Seòmar agus comataidhean

I go back to the intention. If it were the intention to impede, alarm or distress women attending abortion services, silent prayer would be included. We have not specifically laid out what the actual acts are. However, we have laid out what the intention of the acts is.

That is a really good question, and it is one that I have been playing out in my mind. The bill is set out to protect women who are accessing abortion services, and you heard some very powerful evidence from women who have obtained abortions about how they felt and the impact that walking past demonstrators had on them.

The police would make that judgment. The activity will be captured, depending on the facts and the circumstances around what is happening.

I do not have such an example. If I can come back to the committee with an example, I am happy to do so.

To go back to the silent prayer issue, I think that it is important to highlight that the Supreme Court also recognised silent prayer in its views on the Northern Ireland legislation, and acknowledged that it could cause distress.

As for other types of protest, as I have said previously, the legislation is narrow and specifically covers people who protest against abortion or who offer the pro-life message. Other demonstrations do not fall under the legislation.

Thank you for that question. The frequency of check-ups has been commented on in the media. The yearly review is in-depth and follows the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines.

However, it is really important for everyone to understand that it is for the dentist to make the decision based on the patient. In response to Dr Gulhane, I referenced the fact that there is not an “average patient”. It is important to recognise that if your dentist feels that you need to be seen more regularly, he or she can choose that.

I was disappointed to be told by my dentist that I had to come back in six months, because I thought that I was looking after my teeth’s health pretty well and was hoping for a check-up in nine months. However, the approach is really focused on the patient. That is what the regulations give us the opportunity to do.

I am sure, Mr Sweeney, that if you were to reflect on that and were being seen by another area of the health service and were told that you did not need to come back in six months but in nine months, you would see that as good news. We need to remember that the frequency of check-ups is based on the patient and the clinical expertise of the dentist.

Thank you for that question. As you will have seen in the BDA’s response to the committee’s letter on the regulations, it said that that approach is actually something that it had been looking for. It feels that managing patients’ oral health is doing things at the right level because we all have a degree of responsibility for looking after our health.

I take on board the point about access; I underline, yet again, that we are seeking to improve access through the payment reforms that we will put in place next week.

I think that what we are looking at is a prevention-centred dental care service. The childsmile programme that we have rolled out to improve the oral health of young children is not disease-centred; it is very much centred on prevention.

We have also been very clear—again—about sustainability of services and ability to access dental services, which I think are really important.

The change that we are making with regard to unregistered patients is also important, because it moves us into the preventative space. When we bring all the regulations together, they show that we want to ensure that there is sustainable access to NHS dental services for the people of Scotland.

Yes, I can. I am aware of that issue from my conversations with the BDA.

In Scotland, we have a blended method. It combines a capitation payment for the number of people who are seen by a practice—one of the changes that will be made by the regulations is that adults and children will now be treated for the same fee, which, I think, is positive—and a payment for the services that a dentist provides. I think that that method will work very well, given the variety of dental organisations and businesses that we have.

In fact, yesterday Tom Ferris met some of the academics whom I referenced in my letter of 18 October, who are very supportive of a combined method of paying for our NHS dentistry and think that that is the right way. We have been very clear that we are building on a foundation that we already have in Scotland that works very well and on which practices are already built. I think that the reformed blended system is the right way for us to move forward. In that meeting, Tom Ferris discussed the possibility of making changes in Scotland. The advice that we got from academics from North America, Europe and Australia was that, if we look at how dentists’ services work across the world, we see that a simple lift and shift would not necessarily provide a better service. Their strong view was that we should modernise a system that is already working, which is what the Scottish Government has endeavoured to do, through the changes that we are making with the regulations and payment reform.

As I said in response to the convener’s question earlier, we will work very closely with dentists to ensure that we get a note of and recognition of how the changes improve accessibility and sustainability of the service. That will be on-going work, once the system is bedded in.