The Department has not assessed the economic impact on United Kingdom businesses of any restriction or ban on ashwagandha for use in food supplements. Legislation on the addition of vitamins and minerals and of certain other substances to foods sets out the legal framework for the use of substances such as ashwagandha in food supplements, with further information available at the following link:

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:02006R1925-20190515

Scientific assessments of food safety risks are carried out by the Food Standards Agency (FSA). The FSA has asked its expert committee, the Committee on Toxicity (COT), to assess the available scientific evidence on the safety of food supplements containing ashwagandha. This work is ongoing and focuses on potential risks to human health. It is outside the remit of COT to look at economic impact.

A subsequent risk management decision would be informed by this scientific evidence and would consider actions that are proportionate and necessary to protect public health. This would be a matter for the Department and the devolved administrations to consider together once that scientific advice is available.

The Department has not assessed the economic impact on United Kingdom businesses of any restriction or ban on ashwagandha for use in food supplements. Legislation on the addition of vitamins and minerals and of certain other substances to foods sets out the legal framework for the use of substances such as ashwagandha in food supplements, with further information available at the following link:

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:02006R1925-20190515

Scientific assessments of food safety risks are carried out by the Food Standards Agency (FSA). The FSA has asked its expert committee, the Committee on Toxicity (COT), to assess the available scientific evidence on the safety of food supplements containing ashwagandha. This work is ongoing and focuses on potential risks to human health. It is outside the remit of COT to look at economic impact.

A subsequent risk management decision would be informed by this scientific evidence and would consider actions that are proportionate and necessary to protect public health. This would be a matter for the Department and the devolved administrations to consider together once that scientific advice is available.

No assessment has been made of the potential impact of enabling directors of children’s services to commission Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services on holistic provision for children, including those with neurodiversity.

The Government’s priority is to ensure that health and children’s social care work together effectively to provide timely, joined-up support for children and young people. This is being delivered through integrated care systems, which bring National Health Services and local authorities together to plan and deliver care collaboratively.

The Government recently announced a three-year pilot to improve mental health support for children in care by bringing together social workers and NHS professionals. Additionally, programmes such as ‘Early Language Support for Every Child’ and ‘Partnerships for Inclusion of Neurodiversity in Schools’ promote early intervention, alongside special educational needs and disabilities reforms in the forthcoming Schools White Paper.

Currently, no assessment has been made on the use of artificial intelligence (AI) to monitor the unsupervised use of these therapy tools. However, we recognise the potential of AI to improve health and care services, including supporting people’s mental health. The United Kingdom has a world-leading regulatory system which ensures that medical technologies on the market are safe for use, including AI technologies. Should the National Health Service begin to assess AI-integrated therapy tools, they will be held to the same regulatory standards as other tools used by the NHS.

Ensuring technologies are safe is a top priority. To ensure the regulatory pathway is clear for both developers and adopters, the Department has supported the launch of numerous regulatory projects such as the AI and Digital Regulation Service (AIDRS) and the AI Airlock.

The AIDRS collaborates between the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulation Agency, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, the Health Research Authority, and the Care Quality Commission. The service, by providing a collaborative ‘one stop shop’ of information, advice, and guidance, allows adopters and developers of AI to easily understand what regulatory and evaluation pathways need to be followed before an AI tool can be safety deployed across health and care.

The Government has no plans to introduce statutory regulation for acupuncture practitioners in the United Kingdom, and we have no plans to make such assessments. The Professional Standards Authority for Health and Social Care (PSA) operates an accredited voluntary registers programme, providing a proportionate means of assurance for unregulated professions by setting standards for organisations holding voluntary registers.

The British Acupuncture Council holds a voluntary register of acupuncturists, which is accredited by the PSA. The organisations accredited by the PSA are independent, representative bodies and as such, they do not fall under Government oversight and therefore any decisions about the practice requirements for the professions they represent are a matter for those organisations and their members.

The Government has no plans to introduce statutory regulation for acupuncture practitioners in the United Kingdom, and we have no plans to make such assessments. The Professional Standards Authority for Health and Social Care (PSA) operates an accredited voluntary registers programme, providing a proportionate means of assurance for unregulated professions by setting standards for organisations holding voluntary registers.

The British Acupuncture Council holds a voluntary register of acupuncturists, which is accredited by the PSA. The organisations accredited by the PSA are independent, representative bodies and as such, they do not fall under Government oversight and therefore any decisions about the practice requirements for the professions they represent are a matter for those organisations and their members.

The Government has no plans to introduce statutory regulation for acupuncture practitioners in the United Kingdom, and we have no plans to make such assessments. The Professional Standards Authority for Health and Social Care (PSA) operates an accredited voluntary registers programme, providing a proportionate means of assurance for unregulated professions by setting standards for organisations holding voluntary registers.

The British Acupuncture Council holds a voluntary register of acupuncturists, which is accredited by the PSA. The organisations accredited by the PSA are independent, representative bodies and as such, they do not fall under Government oversight and therefore any decisions about the practice requirements for the professions they represent are a matter for those organisations and their members.

The Government has no plans to introduce statutory regulation for acupuncture practitioners in the United Kingdom, and we have no plans to make such assessments. The Professional Standards Authority for Health and Social Care (PSA) operates an accredited voluntary registers programme, providing a proportionate means of assurance for unregulated professions by setting standards for organisations holding voluntary registers.

The British Acupuncture Council holds a voluntary register of acupuncturists, which is accredited by the PSA. The organisations accredited by the PSA are independent, representative bodies and as such, they do not fall under Government oversight and therefore any decisions about the practice requirements for the professions they represent are a matter for those organisations and their members.

When a provider requests to change its name, a strict criteria and assessment process is followed. The provider will already have undergone considerable scrutiny when being awarded Degree Awarding Powers (DAPs), including input from quality experts, drawn from the sector, to test the provider against multiple criteria. Indefinite DAP’s status is the main eligibility test for providers to be able to go through the title process.

In this instance, the provider gained degree awarding powers in 2016 and so was able to apply for university title as per the rules set out in the Office for Students’ (OfS) ‘Regulatory advice 13: how to apply for university college and university title’, which is attached and also available at: https://www.officeforstudents.org.uk/publications/regulatory-advice-13-how-to-apply-for-university-college-and-university-title/#:~:text=and%20university%20title-,Regulatory%20advice%2013%3A%20How%20to%20apply%20for%20university%20college%20and,as%20part%20of%20their%20name.

The department and the OfS were notified in September 2023 regarding the provider changing its name. When considering the proposed new name for a provider, the OfS must have due regard to the need to avoid names that are, or may be, confusing. In addition, in the instance of the newly named Health Sciences University, the OfS operated an open consultation on the proposed name. This ran from 22 February 2024 to 21 March 2024, and determined the regulator's final decision. The OfS approach is set out in their case report ‘Approval of proposed new name for AECC University College - Office for Students’, which is attached and can also be found at: https://www.officeforstudents.org.uk/publications/approval-of-proposed-new-name-for-aecc-university-college/.

In addition to the OfS process, regulations brought into force under the Companies Act 2006 means that the department has responsibility for confirming that it has no objection to the use of the sensitive word ‘university’ in a business name. The OfS published approval of the proposed new name from ‘AECC University College' to 'Health Sciences University’ in July 2024. The department then considered the request from the provider to change its name to ‘Health Sciences University’ and was satisfied that the use of the word ‘university’ was appropriate in this context. The department had no objection to the use of the term ‘university’ in the proposed business name ‘Health Sciences University’ and issued the provider with a non-objection letter on 18 July 2024.

During this consultation the OfS did not receive any responses questioning the merit of the subject area(s) of the provider.

In England, care for patients with chronic kidney disease is addressed through the specialised service specifications for renal services. Service specifications define the standards of care expected from organisations providing specialised care and, for renal services, they require patients to have access to psychology services and social work advice as a core component of a multi-disciplinary team.

NHS England, through its Renal Services Transformation Programme and regional renal clinical networks, is progressing a series of programmes to provide better and more joined-up care across care settings, reducing health inequalities, and focussing on prevention and timely intervention through streamlined patient pathways to address management of deteriorating kidney disease. Psychosocial support within renal services has been identified by the Programme as a theme for improvement.

Serious Shortage Protocols (SSPs) are a tool that has been in place for many years to manage and mitigate medicine and medical devices shortages and pharmacists will be familiar with the process.

The Department has sought clinical advice for these SSPs from national experts including clinicians from the British Menopause Society and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, who are supportive of this management option. The SSPs were clinically checked by expert clinicians and signed off by senior clinicians at NHS England before being published. The substituted products that have been included in the SSPs are all licensed medicines that are considered clinically appropriate products by clinicians.

17 SSP’s for hormone replacement therapy products have been issued since April 2022. Most have been withdrawn as the supply position of products affected by short term supply issues have resolved. Five SSPs currently remain in place.

There have been no recent discussions. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) is an independent body responsible for determining whether its published guidelines require updating in light of new evidence or emerging issues. NICE recently reviewed its guideline on endometriosis and published a surveillance review on 3 November 2022 which states that it will update the sections on diagnosing endometriosis, surgical management and surgical management if fertility is a priority. NICE will also further explore the topic of mental wellbeing and support for people with suspected or confirmed endometriosis during scoping of the update.

The duration of general practitioner appointments will vary depending on a patient’s needs and there is no specified length of time. However, we are diversifying the general practice workforce to increase capacity.

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) develops evidence-based guidance for the National Health Service on best practice. NICE can recommend any treatments, including the Alexander technique (AT) where there is sufficient evidence to support its use. NICE's guideline on Parkinson's disease recommends that healthcare professionals should consider the AT for people with Parkinson's disease who are experiencing balance or motor function problems. Healthcare professionals are expected to take NICE’s guidance fully into account in the care and treatment of individual patients.

The National Health Service categorises complementary and alternative medicines as therapies that are typically used with the intention of treating or curing a health condition which fall outside of mainstream healthcare.

The Department does not hold information on standards which may be set by professional bodies representing individuals performing alternative and complementary medicine. Anyone seeking alternative or complementary treatments is urged to find a reputable, safe, and qualified practitioner subject to statutory regulation or who is registered on a voluntary register accredited by the Professional Standards Authority for Health and Social Care.