Scottish Parliament, 23 February 2022

341 contributions from 65 members. The official report.

Justice and Veterans

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Good afternoon. I remind members of the Covid-related measures that are in place. Face coverings should be worn when moving around the chamber and across the Holyrood campus.

The first item of business today is portfolio questions, and the first portfolio is justice and veterans. If a member wishes to request a supplementary question, they should press their request-to-speak button or indicate so in the chat function by entering the letter R during the relevant question.

Police (Response to Mental Health-related Incidents)

Pam Gosal (Conservative, West Scotland)

1. To ask the Scottish Government how it is supporting local police forces to respond to mental health-related incidents. (S6O-00756)

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

As a first responder,

Police Scotland collaborates with local health boards, NHS 24, the Scottish Ambulance Service and others to support those in distress. The Scottish Government has invested £1.1 billion for national health service boards and integration authorities in response to the pandemic. That includes putting £6 million towards additional telephone and online support services. In addition, £2.1 million was provided to expand the NHS 24 mental health hub so that it could be available to the public 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Police Scotland collaborated with NHS 24 to develop a mental health pathway, allowing police call handlers to provide a streamlined journey for people experiencing poor mental health and to direct callers to the mental health hub.

Pam Gosal (Conservative, West Scotland)

I thank the cabinet secretary for that answer. A chief inspector in my region highlighted the changing nature of modern policing, with mental health-related incidents posing one of the biggest challenges to the force. Some cases take up to eight hours to deal with.

Violent crime is on the rise, there are fewer police officers patrolling the streets than at any time since 2009, and the Scottish Government has made a real-terms cut to the capital budget. Will the cabinet secretary express his support for a local policing act, so that local police have the capacity to respond to rising crime on the streets?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

In my view, the police have the capacity to respond to crime on the streets, and they respond extremely well, as evidenced by some of the lowest crime rates that we have seen in Scotland for many years. The police are very much used to dealing with people in a distressed state and are very much trauma informed in their response. We are trying to ensure that that is the case across the justice system, and I think that they have done a very good job.

In relation to the capital budget, I note that the Conservatives proposed no amendment to the budget, so they proposed no additional funds—either capital or resource—for the police. I assume from that that the Conservatives support the increased levels of expenditure that we have provided to the police.

On police numbers, I simply point out that we have around 32 police officers for every 10,000 people in Scotland, whereas there are 23 police officers for every 10,000 people across the border. We have increased police numbers since we formed the Scottish Government, whereas the Government that the member supports has reduced police numbers by 17,000—and it is now trying to row back from that. We have a very good record, and we are very supportive of the police.

It is worth pointing out that decisions about the disposition of police forces are a matter for the chief constable. I would hope that the member would support that.

Audrey Nicoll (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen South and North Kincardine)

How will the trauma-informed approach that is set out in the newly launched document “The Vision for Justice in Scotland” be embedded within Police Scotland? For example, are there any plans for training in that area?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

That is a very good question. I refer to my comment about trying to ensure that the whole justice system is trauma informed. As I am sure the member, as convener of the Criminal Justice Committee, knows, Police Scotland has made a pledge under the NHS national trauma training programme to support our communities, especially those people who are identified as being vulnerable and at risk. The police do that in their daily working practices, liaising closely with national and local partners.

On the specific issue of training, Police Scotland has worked to integrate trauma-informed practices in many key areas of business, and it has adopted the use of NHS Education for Scotland materials. That includes specialist training for detectives and custody officers. It has also committed to providing specific training to all probationary officers as part of the initial training programme.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

T

wo years ago, more than a third of police officers reported that they repeatedly went to work when they were mentally unwell. Ministers at the time said that they were “very satisfied” with the mental health support that was in place. Following additional findings last year, the First Minister said that she “fully supported the efforts.” However, this week, the Scottish Police Federation said that there had been

“no tangible response other than to arrange a meeting in the past few weeks.”

Does the cabinet secretary really think that that is enough?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

At the root of the question that Willie Rennie asks is a serious point about the prevalence of mental ill health in Police Scotland. He referred to the situation two years ago. We know that, since then, additional pressures have built up, not least through Covid, but also through working patterns and non-holiday periods. People have had to work through holidays, and we know that there has been a lot of pressure as a result of the 26th United Nations climate change conference of the parties—COP26—and so on. Those things all mean that pressures have increased, and I acknowledge that.

However, it is not true to say that that has not been discussed with the Scottish Police Authority and the chief constable. I have discussed it myself with both the SPA and the chief constable, and I will discuss those issues, and related matters, with the Scottish Police Federation this afternoon. We take these matters seriously, and we are aware of the pressures on police officers. That is one reason why we have ensured that in Scotland, unlike in other parts of the United Kingdom, police officers have had a pay rise this year, and that we maintain police numbers, which can help to reduce the pressures on individual police officers.

Medical Cannabis (Guidelines on Prescriptions Sent by Post)

Beatrice Wishart (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

2. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will work with Police Scotland to provide clear guidelines on legal medical cannabis prescriptions sent to patients by post via Royal Mail. (S6O-00757)

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

Guidance was issued by the National Police Chiefs Council on the rescheduling of cannabis-based products for medicinal use in November 2018, and it was shared with Police Scotland. Only individuals who are in receipt of a valid prescription from a specialist clinician are able to legally possess a cannabis-based product for medicinal use. Individuals who have a prescription for those products can show that prescription to the police as evidence that they are entitled to the product. Police officers can also make inquiries with the prescriber to ensure that the product has been legally obtained.

Beatrice Wishart (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

P

olice in Shetland rely on the hard work of the charity Dogs Against Drugs to assist them in their work to tackle illegal drugs being brought into the islands, and they recently seized £25,000-worth of illicit goods. Nevertheless, while those dogs are clever, they cannot tell what is legal and what is illegal. That relates to what happened to one of my constituents recently, when his private prescription for medical cannabis was seized as a consequence of dog detection at Royal Mail’s sorting office.

Patients with a diagnosis and a legal prescription for medical cannabis want to ensure that they do not have any negative outcome, such as any sort of criminal footprint. Does the Scottish Government have any plans to help police officers to identify legal prescriptions by introducing a scheme to assist in that regard? Is the cabinet secretary aware of an existing scheme called Cancard, which could be used as another tool in the toolbox to enable police officers to better assess situations that they may face?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

A

gain, Beatrice Wishart raises an important point. The Scottish Government does not support the Cancard system for a number of reasons; I am happy to correspond with her on that.

Beatrice Wishart is right to say that people who are in receipt of those prescriptions should have clarity about what the checks are. I am willing to write to Police Scotland to ask whether it wants to publicise the advice that it uses, which is issued by the National Police Chiefs Council, as the matter is reserved. I know that some of the issues that her constituent experienced were to do with the use of the Royal Mail. People should have clarity on what is likely to cause them issues. There is no need for a prescription at the Royal Mail stage, but when an issue is picked up by dogs, a prescription has to be used. There is a need for more clarity, and I am willing to write to Police Scotland to ask it if it is able to provide that clarity.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow)

As one of the co-conveners, with Rona Mackay, of the cross-party group on medicinal cannabis, I ask the cabinet secretary whether the Government is opposed to any kind of scheme if it is not in favour of Cancard? The Cancard scheme was designed with the help of doctors and senior representatives of the Police Federation of England and Wales—admittedly, that is for the United Kingdom. We have had a very helpful response from Assistant Chief Constable Gary Ritchie on the issue. Would the cabinet secretary be prepared to meet with us and discuss something similar, so that a similar incident to that in Shetland does not happen again?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

I am certainly happy to meet with members and consider that. The objections to the Cancard scheme come from the medical profession, at least in part, but I am happy to consider the point and write to both members with more information and, after that, to have a meeting to discuss it further.

Veterans (Support)

Gordon MacDonald (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Pentlands)

3. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on what support is being offered to veterans across the country. (S6O-00758)

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

The member will be aware that the Scottish Government has given an annual update to the Parliament each year since 2017 on our support for veterans and the armed forces community in Scotland, accompanied by a published report. I thank the member for his contribution to that debate last year—and, I think I am right in saying, in previous years. We will provide a similar update in November this year. We also intend to publish a refresh of our veterans strategy action plan, detailing our commitments to the veterans and armed forces community in Scotland, during the first half of this year.

Gordon MacDonald (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Pentlands)

The Edinburgh lord provost’s commission on a strategy for our ex-forces personnel recently published a report on its work, which recognised that although progress has been made, there remains a long way to go in supporting our veterans.

Will the cabinet secretary use the findings of the report to inform both national and local policy, particularly in relation to housing, to support the transition from military to civilian life?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

The Government is reviewing its veterans strategy action plan with a view to publishing a refreshed version during the first half of this year, so we will work with key stakeholders to determine the extent to which existing commitments remain valid and, of course, to determine where there is an opportunity to add to them.

We intend to consult with the local authority armed forces and veterans champions, not least Frank Ross, the lord provost of Edinburgh, whom the member mentioned. We will consider the views and the findings of the City of Edinburgh Council’s document, “The Strategy for our Ex-Forces Personnel” when developing a refreshed set of commitments to support veterans and the armed forces community in Scotland.

I commend Frank Ross for his work with veterans over a number of years.

Veterans Identity Card Scheme (Roll-out)

David Torrance (Scottish National Party, Kirkcaldy)

4. To ask the Scottish Government what its response is, regarding the impact on Scotland, to reports that the United Kingdom Government is unable to give a timescale for the roll-out of the second phase of the veterans ID cards scheme. (S6O-00759)

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

We believe that it is important that, should they choose to do so, veterans are able to easily identify themselves as such when accessing services. I urge the UK Government to press ahead with its plans to undertake a scoping study for the provision of digital verification of veteran status and I thank it for involving the Scottish Government in the recent discovery work for that project, which I think involved interaction with consultants. I encourage the UK Government to continue to work collaboratively to deliver a service that meets the needs of veterans across the UK as soon as possible.

David Torrance (Scottish National Party, Kirkcaldy)

Does the cabinet secretary agree with me that we all owe a debt of gratitude to our armed forces and veterans community and that an urgent commitment must be given to allow access to the scheme for all our veterans as soon as possible?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

I agree with the member; veterans are assets to our society and the Scottish Government’s ambition remains to make Scotland the destination of choice for service leavers, wherever they come from, and their families. By doing that, we can offer high living standards, great job prospects, and a society that respects and values their contribution.

I repeat my encouragement to the UK Government to work collaboratively with us to deliver as soon as possible a veterans ID service that meets the needs of veterans across the UK.

Rape (Civil Damages Cases)

Katy (Labour, West Scotland)

5. To ask the Scottish Government, in light of recent reports of the third successful civil damages case for rape, whether it will review the reasons why these cases were not prosecuted in the criminal courts. (S6O-00760)

Ruth Charteris QC (Solicitor General for Scotland)

I am grateful to Ms Clark for raising this important and topical issue.

In two of the three cases referred to, there were indeed criminal prosecutions prior to the civil proceedings. In those two criminal cases, the jury returned a majority verdict of not proven.

In the other case, a decision was taken that there could be no prosecution, as there was insufficient evidence and no reasonable prospect of securing a conviction. In 2017, that decision was fully reviewed by senior Crown counsel with no previous involvement. The review concluded that, looking at the evidence as a whole, the decision not to raise criminal proceedings was correct.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Thank you. Before I take any supplementaries, I remind members about the need to avoid going into detail about specific cases or speculating about the potential outcomes of any specific cases, otherwise they risk breaching any relevant court orders that may be applicable.

Katy (Labour, West Scotland)

The standard of proof is obviously different in civil cases, but does the Solicitor General agree that, as a matter of policy, there should be a review of all case papers where a civil case is successful? Could she outline the policy on allowing private prosecutions? According to media reports, one of the women who is concerned is considering that course of action.

The Solicitor General for Scotland

I should perhaps begin by making it clear that, of course, there is no necessary inconsistency between a decision not to prosecute or a failure to obtain a conviction in criminal proceedings, and success in civil proceedings. The decision maker is different: we have a jury in one case and a single judge or sheriff in others. The standard of proof is different: in criminal cases, guilt must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, whereas, in civil cases, liability is decided on the balance of probabilities. Obviously, the rules of evidence and procedure are considerably more relaxed in civil cases than in criminal cases. For example, there is no requirement for corroboration in civil cases, and the rules in relation to hearsay are also much more relaxed.

I was asked about the policy in relation to successful civil cases. In the two cases in which proceedings had taken place, a review of the evidence led in the civil proceedings was carried out, and it was judged that that evidence would not have made any difference to the criminal case. In relation to the other case that has been touched on, following success in the civil proceedings and Lord Armstrong’s judgment, the then Lord Advocate ordered a further review to be carried out by independent Crown counsel. As I indicated, that review concluded that, looking at the evidence as a whole, the decision not to raise criminal proceedings was correct.

Russell Findlay (Conservative, West Scotland)

Denise Clair appreciates the need for the Lord Advocate to recuse herself from consideration of any private prosecution, due to her past representation of David Goodwillie. She is also grateful for the Solicitor General’s offer of a meeting. However, in the spirit of transparency, will the Solicitor General commit to sharing with Denise Clair the Crown’s 2017 review of the original decision not to prosecute?

The Solicitor General for Scotland

I understand that the decision not to prosecute continues to cause great upset to Denise Clair and I am genuinely sorry that Ms Clair feels that she has not been provided with the relevant information.

I have been asked about disclosure of information. I understand that Ms Clair previously attended a meeting with prosecutors in 2011, and also that a letter was sent to her MSP in 2017, following the case review, in which a meeting was offered. I have already indicated to Mr Findlay that, if it would be of benefit to her, I would be very happy to meet Ms Clair in order to explain the reasons for the decision. I would also be keen to hear from Ms Clair about her experience in the criminal justice system, in order to assist the Crown Office with our on-going wider review into the prosecution of sexual offences.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

The next question is from Rachael Hamilton, who joins us remotely.

Police Officers (Scottish Borders Command Area)

Rachael Hamilton (Conservative, Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

6. To ask the Scottish Government how many police officers are stationed in the Scottish Borders command area of the Lothians and Scottish Borders police division. (S6O-00761)

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

The information that Ms Hamilton requested is not held centrally by the Scottish Government. She has been a member of the Parliament for some years, so I am sure that she is aware that the recruitment and deployment of police officers and staff is a matter for the chief constable, who regularly reviews the size and shape of the policing workforce in light of changing demands.

Local police divisions have a core complement of officers who are always dedicated locally to community and response policing and who draw on specialist expertise and resources at a regional and national level. Current Scottish Government statistics show that we have about 32 officers per 10,000 of population. Just over the border from the Scottish Borders, there are 23 officers per 10,000 of population in England and Wales.

Rachael Hamilton (Conservative, Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

The Scottish National Party has cut officer numbers in the Lothians and Borders division by 59 since Police Scotland was formed, and my constituents are concerned that a reduced police presence has left the Borders exposed to rural crime.

People who live in rural areas deserve to feel safe too, so I ask the cabinet secretary to back Scottish Conservative plans for a local policing act to increase transparency of rural officer numbers. Will he also meet me to discuss the need for an official marker in Police Scotland’s crime reporting system to record rural offences, to help to tackle rural crime?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

I am always happy to meet members to discuss concerns. I did not catch the whole of the requested remit for the meeting, but I am happy to meet members.

In relation to backing anything that the Conservatives suggest, we must start from a position of agreed facts. The fact is that the Scottish Government has not cut police numbers by 59, as has been said. I mentioned—and I think that most people know and support this—that it is for the chief constable to decide the disposition of police forces. I point out the hypocrisy in attacking the level of police numbers in one area when, just over the border from that area, numbers are substantially lower. Although that area happens to be overseen by a Government of a different persuasion, it does not mean that the point should pass without comment.

What Rachael Hamilton says is an attack on the Police Service, because the Police Service, through the chief constable and the Scottish Police Authority, decides on the matter. Before the Tories revert to making an argument about budgets, I point out that they did not seek in Parliament to amend the police budget, even though they promised for many months that they would give more funding.

If we could start from a position of agreed facts, perhaps we could discuss what we can and cannot support in relation to Conservative initiatives. However, I reiterate that I am more than happy to meet Rachael Hamilton to discuss the issues that she is concerned about.

Foysol Choudhury (Labour, Lothian)

What discussions has the Scottish Government had with the Lothians and Scottish Borders police regarding their capacity to deal with reports of violent crime in the area?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

We do not discuss such matters directly with the Lothians and Scottish Borders police—the discussions that I have are with the chief constable and the chair of the Scottish Police Authority, and sometimes through organisations such as the Association of Scottish Police Superintendents. Those discussions are based on the national police force that we have. I believe that the increased budget for police that we managed to agree this year goes a long way in helping the police to meet the demands of crime.

The levels of some crimes have increased—the member mentioned violent crime, although homicide numbers are down at an all-time low since records began in the 1970s. The situation is complex, but we provide the resources and discuss with the police the resources that are required to allow them to do that most important job of addressing any instance of crime in their area. That is discussed on a national basis rather than on the regional basis that the member mentioned.

Online Safety Bill

Alasdair Allan (Scottish National Party, Na h-Eileanan an Iar)

7. To ask the Scottish Government what discussions the justice secretary has had with the United Kingdom Government regarding the impact on Scotland of the online safety bill. (S6O-00762)

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

No finalised online safety bill has been published by the UK Government yet. Although there has been engagement between officials in the Scottish Government and those in the UK Government, I have not yet had any discussions with the UK Government about the impact on Scotland of its proposed bill.

Alasdair Allan (Scottish National Party, Na h-Eileanan an Iar)

Telecommunications is a reserved issue, but the Scottish Government has been taking important steps wherever it can to better protect people from abuse. Will the Government give an update on when the main provisions of the Defamation and Malicious Publication (Scotland) Act 2021 will come into force?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

The member raises an important point. As he says, the Parliament has agreed legislation that will simplify and modernise the law on defamation, and I am pleased that the Scottish Government expects to lay commencement regulations in early May, which will bring the

2021 act

into force

this summer.

Jamie Greene (Conservative, West Scotland)

One of the proposals in the online safety bill is to be David’s law, which is named after Sir David Amess—a public servant who paid the ultimate price as a result of hatred. I hope that, in a spirit of co-operation, the Scottish Government will look favourably on any such proposal. I ask the cabinet secretary to ensure that his officials will work closely with UK Government officials on that element of the bill, to ensure that all public servants, irrespective of their political persuasion, are afforded the same rights against online abuse and hatred as everyone else outside this building has.

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

I agree that it was a deplorable and tragic act that led to the killing of Sir David Amess, and we would want to support anything that can lead to a situation in which such an appalling attack is less likely in the future.

Given that the bill has not been published, it is difficult to give any agreement at this stage. In fact, the UK Government has made a number of announcements that have changed the bill’s proposed content. However, I will look seriously and sympathetically at the bill—from what I have heard and from what I have seen reported in newspapers, it will have potentially productive elements. Scottish Government officials and I will engage with the UK Government on the issues.

Veterans (Legislation)

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

8. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on what plans it has to introduce legislation to support veterans during this parliamentary session. (S6O-00763)

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

We regularly consider the extent to which introducing legislation is appropriate or possible. We continue to engage with the Ministry of Defence as it seeks, for example, to further embed the Armed Forces Covenant into legislation through the Armed Forces Act 2021, which received royal assent on 15 December 2021.

We worked closely with the MOD in advance of the legislation being introduced to ensure that the 2021 act would be fit for purpose in Scotland, and we continue to work with the MOD as it develops the statutory guidance. We are satisfied that the covenant provisions in the act do not fall within this Parliament’s legislative competence.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The cabinet secretary will recall that, on 7 December 2021, he said that 22 bills are planned for the justice and veterans portfolio. However, it is clear from freedom of information responses that the Scottish Government has no plans to go down the legislative route for veterans. Does that mean that the Government is now saying that it is not willing to use the devolved powers at its disposal to create a new top-up benefit for veteran households that are in receipt of universal credit?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

Consideration of the latter matter would fall to Shona Robison, who is the cabinet secretary in charge of social security.

I have just answered the first part of the member’s question. We keep under continual review things that we might want to legislate on. Although that aspect does not feature in the 22 bills that the member referenced, we will introduce a number of other bills that do not feature in those 22 bills. It is possible that other bills might also be introduced. The party that the member represents has mentioned two or three bills that it wants to introduce, so the list of 22 bills is not exhaustive. As I said, we keep—and will continue to keep—under review the extent to which introducing legislation is appropriate or possible.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Rona Mackay has a brief supplementary question.

Rona Mackay (Scottish National Party, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

What mental health and disability support does the Scottish Government have in place to support veterans to live a healthy life and reach their full potential?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

We are committed to ensuring that all veterans who live in Scotland can access the best possible care and support, including safe, effective and person-centred healthcare. We fund two veteran-specific mental health and wellbeing providers—Combat Stress and Veterans First Point. Additionally, each national health service board has an armed forces and veterans champion, who can offer veterans advice and guidance.

To return to the previous question, we have bold ambitions for new Scottish disability benefits, which come under the remit of the cabinet secretary who is responsible for that area. We have identified several ways to provide disabled people, including veterans, with a different experience when accessing the support to which they are entitled, which includes improving the application process, assisting applicants to gather supporting information from a professional to help make decisions and abolishing functional assessments.

The issue also impinges on a previous question and answer about identity cards, which would allow veterans to access services more easily. In addition, as part of the benefit take-up strategy, we will continue to engage with our seldom-heard groups, including veterans, to maximise take-up and to ensure that such voices are heard and considered in our policy work.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

That concludes portfolio questions on justice and veterans. I will allow a short pause for front-bench teams to safely change seats.

Finance and the Economy

The Deputy Presiding Officer

The next portfolio is finance and the economy. I again remind members that, if they wish to request a supplementary question, they should press their request-to-speak button or indicate so in the chat function by entering the letter R during the relevant question.

Coalfield Communities (Regeneration)

Stephanie Callaghan (Scottish National Party, Uddingston and Bellshill)

1. To ask the Scottish Government what impact the recent funding of £754,000 to the Coalfields Regeneration Trust will have on community-led regeneration in former coalfield communities across Scotland, including in the Uddingston and Bellshill constituency. (S6O-00764)

Tom Arthur (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire South)

Our continued funding for the Coalfields Regeneration Trust is helping to create jobs, enabling more people to develop the skills and qualifications that can help them secure good work, build community capacity and improve health and wellbeing.

The trust continues to support all former coalfields communities including those in Lanarkshire through, for instance, the creation of community action plans in Croy, Chapelhall, Auchinloch, Rigside and Douglas Water, and Blantyre, which act as a catalyst for change.

Stephanie Callaghan (Scottish National Party, Uddingston and Bellshill)

In stark contrast to Mrs Thatcher’s heartless devastation of Scotland’s coal industry, which still blights many coalfield communities, including those in Lanarkshire, where I live, the recent Scottish Government budget commits at least £2 billion of the first multibillion-pound public and private investment that we need in this session of the Parliament to ensuring a just transition by investing in people and communities. Will the minister explain why he places such emphasis on the importance of workers, communities and industries across Scotland leading the wider plans to transform Scotland’s economy? How will those wider economic plans improve the standard of living for all our citizens, including the residents of the Uddingston and Bellshill constituency?

Tom Arthur (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire South)

A just transition acknowledges that workers and communities have historically been on the front line of significant transitions, such as the unplanned and deeply unjust closing of coal mines, so they must have a say in how the changes are made. In Scotland, we will plan with industry, communities and our highly skilled workforce to secure a truly just transition to net zero. The Scottish Government believes that our efforts to deliver a just transition should also reduce child and fuel poverty because, fundamentally, the work is about using the transition to net zero to build a fairer, greener society for all. [

Interruption

.]

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I hear a lot of chatting and sedentary interventions on the part of members. I did not receive one request for a supplementary on that question.

Brexit (Impact on Exports to the European Union)

Paul McLennan (Scottish National Party, East Lothian)

2. To ask the Scottish Government what analysis has been undertaken of the impact of Brexit on exports from Scotland to the European Union. (S6O-00765)

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

The new trade arrangements with the EU mean more paperwork and higher costs for Scottish importers and exporters. Due to the end of the EU transition period, 55 per cent of exporters in the manufacturing industry report higher transportation costs, 42 per cent report higher costs due to red tape and 24 per cent report extra tariffs or taxes. In 2019, Scottish exports were growing consistently in all directions—to the rest of the United Kingdom, the EU and the rest of the world. We now have clear evidence that that is no longer the case due to Brexit, as Scottish trade in goods with the EU fell by 24 per cent in the latest year to quarter 3 2021, compared to the equivalent period in 2019.

Paul McLennan (Scottish National Party, East Lothian)

The food and drink sector has been disproportionately affected in that regard. A recent study by Johnston Carmichael and the Food and Drink Federation in January this year showed that many Scottish food and drink suppliers plan to decrease or stop exports to the EU. The survey quizzed business leaders at some of the UK’s top food and drink businesses on how they were coping with increased costs, additional administration and bureaucracy a year on from the UK leaving the EU. What work is the Scottish Government undertaking with the food sector to retain and grow new markets in the EU despite the disaster of Brexit?

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

As the practical implications and challenges of the post-Brexit trading environment become clearer, the Scottish Government continues to work closely with partners to provide advice and support to food and drink businesses to help them to adapt, maintain competitiveness and take advantage of new opportunities. The Government supports companies to consolidate their market positions and rebuild their potential for innovation, capability building and developing new market opportunities.

With respect to food and drink, that is delivered through our support for the £4.5 million Scotland Food & Drink export plan, which harnesses public and private sector resources to help the industry to exploit the most significant opportunities for Scotland through a dedicated global team of in-market specialists in 10 key locations, including EU markets. The work of the export plan and the in-market specialists is aligned with the food and drink sector recovery plan and our export plan, “A Trading Nation—a plan for growing Scotland’s exports”. That mitigates the challenges of Brexit and Covid and is a vital initiative as markets around the world reopen following the pandemic.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

I agree with the minister that creating barriers to trade following the break-up of economic partnerships is disruptive to the economy and costs jobs. I cannot agree with the Scottish National Party’s plan to repeat those Brexit mistakes by breaking up another economic partnership—the United Kingdom. Has the minister undertaken analysis of the impact of Scottish independence on exports from Scotland?

The Deputy Presiding Officer

That perhaps took us a bit wider than the question that was in the

Business Bulletin,

but I am sure that the minister would be happy to respond.

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

Absolutely. Willie Rennie has gone down a rabbit warren here. We are well aware of the opportunities that will arise from Scotland being an independent nation. We will have the opportunity to trade with our European partners; the opportunity not to be held back by the economic vandalism of the UK Government with respect to Brexit; and the wide trading opportunities that will arise for exports. That will be a consequence of Scotland being an independent nation that can take our place along with other independent nations of the world and deliver the performance that the Scandinavian countries and other small countries in Europe have delivered, instead of being held back by and tied to a Westminster Government that does not have Scotland’s interests at heart.

As Willie Rennie well knows, analysis has been done on all those aspects, and it will continue to be done. In the very near future, when we get to the point of the independence referendum, which will deliver a yes vote, as part of the campaign for that, we will of course provide full information on the economic prospectus and the positive impact that independence will have for Scotland’s businesses.

Freeports

Gillian Mackay (Green, Central Scotland)

3. To ask the Scottish Government how it will apply fair work and net zero criteria to the freeport developments with the United Kingdom Government. (S6O-00766)

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

Fair work and net zero are central to our ambition for Scotland’s green ports. We will apply fair work and net zero criteria at three stages of the process. Currently, we are finalising the prospectus for applicants, and we will ensure that it is clear about the Scottish Government’s expectations in respect of fair work and net zero. We will scrutinise all bids for evidence of a commitment to embedding fair work practices, including payment of the real living wage, and to pursuing robust decarbonisation plans. Following designation, strict governance and rigorous monitoring and evaluation will ensure on-going compliance with those key priorities and across a range of other aspects. We are determined that successful green port bids will comply with all regulation, including payment of the real living wage, delivering on the net zero aspirations and supporting fair work practices. Applications that do not meet those high standards will not succeed.

Gillian Mackay (Green, Central Scotland)

Can the minister confirm that, if companies did not provide the living wage or recognise trade unions, for example, they would be ineligible for support?

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

We see green ports as an opportunity to move forward our conditionality agenda. The member will know, because it is part of the Bute house agreement with the Greens, that we are keen to roll out conditionality relating to fair work and the real living wage to as many businesses across Scotland as possible in the support that we provide. I am very committed to that. Green ports are no exception. The Scottish Government is clear that fair work and payment of the real living wage are a requirement if we are to support any businesses in green port designated areas.

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

It is great news that the Scottish Government has now backed two freeports in Scotland. The Scottish Conservatives support Aberdeen Harbour’s intended joint bid with Aberdeen City Council, Aberdeenshire Council, Aberdeen International Airport and Peterhead Port Authority, which could create up to 22,000 jobs. However, freedom of information requests have shown that the Scottish Government has yet to have any discussions on that with either Aberdeen or Peterhead harbours. Will the minister join me in publicly backing a bid if it comes in?

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

That is incorrect. In the past few weeks, I had an online meeting with Bob Sanguinetti—pardon my pronunciation—of Aberdeen Harbour in which we talked through the situation with regard to its bid. I am surprised that the Conservatives are nailing their colours to the mast with regards to Aberdeen. Does that mean that they do not support the other nine bids that will potentially come forward from across Scotland? Local communities will be interested to hear that. I am told that there are nine or 10 expressions of interest from across Scotland. I have talked to many of the people involved and visited many of those areas, and I will continue to do so in the coming period.

Of course, the process for green port application is rigorous and takes into account all the factors that I have identified. It is right and proper that the process is seen to be transparent and fair and that all the bids are treated equally. That is exactly what we will continue to do. As I said, I am happy to meet representatives of other ports and harbours and anyone else who is interested in discussing the issue of green ports in Scotland in more detail.

Paul Sweeney (Labour, Glasgow)

What consultation has the Scottish Government carried out with trade unions and what actions have been agreed with them with regard to the specification for the freeports?

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

I have had two separate meetings with the Scottish National Party trade union group on the issue, and I am happy to continue to engage with trade unions. We have been clear about the requirements with regard to the fair work agenda. As I said, I am committed to taking forward that agenda right across my portfolio and particularly with regard to green ports.

We are keen that there be no degradation in workers’ rights or environmental standards. We see the developments as an opportunity to move forward with the fair work first agenda and with requirements for payment of the real living wage.

As I said, I am very happy to have conversations with anybody who is interested in discussing the issue further.

Transient Visitor Levy

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

4. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on its plans for enabling local authorities to bring in a transient visitor levy. (S6O-00767)

Tom Arthur (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire South)

Work towards a draft bill to provide local authorities with a discretionary power to apply a visitor levy, including a series of round-table stakeholder events and formal consultation, was at an advanced stage but was necessarily paused at the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic. Our 2022-23 budget confirmed that we would recommence that work. Given the continuing impact of the pandemic on the tourism sector in Scotland, we consider it prudent to carefully review the work that has been done to date and to undertake further stakeholder engagement, as set out in the letter on the local government finance settlement to the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, before making a firm decision on the next steps.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

I thank the minister for that answer, but it does not tell me when legislation on a visitor levy is likely to be brought to the Parliament. Will he tell us a bit about the legislation? Will it enable local authorities to decide whether to use the powers, and how to use them, without needing approval from the Scottish Government? Will the minister confirm that there will not be any impact on the local government settlement for any council that chooses to use the levy?

Tom Arthur (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire South)

It would not be correct for me to prejudge the outcome of our negotiations and engagement with stakeholders, including local government. Ms Boyack makes a fair point about timescales. We hope that we are now emerging from the acute phase of the pandemic. However, local government elections are on the horizon. We will look to pick up the work, in the spirit that I set out in my original answer to Ms Boyack, following those elections in the spring.

Miles Briggs (Conservative, Lothian)

I have listened to what the minister said about stakeholder engagement. It is incredibly important that he meets members of the hotel industry across the capital, because that sector’s recovery following the pandemic is currently the slowest. Many people in the sector are warning that the introduction of the levy will impact on recovery, so I hope that the minister will take it on board that many people in the tourism industry, which has lost many jobs during the pandemic, do not want the levy to be introduced.

Tom Arthur (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire South)

I recognise the points that the member has made. He will be aware from our tax framework, which we published alongside the budget, that engagement is one of our key principles. Engagement will, of course, inform our deliberations on a visitor levy.

Local Government Funding Settlement (Dundee City Council)

Michael Marra (Labour, North East Scotland)

5. To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it has had with Dundee City Council regarding the local government funding settlement for 2022-23. (S6O-00768)

Tom Arthur (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire South)

Ministers meet the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and individual local authorities regularly to cover a range of issues. The Cabinet Secretary for Finance and the Economy and the Minister for Social Security and Local Government met the leader and chief executive of Dundee City Council on 21 September, ahead of the 2022-23 local government funding settlement.

Following the announcement of the Scottish budget on 9 December, both the First Minister and the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and the Economy, on separate occasions, met the COSLA leadership team and council leaders to discuss the impact of the budget on the 2022-23 local government settlement. Councils asked for an additional £100 million to deal with particular pressures. We heard them, listened and went further by providing £120 million at stage 2 of the Budget (Scotland) Bill.

Michael Marra (Labour, North East Scotland)

The Parliament’s Education, Children and Young People Committee is holding an inquiry into the Scottish attainment challenge. This morning, third sector providers outlined to the committee their on-going concerns about short-term interventions due to the lack of security of Government funding, such as that in my home city of Dundee. Can the minister give assurances to those providers? Does it remain his Government’s policy that pupil equity funding should not be used to backfill any cuts that result from the lack of available local authority resource?

Tom Arthur (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire South)

First, I draw the member’s attention to the fact that we are undertaking a resource spending review, which will be a comprehensive piece of work. I also draw his attention to the work that we are doing on the attainment challenge. We are expanding the provision to all local authorities, as we recognise that poverty is not unique to the nine authorities that have previously received funding via the attainment challenge. We have an equitable process to achieve that transition over the coming years. The resource spending review provides an opportunity for comprehensive consideration of the points that the member has raised.

Douglas Lumsden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Last week, it was reported that Dundee City Council did not apply for levelling up funds, despite its being considered a high-priority area. Will the minister join me in calling on Dundee City Council to put its politics aside and work with the UK Government so that residents of Dundee do not miss out on a vital funding stream?

Tom Arthur (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire South)

I will respect the fact that Dundee City Council is an autonomous body that can make decisions for itself. I hope that the UK Government recognises that the levelling up funds cut across devolved territory, and I ask that it show the Parliament the respect that we show our local authorities.

Fair Start Scotland

Jeremy Balfour (Conservative, Lothian)

6. To ask the Scottish Government what steps it is taking to ensure that the fair start Scotland programme addresses the needs of those who face the greatest barriers to unemployment, such as severely disabled people. (S6O-00769)

Kate Forbes (Scottish National Party, Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch)

Fair start Scotland has been designed to support those who face the most significant barriers into sustainable work, and offers personalised one-to-one support that is tailored to individual circumstances.

In addition, the fair start Scotland service providers offer specialist support to people with disabilities, including the opportunity to access individual placement and support—IPS—and supported employment when that would benefit the individual.

We will continue to work closely with the providers to develop continuous improvement activities for the delivery of support.

Jeremy Balfour (Conservative, Lothian)

Why did the fair start Scotland programme result in only 24 per cent long-term employment rates?

Kate Forbes (Scottish National Party, Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch)

Data that has been published this morning, 23 February, shows more than 41,000 starts in the service so far, with more than 14,000 people moving into work since the service was launched in April 2018. Fair start Scotland has been designed to support those who are furthest from the labour market. The majority of people who get jobs will sustain them for at least six to 12 months, which is in line with the principles of the service, and one in three participants have been supported into work. I could go through the data on the numbers of people who started work that are sustaining employment over the longer term, which is ultimately the aim of the programme.

Daniel Johnson (Labour, Edinburgh Southern)

The critical point here is ensuring that those with talent gain skills and employment. At a time when we are experiencing labour shortages across the economy, employers continue to report a lack of flexibility in many of the skills programmes that the Scottish Government currently offers. Does the cabinet secretary feel an urgency to review the effectiveness of our skills programmes in order to ensure that we adequately address those labour shortages as much as we can?

Kate Forbes (Scottish National Party, Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch)

Daniel Johnson makes a good point about ensuring that those programmes are as flexible as possible, not just to tailor them to respond to the acute challenges that our economy faces now, but also to specific geographic areas and particular groups.

Fair start Scotland seeks to help those who are furthest from the labour market. Clearly, each individual who participates in that programme will need particular, tailored support, which is why I said in my first answer that it is important that we continue to work with the programme providers to ensure that we improve the activities and ultimately help people into long-term employment.

Cost of Living (Financial Support)

Alex Rowley (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

7. To ask the Scottish Government what steps it is taking to ensure that financial support to assist with the rising cost of living reaches those most in need. (S6O-00770)

Kate Forbes (Scottish National Party, Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch)

Despite the uncertainty in our budget position, I announced a package of measures on 10 February to deliver £290 million of support to 1.85 million Scottish households. That is in addition to the measures in the Scottish budget to provide a range of support for households, including £197 million to double the Scottish child payment from April and extend it to all under-16s.

The cost of living crisis is immediate and impacting households now, which is why we have worked closely with local government to ensure that it is able to focus on delivery immediately.

Alex Rowley (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The problem is that everyone in the chamber who earns £60,000-odd and does not live in an expensive house will get £150—I will get £150. Those who are in most need and struggling the most need to get more support.

The finance secretary will be aware of the criticism from the Poverty Alliance, which said that the SNP’s actions to date

“do not just represent a failure of imagination, but also a failure to live up to the responsibility to protect people from poverty.”

Will the cabinet secretary listen to what organisations are saying and accept that it is wrong for MSPs on £60,000-odd a year to get £150 to help them out when some people are having to choose between heating and eating? Will she think again and look at how we can help those who are most in need and are struggling right now in Scotland?

Kate Forbes (Scottish National Party, Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch)

Alex Rowley raises a number of important points. I reiterate the point that I made when I announced the plan: I have listened to those organisations, but the difficulty is that I could spend months thinking, planning and using my imagination—to use Alex Rowley’s words—while families need help now.

The plan that we have announced includes targeted support through the council tax reduction scheme, which we can use because it is established in Scotland to help families that are struggling the most to pay council tax. We also announced the £10 million fuel insecurity fund to help households that are at greatest risk of self-disconnection, and the £150 for households in council tax bands A to D. That is on top of schemes that were already announced in the budget, because we could see in advance the cost of living crisis.

My commitment right now is therefore to work with local authorities to ensure that that money gets out of the door as quickly as possible. That is my priority because families need the help now.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Fiona Hyslop can ask a brief supplementary.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

Other European countries are implementing measures to help individuals and families with rising energy costs. For example, Belgium has cut VAT on electricity by 15 per cent; Spain has cut VAT on energy bills by 11 per cent; and France, has restricted increases in power costs to 4 per cent. Does the Scottish Government agree that the United Kingdom Government should implement cost-saving measures by cutting VAT to limit energy bill increases and help individuals with rising living costs?

Kate Forbes (Scottish National Party, Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch)

In short, yes, I do. Families across Scotland right now are reflecting on their energy bills, which are one of the greatest pressures on household incomes.

Energy is reserved. We have been calling on the UK Government to cut VAT from energy bills, and I know that the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats have supported that call. It would have been one of the simplest ways of helping consumers in the short term, but powers over VAT are reserved, as are powers over energy. In the meantime, we have deployed funding as quickly as possible to help those families who are most in need.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I can squeeze in question 8 if we have succinct questions and answers.

Local Government Funding (Inverclyde Council)

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, Greenock and Inverclyde)

8. To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it has had with Inverclyde Council regarding what financial support is available in addition to the local government settlement. (S6O-00771)

Tom Arthur (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire South)

As I said in an earlier answer, ministers meet the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and local authorities regularly to cover a range of issues, including funding. The finance secretary and the local government minister met the leader and chief executive of Inverclyde Council on 25 November.

Although the majority of funding is provided as part of the local government finance settlement, it is open to individual councils to submit a detailed business case for additional funding outwith the settlement, and the Scottish Government will consider that carefully. Examples of funding outwith the settlement include £86.4 million for employability and the £226 million city region and growth deal.

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, Greenock and Inverclyde)

The minister will be aware of the acute challenges that Inverclyde has faced, many of which are long term. Despite the vast levels of finance that the Scottish Government has invested in Inverclyde, including the building of more than 1,400 homes for social rent, saving our jobs at Diodes and Ferguson Marine, and the city deal funding, many of the challenges facing Inverclyde still exist. Can the minister confirm whether Inverclyde Council has submitted a business case for additional funding to help to deal with some of those acute challenges?

Tom Arthur (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire South)

I confirm to Mr McMillan that, as far as I am aware, the Scottish Government has not received a business case for additional funding for the area that he has highlighted.

National Health Service Dentistry

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

I remind members of the Covid-related measures that are in place and of the fact that face coverings should be worn when moving around the chamber and across the Holyrood campus.

The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-03281, in the name of Sandesh Gulhane, on preventing the collapse of national health service dentistry in Scotland. I invite members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request-to-speak button or to put an R in the chat function.

Sandesh Gulhane (Conservative, Glasgow)

We are here today to have a frank debate on the state of NHS dentistry in Scotland in 2022. For sure, Covid-19 has hit dentistry hard, with practices being closed during the early months of the pandemic. Although the service has resumed, infection control measures continue to limit the number of patients that dentists can see in any given hour. Those are serious obstacles, which I will cover more later in my speech.

We should also recognise that, for more than a decade, since well before the pandemic, the Scottish Government’s model for engaging with dentists has been flawed. It is wedded to the old system. There is a lack of focus on prevention, with some regulations even being based on outdated practice. Over the years, the Scottish Government has shown little appetite for reform. In fact—this is typical of how the Scottish Government works—it gave practices and the British Dental Association only one working day’s notice before introducing free dentistry for people under the age of 26.

As things stand, the situation is bleak. The BDA surveyed its members and found that a third intend to leave the profession during the next 12 months.

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

Does the member recognise that abolishing dental charges was in the Scottish National Party’s manifesto? We had a whole section on dentistry. Why did his party have only one mention of dentistry in its manifesto?

Sandesh Gulhane (Conservative, Glasgow)

The cabinet secretary needs to think about how businesses work. One working day’s notice is absolutely not enough to allow them to work.

Indeed, there is a risk of an exodus from the workforce, which would mean families losing access to local NHS dentistry altogether. That would hit hardest those in the most deprived communities. We must send a clear message to dental practices and patients that the Parliament is serious about tackling the colossal backlog of unmet treatment and that we have clear ideas about how to ensure a future for NHS dentistry in Scotland for the benefit of the Scottish people.

With dentists having to ventilate rooms for at least 10 minutes between appointments—time that they are not paid for—their hourly rate has reduced considerably. To help, the Scottish Government committed £5 million for ventilation improvements, but if we read the small print, we find that that support is limited to £1,500 per surgery. Dentists say that significant improvements to increase patient flow would cost at least six times that amount, but the Scottish Government is patting itself on the back. Given the issues with schools, I cannot help but wonder what ventilation measures the Government had in mind.

The cost of everything is going up, from disposables to utility bills and dental laboratory fees. The Scottish Government might wish to speak about record high support and investment in incentives in NHS dentistry, but is that spending effective? Is it actually solving anything? If we listen to the professionals who are delivering dental care or look at the Government’s own statistics, we find that the answer is no. More than 3.5 million NHS dental appointments were lost during 2021, and that backlog will continue to grow unless the Scottish Government listens and opens itself up to some fresh thinking.

Patients are suffering. Families are not able to see their dentists. Kids are going without check-ups. The rate of oral cancer in Scotland is twice the rate in the rest of the United Kingdom. The Government has remained silent on that for too long.

Two years ago, at the start of the pandemic, the Scottish Government came up with an emergency funding package for NHS dentistry. It was a typical knee-jerk reaction and, according to dental professionals, it was not fit for purpose. It was a start. However, it is bitterly disappointing that, two years later, there is not an interim package on offer that could pave the way for a longer-term solution. Patients need holistic oral healthcare.

Maree Todd (Scottish National Party, Caithness, Sutherland and Ross)

If the member believes that the emergency package that was brought in two years ago to support the dental sector through the pandemic is so flawed, why is he asking for it to be continued?

Sandesh Gulhane (Conservative, Glasgow)

I will come on to that in great detail, but essentially—[

Interruption.

] I will tell members if they care to listen. Essentially, it is because we need root-and-branch reform of what is going on. We cannot continue with the current position, because NHS dentistry will be lost.

It has been known for years that the current dental treatment remuneration package is in many ways ridiculous, and I will explain why. Let us consider cobalt chrome dentures. If we consider lab bills and appointment times, dentists are working for less than the minimum wage. Then there are extractions. To take out teeth, maybe to prepare a teenager for braces, dentists are paid only for the first three extractions. However, there is more. The price code for composite white fillings on back teeth for children has no relation to what is required in terms of time or complexity. Taking overheads into account, dentists can make a loss.

In Scotland, dentists are not allowed to place a white filling on the biting surface of a back tooth—they may only use metal—so patients either pay or they are disadvantaged by a mouthful of metal, while a white filling can be offered in England and Wales. There seems to be no reason for that other than the Government’s regulations being out of date.

We are seeing lower patient participation in our most deprived areas. Oral health inequalities will translate into a higher disease burden in the long term as the chances of picking up early signs of decay and oral cancers at routine check-ups are reduced. Delays in treatment will mean higher costs for the NHS and worse outcomes for patients. NHS dentistry in Scotland was in crisis before Covid hit. As we come out of the pandemic, we know that millions of our fellow Scots have missed out on important oral health checks. Dentists are exhausted and demoralised, and many are looking for the exit to change career, take on more private work or go overseas, where demand is high and remuneration is fairer.

Dentists and their staff are being abused by frustrated patients because of how long they have to wait. People think that dentists are rich, but it is worth noting that, between 2009 and 2019, the taxable income of dentists in Scotland was eroded by 35 per cent. The Scottish Government has failed to grasp that NHS dentistry needs to be adequately funded and to retain a skilled workforce including dental nurses, technicians and support staff. If we do not help the profession, we risk losing NHS dentistry forever.

The Scottish Conservatives want NHS dentists to succeed, which is why we are calling for the emergency funding to remain as an interim solution while the Scottish Government discusses a root-and-branch change with the British Dental Association. We also believe that we need a 30 per cent increase in tariffs as an interim measure. We need to ensure that dentistry is financially viable and is based on delivery of holistic, modern, best-practice services and on prevention, rather than on a fee-per-item and drill-and-fill culture.

By supporting our dentists and their practices, we can ensure that they have a fighting chance of working through the backlog, achieving the goal of offering every Scot a dental check-up in 2022 and staying on track in accordance with clinical guidance thereafter.

We will support the Labour amendment.

I move,

That the Parliament notes with concern that almost half of people in Scotland have been unable to see an NHS dentist for the last two years; further notes the Scottish Government’s proposed withdrawal of emergency funding provided to dental practices on 1 April 2022; believes that this funding should be maintained for the upcoming financial year in recognition of the considerable efforts still required to restore services and reduce the significant backlog of patients seeking dental treatment, particularly while maintaining enhanced infection control measures; recognises the importance of regular dental check-ups for people of all ages, both for good dental hygiene and in the detection of some forms of oral cancer; acknowledges the concerns expressed by many in the profession that the current settlement risks making NHS dentistry financially unviable; calls on the Scottish Government to come forward with a plan for ensuring the long-term sustainability of NHS dentistry, including a complete overhaul of the current fee structure to more accurately reflect modern dentistry; further calls on the Scottish Government to increase the dental tariffs provided by government to NHS dentists by a third as an interim measure to sustain NHS dental services, and ensure that all people in Scotland are able to access a dental check-up in 2022 and every year as clinically required thereafter, and calls for the development of a more holistic service that NHS patients deserve, in place of the current conveyor belt system.

Maree Todd (Scottish National Party, Caithness, Sutherland and Ross)

I thank Sandesh Gulhane for raising the important matter of patient access to NHS dental care. The dental sector has been disproportionately impacted by the nature of the pandemic. In order to protect patients and staff, dental practices are required to operate with specific infection prevention and control measures, including a fallow time between patients and the use of full personal protective equipment.

During the initial lockdown in March 2020, dental practices were closed to face-to-face patient care, and NHS board centres focused largely on emergency and urgent dental care. Since that initial phase of lockdown, dental practices have slowly remobilised, offering increasing levels of care to their patients. Although registration levels remain comparable with those before the pandemic, the proportion of those patients who have attended a dentist in the past two years has fallen from around 70 per cent to 53 per cent. That is entirely due to the impact of the pandemic.

That is why the Scottish Government has supported the NHS dental sector throughout the pandemic with an additional £50 million of financial support payments.

Finlay Carson (Conservative, Galloway and West Dumfries)

What assessment has the Government made of the impact of the decision to remove the financial top-up support for NHS dentistry from 1 April?

Maree Todd (Scottish National Party, Caithness, Sutherland and Ross)

I will explain. What we have done is to very carefully avoid a cliff edge. We are not simply removing that support; we are replacing it with a system that rewards activity, because we are aware that we need to get more patients seen by dentists.

We have given an additional £50 million of financial support payments, and we have also provided specific funding to mitigate the impact of the pandemic on dental activity. That includes £7.5 million of funding for new dental drills, £5 million for ventilation improvements and £35 million for NHS personal protective equipment to date. The Scottish Government is determined to ensure that NHS dental services emerge well placed to care for the oral health of the whole population.

Stephen Kerr (Conservative, Central Scotland)

What does the minister say to the British Dental Association, which says that her Government’s approach could spell the end of NHS dentistry in Scotland?

Maree Todd (Scottish National Party, Caithness, Sutherland and Ross)

This Government is unashamedly putting patients first in our thinking about how dental services are delivered. In order to ensure that people in Scotland have access to NHS dentistry that is free at the point of need, we are working really hard to support the dental sector. I would be interested to hear from any Conservative who wants to intervene whether they actually support that commitment to NHS dentistry being free at the point of need.

Sandesh Gulhane (Conservative, Glasgow)

It is interesting, because there is a total lack of a financial package. I wonder if the minister has simply outlined right there a new support measure that is coming in April and how she will continue to fund dentistry. NHS dentistry needs to be free at the point of care, but we need to have a financial package for that, which the minister has not set out.

Maree Todd (Scottish National Party, Caithness, Sutherland and Ross)

I am very pleased to hear that commitment from my Conservative colleagues. It is absolutely wonderful to have cross-party support for free NHS dental care for everyone in Scotland. I am absolutely delighted.

Oliver Mundell (Conservative, Dumfriesshire)

Will the minister take an intervention?

Maree Todd (Scottish National Party, Caithness, Sutherland and Ross)

I ask the member to let me continue and set out the financial package that we have put in place in order to support that.

We have committed to tackling the backlog in care. We announced an additional £20 million of increased fees this month to help dentists to see more patients face to face, including those from our most deprived communities.

Sandesh Gulhane (Conservative, Glasgow)

rose—

Maree Todd (Scottish National Party, Caithness, Sutherland and Ross)

I have let Dr Gulhane intervene. I ask him to let me proceed and set out what financial support we are giving our dentists.

That funding announcement is part of a 9 per cent increase in the overall budget for NHS dental services in 2022-23 to support a return to more normal levels of activity. The additional money will deliver enhanced examinations for everyone—children and adults. Children are a key focus as we recover NHS dental care. We have taken steps to expand the funding for the Childsmile programme in dental practices, which will increase its coverage to include those who are 17 years of age.

The Scottish Government recognises the need to address oral health inequalities arising from the pandemic. We will make additional Childsmile interventions of £2 million over two years from April 2022 to support the distribution of additional toothbrushing packs and recruitment of dental health support workers. Those initiatives will focus on families and children who live in areas of disadvantage, especially those from minority ethnic backgrounds.

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines state:

“Recall intervals for patients who have repeatedly demonstrated that they can maintain oral health and who are not considered to be at risk of or from oral disease may be extended over time up to an interval of 24 months.”

Looking forward, our vision for NHS dental services is to ensure that all persons with the same clinical needs are treated in the same way, and that special attention is paid to actions that might further disadvantage the already disadvantaged and vulnerable. As part of that, we will engage the sector in suitable reforms that allow dentists to practise modern dentistry, including the introduction of an oral health risk assessment.

The Presiding Officer

Please conclude, minister.

Maree Todd (Scottish National Party, Caithness, Sutherland and Ross)

I will.

We are putting in place a number of vital processes. We must link financial support to dentistry—to seeing patients. We must reward NHS dental teams for improving patient access. The focus needs to be on the recovery of the sector—

The Presiding Officer

Minister, I must stop you there, but I ask you to move your amendment.

Maree Todd (Scottish National Party, Caithness, Sutherland and Ross)

I move amendment S6M-03281.2, to leave out from “with concern” to end and insert:

“the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on all aspects of healthcare, not least on the delivery of dental services due to the volume of aerosol generating procedures, and the impact that this has had on patients seeking appointments during this period; acknowledges that the challenges posed by the pandemic, including the backlog of care, are not unique to Scotland; notes the substantial pandemic-related investment in dentistry of the last two years that includes £5 million for ventilation improvements, £7.5 million for new dental drills, £35 million for additional PPE, and £50 million of financial support to dental practices; recognises that investment in NHS dentistry is increasing to a record high level with a 9% increase in the budget for dental services in 2022-23, including extending the reach of the Childsmile programme in high-street practices to young people up to 17 years of age; welcomes that the Scottish Government is providing dentists with an additional £20 million from February 2022 to give them new and additional incentives to see more patients, and that discussions continue with the British Dental Association on further reforms to support recovery; believes that NHS dentistry, like all NHS services, should be free at the point of need and supports the removal of all NHS dental charges to patients by the end of this parliamentary session, and further supports the Scottish Government’s Oral Health Improvement Plan, which underpins that the frequency of dental checks should be shaped by clinical evidence and an individual patient’s oral health risk assessment, with those at the highest risk being seen more frequently.”

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

I never thought that I would stand here and say that the very existence of NHS dentistry in Scotland is currently under threat. The Government’s complacency in light of that is genuinely deeply concerning. NHS dentistry is in crisis. From the millions of lost appointments to the struggle to see an NHS dentist, plummeting staff morale and widening social inequalities, it is clear that urgent action is needed to pull our NHS dentist services back from the brink. Almost half of people in Scotland have been unable to see an NHS dentist for the past two years.

Yes, I know that we have had the pandemic, but the path to recovery is far from clear. Figures from Public Health Scotland show that the number of treatments up to March 2021 was down by something like 75 per cent. That equates to as many as 3.5 million appointments having been lost. That backlog will take years to clear. Measures imposed on dentists by the Government due to the pandemic have meant that the number of patients that NHS dentists are able to see is still severely limited. The British Dental Association has told us that, despite the best efforts of dentists, returning to “business as usual” is still a “distant prospect”.

It is important to note that the restrictions did not apply to private dental treatment, which is a surprising omission by the SNP Government. No wonder so many people were turning to private dental care: the Government has left them with no other choice to get the essential care that they needed.

The consequences of that are likely to be profound. In effect, we are seeing the backdoor privatisation of the Scottish dental sector. It is not as simple as lifting the restrictions and everything will be fine, as 80 per cent of Scottish dentists are planning to reduce their NHS commitment if the Government reverts to pre-pandemic arrangements.

Jamie Greene (Conservative, West Scotland)

Will the member take an intervention?

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

I

will in a second.

Let me translate that for the Government: “reduce their NHS commitment” means do the same work but in a private setting, and that will simply deepen inequalities.

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

Will the member take an intervention?

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

I am very conscious of the time; I apologise to the people who want to intervene.

Only yesterday, I was contacted by a woman who raised the issue of appointment deposits, which was new to me. To attend her free NHS check-up and receive a £13 basic dental clean, she is being charged a £20 deposit. At a time when the cost of living is sky-rocketing, many families cannot afford to part with £20, especially for an appointment that should be routine.

Let me turn to the subject of inequality. Public Health Scotland tells us that fewer than half of adults from the most deprived areas have seen an NHS dentist over the past two years. For the wealthiest areas, it is well over half. Those inequalities are only starker when it comes to children’s dental care, with only 55 per cent of children from the most deprived areas being seen by a dentist over the past two years, while the figure is 20 percentage points higher among those from the least deprived areas.

It was of course Scottish Labour that introduced childsmile. We did that to tackle inequalities in oral health and to ensure access to dental services for every child in Scotland, regardless of their background. I am pleased that the Scottish Government has continued it. It is depressing, however, that the considerable progress that has been made in child dental health is now going backwards. That, coupled with the fact that those from poorer backgrounds are less likely to have received treatment, is nothing short of a national disgrace. Under the SNP’s watch, dental care is fast becoming the privilege of the few who can afford to go private. That is why Scottish Labour’s amendment calls for action to avoid a two-tier dental system.

It is essential that emergency funding for dentists does not stop at the end of March. I do not understand how any Government could look at the current state of NHS dentistry and deem now to be an appropriate time to end support. I note the list of moneys that the minister outlined, and I welcome it, but it is not just a case of needing more money—the current model of funding for dental services needs to change.

The current model is about as old as the NHS itself, which is older than me, and it is no longer fit for purpose—a fact that has been recognised by the chief dental officer. The current fee-per-item model is not sustainable, as it relies on high-volume turnover and does not reflect the need to prioritise prevention or give dentists the time to care.

It is a question not of more examinations but of better outcomes. The Government should really listen to the Scottish Dental Association and the British Dental Association on that point. Consultation on changes was promised two years ago, and again last year, but nothing has happened. I say to the Government: please stop promising to consult and actually do it, before stopping support of any kind—

The Presiding Officer

You should conclude, Ms Baillie.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

The Government should consult before it stops support, or NHS dentistry

will fall off a cliff edge and end up being privatised on the SNP’s watch.

I move amendment S6M-03281.1, to insert at end:

“; is concerned by the growing inequality in access to NHS dental care, with recent statistics showing that thousands of people in the most deprived areas have not seen a dentist in over two years; believes that immediate action is needed by the Scottish Government to avoid a two-tier dental system, and urges the Scottish Government to take urgent action to ensure that everyone, irrespective of background or circumstances, has access to first-class NHS dental treatment.”

Alex Cole-Hamilton (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh Western)

I am grateful to Dr Gulhane for securing time to debate this important matter in Parliament today.

As we know, it is estimated that around 5 million people are registered with an NHS dentist in Scotland, which represents 95 per cent of our population. We should all be able to expect a check-up, treatment and assistance wherever and whenever we may need it. Provision should be universal, regardless of where we live or what we can afford. That is the cornerstone of our healthcare system, in which dentistry—as we have heard this afternoon—is a key service.

Of late, however, that reality is diminishing. I know that I am not alone in the chamber when I say that I have had many constituents contact me because they have been unable to access basic NHS dental services. Some have had to wait months for so-called emergency appointments. Jackie Baillie rightly raised the new spectre of deposits for appointments. That is not surprising if we look at data from last summer, which revealed that residents across Lothian were waiting up to six months for routine dental care alone.

Maree Todd (Scottish National Party, Caithness, Sutherland and Ross)

I have made it fairly clear that the practice of asking for deposits in advance of NHS appointments is not allowed. We have asked private dental practices to follow NHS rules from Healthcare Improvement Scotland.

Alex Cole-Hamilton (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh Western)

I a

m grateful that the minister and the Government are taking that seriously.

In particular, people have got in touch with me about being unable to arrange appointments for their children. Many children across Scotland have not had a check-up in years. Of course, that is in part down to the pandemic, but there is also an issue of availability. It is particularly worrying that children will not receive attention during such an important growth period in their lives, when expert eyes are needed the most.

When the Government first came to power, it used child dental health as a metric for poverty in the national indicators. However, Scottish patients, instead of being provided with the care that they deserve, are instead being told to look for private care. As that is simply out of the question for so many families, yet another barrier is being placed before those who are struggling the most with the cost of living.

According to the most recent data, only 55 per cent of children from the most deprived areas of Scotland were able to get an appointment, in comparison with 73 per cent in the least deprived areas. That is a health inequality. Dentists in Scotland have warned us that such disparity will contribute towards a healthcare inequality gap in which disease and long-term problems will become more and more commonplace among the most disadvantaged. That simply does not cut it. The issue is not just dental check-ups; mouth cancer can be missed if people do not attend those important screening appointments. There are many groups—

Bob Doris (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn)

Will the member take an intervention?

Alex Cole-Hamilton (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh Western)

I am afraid that I do not have time—I must make progress.

There are many groups across society that need our attention regarding this issue. Only on Monday, I spoke to a constituent who is a veteran. He told me that the huge lack of co-ordination across services means that veterans routinely struggle to access dental care on leaving the armed services. That needs to be noted in any changes that are made to service provision in future.

It is not only our patients who are struggling; our dentists are under enormous pressure. A Scottish dentist, Dr Douglas Thain, said recently that dentists have been repeatedly asked to provide

“a fine-dining experience with McDonald’s resources.”

Dentists are having to sacrifice their own welfare for the sake of providing basic services that they should be given the resources to deliver.

That is, sadly, another example of those who work in healthcare being burdened with poor mental health as a result of the job that they chose to do. That is why my party’s burnout plan, to provide mental health services to dentists and other healthcare practitioners and all NHS staff, is still so important—not only does the current situation put inordinate strain on our dentists, it causes a much deeper problem. Dentists within the NHS are being handed a severe lack of funding and slashed unit prices, which is being combined with an increased demand for dental services. It is a perfect storm.

I can see that you want me to close, Presiding Officer, so I will finish by saying that our dentistry system needs to be accessible to everyone and a radical overhaul is needed. That is why the Scottish Liberal Democrats will be supporting Dr Gulhane’s motion.

Finlay Carson (Conservative, Galloway and West Dumfries)

They often say that life is short and you should smile while you still have teeth. Sadly, there are going to be a lot of unhappy people right across Scotland unless dramatic action is taken to start tackling the enormous dental backlogs, which are growing longer day by day.

Tragically, one of the most serious legacies of the 15 years of this Government’s failures, and there are plenty, is a worrying rise in dental inequalities—nowhere more so than in rural and deprived communities across Scotland that have already been the hardest hit during the past two years of Covid, with fewer than half of adults being able to see their dentist. Perhaps even more alarmingly, only 55 per cent of children were able to do likewise.

To add further to the bleak outlook, dentists have already warned of a mass exodus from this health sector that will leave many people with little or no access to dental care unless new funding and measures are urgently put in place. The British Dental Association has already revealed that four in five dentists will reduce their NHS commitment, leaving huge numbers of NHS patients with a stark dilemma—either go private or simply do not go at all. In many cases, there is no other option—they will have to just bite the bullet, if members will excuse the pun, and pay into an expensive dental plan at a time when most households can ill afford to take on extra expense, or instead watch their smiles disappear. Those are the options.

Like a great many other members, I am sure, my correspondence on dentistry issues has grown dramatically in recent weeks. One constituent in Stranraer, in my Galloway and West Dumfries constituency, told me of the plight facing her in getting access to dental treatment and care for her children. She had always been of the opinion that all children got dental review and treatment free of charge in Scotland. However, that is no longer the case, she informed me. The majority of dentists in the region now refuse to take any children on to their lists unless their parents register privately and pay into an expensive monthly insurance scheme.

There are a few exceptions—one dentist in Dumfries is still accepting NHS patients—but that would involve my constituent taking a 150-mile round trip. Most dental practices state that they are full and unable to take on children, yet if she paid, all of a sudden, her children could be seen. That discriminates against those from less well-off backgrounds whose parents cannot afford those schemes.

Another constituent informed me that their children were registered with a new dentist last October and an appointment was scheduled for January but cancelled. However, if she paid for them to go privately, they could be taken straight away. She said:

“If I was able to pay private I would, but with a growing family and increasing living costs there is no way I can afford it but feel this is the way things are being forced.”

I am also reliably informed that not one dentist in Stranraer is taking on new NHS patients. It raises the question: how many people are expected to afford private dentistry, if they can even find someone?

In Castle Douglas, there is another dentist who is not taking NHS patients, again leaving many families struggling to make arrangements. It is little wonder that the number of children registered with an NHS dentist is declining in my region, which is a situation that must surely be addressed as a matter of urgency.

The warm words from the minister will be of little comfort to my constituents in Stranraer whose children have no access to NHS dentists unless they travel for 150 miles. Can people imagine the outcry if we asked patients in Edinburgh or Glasgow to travel to Dundee to see a dentist?

This SNP Government thinks that an indicator of success is simply crowing about more equipment or increased funding and it repeatedly fails to recognise that the indicator for success right across the health sector is better outcomes for patients. The Government has given us very little reason to be happy. I urge the cabinet secretary to urgently address this growing crisis and find the necessary resources that will at least let our children smile.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale)

I thank all those in the medical services, but I will focus on dentists, who have been endeavouring to deliver essential services in the unique and difficult situation of the past two years, which continues.

It is obvious that dentists, in particular, with their necessary use of aerosol procedures, as well as the intimacy of dental contact with patients and the design of their facilities, have found it particularly difficult to tend to their patients. People are also avoiding treatment, for fear of Covid.

As in other areas—this is not confined to the health service—the backlog has been unavoidable, although none of us could have predicted how far it would go. However, the pace is picking up in delivery of services. Our concern about and understanding of why we are here now should be agreed. However, the hyperbolic nature of the Conservative motion reminds me more of “We’re all doomed! We’re all doomed!” from “Dad’s Army”. God bless Private Frazer.

Sandesh Gulhane (Conservative, Glasgow)

Will the member take an intervention?

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale)

I have only four minutes but, if you are going to say something interesting, I will take your intervention.

Sandesh Gulhane (Conservative, Glasgow)

Does Ms Grahame agree that the financial package that the minister just announced clearly does not allow free dentistry for all, although Maree Todd said that it would?

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale)

This is a path that we are taking; we will not get there tomorrow, which is obvious from what the minister said.

Your headline news is very good for the tabloids. “Preventing the collapse of NHS dentistry in Scotland”—what a headline. [

Interruption

.] I will come to that in a minute.

Mr Gulhane made an interesting point. Although, along with other medical professions, dentists received a 3 per cent pay rise last year—in recognition of their efforts during the pandemic and in line with the recommendation of the independent United Kingdom review body on doctors and dentists remuneration—as Mr Gulhane reminded us, their practices are businesses, not services. That is not a criticism of dentists but a fact. They are in contracts with the NHS and there is a conflict—[

Interruption

.]

They are businesses, just as many general practices are. You used the term, Mr Gulhane.

The Presiding Officer

Ms Grahame—

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale)

I beg your pardon. The member used the term “businesses” to describe dental practices. That is what I am reflecting on; it is not a criticism. We have a hybrid situation, where the NHS is contracting to provide services through professionals who also have to make profits, take on partners and run businesses. There is the same conflict in GP practices, and we must be frank about that and address it.

The minister addressed the fact that, if we add together everything that she said at the beginning of her speech, £112.5 million of public funding has already gone out to dentists. Finlay Carson talked about his constituency, which is in Dumfries and Galloway. Where the provision of dentists is insufficient, from 7 February, there has been an offer of £25,000 over two years for dentists to go into areas where there is a difficulty with retention, such as Kelso and Berwickshire—not my patch, but in the Borders—and parts of Dumfries and Galloway. That offer is subject to certain criteria around recruitment and retention. I accept that there is a difficulty, but the Government is endeavouring to address that.

In the real world, which I live in, we have fixed budgets. Every time I hear Conservative and Labour members call for funding, I ask myself, “Where is your money tree that neither I nor the Government have in our back gardens?” If, collectively, those parties want such things, they should say where the money is coming from and have it in their budgets.

Brian Whittle (Conservative, South Scotland)

I am pleased to speak in the debate. I was thinking back to debates that we have had in the chamber on the topic. There has always been inequality in dental care, as in other healthcare sectors. There are those who never get good access to good oral hygiene and care. I remember being shocked at the number of children who do not even have a toothbrush—let alone an understanding of good oral hygiene—as well as at the number of parents who do not know how to teach their children to brush their teeth and at the steady increase in children who need extractions, especially in the lower Scottish index of multiple deprivation areas. A dentist friend of mine used to give me hundreds of toothbrushes and tubes of toothpaste to hand out to third sector organisations in Ayrshire, such as Yipworld and CentreStage, which had taken it on themselves to help with good oral hygiene for parents and young service users.

The growing health inequality has been significantly exacerbated during Covid. When we discuss health inequalities, we tend not to think of dentistry and access to treatment as much as we should. My dentist friend says that the demand now is like nothing he has ever seen. More and more people are seeking private dentists because they cannot get access to NHS dentists. NHS dentists are struggling to keep up with waiting lists, which are far longer than they have ever been. That is not good for providing swift care that is free at the point of need.

Increasingly, patients are frustrated about waiting times, as my colleague Sandesh Gulhane said, and that frustration is being passed on to dentists. Inevitably, that is driving the health inequality that I mentioned, because there are people who cannot contemplate paying for their dentist.

I listened with interest to the minister’s contribution. Frankly, any dentist who was listening to her cannot help but be worried. If her contribution is representative of the Scottish Government’s understanding of the crisis in our dental surgeries, the Government’s head is buried so far in the sand that all that we can see is the soles of its feet.

I told my dentist friend that I would highlight a couple of issues for him, one of which is the growing tension in waiting rooms. Mask-exempt patients are accusing our dentists of inequality, because they feel that they have the right to use waiting rooms, which can cause difficult encounters. Vulnerable people are struggling because they want dental care but fear the risk of exposure to Covid from sitting in waiting rooms.

My friend said that mask-wearing rules in healthcare settings and waiting rooms should continue regardless of rule changes elsewhere, in order to protect patients who are or feel at risk. Vulnerable and at-risk patients have the right to access healthcare and to feel safe. I recognise that that goes against the direction of travel that we are going in, but the needs of vulnerable people should be considered as we—hopefully—come out of the other side of the pandemic. There are perhaps situations in which we need to consider whether special cases can be made to ensure equal access to healthcare—which is, after all, a right.

My friend also said that it is harder to keep staff. The use of PPE has worked, and he is not aware of any patient-to-dentist infection. That is great news, but PPE is difficult to wear. A nurse whom he trained for nearly three months has now handed in her notice because she is struggling to wear the gear. There has also been a noticeable increase in headaches, and he suspects that that is because of PPE. He said that the wearing of PPE needs to continue, but we need to acknowledge that dentistry is struggling.

As my colleague Sandesh Gulhane said, the backlog is increasing, and there are concerns in the profession that the current settlement will prevent the sector from being financially viable. The Scottish Government needs to recognise that the pressures on NHS dentistry are driving not only patients but dentists to the private sector. If the Scottish Government truly wants to tackle the significant and growing health inequalities that exist in access to dental treatment, it is crucial that it makes NHS dentistry as viable as possible.

The Scottish Government must create a system that encourages careers in NHS dentistry.

Carol Mochan (Labour, South Scotland)

I think that we will leave here today having made it

absolutely clear that there is a serious crisis in dentistry, which has been caused by Government indecision and ineffectiveness. All of us in the chamber know and agree that the cost of living is a constant source of concern in our communities. However, also of concern are the anxiety and stress that are caused by the uncertainty about health. For many people, that includes their own and their loved ones’ oral health.

Many parents have expressed to me on-going worry about accessing a local NHS dentist for their children. That is simply unacceptable. Covid is a serious contributing factor to the issue that dentistry faces, but we cannot frame everything in that context. Before Covid, there were many concerns about the pressures on dentistry and dental surgeries and about the availability of appointments. The truth is that, if something is not done, the same problems will be around for a lot longer. That is the stark reality that we face.

When I speak to constituents, dentistry is one of the issues about which I hear the most complaints, yet it rarely receives the attention that other forms of healthcare get. Any assessment of the Government’s stewardship over more than a decade would be far from positive. Its record on delivering positive healthcare outcomes for the people of this country in dentistry and beyond is poor, and it cannot get away with that any longer. It often seems that we have an implied belief that dentistry truly is a secondary concern and that, if people are particularly concerned, they should go private.

Stephanie Callaghan (Scottish National Party, Uddingston and Bellshill)

Will the member take an intervention?

Carol Mochan (Labour, South Scotland)

Not at the moment, thank you. The Government does not have the solutions to the significant problems that we face, as we have heard today. That is not good enough. Thousands of people would have to choose between paying for such procedures and simply persevering, often in pain. We have all heard such stories, which are not a thing of the past, as we might have thought.

I am sad to say that I will return to an issue that I raise in the chamber almost every day that I attend—inequality. As the Scottish Labour amendment notes, thousands of Scots

“in the most deprived areas have not seen a dentist in over two years”.

Only 55 per cent of the poorest young people have been able to see a dentist, compared with 73 per cent from wealthier areas. That deficit will increase mortality later in life, and we must address that now. The situation is simply unacceptable. The worst-off in our society are being left open to serious decay, loss of teeth and, in some cases, unidentified mouth cancers. That is not simply cosmetic; that is fundamental.

In essence, we are being left with a two-tier dental system in which those with the ability to pay their way out of problems maintain their oral health, while those with no means to do so are exposed to greater risk. Is that the legacy that the Government wants to leave? Labour will fight against that.

As my colleagues have noted, the SNP Administration is presiding over the near collapse of NHS dentistry—[

Interruption

.] It is the near collapse; more than 3.5 million NHS dental appointments have been lost since the first lockdown. Amid all that, why is the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care announcing that the additional funding that was given to dental practices during the pandemic is to conclude at the end of this financial year? Is this an appropriate time to do that? This is a serious health crisis, and the Government must change direction.

Bob Doris (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn)

I am pleased to speak in the debate. Believe it or not, I will try my best to make a consensual speech. When we cut out the hyperbole, there is much to agree on. However, let us be honest about the fact that there is a lot of hyperbole.

We all commend those who have worked in dental practices during the pandemic in the most difficult and challenging of circumstances. We all agree that there is a need to work with dentists and dental practices to financially support them as much as possible as we emerge from Covid-19. There is also a need for reforms. As the health secretary has indicated, such reforms were in the SNP’s manifesto. The existence of a backlog is clear—no one has denied that. Undoubtedly, there are pressures—again, no one has denied that. There is consensus about that. However, the Conservatives’ motion does not acknowledge the Government’s significant and meaningful investment to tackle some of the challenges. I will put those on the record.

Sandesh Gulhane (Conservative, Glasgow)

Will the member take an intervention?

Bob Doris (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn)

I have only four minutes, so I am afraid that I cannot.

Only this month, an additional £20 million was announced for fee enhancements. As the Government has also made clear, it has provided £5 million for ventilation improvements, £7.5 million for dental drills, £35 million for PPE and £50 million in wider financial support. There is a 9 per cent increase in funding for the coming financial year. That is simply factual. However, the most important aspect, which is also in the Government’s amendment, is that there are on-going discussions between the Government and the British Dental Association. That is the most important thing to say this afternoon, not the hyperbole.

I thank the British Dental Association for the challenging briefing that it provided ahead of the debate. I also welcome the fact that local dentists contacted me to raise their concerns about financial challenges. In turn, I have raised those concerns with the Scottish Government. The chief dental officer has confirmed to me that discussions are continuing with the sector to prioritise and maximise patient care as we move through to recovery. I am confident that the Scottish Government and the British Dental Association will find a constructive and long-term solution.

Some of the concerns that were raised with me were cash related, but there are also wider concerns, not just those that are on the record. The dentists who contacted me wanted more emphasis to be placed on preventative care, which the Scottish Government wants to happen. Indeed, the £2 million for the childsmile programme that the Government mentioned is part of that, as is using oral health risk assessments to prioritise the people who are most in need of seeing a dentist. Work on that is continuing.

In recent years, similar discussions have taken place with Community Pharmacy Scotland about moving away from a model of community pharmacy that funds the prescribing of medicine for people who are unwell to one that funds positive health messages and direct intervention in communities to promote positive health. There is, perhaps, a lesson for dentistry in that model.

The dentists also mentioned concerns about bureaucracy and did not feel that recompense funding for emergency care and clinical administration is adequate.

There are challenges that go beyond the money that is in the system to how it is used. There seems to be a consensus about the inequalities in the system and how we can use the money that is already in it to address them. If the conclusion that the Parliament reaches is that the quantum of cash must be focused away from areas where dental health is positive to areas where it is not so positive, all members in the Parliament must be part of redirecting money from some areas of the country to other communities in order to tackle dental health inequalities. Perhaps we can come together as a Parliament to face that.

I will support the Government’s amendment at decision time.

Gillian Mackay (Green, Central Scotland)

At the beginning of the pandemic, dentists had to adapt quickly to new ways of working. They were forced to close during the early months of the pandemic and then drastically reduce the services that they could offer due to the risk of Covid transmission during aerosol-generating procedures. It has been an extremely challenging period for dentistry, and the huge backlog of care that has built up over the past two years means that it will remain challenging for some time. Dentists continue to operate considerably below pre-Covid levels due to infection prevention and control measures, which mean longer waiting times.

As we recover from Covid, it is right that people who are at higher risk be prioritised and that the frequency of dental appointments be based on clinical need. We need to trust dentists to make those assessments, because they are the experts. However, we currently have a system in which people who can afford to pay can access dental care more quickly. That inequality cannot continue; otherwise, as other members have said, a two-tier system will be established in Scotland.

Dentists have a vital role to play in the prevention and early detection of illnesses such as oral cancer. That is one of the best examples of how preventative healthcare can make a difference to lives, but it is undermined when patients cannot see dentists regularly. Figures that were published last month by Public Health Scotland revealed a sharp fall in the number of patients attending an NHS dentist, as well as a widening gap in attendance between the most and least deprived areas. In Scotland, we have lifetime registration, which the Greens fully support, but we need people to go to the dentist. The pandemic will certainly have discouraged some people who might be less likely to attend; others will have fallen out of the habit of going.

Oral health inequalities existed before the pandemic and the gaps continue to widen. The data show record gaps in participation rates. In 2008, the gap in the participation rates between the most and least deprived areas was only three percentage points, but, by September 2021, it had increased to 18 percentage points. Every effort must be made to re-engage people with services, particularly those who are most at risk of developing tooth decay or other health conditions, such as oral cancer. I am keen to hear from the cabinet secretary what strategies could be used to reach people who have fallen out of contact with dental services.

As I said, dentists have an important role to play in the detection of oral cancer. Since the early 1970s, oral cancer rates have been increasing, and the rate in Scotland is significantly higher than the UK average. According to the BDA Scotland, it remains unclear how the pandemic has impacted on that. Deprivation is a risk factor for oral cancer, which underlines the importance of improving participation rates in deprived areas. Given the difficulties with access to dentistry that have been caused by the pandemic, it is more important than ever that everyone is aware of the symptoms of oral cancer. Those include red or white patches on the lining of your mouth or tongue, ulcers that do not heal, or a lump in your neck. A person’s risk is also increased if they are a heavy smoker or drinker. I encourage anyone who has concerning symptoms to seek medical advice.

I will conclude with a few words on the future of dental charges. The Scottish Greens believe that dentistry, like other parts of the NHS, should be free at the point of need.

Finlay Carson (Conservative, Galloway and West Dumfries)

Will the member take an intervention?

Gillian Mackay (Green, Central Scotland)

I am sorry, but I am in my last minute. I need to conclude.

Access to healthcare should never be dependent on someone’s ability to pay. We fully support the Government’s intention to remove all dental charges to patients by the end of this session of Parliament. However, for patients to feel the full benefit, issues with access must be addressed and the backlog of care must be worked through. That will be no small undertaking, and the dental profession must be supported.

The BDA Scotland has expressed concern about a lack of communication regarding the decision to extend free NHS dental care to 18 to 25-year-olds. I would be grateful to hear from the cabinet secretary about the Government’s plans to engage with the dental profession while we move towards the removal of dental charges entirely.

The Presiding Officer

I call Evelyn Tweed, who will be the final speaker in the open debate.

Evelyn Tweed (Scottish National Party, Stirling)

Thank you, Presiding Officer. I am sorry that I cannot be in the chamber today for this important debate.

I begin by thanking Dr Gulhane for giving us the opportunity to compare and contrast dentistry services in Scotland with those in England and to compare the attitude of the SNP with that of the Conservative Party. Let us not forget the impact of the pandemic on dental services, which is not unique to Scotland. I thank dentists and their staff for their service during these difficult times.

Last year, Healthwatch England found that some people are expected to wait until 2024 for dental appointments while others are being removed from practice lists. Healthwatch also found that many people are being pressurised into going private. The situation is so bad that Tory MP Bob Seely, speaking in the House of Commons, called on the UK Government

“to get dentists into this country”—

that is, England—

“in the next year or two to help with the immediate crisis”.—[

Official Report

,

House of Commons

, 7 February 2022; Vol 708, c 779.]

In November,

The Mirror

reported that a dozen Tory MPs, including health secretary Sajid Javid, benefit from links to private health firms. Therefore, despite Dr Gulhane stating his support for the NHS, his party at its heart supports private healthcare. That is the core of the issue. If the 2019 prediction of political Nostradamus Jackson Carlaw had come true and Baroness Davidson of Lundin Links had become First Minister, the Tories would probably be in the process of privatising parts of Scotland’s NHS and its dentists.

However, the Scottish Government is totally committed to dentistry and an NHS that is free at the point of delivery, as Maree Todd has strongly emphasised today. Since the SNP came into office, the number of people registered with an NHS dentist has doubled to around 5 million. That can be attributed to record investment in dentistry that has provided a 39 per cent increase in the number of high-street dentists in Scotland since 2007. There are nearly 56 NHS dentists per 100,000 of the population in Scotland, compared to only 40 per 100,000 in England.

Following the May 2021 election, the SNP’s commitment to deliver, in its first 100 days, free NHS dental care for all those under 26 has been met, and we are working hard to deliver free dental care for all by the end of this session of Parliament. We should remember that undergraduate medical and dental students in Scotland study free of charge, unlike in England, where tuition fees, which were introduced by Labour, have increased to an eye-watering £9,250 per year.

Health spending in Scotland has increased by 70 per cent since the SNP came to power in 2007, and we have abolished prescription fees, which are now £9.35 per item south of the border. As Maree Todd’s amendment highlights, the Scottish Government is providing further funding of £20 million for dentistry from February and is increasing the budget for dental services in 2022-23 by 9 per cent to a record amount.

The Presiding Officer

Ms Tweed, I ask you to pause for a moment, please. There is quite a lot of conversation across the chamber. I would be pleased if we could hear Ms Tweed. Please continue, Ms Tweed.

Evelyn Tweed (Scottish National Party, Stirling)

Thank you, Presiding Officer.

Given that the UK Government is failing to deal with a massive crisis in England, perhaps today’s Tory motion should be thanking the Scottish Government for the steps that it has taken to support dentistry in Scotland, despite the fact that it lacks the full fiscal powers of an independent nation.

I am confident that the Scottish Government is best placed to make the correct decisions that are necessary to continue to improve all NHS services in Scotland. It does not need to take lessons from a party that, at its core, does not support the NHS.

I will support the Government’s amendment.

The NHS is safe in our hands.

Paul O'Kane (Labour, West Scotland)

I thank Dr Gulhane for bringing these important issues to the chamber for debate. What we have heard about the state of dentistry is deeply concerning. Jackie Baillie highlighted those concerns starkly in her opening speech.

As we have heard, more than 3.5 million NHS appointments in Scotland were lost during the first lockdown alone and 239,000 fewer children and young people are accessing dental care than was the case two years ago. In my West Scotland region, there have been reports that some people have not been able to see their dentist for 30 months. Alex Cole-Hamilton and other members across the chamber referred to that.

A more fundamental point is that, as my colleague Carol Mochan illustrated, the decline in access to dentistry is deeply unequal. Finlay Carson echoed that when he talked about particularly acute inequalities in rural communities.

Although the Scottish Government sings the praises of its recent changes to access, the implementation of free dental care does not count for much when it is nearly impossible to access appointments in the first place. It is clear that the current model is not sustainable.

If the Government proceeds on its current trajectory, the situation will only get worse. NHS dentists started sounding the alarm long ago. We have been heading towards a two-tier system of dental care in Scotland and the BDA believes that the Government’s funding model will be the final blow to a sector that is already struggling so much. Morale in the profession is at an all-time low, with more than a third of dentists stating that they will leave the profession altogether in the next 12 months, should the minister’s current funding model go ahead.

Without an immediate and comprehensive support plan being put in place, the Government risks the collapse of NHS dentistry in Scotland becoming its legacy. It is on that basis that we implore the Government to listen to the professionals and to rethink the current position and the wider implications for people across Scotland.

The minister must surely know by now that these issues have persisted for years and that Covid cannot be the explanation for them all. When we have more and more people turning to, and accessing, private dental care, we know that NHS dentistry is not collapsing due to the level of aerosol-generating procedures; rather, a fundamental overhaul of services is needed to stop privatisation through the back door. To cite only Covid undermines the hard work that NHS dentists have put in to mitigate years of problems and underfunding.

I support and welcome the Scottish Government’s commitment to further expand the childsmile scheme. We are proud that the actions that were taken by the previous Scottish Labour Government will continue to benefit all Scots.

Scottish Labour’s amendment acknowledges the concerns raised by colleagues across the chamber. Those are the concerns of our constituents and of professionals in the dental sector. Acknowledging the scale of the inequality that now exists is one step that needs to be taken before the Government can even begin to think about tackling it.

It is clear that we need a sense of urgency from the Government to make access to dentistry truly equal to all people, not just those who can afford to go private or those who live in urban communities. Scottish Labour knows that, in order to fix the system in Scotland, a comprehensive overhaul is required. However, we know that, for some reason, the Government seems unwilling to right the issues in NHS dentistry, or is incapable of doing so. We have seen those issues laid bare throughout the debate.

It is clear that the people of Scotland deserve much better than what is being offered and so do our dentists. I support the amendment in Jackie Baillie’s name.

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

I start by thanking our hard-working dentists and all the others who are involved in the dental sector. In the debate, a lot of attention has rightly been paid to dentists, but my thanks also go to dental nurses, dental technicians, receptionists and all those who are involved in the dental sector. I thank every single one of them, and I am not just saying that because four of my cousins are dentists.

Any suggestion that we have not provided financial support for dentistry during the pandemic is incorrect. A number of contributions from the Opposition have suggested that we have not provided—[

Interruption

.]. I am not talking about you, Ms Baillie, do not worry; but others have suggested that we have not provided substantial money, and I disagree. There will be £20 million of additional money from this month—

Sandesh Gulhane (Conservative, Glasgow)

Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

I will in a second. We have provided £50 million of financial support for dental practices, £35 million for additional PPE, £7.5 million for dentists’ drills, which will help with those aerosol-generating procedures, and £5 million for ventilation.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

I promised to give way to Dr Gulhane first.

Sandesh Gulhane (Conservative, Glasgow)

The £20 million that was announced in February was not discussed with the BDA and the Scottish Government has not explained its methodology for calculating that sum. There was no consultation and no transparency. Would the cabinet secretary show his workings, please?

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

I completely disagree with the suggestion that the BDA does not welcome additional funding for the sector—of course it does.

Dr Gulhane—and this goes to the root of his motion—called the emergency payments “flawed”. I disagree with that characterisation, but he asks us to continue making them for the next financial year, at a time when his party often tells us that the pandemic is over. That is, again, an assertion that I tend to disagree with.

The funding that we are going to announce—we are still in discussions with the BDA—will be to link financial reward with activity, so that more patients can be seen.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

I do not have much time, but of course I will give way.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

I genuinely think, with the greatest respect, that the cabinet secretary is arguing about the wrong thing. The issue is the outdated funding model and I desperately encourage the cabinet secretary to reform it. It is not about volume; it is about prevention.

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

I will come to that. I do not necessarily wholly disagree with Ms Baillie, she will be pleased to hear. I am not suggesting that there is no room or place for reform. I have never said that, and in fact in my discussions with the BDA, I have often said that I understand the desire for reform.

I am saying that when we have the level of backlog that we have, which has undoubtedly been exacerbated by the past two years and the impact that infection prevention controls have had on dentistry, the immediate priority has to be to work through that backlog. Let us talk about root-and-branch reform of the sector, but we cannot have a protracted discussion about reform while in the meantime patients are still waiting to be seen.

Finlay Carson (Conservative, Galloway and West Dumfries)

Will the cabinet secretary give way?

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

No, I will not, because I have only two minutes left.

I take issue with suggestions, which I think are sensationalist, that NHS dentistry is on the brink of collapse and that somehow there was no progress being made pre-Covid. That is absolutely unfair and the statistics do not bear that out. Pre-pandemic, the proportion of primary 7 pupils with no decay increased from 64 per cent in 2009 to 80 per cent—under this Government. For P1 pupils, it went from 58 per cent in 2009 to 74 per cent in 2020.

Brian Whittle (Conservative, South Scotland)

Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

No, I will not take an intervention.

Some 5.2 million people registered with an NHS dentist in 2019, compared with 2.6 million in 2007, when Labour was last in power. Our record on dentistry and supporting dentists stands on its own. I think that anybody who is fair minded will see that there has been progress and improvement in the oral health of the country. Where there has not been improvement and there is still a need for progress, our model of linking financial reward to activity is absolutely the right way to go.

We recognise that uncertainty presently exists among NHS dental teams; that is a fair comment for the Opposition to make. However, that is why they are not getting a cliff edge. We are ensuring a soft transition as the sector fully recovers. In the meantime, I go back to the point that, before 1 April, in the next month, we will be able to announce a package that I hope will incentivise dentists and dental practices to see more patients.

I will conclude on this point. A number of members mentioned upselling. I am as dismayed as any other member by the practice of upselling private plans to the public. I raised the issue with the General Dental Council and I say to any member of a dental practice who might be watching that if they hear about cases of dentists upselling private plans, they should report it to their NHS board. That is not allowed under NHS regulations.

I will conclude—

The Presiding Officer

I must ask you to.

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

—by saying that the Government is proud of its record in improving the oral health of this country. As we get out of the pandemic, we will support that sector and I look forward to supporting the amendment in Maree Todd’s name.

Sue Webber (Conservative, Lothian)

We have heard that, under the SNP, NHS dentistry is in crisis. Covid support is set to be withdrawn in two months’ time, while even before the pandemic the SNP was letting down NHS patients with its conveyor belt approach to dentistry.

Morale in the profession is at an all-time low, with more than a third of dentists saying that they intend to leave the profession in the next 12 months. One of my constituents in Edinburgh spoke to their dentist yesterday, who said that dentists feel as though they were abandoned during the pandemic. Dentists who are tuning in to the debate this afternoon have messaged me to say that they are quite concerned about and rightly furious with some of the Government’s comments.

Failure to act risks sparking an exodus from the workforce that will mean families across Scotland losing access to NHS dentistry for good. We, the Scottish Conservatives, acknowledge the concerns expressed by many in the profession and call upon the Scottish Government to come forward with a plan for ensuring the long-term sustainability of NHS dentistry.

As Jackie Baillie rightly stated, the complacency that the Scottish Government has shown today should alarm us all.

More than 3.5 million NHS dental appointments were lost in Scotland because of the pandemic, and that unprecedented backlog continues to grow. It will take years to clear. Despite their best efforts to restore patient care, dental practices continue to operate considerably below pre-Covid levels. Attendance rates plummeted during the pandemic due to restrictions imposed on dental practices.

Just over half of registered patients have seen an NHS dentist in the past two years, which equates to more than 850,000 fewer patients being seen by NHS dentists compared to pre-pandemic levels. Dental inequalities are widening and the participation gap between the least and most deprived communities has widened dramatically.

Maree Todd (Scottish National Party, Caithness, Sutherland and Ross)

We all acknowledge that we face a challenge in recovering the dental sector in the entirety of the UK, and ensuring that capacity increases so that more patients are seen. Does the member agree with the Tory approach in England of penalising NHS dentists, or does the member agree with our approach of providing additional funding? Would she please clarify?

Sue Webber (Conservative, Lothian)

Like the minister, I have been elected to the Scottish Parliament and I will talk about Scottish issues.

As Gillian Mackay said earlier, how can dentists assess their patients’ clinical need if their patients cannot get an appointment to see them?

Brian Whittle highlighted the awful health inequalities faced by young people. There has been a sharp increase in the number of children having full extractions, and it should shock every one of us in the chamber to hear that some children in Scotland today do not even own a toothbrush. Child dental health is going backwards.

The SNP Government must do more to facilitate routine NHS dental care. As my colleague Dr Sandesh Gulhane said, the Scottish Government emergency funding package for NHS dentistry that was introduced at the start of the pandemic was not fit for purpose, but it was better than nothing. However, from 1 April, the SNP Government will cut that emergency funding while leaving all the infection control measures in place.

Bob Doris (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn)

Will the member give way?

Sue Webber (Conservative, Lothian)

No, not at this stage, Mr Doris.

Dentists are usually paid based on each individual item of treatment that they provide but, during the pandemic, that funding mechanism has been superseded by top-up financial support that recognises that the additional infection control measures severely reduce the number of patients who can be seen. The SNP Government is not planning to reduce or remove those measures, even though it is withdrawing financial support.

We believe that the emergency Covid support cannot be withdrawn while strict infection control guidance remains in place. Top-up funding must be maintained for the upcoming financial year, while the Government decides on its long-term plan for the future. The British Dental Association has warned that the Government’s plan to end Covid support payments from April will devastate dental services across the country.

My colleague Finlay Carson highlighted the stark inequalities that are faced by families across rural Scotland and rightly reinforced the negative impact that the removal of funding on 1 April will have. That move means that the income of NHS dentists will be decimated, and many have stressed that it will make their position financially unviable.

Let us not forget that NHS dentistry in Scotland was in crisis before Covid hit. For too long now, people have gone without access to full NHS dental services. To tackle the unprecedented challenge, dental practices need support from the Scottish Government. We are calling on the SNP Government to work with dentists to prevent the collapse of NHS dentistry. It does not matter that treatment or enhanced examinations are free at the point of need, if people cannot get an appointment.

The cabinet secretary must get a grip of the situation and bring forward a credible plan to restore routine dental care and tackle the enormous backlog. The SNP will always put its independence obsession ahead of the national interest. The Scottish Conservatives—Scotland’s real alternative—are pushing for the full return of routine services and putting the people of Scotland first.

Workplace Parking Licensing Schemes

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-03279, in the name of Graham Simpson, on a workplace parking tax. I ask members who wish to participate to press their request-to-speak button or to put an R in the chat function now, or as soon as possible.

Graham Simpson (Conservative, Central Scotland)

Yesterday, I moved in committee a motion to annul an instrument that brought in provisions in the Transport (Scotland) Act 2019

to allow councils to introduce the hated workplace parking tax. Not surprisingly, thanks to the SNP and the Greens, my motion was defeated. The motion gave the Minister for Transport the chance to do the right thing—to step back from the precipice—but she did not take it.

The SNP and its coalition of chaos partners have chosen to ignore business, they have chosen to ignore the entire public sector, and they have chosen to ignore shift workers and people who are low paid. If they want to get people out of their cars, they could have used the 2019 act to introduce provisions on public transport partnerships, but they have not done that.

It has surely not passed anyone by that we have been through a tough time in the past two years. It cannot have escaped anyone’s notice that work patterns have changed, and even the most anti-business person would accept that our town and city centres have been particularly hard hit.

Liz Cameron, who is the chief executive of Scottish Chambers of Commerce, said that businesses are “incredulous”. They are. I have been contacted by a number of businesses, all of which are too nervous to go public. What a sorry state of affairs. Unlike the minister, I have spoken to the business sector, including in the east midlands, where people are worried about what is to come in Leicester—the home of Walkers Crisps, which has a big car park. This could be Leicester’s crisp tax.

It is not as though companies that have parking spaces for staff and visitors are not already paying for them: the Scottish Retail Consortium has made the point that they pay through business rates.

The tax is a double whammy on commuting. The workplace parking tax is simply a money-raising tool for councils, which—let’s face it—need everything they can get. In order to bring in the levy, a council needs merely to have a local transport strategy. The car park tax must go towards helping with that strategy, which means that it does not need to be about reducing motor vehicle travel—it can be used for anything. The money will go into a general pot.

It is no wonder that SNP councils that have been denied funds by their own Government are gearing up to bring in the tax. Anti-car City of Edinburgh Council and Glasgow City Council cannot wait, although Susan Aitken, who has one eye on the council elections, is trying temporarily to distance herself from it. In the unfortunate event that Ms Aitken remains as Glasgow council leader after May, we can expect her to get back on track. Her official, connectivity officer Deborah Paton, excitedly told councillors that a levy could raise as much as £30 million, but that was before Jenny Gilruth confirmed that there would be no limit on what councils can charge.

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Shettleston)

Does Graham Simpson accept that there is an air pollution problem in Glasgow and, potentially, in Edinburgh, that there is congestion on the roads and that we need to tackle those things?

Graham Simpson (Conservative, Central Scotland)

The way to tackle those things is by improving public transport, which I will come to.

Ms Gilruth says that the Government can call in schemes, but when she was given the opportunity yesterday, she refused to say what she thought an acceptable cap might be, and instead said that that is up to councils. Is £300, £500 or £1,000 a year okay? I will allow the minister to intervene if she wants to respond.

Jenny Gilruth (Scottish National Party, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

I thank Mr Simpson for the opportunity, but I answered his question yesterday. The power is a local power for local authorities to decide on. I thought that the Conservatives believed in localism. Why do they want me to take that power away from councils?

Graham Simpson (Conservative, Central Scotland)

Once again, the minister refuses to say what she thinks would be an acceptable limit.

It is not clear what the workplace parking tax is meant to achieve. If it is meant to persuade people to use public transport, public transport first needs to improve. We know that the SNP is no good when it comes to running things. When it runs the ferries, islanders are left stranded. Now it wants to run the trains, but cannot tell us what it wants to do with them, apart from cut services and increase fares. From nat sail to nat rail, it all adds up to a big nat fail.

That is what happens when you give the Greens influence or—even worse—bring them into Government. A party that wants to take us back to the stone age has two Government ministers. It is like having the Flintstones around the Cabinet table, with Patrick Harvie and Lorna Slater as Fred and Wilma.

The tax will hit workers. We have seen that in Nottingham, where more than half of affected employers pass on the cost to their staff. However, when we tried to exempt groups including the police, the fire brigade, ambulance staff, teachers, shift workers and people who live or work nowhere near public transport, the SNP and the Greens blocked that. Yesterday, Ms Gilruth refused to do anything about those sectors, and confirmed to Liam Kerr that the Government has done no modelling on what effect the hated workplace parking tax might have. It is her rather strange view that we do modelling only once something is already in place.

Jenny Gilruth (Scottish National Party, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

Would Mr Simpson give way on that point?

Graham Simpson (Conservative, Central Scotland)

I have already given way. The minister can explain that in her speech.

The SNP and the Greens say that they want to get people out of their cars. The way to do that is not by hammering hard-working Scots who are just trying to get on with life. A viable alternative needs to be offered. If we want people to stop driving petrol and diesel cars, the electric vehicle charging network needs to be up to scratch, but it is not. If we want people to use public transport, it has to be there in the first place and it needs to be cheap to use, reliable and frequent, but it is not. The job of Government is to help people, not to hinder them. The coalition of chaos does not get that, but we do.

I move,

That the Parliament condemns taxing drivers through the introduction of the Workplace Parking Levy, and believes that the focus of the Scottish Government should be on supporting the roll-out of electric vehicles and the infrastructure to support them and on making public transport more efficient and affordable, not on using taxes to force families in Scotland into giving up their cars.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I call the minister to speak to and move amendment S6M-03279.2.

Jenny Gilruth (Scottish National Party, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

I welcome the opportunity to debate the merits of having provided discretionary powers to local authorities to implement workplace parking licensing schemes, and to say how they can support our climate change goals. It is worth saying that although the technical regulations were agreed at committee yesterday, the primary legislation was passed in Parliament more than two years ago, as part of the Transport (Scotland) Act 2019.

Workplace parking licensing schemes have the potential to encourage use of more sustainable transport while raising revenue that will be used to improve public and sustainable transport. We know that the largest share of transport emissions comes from cars, which account for 39 per cent of Scotland’s transport emissions. All parties in Parliament supported the ambitious and legally binding emissions reduction targets in the Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Act 2019. Now is the time to show that support through action.

I agree that the roll-out of electric vehicle infrastructure and improvements to public transport play important roles in our work on decarbonising transport, as the Conservative motion mentions.

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

If the levy is about reducing emissions from cars, why are electric vehicles and hydrogen vehicles not exempt categories in the legislation?

Jenny Gilruth (Scottish National Party, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

Mr Kerr seems to think that we should look at electric vehicles and public transport in isolation. We need to look at emissions in the round. We are taking a hugely important step, and the provision is about empowering local authorities to do the work.

As I mentioned before Mr Kerr interrupted, I a

gree that roll-out of electric vehicle charging infrastructure has a role to play.

On 26 January, we announced a new draft vision for the public charging network, along with plans for a £60 million fund that will double the size of the public network over the next few years by levering in commercial investment.

Measures to make public transport more efficient and affordable are also a priority. Mr Simpson made mention of that in his opening remarks and it was highlighted in our route map to reducing car use, which was published last month. The measures include provision of free bus travel for under-22s and our fair fares review, which is hugely important and will consider options for change against the background of the costs of car travel declining and public transport costs increasing.

We are also investing record amounts in active travel. However, we need to get folk out of their cars. This is about behaviour change.

Miles Briggs (Conservative, Lothian)

Will the

minister take an intervention?

Jenny Gilruth (Scottish National Party, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

I would like to make some progress.

Disincentivisation measures, such as WPL schemes, are needed if we are to reach the targets. The regulations allow local authorities to deploy the powers in the face of the climate emergency. Neglecting the powers risks our climate change commitments, which members appear to be willing to sign up to but not to follow through on with action.

Giving

local authorities powers to implement workplace parking licensing schemes is consistent with the situation for councils in England and Wales, which already have workplace parking licensing powers. The Conservative Government at Westminster has been content to retain the power for councils in England.

The implementation of the workplace parking scheme in Nottingham has demonstrated the potential benefits that are offered by such schemes. We know that public transport use in Nottingham is among the highest in the country, and there has been a reduction of 40 million car miles over the past 15 years. The revenue from the scheme there has supported the expansion of Nottingham’s successful tram system and the redevelopment and capacity enhancement of its train station, along with investment in bus services.

Nottingham City Council’s success is leading other councils to follow suit, with both Oxford City Council and Leicester City Council aiming to introduce workplace parking schemes by 2023.

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

On that note—

Jenny Gilruth (Scottish National Party, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

Although I have already taken an intervention from Mr Kerr, I will take another on that point.

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Is the minister not aware that Nottingham invested in its public transport before it brought in the levy?

Jenny Gilruth (Scottish National Party, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

Mr Kerr seems to be suggesting that we are not already investing in public transport in Scotland. We are investing in our rail and bus infrastructure; we cannot do just one thing in isolation.

Local Labour leaders here in Scotland remain supportive of the scheme. On 10 February, the deputy leader of the City of Edinburgh Council, Cammy Day said:

“I remain supportive of the”

scheme

“as agreed in our Manifesto.”

Giving the power to Scottish local authorities supports our aim to give local hands more say over local resources. That is something that the Conservatives profess to be in favour of and which has been welcomed by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and local leaders.

Miles Briggs (Conservative, Lothian)

Will the minister take an intervention?

Jenny Gilruth (Scottish National Party, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

I would like to make some progress, please.

As Councillor Steven Heddle, who is COSLA’s environment and economy spokesperson, noted when the legislation was passed:

“I feel it should be remembered that the”

scheme

“has been conceived as a devolved policy for councils … it seems premature to ... expect local authorities to have all the answers at this stage of the debate.

This would defeat the purpose and essence itself of the levy as a flexible scheme to the discretion of the council and it fundamentally questions our councils’ ability to develop effective schemes that are appropriate”.

We have to trust our councils to get it right for their local areas. It is also worth repeating that the powers were provided by Parliament on the basis that local authorities can design schemes that reflect their local circumstances. It is not for me or for the Government to do that; rather, it is important that we trust our local authority partners to get it right for their local areas.