Chamber and committees

:I will check that, but that is exactly the conversation that I think we need to have. You previously said one year, Stuart McMillan said five, so do we go down the middle and say three? I am happy to negotiate. However, if the review took place five years after the bill was enacted, that would be in the following parliamentary session.

:This is a complex and important group of amendments, so I will need a bit of time to address them all.

After consultation, we announced our intention to create three groups of procedures. Group 1 covers procedures that are undertaken under a local authority licence, and their regulation will be achieved when the SSI that was made on 12 February this year takes effect. Group 2 covers procedures that could be undertaken by non-healthcare professionals working in a clinical setting with supervision by a healthcare professional. Group 3 covers procedures that could be undertaken only by a healthcare professional. The bill covers procedures in groups 2 and 3, but it does not differentiate between them. It also does not specify who may undertake the procedures or what form supervision may take.

The bill provides key safety protections related to age and to ensuring that procedures are undertaken only in a regulated setting where we expect the right healthcare professionals to be available. Once issues relating to the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 are worked through, we will put in place further regulations that will cover training requirements for practitioners and how supervision should operate and will restrict the riskiest procedures, so that they can be undertaken only by a healthcare professional.

I turn to the amendments. Dr Gulhane’s amendments 81 and 103 would put in place specific provisions for Botox. In many ways, the approach resembles the approach that we intend to take for group 3, with such procedures being able to be undertaken only by a healthcare professional. This matches the approach in a range of European countries and there was strong support for such provision in the consultation responses. However, I am also mindful that strong representations have been made in relation to non-healthcare practitioners being able to carry out the procedure safely. Given that Botox is a prescription-only medicine, it is necessary for a healthcare professional to make the initial prescription and to support consideration of whether Botox is right for the client, as well as to be available to manage complications. Complications can arise whoever the practitioner might be.

Dr Gulhane’s amendments 81 and 103 would restrict the practice of non-healthcare professionals in an unnecessary way. In addition, by creating an offence in relation to the provision of Botox, a prescription-only medicine, the amendments would make provision on a subject matter that falls under the Medicines Act 1968. That is a reserved matter under schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998. Therefore, amendments 81 and 103 appear to be outwith our legislative competence, so I urge Dr Gulhane not to move them.

However, the points that Dr Gulhane has raised are important, and we will highlight them in our on-going discussions with the UK Government.

Amendments 58, 84, 87, 92, 95 and 97 cover supervision, which is an issue that the Scottish Government intends to resolve through future regulations. The principles of supervision might change over time, and they will be closely impacted by, for example, the training standards that are set.

The broad principles that are set out in subsection (1) of Mr Golden’s amendment 58 are likely to be features of future regulations. The amendment might also overlap with or duplicate existing requirements under professional guidance or elsewhere. I appreciate that Mr Golden’s amendments are largely focused on making practice easier for non-healthcare practitioners, but I note that he is proposing a model of remote supervision, which I do not think would be appropriate. That would weaken safety protections and would not provide the flexibility that practitioners are looking for. The cost of a professional observing a procedure using technology would need to be factored in. In-person partnership is a more effective approach to safety and allows professionals to work in parallel in a setting. I am very concerned that amendment 58 would undermine the fundamental safety intentions of the bill, which I covered in the debate on group 3. Therefore, I cannot support it and urge Mr Golden not to move it. If he does, I ask members not to support it.

Dr Gulhane’s amendment 97 asks ministers to ensure that a definition of “supervision” is in place before regulations are made under section 5. I am happy to confirm that specifying the basis on which procedures can be undertaken, as part of the section 5 regulations to ensure that procedures are carried out safely, is a priority, alongside providing training standards and restricting the highest-risk procedures to healthcare professionals. I cannot say which matters will be resolved soonest—that is a matter for ministers after the election. If regulations on other matters were ready first, I certainly would not want them to be delayed. Therefore, I cannot support amendment 97.

Dr Gulhane’s amendments 87, 92 and 95 relate to supervision because they replace ministers’ ability to make regulations to specify who may provide, or supervise the provision of, a non-surgical procedure, with a list of individuals who may perform procedures unsupervised. That list includes an advanced medical practitioner—a health and care practitioner with a qualification encompassing clinical practice, leadership and management, and education and research. It appears that amendment 92 may be outwith legislative competence, as a result of the medicines reservation in the Scotland Act 1998.

Mr McMillan’s amendment 84 also addresses supervision, suggesting minimum staffing ratios. There are concerns that this amendment may also be outwith legislative competence because the regulation of the health professions is reserved under schedule 5 to the 1998 act and because of the effect of the amendment in relation to the medicines reservation in the 1998 act.

We do not yet have a definition of supervision, at least in part because we are still working through the implications of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020, which does not allow us to set training and supervision standards for Scotland which would operate in the manner in which the Scottish ministers would like them to. Now is not the time to specify who can or cannot perform procedures without supervision. This is a matter for future regulation, as soon as it is practicable, so I cannot support amendments 84, 87, 92 and 95.

Amendments 77 and 78, in the name of Dr Gulhane, seek to impose direct requirements on providers in relation to insurance and indemnity, as well as aftercare information. These are entirely reasonable requirements, but I can reassure Dr Gulhane that insurance and indemnity requirements already form part of HIS’s regulation of the settings that are registered with it. The appropriate place for these matters is in HIS guidance, or in the requirements placed on HIS-registered settings through regulations under the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978. Similarly, aftercare information should be a basic part of practice in this sector and, again, guidance would be an appropriate place to address it. Therefore, I cannot support amendments 77 and 78.

Amendments 80 and 115, in the name of Fulton MacGregor, seek to impose direct requirements on providers in relation to training requirements. The bill already makes provision for the Scottish ministers to make regulations setting out training or qualification standards and, once the issues surrounding the internal market act are resolved, it is the intention to set training and qualification standards for providers of non-surgical procedures. Fulton MacGregor’s amendment 96, in the next group, which I will be urging the committee to support, also addresses this issue. I hope that that addresses the member’s concern and I note his comments regarding his amendments.

Section 5 of the bill will confer on ministers a power to regulate to make further provision about non-surgical procedures. Altogether, 23 amendments have been lodged that change or add to section 5 and a further five amendments would make additions immediately after section 5. Not all of those amendments are to be debated in this group, but I hope that members will appreciate that it would not be possible to accept such a high number of overlapping and sometimes conflicting amendments.

In this group, amendments 83, 46, 47, 91, 84, 87, 92 and 95 all in some way restrict or direct the use of section 5 powers by ministers, seeking that the Scottish ministers must consider or make provision for a whole range of issues, such as provision about consultation and consent, record keeping, the traceability of injectables and aftercare.

Maurice Golden’s amendment 91 would prevent any restriction to providing non-surgical procedures being made based on the professional status of an individual. That would prevent ministers from restricting who can provide even the highest-risk body augmentation procedures. I cannot support the amendment. There are times when it will be right to restrict the carrying out of certain procedures based on the professional status of the provider. I suspect that the member would agree that such a blanket limitation was not his intention.

Maurice Golden’s amendment 46 requires that any regulations made under section 5 must make provision for the classification of non-surgical procedures into categories of risk and potential harm, having regard to available evidence on harms and complications. It would be a significant undertaking to categorise procedures in more detail than we have done, each time that regulations under section 5 are made. It would also limit the Scottish Government’s ability to react quickly to novel procedures or to changes in how existing procedures are delivered. In my amendment 35, the requirement to consult on regulations, which will be subject to the affirmative procedure, will take account of the risks and potential harms of procedures in relation to any changes that the regulations make. Therefore, I cannot support amendment 46.

11:00

Maurice Golden’s amendment 47 provides that regulations must make certain requirements of providers, and although the matters discussed are appropriate, I again want to maintain flexibility for such matters to be addressed in guidance or regulations as appropriate, and to avoid anything that would duplicate existing requirements elsewhere. Therefore, I cannot support amendment 47.

I will now consider amendments 83, 88 and 89, in the name of Gillian Mackay, which seek to address the heightened risk of non-surgical procedures to clients with pre-existing conditions such as prior surgeries or altered anatomy. Amendment 83 sets out that the Scottish ministers “must have regard to” the need to protect individuals at greater risk of harm when making regulations under section 5, whereas amendments 88 and 89 provide that ministers “may” exercise their powers to make provision for different or additional requirements and ensure that providers carry out documented pre-procedure assessments and informed consent procedures.

The requirement for the procedures that the bill covers to take place in settings where a healthcare professional is available takes account of scenarios such as those set out by Gillian Mackay in amendment 83, in which clinical input is required to determine whether a procedure is suitable for a client. If any further provision is required in this respect, it may be provided in guidance. However, I do not think that any duty is required for the Scottish ministers to ensure that these matters are considered; instead, such a duty would encumber the exercise of the power.

Amendments 88 and 89 are also not strictly necessary, but I would understand if the member wished to move and press them as a further signal of the types of matter that we may need to consider in future. In the spirit of compromise, I would be happy to support these amendments. That is because, unlike amendment 83, amendments 88 and 89 would not encumber the wider use of the power. I ask the member not to move amendment 83.

I will turn to the final amendments in this group: amendment 98 by Gillian Mackay and related amendments 99 and 120 by Dr Gulhane. The amendments offer two very similar approaches to ensuring additional protections to high-risk clients and require guidance to be produced. I have already discussed guidance. I do not think that it is helpful for the bill to contain multiple guidance provisions, so I refer members to my comments during the debate on group 5 and ask them to work with me, and each other, on a stage 3 approach to the issue.

This has been a substantial group, and it demonstrates the level of care that members have put into considering safety and risk issues. There is time before stage 3, if members are willing to work with me, to agree approaches to concerns that can be endorsed on a consensual basis, whether or not that requires anything to be included in the bill.

For the time being, I repeat my support for amendments 88 and 89 and urge other members not to move their amendments. If they do, I would ask that members do not support them.

:I thank Ms Mackay for lodging amendments 26 and 27. I am aware that concerns have been expressed about the level of penalties in the bill as introduced, and I thank the committee for its comments in the stage 1 report. It is vital that the bill has teeth and sets penalties that act as a meaningful deterrent to any practitioners who choose not to engage with the new regulatory scheme.

Having listened to the committee, I appreciate that the level of penalties set in the bill will not be a sufficient deterrent to businesses that could be earning up to £5,000 per day. Amendments 26 and 27 seek to allow the offences in the bill to be triable either under summary procedure or on indictment. In such circumstances, the penalty that could be imposed by the court would be a maximum fine of £20,000 on summary conviction or an unlimited fine on conviction on indictment.

As with any offence that is triable, either under summary procedure or on indictment, it will be for prosecutors to decide on the appropriate procedure based on the evidence provided to them. That represents a significant increase in the level of penalty that may be imposed, particularly in cases where more than one offence is committed—for example, providing a non-surgical procedure to a person under the age of 18 and outwith the permitted premises, or where repeat offences occur. In addition, no matter whether an offence had been committed under the bill, a person could still commit other offences if they caused harm, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case, and they would carry their own penalty. I therefore urge members to support amendments 26 and 27.

I recognise that Mr Golden’s amendments 56 and 57 and Mr MacGregor’s amendment 102 seek proportionality, transparency, good governance and accountability, but they also duplicate existing requirements on HIS and are therefore not required in the bill. With regard to amendment 56, I note that HIS inspections are based on publicly available standards, and it publishes its inspection reports for transparency purposes. It also has a complaints procedure, should providers not feel that those inspection reports are either fair or accurate.

In respect of amendment 57, HIS is required to comply with data protection legislation in relation to client information that it might obtain as part of its inspection processes. HIS also takes an improvement approach to support those whom it inspects to improve their services before it takes other action.

Like amendment 56, Mr MacGregor’s amendment 102 seeks proportionate enforcement. The Scottish Government is not aware of HIS having used its enforcement powers in a disproportionate way, but if Mr MacGregor or anyone else is aware of concerns in that respect, I ask them to raise those concerns directly with me. If those concern relate to proportionate penalties, I point out that there is discretion that the courts or prosecutors can use.

Dr Gulhane’s amendment 104 seeks to provide for a useful and insightful review. However, although I support the intention behind it, I consider that the asks that it makes could perhaps form part of a wider review provision of the kind that we will come on to when we discuss the group entitled “Review of Part 1”.

I ask Mr Golden, Mr MacGregor and Dr Gulhane not to move their amendments.

:I am grateful to members for the points that they have raised and I urge them to support amendments 9, 22 to 25 and 31. I ask Maurice Golden and Stuart McMillan not to move the remaining amendments in the group.

The amendments in my name are necessary to ensure that the “permitted premises” definition is as clear as possible for providers of non-surgical procedures and for HIS as the enforcing body. The other amendments in the group would undermine the core safety protections that the bill offers.

I will touch briefly on Dr Gulhane’s points about prescriptions. We are having conversations about those issues with the UK Government and the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency. As you know, the matter is reserved. I acknowledge Dr Gulhane’s points and I am happy to discuss them further. HIS looks at such circumstances in its reviews and would refer any issues that it spotted to the MHRA.

I will repeat what I have said elsewhere, which is that I do not want to disrupt business unnecessarily, but nor am I willing to compromise on safety in order to reduce disruption. I am happy to continue to work with members on other approaches to mitigate the impact on businesses, including existing business support and any guidance that we can provide.

I want HIS to work with the Scottish Government to ensure that all its standards and requirements are appropriate to the services that it regulates and to consider any statutory standards in the same context. There is scope to make changes to regulations to better accommodate settings that do a mixture of procedures and other beauty treatments. I am happy to share more detail on that by correspondence.

In the lead-up to and during stage 3, I would be happy to hear any other suggestions from members on steps that might mitigate the impact on businesses.

Amendment 9 agreed to.

:This group of amendments relates largely to section 5, on the powers available to ministers to make further provision on non-surgical procedures.

I explained in my comments on previous groups why some matters needed to be dealt with under delegated powers. Our use of delegated powers was, of course, considered by the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee, and I was grateful to Stuart McMillan, who joins us today, for chairing that consideration. That committee recognised that certain matters were appropriate for regulations, but it also said that some additional safeguards were required in the exercise of that power.

As such, I turn to amendment 35, in my name, which requires Scottish ministers to consult in relation to all the affirmative regulation-making powers in the bill. I hope that all members will support that and agree that it is a proportionate approach to the issue identified by the DPLR Committee.

Amendments 54, 93 and 94 also seek to make consultation requirements, all of which are specific to the power in section 5. Amendments 93 and 94, lodged by Gillian Mackay and Sandesh Gulhane respectively, would require patient groups or those representing clients, clinical experts, regulators and enforcement bodies to be consulted. Dr Gulhane would add

“representatives of the beauty and aesthetics industry”

to the list and make other provision, which I will turn to shortly. Finally, amendment 54, in Maurice Golden’s name, also sets out consultation requirements, in this case with HIS, local authorities, and representatives of the industry and training institutions.

In respect of all those consultation requirements, I ask members to consider that the power in section 5 is capable of making very different sorts of provision. In fact, it is capable of making substantial provision, in which case consultation would be not only expected—and rightly so—but required to fulfil the range of duties on Scottish ministers in relation to impact assessment.

Amendment 35 strengthens that requirement. In such circumstances, some or all of the groups indicated might well be included in the list of consultees, but the power might also make quite small or technical changes, in which case targeted consultation would be more appropriate. Indeed, even more substantial matters might be of interest only to a subset of the groups that members have named. Again, it would be a better use of time if the Scottish Government were able to consult bodies that have an interest in the matter at hand. For that reason, I urge members not to press or move their amendments and to support the amendment in my name instead.

I note Maurice Golden’s amendment 53, which echoes some of the committee’s concerns and is unlikely to make the exercise of the regulation-making power in section 5(1) cumbersome. I do not consider the amendment to be necessary, as any Government proposing regulations would consider their enforceability, and I also expect the committee that scrutinises regulations to seek assurance in that respect. However, I am happy to discuss the issue further with Maurice Golden before stage 3.

On the other hand, I urge Mr Golden not to move amendment 55, which makes similar provision but also contains material that overlaps with a range of existing duties, including under the Equality Act 2010, and which is likely to make the regulation-making power more cumbersome and less capable of being used in a reactive way.

The next amendments that I will consider seek to impose certain requirements on ministers in exercising those delegated powers or restrain the way in which they may be used. In that category, I include amendments 48, 49, 52 and 90. Those amendments include different approaches to requiring transitional protections and ensuring that there are pathways for non-healthcare professional providers. The effect of amendment 52 also means that no provision can be made about training or qualification requirements for persons providing non-surgical procedures that does not also provide alternative routes to demonstrate competence, and provisions around continuing professional development, record keeping, audit, incident reporting and complications management. Those are not necessarily unreasonable matters to be considered, but putting those requirements against the whole exercise of the power would be cumbersome and often disproportionate to enact. They would remove the discretion to deal with issues in the most appropriate way, whether in regulations under this power, using other regulations, or in guidance.

11:30

Amendment 45 is relatively technical, as it seeks to amend section 5(2)(a) of the bill to prevent regulations made under section 5(1) from modifying sections 2, 3, 4 and schedule 1 of the bill once it becomes an act. The provisions in section 5(2)(a) are not unusual and are required to provide flexibility in how new provisions are written into legislation and be made as readable as possible. For instance, amendments making specific requirements in relation to the settings for the provision of a particular procedure may do so in stand-alone regulations, which would then need to be read alongside the bill provisions, or it may make sense to make modifications to section 4 of the bill to allow such matters to be included all in one place. For those reasons, the existing power in section 5(2)(a) is considered necessary.

Amendment 50, in Jeremy Balfour’s name, relates to creating a new regulatory scheme to facilitate certain categories of non-healthcare professionals to supervise procedures. That would be contrary to the strongly expressed views of consultees last year, who wish for supervision to be restricted to certain healthcare professionals. It would also conflict with the reasoning that I outlined in relation to group 3 around assurance of patient safety and dealing with complications. As such, I urge the member not to move amendment 50.

I return to amendment 94, in Sandesh Gulhane’s name. Like his amendment 97 in the previous group, amendment 94 would require certain material to be published before regulations can be made. In this case, the requirement is to publish training standards. I assure members that training standards are a priority, and it is a matter of great frustration to me personally that more progress has not been made on that issue. I am, however, hopeful that members will shortly approve my amendments on an individual assessment process that is a prerequisite to us resolving those issues.

As I have said elsewhere, it is still going to be necessary for the Scottish Government to work with the UK Government on those matters. It is also likely to benefit practitioners if, where possible, requirements in Scotland and England are aligned. That means that the timing of any standard of training is not entirely in the Scottish Government’s gift. On that basis, the requirement that Dr Gulhane has suggested in amendment 94 could prevent other matters being dealt with in a timely manner. On that basis, I urge Dr Gulhane again not to move the amendment.

:I would be very happy to discuss that with Dr Gulhane in the lead-up to stage 3.

I am content to consider discussions with Mr Balfour on his amendment 37, because I absolutely understand where it is coming from with regard to the underlying issues.

I welcome the indication that Mr Golden will not be pressing his amendments in the group. However, if he decides to press them, I ask members not to support them, and I will continue discussions with him into stage 3.

09:30

I remind members that I already intend that a consultation requirement will be added to all the affirmative powers in the bill, so I hope that you all agree that it is unnecessary to put in place a further requirement, especially one that will prevent that power from being used effectively.

I urge members to support the amendments in my name, which are critical to ensuring that the bill captures the intended procedures but does not capture anything else and that it works effectively with the licensing statutory instrument.

I press amendment 6.

Amendment 6 agreed to.

Amendments 7 and 8 moved—[Jenni Minto]—and agreed to.

:I agree with Dr Gulhane’s points, and I will come to some of them later.

I note the concern about the impact on businesses, and I want to be clear that I am happy to consider taking other action. In the debate on the final group of amendments, we will talk about the time before key provisions in the bill come into force.

I also want the Scottish Government to work with HIS and engage with businesses so that it can carefully consider HIS’s requirements and determine whether any could be amended to ensure that they are suitable for the full range of businesses that HIS will regulate.

We must retain the requirement for a healthcare professional to be on site when procedures that will be regulated under the bill are being performed—I highlighted the importance of that in the debate on group 3. However, consideration is being given to removing the need for a healthcare professional to be present in a service when non-regulated procedures take place.

That said, there is no need to put in place a support fund such as the one that is envisaged by Sandesh Gulhane in amendment 105 and by the consequential changes that are proposed in amendments 117 and 119. As the convener and Dr Gulhane have noted, we will not be voting on amendment 105 today, given that there is no financial resolution and the Presiding Officer has determined that the cost of the amendment would exceed the threshold to require such a financial resolution.

There is also no need for a fund to be established to ensure that guidance is put in place. I refer members to the comments that I made in the previous group relating to standards, guidance and requirements for providers. I am willing to work with members on the inclusion of an overarching provision in the bill that requires the Scottish Government to produce guidance on a number of matters, given the number of amendments of that nature.

The final element of the proposed fund concerns direct financial support. Dr Gulhane is realistic about that element. Where businesses are concerned about on-going costs, for instance in relation to employment, it would not be reasonable or affordable to subsidise them using finite public moneys. Doing so would also be uncompetitive in a sector in which many businesses are already meeting the cost of HIS registration while receiving no such support.

10:30

Amendment 110 takes a different approach. I am grateful to Carol Mochan for lodging it. I note that it is one of a number of amendments concerning potential review provisions, including amendment 109, which is also in Ms Mochan’s name. The majority of those amendments are to be considered in group 11, so I will say more on them at that point. However, I say to Ms Mochan now that I would be happy to work with her on amendment 110 and with other members on how a single review provision can also consider the support available to businesses to ensure that the issues that Ms Mochan raises can be addressed.

Amendments 51 and 76 focus less on support for businesses and more on the imposition of costs on them. I must admit that I do not see the need for amendment 51 in Mr Balfour’s name. The Scottish ministers already have the power to set maximum fees for registration with HIS in regulations under section 10Z5 of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978. Ministers are required to consult service providers before making regulations under the 1978 act, and HIS consults its registrants when evaluating those fees on an annual basis.

:My understanding is—I will correct the record if this is incorrect—that the Parliament votes on the instrument that sets the maximum fees every few years, so there is a check. I will get back to Mr Balfour directly on that, and I suggest that he does not move amendment 51.

I also urge Mr Golden to consider the provision in the 1978 act concerning the setting of fees. It requires HIS to set its fees—subject to a statutory maximum that is set by ministers in regulations—with regard to its reasonable expenses in carrying out its functions. That appears to me to be a very reasonable basis for fees to be set. Any alternative might prevent HIS from covering its own costs and open the prospect of the public purse subsidising the sector in perpetuity.

The other elements of amendment 76 compare costs incurred by businesses that are associated with enforcement and the level of penalties. I would welcome further discussion with Mr Golden on the costs associated with enforcement if he is aware of a concern about HIS inspection or other enforcement activity being burdensome for its current registrants. I note Dr Gulhane’s point regarding that, and I would be happy to discuss the situation that he mentioned with him.

Regarding the level of penalties, I note that decisions regarding prosecutions are a matter for the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service and that the appropriate level of fines to be applied following conviction will be a matter for the courts to determine according to the facts and circumstances of a particular case. I will say more about this under group 9, which relates to enforcement, but if a court considers it appropriate to set a stiff penalty for someone who has knowingly provided a high-risk procedure to a child, I do not want anything in the bill to prevent that.

For those reasons, I ask members not to press the amendments, as I am very happy to work with them to address some of the underlying concerns. In the meantime, I hope that my comments have been helpful and reassuring.

I am pleased to join you this morning to consider the draft Food Supplements (Magnesium L-threonate monohydrate) (Scotland) Regulations 2026.

As the committee will be aware, food safety, standards and labelling are areas on which I am advised by Food Standards Scotland. Magnesium L-threonate monohydrate, as a novel form of magnesium, may be used to make food supplements only following approval under the novel food regime along with the approval of an SSI under the food supplements regime. Magnesium L-threonate monohydrate has been approved as a novel form of magnesium for use in food supplements in Scotland and, in the wider context, across Great Britain, having received a positive safety assessment by the food safety authorities.

The ministerial determination that approves the substance as a novel food was made on 7 January and will come into force at the same time as the draft regulations that the committee is considering today. The draft regulations will allow the substance to be used to make food supplements for sale to consumers in Scotland as intended, by amending the list of permitted mineral substances that is set out in schedule 2 to the Nutrition (Amendment etc) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019. The draft regulations will also set the purity criteria for the mineral substance, as required by the Food Supplements (Scotland) Regulations 2003 and in accordance with the novel food safety assessment specification.

I stress that the amendments are technical in nature and do not amount to a change in policy. They are necessary to ensure that this form of magnesium can be used in the manufacture of food supplements as intended. This is a business facilitative measure, and there is no negative impact on businesses or any other stakeholder group. In alignment with Scotland, comparable regulations have been laid in Wales and are expected to be laid in England in summer 2026.

I ask the committee to support the draft regulations. I am happy to take any questions.

No. I am content.