���˿���

Carol Mochan and I have a lot of conversations about inequalities, and I agree strongly with her that we need to focus on ensuring that inequalities are reduced.

As I highlighted in response to an earlier question, although I do not want to see any gap at all, the inequality gap is the lowest in almost 15 years. In 2010, it was 32.2 per cent—it is now down to 23.5 per cent. Can we go further? Yes, we have to go further, and we are investing in dental health support workers, who go specifically into deprived communities.

I highlighted the dental caravan in NHS Tayside—I had never before met two people who so enjoyed the work that they did, and they recognised the importance of that work. There are various elements of work that are doing well, but I take on the challenge that Carol Mochan has given me, which we discuss regularly. I will bring in Tom Ferris to speak further on that.

I recognise that things have changed dramatically since 2017-18, when the oral health improvement plan was set in motion. The important thing to note is that that was very much an evidence-based piece of work to understand exactly what was needed. There were a number of recommendations, and many elements of them have been delivered through the payment reform.

As Tom Ferris has discussed, there has been a focus on preventative care. We also note the importance of continuing to provide the full range of treatment. In the payment reform, we have reduced the number of categories that people can claim against, but there is still the full range of treatments. I believe that the evidence that we have given so far is that payment reform is the foundation or underpinning of the other developments that we must make, both in reform and in investment.

There has been a range of governance proposals regarding NHS boards. In including the directors of dentistry, we have been cognisant of that. We have also been monitoring clinical quality, which is very important. We work with Healthcare Improvement Scotland on that.

We are still considering the use of the dental team and where it is right to fit that. The oral health improvement plan underpins the work that we continue to do on workforce, which we view as the key focus. There is also the matter of governance of dental practices.

You asked whether we should review the oral health improvement plan. I do not believe that now is the right time to do that. We have done a lot of work to stabilise dental services, and we need to keep the focus on that. I have been speaking to my officials about workforce, and that is where we need to focus our efforts to ensure that we get the right number of dentists, dental therapists and hygienists in Scotland and that we can give them the right training. That is where we should be focusing, rather than going back to the sector at this point.

That is a key question with regard to what we are doing. It also relates to the number of spaces on university courses. I think that you will remember that, during the pandemic, we lost about 180 people because they did not get their practical experience; we are playing catch-up in that regard. That all falls into health workforce planning. We have conversations about that. It is also recognised that there are a lot of women in dentistry, and they might have different work patterns. We have to pull in all that information.

Generally, staff planning for health does not fall under my remit, but I would be happy to come back with a specific response to your question. We talk about workforce planning regularly to ensure that we have the right profile in dental teams. That ties in closely to Emma Harper’s questions about people working to the top of their qualification and how we can work across the UK to get more people into dentistry and working at the right levels.

That ties in with our work with the other three nations on ensuring that we get that pipeline of dentists. My view is that I cannot imagine a better place to work than Scotland, and I know that certain practices have been very good at attracting dentists. I appreciate what Brian Whittle said about the number of international dentists coming to Scotland and the impact on their home countries, but I should say that I have had the privilege of meeting five dentists from India who chose to work in the Borders. They wanted to come to Scotland, because they saw it as an opportunity.

We have to ensure that we provide the right opportunities, but it is also important that we give dentists who are either coming out of university in Scotland or coming from an international country the right support once they are qualified. That is part of the work that we have been talking about with regard to next year’s budget and ensuring that, as Tom Ferris indicated, we have the right support in place for dentists and dental therapists in these areas so that they are able to enjoy living and working in Scotland, which I am sure they will.

The directors of dentistry are a very important group of individuals who work closely with my officials. As you know, there is one in each health board, which is important, because they have oversight of what is happening in their areas and can feed that directly back to the Scottish Government dental team.

I have engaged directly with them as a group on two occasions, once in a Zoom—or Teams—meeting and once in person at one of their regular get-togethers. I think, Tom, that you meet them—

That does not mean that the rest of us do not have regular meetings with the directors of dentistry in between. Indeed, when I was, as I mentioned earlier, in the Borders, I had two specific meetings with the director of dentistry and discussed how they are looking at this issue not only at high-street level but within the hospital. I have also engaged with Dumfries and Galloway, Highland and others. We have on-going, regular meetings with the directors of dentistry; indeed, I started by saying that they are key in giving us information from a local level.

I believe that we are right to have the 200m limit. When I gave evidence to the committee in stage 1, I said that that limit gives consistency, so that people will understand, when the legislation is enacted, what it is that they are looking at. I do not want to undermine the tremendous work that the committee has done on the issue so far.

I will be brief. I echo what Ms Mackay has said. I believe that amendment 39 responds to the stage 1 recommendations by providing for a robust and comprehensive review that will give Parliament its place and make its findings public.

I will address the point that Rachael Hamilton and Tess White made about the two-year reporting period. The two-year reporting period would not prevent action from being taken in the meantime to extend or reduce zones, as needed. In addition, I gently point out that ministers always keep legislation under review. That is an on-going process.

I urge members to support amendment 39 by voting for it, and I extend an offer to discuss the matter further with Ms Hamilton and Ms White if they feel that their intentions are not met by Ms Mackay’s amendment.

I will finish there before my voice disappears.

Thank you, committee members, for your stage 1 consideration. This is a complex subject area and I am grateful for the sensitive and thoughtful way that you have all approached your consideration. I look forward to a similar discussion this morning.

I will turn directly to amendment 42. My reasons for asking the committee to vote against the amendment are largely practical. Purpose clauses in Scottish legislation have historically been used only in exceptional circumstances and there must be compelling reasons for their inclusion. I note that Carol Mochan raised that matter.

Although I am grateful to Ms Hamilton for setting out her reasons for seeking to do that in the bill, I am concerned that the inclusion of such a section might have consequences that would go beyond what she has set out this morning. The purpose of any bill, no matter the complexity of the subject matter or the rights that are impacted, is to change the law, and every section should further that aim. That is not simply a semantic argument about good drafting; it goes to the heart of how bills are applied in the real world.

All sections should have clear legal effect and be capable of interpretation by a court. That being the case, a section that is not intended to have legal effect should not be included. Bills are not the place to set out policy intent or ambition; there are other opportunities for that, such as policy or strategy documents. Conversely, including a section means that we must accept that it might, in the future, be expected to have legal effect. Therefore, a purpose clause must be the subject of the most careful drafting to ensure that it does not conflict with the other sections of the bill.

Without doing so, there is a risk that its legal effect might conflict with the powers and duties in the bill or be read as serving as an additional legal test for the exercise of duties. For example, in this instance, the purpose refers to “fear of intimidation”, which differs from the offences that are set out in sections 4 and 5 and the tests in sections 7 and 8, which set out when it is appropriate for ministers to extend or reduce a zone. Its inclusion could therefore introduce uncertainty around how ministerial powers to reduce or extend a zone could be exercised or with regard to how the courts interpret the offence provisions. Those are significant uncertainties to introduce. Therefore, if the purpose is not intended to have legal effect, it should not be included, and I urge Ms Hamilton not to press the amendment.

If the purpose is intended to have legal effect, I must urge the committee to vote against it on the grounds that it may, at best, create uncertainty with regard to how the law is to work in practice and, at worst, be interpreted in ways that result in the law being implemented in a manner that was never intended.

I welcome Emma Harper’s amendments, which are clearly aimed at ensuring that this important legislation can be understood by everyone who might be subject to its provisions. As members have heard, none of the amendments in the group is contentious. They all have the same aim, which is to provide clarity. Therefore, I ask members to support all the amendments in the group.

Amendment 8 agreed to.