Seòmar agus comataidhean

Absolutely, and thank you for your forbearance in allowing me to come back repeatedly. I also thank the petitioners, Audrey Baird and Fiona Baker, for their determination to see the petition through.

As you rightly said, convener, it has been four years since the petition was lodged. In that time, very little action has been taken by the Scottish Government to prevent the further destruction of our natural historic environment. As we deliberate the petition, the Government drags its feet and time runs out to stop vast monoculture plantations destroying our biodiversity, environment and heritage. One of the suggestions that was made when the petition was last discussed was that the committee could consider holding a debate in the chamber on the petition, because ancient woodland touches every part of Scotland.

In August 2023, the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs, Land Reform and Islands said in a submission to the committee that Scottish Government officials are progressing plans for a new register of ancient woodlands but that it is not possible to provide a timescale for completion. That is disappointing, and it reflects a distinct lack of urgency in so many of the Scottish Government’s actions in this regard.

It is interesting that the cabinet secretary’s submission points to a native woodland survey that was last done in 2014. That survey identified that 5 per cent of native woodlands were non-native species, yet another survey carried out much more recently, the Caledonian pinewood recovery project,

“showed that non-native trees were found on just under 30% of plots per site”.

That is a substantial increase in less than a decade and it should have us extremely worried.

Apparently, the project is doing wonderful things. It is going to remove non-native species from X number of hectares, but what does that mean in real terms? What percentage is that of the problem that needs to be tackled, and has it survived the recent round of budget cuts? There is a lot to be concerned about there, and there is also a lot to be concerned about in the lack of regulatory powers. I am astonished at the complacency in the cabinet secretary’s response, because, frankly, the protections are not adequate.

I will make three small points as I draw to a close. First, in 2022, the committee did some work to test the effectiveness of tree preservation orders. The petitioner’s latest submission asserts that TPOs do not actually protect trees. Trees with TPOs are being felled, then developments are taking place in those localities. We have examples to illustrate that. There is nothing at all in the biodiversity strategy, which is the forerunner to the proposed natural environment bill, to deal with strengthening TPOs.

Secondly, I bring to the committee’s attention a Royal Society of Edinburgh inquiry. Members of the RSE are currently lecturing on behalf of the Royal Scottish Geographical Society to educate the public about all the points that the petitioners have raised in their petition. The forestry mantra of having the right tree in the right place is not what is happening across the country.

Finally, there is the disenfranchisement of communities. Petitioners have often mentioned that communities are absent from dialogue about what to do with trees in their local area and changes in the forestry industry. The example I would cite is in my constituency. At Torr farm wood in Rhu, there was an incident of illegal felling, after which the landowner and Scottish Forestry responded to an event organised by the community council, which I attended. Scottish Forestry promised that it would introduce a revised management plan for that ancient woodland and that it would consult the community council. What we have now, more than a year later, if not two years later, is a fait accompli simply handed to the community council.

I remind members that trees with TPOs were illegally felled. Action is required quickly, because time is running out. Scottish Government action is terribly slow, so we need to urge it on because, at the moment, our ancient woodlands are disappearing because non-native species are taking over, and that is happening at pace. We need action now before the situation becomes any worse.

I thank Dr Sally Witcher for bringing the petition to Parliament. I am one of the co-conveners of the Parliament’s cross-party group on long Covid, so I am well aware of the calls to improve air quality in both health and social care settings and indoor settings such as schools. We have debated the issue in Parliament.

I was interested to read the Scottish Government’s response, because it sets out quite clearly what it is not doing. Covid has not gone away. Just because the Scottish Government believes that nobody is still at risk does not make that true. Those who are immunosuppressed are still at risk of contracting Covid, and we must ask what we can do to protect them.

As I said, Covid-19 has not gone away. The clinical risk continues. There is a direct impact not just on someone’s health but on the economy. Many of the statistics that we have seen in recent times, which show the number of people who are not employed, suggest that there is a problem that we must consider.

We also know that reinfection with Covid-19 increases someone’s chances of developing long Covid, and, as Dr Witcher has said, one in 10 people are likely to get long Covid and suffer long-term symptoms.

The impact on the economy is significant and can be seen in our public sector as well. I recently attended a long Covid group in Inverclyde, and everyone at the table who had long Covid was a front-line worker. Whether they worked in a school or in a health and social care setting, they were the ones without PPE at the beginning, and they have been impacted the most. The issue is having a significant effect not just on the economy in its widest sense but on our public services and their ability to run.

No one is immune to the risk. All of us here could get Covid. Vaccination is now restricted to those over 75 and people who are immunosuppressed. Regular testing has been stopped in health and social care settings, so we do not know who has got it and whether they are passing it on, and the use of face masks and covering is no longer mandatory. That is an issue specifically in health and social care settings; I am not talking about what is happening in the wider population, where we do not even bother to count incidences anymore, so we do not know whether the rate is bad or not to any great degree.

The introduction of improved air quality in health and social care settings would be an important step in preventing people from being infected and reinfected with Covid-19 and suffering the subsequent effects of long Covid. Other things that would make a huge difference include making PPE available to those who work with vulnerable people, bringing back testing so that we can monitor prevalence and direct our response, and supporting people at home.

In her submissions, the petitioner has shown that clinically vulnerable people are more likely to experience poorer outcomes as a result of Covid. They report that they feel that healthcare is unsafe and that action on clean air and the use of respiratory masks in healthcare settings would make a difference.

Of course, we are talking not only about Covid but about other respiratory illnesses. A study in Europe found that people who were exposed to dirtier air spent as many as four days longer in hospital and were 36 per cent more likely to need intensive care treatment. That shows that the petition’s proposal works in relation to other illnesses as well. The research, which was published in the European Respiratory Journal, said that cleaner air brought health benefits that are almost as great as some of the medical treatments given to Covid-19 patients. However, in response to the petition’s call for ventilation systems, the Scottish Government said that health boards should

“use their delegated capital budgets to maintain their estates, replace equipment and minimise risk to patients, staff and visitors.”

That is funny, because health boards are facing enormous budget pressures on a scale that we have not seen for a while, and they are going to be forced to make cuts to their existing budgets, with all capital projects basically halted. Therefore, without assistance and direction to do so, it will be almost impossible for health boards to fund the air filtration systems in hospitals that are needed to make clean air.

Of course, the issue is about not only hospitals but care settings, including care homes and care at home. Vulnerable people surely deserve a level of protection that reduces risk. For example, if someone who is immunosuppressed has carers coming in, PPE should surely be available. The Care Inspectorate’s submission does not really consider that point at all, which is disappointing.

In closing, I will say that, in 2022, as a result of the expertise and learning that they acquired during the pandemic, and their awareness of the importance of good indoor air quality for health, Belgium passed a law to improve indoor air quality in all closed spaces that are accessible to the public. However, we seem not to have learned any lessons at all, and certainly none in relation to protecting those who are most vulnerable or are immunocompromised, and I hope that this petition will start the process of ensuring that the Scottish Government pays attention to what it needs to do.

Convener, you and Mr Stewart have covered most of the detail of what I was going to say, but I will emphasise a couple of points. We would all acknowledge that FAST is a very good awareness programme for stroke, but it could be even better, and that is the essence of the petition. I have to say that the petition is simply common sense, and I am not sure why the Scottish Government is not doing this.

We heard why James Bundy brought the petition to us, and it is a matter of regret that his father died in the way that he did. As we have heard, 40 per cent of ischaemic strokes are simply not captured, and symptoms such as vomiting, blurred vision, confusion and lack of balance should be included in an extended FAST awareness campaign. Convener, you referred to BE FAST, with BE covering balance and eyes.

Therefore, I ask the committee to urge the Scottish Government to conduct a wider review of the FAST approach. We recognise the good work of the FAST campaign but, if we are missing up to 40 per cent of ischaemic strokes, surely the Government should be open to changing the campaign to include more symptoms.

The minister’s response misunderstands that point, but I ask the committee to encourage her to build on the solid foundations of FAST but extend it to include more symptoms so that we can save more lives. I am sure that everybody would sign up to that objective.

I think that we would all describe childsmile as a flagship programme. It was introduced by the last Labour Scottish Government and has helpfully been continued by the SNP.

We are seeing growing inequality, particularly in children’s oral health, between the least and most deprived areas. There was already a problem, but that problem has been exacerbated by Covid and we are now seeing registrations of very young children drop dramatically. Only 25 per cent of children under two years old are registered, which is desperately worrying, given the impact of this issue in later life. We do not think that childsmile has returned to pre-pandemic levels. What are you doing to address concerns about children’s oral health?

We know, too, that there are concerns about adults, so what specific measures are you taking to address inequalities in adults’ access to dentistry?

Speaking more widely about prevention, I very much welcome the fact that the dentists who gave evidence to the committee mentioned prevention with virtually every breath they took. However, they described a funding model that is “high-volume, low-fee” and “disease-centred” and said that they feel they are not able to do the kind of prevention work that they want to. One dentist highlighted the ability to bring together a group of children to do education work on prevention, saying that the fee model did not allow them to do that.

I am keen to know what improvements you will make to enhance dentists’ ability to carry out prevention work, and I would also like to know what the Government will do, at the population level and beyond the touch points that you have described, to improve access to dentistry and ensure that more preventative work is done.

I do not want to put words in your mouth, but what I seemed to hear is that the ability to be more flexible around prevention is not part of the current discussion about fees.

The dentists described the model as preventing them from doing the kind of dental work that I have described. We will need to wait and see what you come up with.

I am trying to get a sense of the urgency with which this is happening. If the registration level for zero to two-year-olds is still sitting at only 25 per cent, that will have a knock-on effect. We know that if we do not prevent disease, it costs more money to treat it later on. Therefore, I am keen to get a sense of when you expect those targets to be achieved. Are you doing any kind of additional remediation to recover from Covid?

I think that it is lower now than it has ever been.

Do you think that the kinds of interventions that you have described, particularly for children, are enough to restore registration levels? If so, have you set a target for the percentage of registrations that you expect to have and by what time you will reach it? Obviously, targets drive performance improvements. Equally, have you set targets for closing the inequality gap, a gap that is, in fact, growing?