrument in accordance with section 28(2) of the Interpretation and Legislative Reform (Scotland) Act 2010, although it concluded that it was satisfied with the reasons given for the failure to comply with the laying regulations. No motion to annul has been lodged on the instrument.
If members have no comments, I propose that the committee make no recommendations in relation to this negative instrument. Are we agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
I suspend the meeting briefly before we progress to the next agenda item.
10:29 Meeting suspended.