Draft Clean Air Zones Central Services (Fees) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 10 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 10 / Noes: 4 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Clean Air Zones Central Services (Fees) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2026.
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Wishart. The draft regulations make two amendments to the Clean Air Zones Central Services (Fees) (England) Regulations 2020. First, they extend the period during which local authorities may be charged for using the clean air zones central services website from 31 March 2027 to 31 March 2031. Secondly, they increase the fee that local authorities pay to use the services from £2 to £4 per transaction, as a step towards full cost recovery. The regulations are due to take effect from 1 September 2026.
It may benefit hon. Members if I provide some context. As many are already aware, clean air zones encourage green travel by charging older, more polluting vehicles a fee to enter the zone. They have been introduced selectively, only where evidence shows that they are the quickest way to reduce nitrogen dioxide concentrations in a local area, and where other options would not deliver the same results as quickly. Seven clean air zones are currently operated by local authorities in England: Bath and North East Somerset; Birmingham; Bradford; Bristol; Portsmouth; Sheffield and Rotherham; and Tyneside.
Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
My understanding is that there are no plans to introduce such zones in either Middlesbrough or Redcar and Cleveland, but is the Minister able to confirm that for the record?
Simon Lightwood
At this time, the Government have no plans to introduce further clean air zones to additional cities. Our focus is to work with local authorities to support them in meeting their legally binding obligations to improve air quality in their localities.
Let me be clear that these clean air zones are working. Between 2019 and 2024, in the city areas that have clean air zones, annual average concentrations of nitrogen dioxide reduced by between 18% and 46%. They dropped by about a third in Bristol, by 40% in Bath and North East Somerset, and by more than 40% in Tyneside. However, it is more than just lines on a graph; these results matter. In the UK, it is estimated that exposure to air pollution has an annual impact by shortening lifespans equivalent to 29,000 to 43,000 deaths.
The impact of air pollution is felt most acutely by the most vulnerable in our society, including older people and younger children. This is about children breathing cleaner air, building healthier communities, preventing illness and protecting our NHS. As a Government, it is one of the most important things that we can do for the public, and it is the least that they deserve. In 2021, the then Government built the “drive in a clean air zone” central services website to support local authorities to introduce and operate clean air zones. The website lets drivers check whether their vehicle meets the air-quality standards for a particular clean air zone and, if not, pay a daily charge to drive in it. A call centre supports people who do not use digital channels to make payments, and it helps local authorities with enforcement.
The 2020 regulations support the implementation of clean air zones. They establish a legal framework for the Transport Secretary to charge local authorities a fee of £2 for each proposed payment through the central services website. The regulations ensured that the £2 fee was payable until 31 March 2027, which is the date by which it was estimated that all local authorities with a clean air zone would have achieved compliance with air quality requirements and exited the central services. The previous Government were not able to achieve that, and some areas are now not expected to meet their air quality target until the early 2030s. Therefore, clean air zones will need to remain in place for longer than envisaged by the 2020 regulations. This instrument, which extends the charging period, is necessary to continue operating the central services.
The legal framework supporting the 2020 regulations has also changed following the UK’s exit from the European Union. As a result, it is no longer possible to rely on the same powers to amend the original regulations. The draft regulations presented to the Committee are therefore made under updated powers introduced by the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018.
These draft regulations are an important step to ensuring that the costs of providing the central services are recovered fairly and transparently, rather than falling to the taxpayer. I make it clear that raising the fee to £4 will increase cost recovery to an estimated 90% of the lifetime of CAZ central services from financial year 2020-21 to financial year 2030-31. That is higher than the 69% cost recovery we estimate for the period if the £2 fee were to remain unchanged. It leaves the Government subsidising transactions at 10% of the overall cost, as opposed to 31%. It is a sensible move towards full cost recovery.
I reassure the Committee on the potential concerns that the fee increase will be passed on to motorists. Our expectation is that that will not be the case. Ministers wrote to councils in December last year, strongly urging them not to pass the transaction fee on to motorists through increased clean air zone charges. Tackling the cost of living is this Government’s top priority, and we are ensuring that this change does not add to the challenges that many people are now facing.
To be clear, this is not a war on motorists. This Government are backing drivers and businesses through a range of measures, including extending the 5p fuel duty cut and introducing a 12-month road tax holiday for hauliers. The extension to the 5p duty cut is keeping taxes at a 16-year low and saving the average driver £120.
We are making record levels of investment in our road network, including a £7 billion commitment to tackle potholes and improve local maintenance. Alongside that, we are supporting the transition to cleaner transport, including through the £2 billion electric car grant, which is helping drivers move to zero emission vehicles. It has already helped 120,000 UK drivers to do that since July 2025.
Returning to the statutory instrument, the Government’s understanding is that the fee increase to £4 is manageable, as most of the schemes are currently running in surplus. It is not right that taxpayers across the country should be subsidising surpluses in these few authorities, generated from a scheme that is designed to clean up our air, not generate income.
For example, from the information published by Bristol city council, we understand that its clean air zone surplus has been running to several million pounds a year. This fee increase could reduce that by between £400,000 and £1 million a year in each of the coming three financial years. Should any local authority fall into a shortfall with its clean air zone operating costs, that will be covered by the Government under new burdens rules.
When clean air zones were established, the Government informed local authorities that the transaction fee would be reviewed once costs and income were clearer. Clean air zones have been in operation for several years, and we now have the necessary data from the past 12 to 18 months on costs, revenues and the expected duration of clean air zones to review and amend the fee.
Local authorities are expecting this fee change from 1 September, and officials continue to help them prepare. The Department for Transport will work closely with its delivery partner, the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, to ensure that the new fee is reflected when the regulations come into effect on 1 September.
The regulations will ensure that central services continue to operate effectively in a sustainable and transparent way, while supporting ongoing improvements to air quality. I commend these regulations to the Committee.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair this afternoon, Mr Wishart.
Across the country, drivers, particularly of older, often less expensive vehicles, have been hurt by the fees imposed by low emission zones and so-called clean air zones. Between ultra low emission zones and clean air zones, it is estimated that over £1 billion has been extracted from the public who are just trying to get about and live their lives: travelling to work, taking the kids to school, completing the family shop, getting to medical appointments or visiting relatives. Despite clear guidance that clean air zones are not to be used to raise revenue, in practice they are used for precisely that, generating significant money for the authorities that will be impacted by today’s regulations.
If we consider two of the largest authorities impacted by the changes, Bristol’s clean air zone brought in over £22 million in 2024-25 from daily charges and penalty notices. That brought a transfer to Bristol’s reserves of over £16 million, which contributed to the spending of £14 million on other transport projects.
Meanwhile, a 2026 report by Birmingham city council showed that the authority had spent over £92 million from net surplus revenue since its scheme was put in place. Of that £92 million, over £73 million was spent on active travel and transforming the city centre. While these can be worthy goals, it reflects a complete disregard for the motorist, with only £10 million being spent on issues such as road safety. That is indicative of the fact that authorities have repeatedly used clean air zones as a mechanism for funding other projects. The Minister will no doubt recognise that is not the purpose of the system but a by-product of it, and one that these regulations will impact.
I listened carefully to the Minister’s speech, in which he extolled the virtues of clean air. Getting clean air is a worthy goal, but it is not the stick that works on this occasion; it is the carrot. It is using technology as our friend—even modern diesel cars are cleaner than their predecessors. It is the evolution of technology and leaning on future technologies, from battery electric to synthetic fuels and more, that will deliver clean air, not just punishing people for what they happen to be able to afford today.
The draft regulations will impose a fee on authorities that use the central services function operated by the Government. On the face of it, there should be nothing to be worried about. According to the Government, there will be no impact on motorists. However, it would be naive in the extreme to believe that further costs will not be imposed on drivers—in other words, that these increased charges will not just be passed on to drivers who are already struggling with the cost of fuel, road duty, insurance costs and so much more.
The Minister had the audacity to reference fuel duty, which is one of the weakest of the Government’s U-turns. They tried to pretend that they were keeping it low, but then they U-turned and said, “It won’t be September that we put it up; it will be a few months later.” The Government are still going to put fuel duty up and impose this additional burden on motorists. Are we really to believe that local authorities, which have revelled in using drivers as a cash cow, will allow the multiple millions that will be transferred to the Government on the basis of this increased fee to simply vanish overnight?
Let me be absolutely clear: the Conservatives oppose this instrument. Our opposition to the proposal is because we are concerned that the effect will not merely be about cost recovery for the central services but will encourage further action from local authorities to raise yet more money from drivers. That is a consequence of these changes that I fear the Government have not properly considered.
Furthermore, clean air zones are meant to be transitory, to improve air quality—although I question whether they do—and then find alternative solutions. That is why local authorities were strongly encouraged to find other mechanisms to control air quality, without resorting to clean air zones. Allowing these services to be used until 2031 suggests that there is no clear path for moving away from the existing rules, which cost motorists so dearly.
Driving is not a luxury. For millions, driving a car is necessary for daily life. It is freedom and a right that all of our constituents should be able to enjoy unencumbered by the state, whether national or local. Driving is practical. A weekly shop for a family of five cannot be carried on the back of a bike. The measures that Labour is introducing walk all over the realities of life for millions for whom the car is essential. This is Labour’s war on the motorist, and it is unjust. This instrument fans the flames of that war on the motorist, and we will oppose it.
Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)
I will briefly explain why the Liberal Democrats oppose the draft regulations before us today, which I intend to vote against. The first rule of politics is “learn to count”, and the Government’s counting in relation to this is quite something. They admit that the fee at its present level covers 86% of the expenditure on transactions, leaving them with a 14% shortfall. If they were bringing us a 14% increase in the charge today, the conversation might be a bit different. Instead, to cover that shortfall, they want to charge an extra 100% on the current fee. To borrow a phrase from a younger generation, “The math ain’t mathing.”
Councils have bought into a central scheme to try to lower their costs relating to the charge. The Government have a monopoly, as running their own scheme would be entirely unfeasible for councils. Many local councils are already suffering severe funding challenges, and now the Government are doing what looks to many like price gouging. What will happen is simple: councils will see an extra barrier to using clean air zones, so there will be fewer clean air zones and people in our urban centres will suffer as a result. Will the Minister be telling people in Bath, Birmingham, Bradford, Bristol, Portsmouth, Sheffield and Newcastle that clean air is a privilege for which the Government would like to charge more? Or will his Department take the reasonable approach by going back to the drawing board to produce a proposal that feels a little less like a rinsing of local transport strategy budgets?
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Wishart.
In Bradford, our new Reform-led council wants to scrap the clean air zone. I believe that would be a serious mistake that future generations of Bradfordians would pay for. Our city has long had one of the highest levels of respiratory illness in Yorkshire, with children, often from deprived backgrounds, growing up near busy roads in Manningham, Shipley and the Aire Valley corridor, having been disproportionately exposed to nitrogen dioxide levels linked to asthma, stunted lung development and reduced life expectancy.
It was in 2022 that the Conservative Government required places such as Bradford to introduce a clean air zone. It seems that the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire has forgotten that the policy was first introduced by a previous Government. At that time, Bradford was in breach of legal limits for nitrogen dioxide at 35 separate sites across the district. That is not a minor infraction; it is a public health disaster hiding in the air that my constituents breathe. Today, three years into the scheme, the figure has fallen to just three sites. That is a transformational difference that did not happen by chance.
The clean air zone created a tangible incentive. The hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire talked about carrots and sticks, and there is a definite incentive for the operators of the most polluting commercial vehicles, such as HGVs, buses, taxis and vans, to upgrade to cleaner alternatives. The impact on public health is evident. As of last year, the number of GP appointments in Bradford for people with breathing difficulties had dropped by nearly 600 a month since the clean air zone was introduced. Similarly, by reducing spending on inhalers, hospital admissions and long-term respiratory care, the clean air zone is estimated to have saved our local NHS around £30,000 every month.
Our city received close to £40 million from central Government to implement the clean air zone. That funding supported businesses to upgrade their fleets by transitioning to cleaner vehicles, making use of the benefits of technology and reducing their long-term operating costs.
On the draft regulations, it is important that the increased fees will not be passed on, and I hope the Minister will urge the Reform-led council in Bradford not to do so. The Government’s investment in cleaner buses in West Yorkshire in the coming years under the Bus Services Act 2025, bringing buses back into public control, will also have huge benefits in reducing respiratory problems.
In conclusion, Bradford’s clean air zone has driven significant improvements in air quality, and the evidence shows that it is benefiting the health of my constituents. Can the Minister confirm that any move by Reform to scrap the clean air zone before there is evidence of sustained air quality improvements would be both premature and reckless?
Simon Lightwood
I have heard that a couple of drops of olive oil is quite good for temporary hearing loss, so let me reiterate once again that this is not a tax on motorists. We do not expect local authorities to raise their charges to motorists on account of it, and we have expressly asked them not to do so.
Greg Smith
If local authorities pass on the fee, what will be the Government’s response?
Simon Lightwood
We have said, very clearly, that if this results in a shortfall, we will top it up through the new burdens assessment.
This is about good governance. The previous Government said they would review the costs when the data became clear. Good governance means that the Government provide a service that aligns with managing public money to ensure full cost recovery. We are doing this now because the last Government failed to increase the central services fee, which is designed to cover the cost of administering the services since they introduced clean air zones in 2020.
Most motorists entering a clean air zone will pay no charge at all because their vehicle is compliant, and the proportion is likely to continue to increase. The Government’s £2 billion electric car grant has helped 120,000 UK drivers move to zero emission vehicles since July 2025.
Clean air zones are designed to clean up air and should not be used as a revenue raiser for any organisation. I can assure hon. Members that clean air zones are not a revenue raiser for the DFT. By moving the fee to £4, we are still subsidising central services to the tune of 10%. Under the new burdens doctrine, the Department will pay for local authority deficits that arise in their CAZ operations.
The Government have worked closely with local authorities to prepare them for the fee increase and to understand the impacts. Local authorities that currently generate a surplus from their clean air zone will see some reduction in revenue following the fee increase, but no local authority will be left in deficit.
To answer the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley, any move to scrap a clean air zone before there is clear and sustained evidence of improved air quality would be both premature and reckless. Clean air zones were introduced to deliver compliance with legally binding air quality limits. Authorities are required to retain them until compliance has been achieved and maintained.
I hope I have reassured Members that these regulations will ensure that clean air zones continue to operate effectively and fairly. I therefore commend the regulations to the Committee.
Question put.
Draft Scotland Act 1998 (Increase of Borrowing Limits) Order 2026
(1 day, 10 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr Douglas Alexander)
I beg to move,
That this Committee has considered the draft Scotland Act 1998 (Increase in Borrowing Limits) Order 2026.
It is a genuine pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I am grateful for the opportunity to debate this draft order, which was laid before the house on 20 April 2026. It is the result of collaborative working between two Governments of the United Kingdom and of Scotland, and it upholds the 2023 fiscal framework agreement, which I will refer to as the 2023 agreement.
The draft order deals with the cumulative borrowing powers of the Scottish Government, and it is not the first time that the House or its Committees have considered such an order. As with the increase in borrowing limits order this time last year, the draft order, if made, will increase the Scottish Government’s cumulative capital and resource-borrowing limits to reflect inflation. It is made under sections 67 and 67A of the Scotland Act 1998, which set out the amounts available to borrow under section 66 of the Act. As specified in those sections, we bring forward the order with the consent of the Treasury. This is the third such order to be brought forward. The first was in May 2024, under the previous Government, and the second was last year, under this Government. The draft order, like all Scotland Act orders, delivers the Government’s responsibilities for the effective functioning of the devolution settlement.
The 2023 agreement sets out that the cumulative limits for capital and resource borrowing will increase based on the Office for Budget Responsibility’s GDP deflator forecast at the time of the Scottish Government’s draft budget. In the 2023 agreement, the UK Government agreed to amend the Scotland Act 1998 to increase those limits as necessary. If made, this draft order would increase the cumulative resource borrowing limit from a little more than £1.83 billion to a little more than £1.91 billion, and the cumulative capital borrowing limit from a little more than £3.14 billion to £3.27 billion.
Peter Fortune (Bromley and Biggin Hill) (Con)
Will the Secretary of State give way?
Mr Alexander
I have almost finished. I am happy to respond to comments made in the course of the debate.
The draft order will provide the Scottish Government with certainty over the cumulative borrowing limits for this financial year. I wish to make it clear that the Scottish Government remain accountable to the Scottish Parliament on how they use those increased borrowing powers.
In summary, the order will make amendments to UK legislation to increase the cumulative borrowing limits of the Scottish Government ahead of the next financial year. In doing so, the UK Government uphold our commitment to the 2023 agreement. As ever, Scotland Act orders are only possible with the joint working of officials in both Governments. I put on the record my thanks to officials across the Scotland Office, His Majesty’s Treasury and the Scottish Government for their work on the draft order. Such positive collaboration delivers for the people of Scotland.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. At first blush, the draft Scotland Act 1998 (Increase in Borrowing Limits) Order 2026 is, as outlined by the Secretary of State—we are honoured to have him with us, and it is the second time I have seen him today, which is twice more than the First Minister has seen him since the First Minister was reappointed, which of course is the First Minister’s loss—a relatively modest uplift to the Scottish Government’s borrowing powers to reflect inflation. As respecters of the devolution settlement, His Majesty’s loyal Opposition will not object to the order.
Context, however, matters. It cannot be outwith the scope today to reflect that this change gives considerably more fiscal latitude to the governing party in Scotland, the Scottish National party, whose own finances and procedures are under intense scrutiny. Serious questions about its stewardship of public money and its tax compliance dangle unanswered.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber) (SNP)
I find it hard to believe that the Conservative party is trying to conflate the uplift for the Scottish Government with internal party finances. The hon. Member is either trying to make a cheap political gag, or he is seriously conflating the borrowing powers of the Scottish Parliament with party finances. Is he accusing the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government of the danger of misappropriation of funds? He should be clear, because at the moment he is in danger of falling between two stools—making a silly political partisan gag and a rather serious accusation.
The Chair
Order. I remind Members that we are just debating the increase in the borrowing limit.
John Cooper
Absolutely. I would like to clarify my point: it is not unreasonable in the context to look at this issue in the round. This is public money. The SNP wants to pretend that this is an internal matter for themselves, but question marks still hang over us about whether or not public money has been involved in what happened in Scotland. Also, there is the question of compliance with His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs.
Brendan O’Hara
If the hon. Gentleman insists on going down this road, which I strongly advise him not to, I assume that his party will be supporting the amendment in the Scottish Parliament for an independent review into party political finances conducted by a parliamentary Committee, to look into every political party.
The Chair
Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that that is not quite within the scope of the legislation.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Bromborough) (Lab)
The shadow Minister is raising some interesting points, though I think they probably are slightly out of scope of what we are debating. I want to ask him about the use of the GDP deflator—when I saw that, I thought it was referring to previous Conservative Chancellors, but of course, it is actually about the way that the framework is set. The Scottish Affairs Committee recommended moving to a new system to use the highest levels available to increase borrowing for the Scottish Parliament. Is that something that he would encourage, or would he be concerned about such a recommendation?
John Cooper
I thank the hon. Gentleman for a very important question. The GDP deflator is incredibly complex, as are all these matters. We talk about cross-Government working here, and I think there is a genuine attempt by this Government, as there was by the previous Government, to maximise the money available. The system is complex in how to measure inflation—there are many choices to be made. We are here with the GDP deflator, and that is as simple as that. We are not going to debate that today.
It is an oft-repeated canard in Scotland that the so-called Scottish Executive cannot borrow. This myth is a conspiracy theory as fake as the “Capricorn One” fanciful notion of faked moon landings, but it is sometimes perpetrated not only by internet trolls but by elected Members. This matters because it is corrosive to public trust in politics and inimical to the settled will of the Scottish people so clearly expressed in their rejection of separation in the 2014 independence referendum.
It would be welcome for the Secretary of State to indicate what steps this Government might take to puncture this no-borrowing fallacy, because for us to sit here silently, simply ticking off increased powers as part of a devolve-and-forget agenda, is dangerous. It gives succour to those who would break up the United Kingdom—something that would affect every one of our constituents in every part of Britain.
Peter Fortune
On devolution, we have to appreciate that the increase in the borrowing limit is underwritten by the whole of the UK economy. I wonder if my hon. Friend knows of any equivalent flexibilities that English local authorities, which are also under huge financial pressures, could use.
John Cooper
This is a difficult question. Something like £1.25 of public money is spent in Scotland compared to £1 in England. There is tension there within that settlement. That money reflects the difficulties that Scotland faces. Delivering public services in Scotland is difficult because of geography and also because of demographics, so that settlement is designed to reflect that. On the matter of English councils, I am afraid I would defer to him on that. I am no expert in that field, I am afraid.
We would all be poorer were Britain to be shattered by people who could not, to use a fine old west of Scotland idiom, run a menodge.
Susan Murray (Mid Dunbartonshire) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. It is good to hear that cross-Government working under the Scotland Act is creating this statutory instrument to increase the amount that the Scottish Government can borrow in line with the fiscal framework. We therefore support the statutory instrument to maintain the real value of borrowing, to the benefit of the Scottish people living in Scotland.
Mr Alexander
I thank hon. Members for their important contributions. The Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway, raised important issues. I assure the hon. Member for Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber that I wrote down his points very carefully—although alas, not with a Montblanc pen. On borrowing, this debate goes on the public record, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman therefore that our observations in relation to public borrowing will be a matter of record itself. My hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough managed, I have to say, a rather good joke about the GDP deflator, which is no mean achievement and merits further consideration. The hon. Member for Mid Dunbartonshire spoke with characteristic wit, wisdom and brevity.
This draft order demonstrates the continued commitment by the UK Government to work with the Scottish Government to deliver for the people of Scotland and maintain the functioning of the financial settlement for Scotland. I therefore commend it to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Food Supplements Purity Criteria (Magnesium L-threonate monohydrate) (England) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 10 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Mrs Sharon Hodgson)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Food Supplements Purity Criteria (Magnesium L-threonate monohydrate) (England) Regulations 2026.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Sir Edward. Magnesium L-threonate monohydrate—just to say it again—has recently been authorised as a novel food following a public consultation and safety assessment by the Food Standards Agency, which concluded that it is safe under the proposed conditions of use. The instrument sets the purity criteria—that is, the required safety and quality standards—for this form of the mineral magnesium to permit its use and sale in food supplements in England.
This statutory instrument is a routine and technical measure that ensures that food supplement regulations continue to operate effectively following the authorisation of novel substances for use in food supplements. The regulatory approach taken here is well established: where new substances are authorised, it is necessary to update the relevant legislation so that they can be used in practice and to ensure that clear and enforceable quality standards are in place.
Hon. Members will be aware that, under our existing legal framework, vitamins and minerals may be used in food supplements only if they are both listed in legislation and meet appropriate safety and quality standards. Magnesium itself is already a permitted mineral listed in legislation. However, different chemical forms of that mineral must also be specifically listed before they can be used.
A related statutory instrument, the Nutrition (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) (Amendment) Regulations 2026, already laid under the negative procedure, adds this substance to the list of permitted forms of magnesium. However, for food supplements containing this substance to be lawfully sold, purity criteria must also be established, and an SI following the affirmative procedure is required to set the purity criteria for this substance in legislation. That is the sole purpose of the regulations before this Committee today. The criteria specified in this instrument reflect the scientific specification assessed by the Food Standards Agency and ensure that, where this substance is used, it is manufactured and marketed to a consistent and safe standard.
Food law is a devolved matter and this instrument applies in England only. Wales and Scotland have made equivalent amendments to their food supplement regulations, and Northern Ireland applies the existing European Union equivalent regulations, as required by the Windsor framework. It is important to emphasise that this measure is enabling, not mandatory; it does not require any business to use this ingredient or to change their products.
The use of this new optional substance initially affects only the applicant who requested this authorisation, who benefits first from a five-year exclusive use period. During this period, only the applicant may use and sell magnesium L-threonate monohydrate as a form of magnesium, unless another business obtains authorisation based on its own data or with the applicant’s permission. In the longer term, other businesses will benefit from the authorisation of this substance, supporting choice and product innovation while maintaining robust safety standards.
Food supplement legislation is in scope of the UK-EU sanitary and phytosanitary—or SPS—agreement, which will involve alignment with EU legislation in this area. In this case, this substance has already been authorised for use in the EU, so we expect no change in practice for businesses when alignment takes place. We therefore consider it appropriate to proceed now, following the Food Standards Agency’s safety assessment, to allow the substance to be used in Great Britain as soon as possible.
In summary, the regulations fulfil our requirements to update food supplement regulations where new substances have been authorised for use in food supplements and we continue to uphold high standards of safety and quality for consumers. I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
I just have a couple of questions. I have read about magnesium L-threonate: it is supposed to promote relaxation, unlock true cognitive potential, improve sleep, mood and overall wellbeing, and enhance mental clarity, memory and focus, so I was thinking I might get some of that. However, if I were to recommend it as a supplement, there are a couple of things I would need to know. What would the dosing be? Can the Minister confirm whether the plan is to set the dosing of magnesium in line with other types of magnesium supplements and in line with the EU, or has that not been decided? Will that be decided on a different day?
My other question is how, when we look at supplements, we can be sure they contain what it says on the tin. The Food Standards Agency regulates that, but how many reports has it had of concerns about the content of supplements, and how many products does it test? I looked at its retail survey for 2025, which found that 83% of caffeine supplements failed because they had the wrong amount of caffeine, there were allergens not described on the labels, or they contained substances that should not have been there. How often should we expect the supplements to be tested? What sort of programmes are in place to ensure that the huge variety of supplements that people can choose from in shops these days are safe and that they contain what they say they do? Other than that, I am happy with the regulations.
Mrs Hodgson
I thank all Members for coming along and supporting the important measures before us today. I thank the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham for her questions. I have made a note of them, and I am sure my official has as well. I have a huge binder full of information here, in which I could attempt to find the right answer for the hon. Lady—but, if she does not mind, I will commit to write to her on those very important points. I agree with her that it does sound like a possible wonder supplement; perhaps we should all rush out and buy some, especially if it helps with sleep. I know we could all do with a bit more of that. Specifically, the dosing plan, how often the purity will be tested and whether it does what it says on the tin are very important questions, so I will commit to write to her.
As I said in my opening remarks, this instrument is a routine technical measure to update food supplement regulations following the authorisation of magnesium L-threonate monohydrate as a novel ingredient to ensure the appropriate purity criteria are in place so that it can be used and sold lawfully in food supplements in England. It does not place new burdens on businesses, but ensures that any use of the substance meets clear and consistent safety and quality standards, which I think is what the hon. Lady was driving at in her questions. I invite the Committee to support these draft regulations, and I commend them to the Committee today.
Question put and agreed to.