Seòmar agus comataidhean

I want to touch on the point about payment reform and the idea of creating an incentive, which is certainly logical. NHS National Services Scotland payment remuneration data shows an increase on the pre-dental reform figure, which demonstrates an increase in NHS activity. However, the most recent Scottish health survey found that the proportion of adults reporting difficulties in accessing a dentist is at its highest since 2019, at 34 per cent. Might there be a lag between the data sets, and do you agree that we might need to look at a richer picture of data in order to understand fully what is going on?

A total of 94.6 per cent of the Scottish population are registered with an NHS dentist, but people in the most deprived areas are less likely to have had contact with NHS primary dental care, with just 122,513 adults from the most deprived areas accessing care in comparison with 131,032 in the least deprived areas. Is the Scottish Government aware of that inequality, and what is it doing specifically to address it?

I thank the minister for her comments. I want to ask about the burial management plans that are proposed in the regulations.

Recently, there has been coverage of the distress that has been caused as a result of Glasgow City Council placing adhesive stickers on gravestones that are deemed to be unsafe in cases in which there is doubt about who the owner of the lair is and how to contact them. Similarly, after a tragic incident in 2015 in which a young boy was killed by an unstable headstone in a cemetery on the south side of Glasgow, the council has increasingly taken to toppling headstones, which has caused distress not only to those who own the plots or the lairs, but to people who attend the cemetery, because a bit of an eyesore has been created, with a huge number of headstones lying flat. Victorian-era memorials have been included in that process, and although the descendants have long passed away, those memorials are of cultural or historical significance to the city.

Has consideration been given to those behaviours in the drafting of the regulations? Could expertise in conservation masonry skills and so on be recommended to local authorities by Historic Environment Scotland, whose Engine Shed is a national centre for such skills? Could local authorities be encouraged to develop conservation management plans for cemeteries, especially the older cemeteries of a Victorian character, where there is less likelihood of there being living descendants of the deceased, but which represent a significant part of the nation’s heritage?

I thank the minister and her officials for attending today. I want to build on the point about access, particularly with regard to inequalities. Is an increase in payments for treatments a reliable measure of increased activity and engagement? What other measures does the Government use, given that evidence from boards suggests that people are finding it more difficult to access NHS dental care?

Do any of your officials have any comments to make at this stage?

Do you know when the reformatting work will be concluded?

I thank the witnesses for their helpful contributions so far. I will turn to the particular concerns that have been raised around community-based housing associations that are subject to statutory intervention. Concerns have been raised about the rigour of the process for the appointment of a statutory manager.

Usually, an options appraisal is carried out, which tends to conclude that a transfer of engagements to another housing association should take place; even before that process happens, there is the appointment of a so-called transfer specialist. Does the relationship between statutory managers and transfer specialists raise concerns? That could be particularly the case when all those people are on the statutory managers list and no clear declaration of interests is required, which perhaps suggests an inherent bias in favour of transfers of community-based housing associations.

Thank you. If no other witnesses wish to comment on that question, I will move on to ask my final one.

I want to talk about the nature of the bidding process for a preferred transfer partner. It is clear that larger RSLs are inherently better resourced and able to devote greater time to providing a highly—although perhaps superficially so—attractive offer. In the case of Reidvale, for example, we saw the offer of a rent freeze, the takeover of a local community centre and the offer of very intensive engagement prior to the undertaking of any formal ballot process. The regulator is insistent that it is neutral about structures—that is, whether the RSLs are larger ones or smaller community-based ones—but will the process inherently favour larger housing associations that are able to offer a loss-leading bid, if you like, to attract tenants to a transfer, even though that will ultimately lead to the loss of asset wealth in that community?

Thank you, convener. I appreciate your kindness in allowing me to speak in addition to my written submission.

In addition to what colleagues have already outlined in relation to the dysfunctional nature of the bus network in the west of Scotland and greater Glasgow area, I highlight that the control of the fare box is a critical factor in a franchising structure. It is not about nationalising the assets of bus companies—going down that route would be a red herring. It is about centralising and having public control of the fare box, which would allow for rational, coherent management of an integrated bus system and enable its integration with other transport modes, such as rail, subway and so on.

The concern relates to the lack of progress with the implementation of the provisions in the 2019 act. We feel that it is bizarre that UK legislation within a similar timescale has been implemented but implementation has not happened nearly as quickly in Scotland. One could surmise that it might be that the Government was reluctant in the first place to entertain the amendments to the 2019 act, which introduced provisions for franchising and that, therefore, it was not as eager to enact the provisions. However, we are where we are.

There is contention over the act’s provision on the traffic commissioner’s panel having veto power over democratic decisions made by regional transport authorities on the implementation of their preferred structures. Therefore, I wonder whether the committee could take further evidence from, say, the Law Society of Scotland on the differences between the UK and Scottish legislation and what can be done to improve it. It could also ask for evidence from SPT and, indeed, seek evidence from the Better Buses for Strathclyde campaign, which initiated the petition, about the nature of its concerns with regard to the legislation. After all, it has studied it in great detail and understands the issues with it in great depth.

The committee could also consider inviting the Secretary of State for Transport and, perhaps, the UK Minister for Buses—Louise Haigh and Simon Lightwood—to offer their views on the appointment of a new traffic commissioner for Scotland. That role is currently vacant; it was advertised earlier in the year, but the appointment process was disrupted by the general election. Given their policy position, it might be interesting to get their perspectives with regard to their support for franchising in Scotland and how they might be able to assist colleagues in Scotland with its implementation, through the appointment of a bus traffic commissioner who would be minded to support such measures.

I just want to emphasise the point about UK ministers having input to the committee—