Seòmar agus comataidhean

Thank you for the opportunity to contribute to your discussion about the petition. I also thank the petitioners Audrey Baird and Fiona Baker for their continued interest in this area.

I recall asking the then environment minister Màiri McAllan to go out and consider the issue. I understand that she has been too busy to do so. I welcome the fact that the committee has undertaken a visit and that the petitioners’ latest submission centres around their visit from Scottish Forestry officers on location in Argyll in April, which showed first hand the destructive effects of non-native conifers on the ancient woodland.

That visit revealed that, despite the site at Glenbranter forest being described as a rare gem

“where native oakwoods cloak a series of spectacular waterfalls”,

the gorge and the falls are now barely visible, and the ancient oaks are all close to death. Our Scottish historic landscape, which I know we all value, has been overrun by non-native conifers. According to the petitioners, Scottish Forestry officers admitted that they do not know the scale of the non-native conifer wilding problem and that they would be “quickly overwhelmed” if members of the public decided to report it to them.

The University of Stirling published a report recently that is helpful. It looked at the highest-altitude trees and discovered that a colossal 56 per cent of all trees that were recorded at the highest altitude are American Sitka spruce. That gives you an idea of the scale of the problem. It has taken only a few decades for that to happen.

We are allowing—or, if I may be so bold, the Government and the industry are allowing—conifers to self-seed out of plantations, creating new seed sources, which is further encouraging the takeover of our ancient woodlands.

There seems to be a disconnect between what the Scottish Government says in its letter and its sense of urgency on saving ancient woodlands, and its action to reverse its disappearance. It would be extremely useful if the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs, Land Reform and Islands could provide timescales for when work on the new national register of ancient woodlands that is mentioned in her submission will to be undertaken and when it will be completed. It would also be helpful if, through the committee, she could outline what plans the Scottish Government has to identify the scale of the non-native conifer wilding problem on ancient woodlands, and what action it intends to take.

We know from previous discussion that other countries, such as New Zealand, are working to remove non-native conifers where they have seeded in ancient woodlands and elsewhere. It would be good to know whether the Scottish Government has any plans to remove those non-native invasive species from sites such as Glenbranter forest.

The petitioners have also raised valid concerns about what they described as an apparent lack of concern from the cabinet secretary about current regulatory powers not protecting Scotland’s woodland. In England, the Forestry Commission and Crown Prosecution Service pursued four successful prosecutions in 2022 alone, and in Wales, a defendant was convicted and fined £36,000 for illegal felling in October 2022. However, not one prosecution has occurred in Scotland.

The petitioners feel that there is no deterrent to the complete erasure of our natural historic identity if there are no prosecutions, so we need not just to see guidance and warm words but to see proper enforcement action. I would be enormously grateful if the committee would continue to press the Scottish Government on this important issue.

I literally have seconds in which to finish my questioning. I wonder whether Douglas Thain or David McColl has anything to add. I will throw one final question into the mix, because the convener will not let me back in. Should the Government collect and publish information on the NHS commitment of each dentist or each practice so that we can get a more realistic picture of GDS coverage in Scotland?

I thank the three of you very much.

That is helpful. Thank you.

The BDA did a survey that suggested that 59 per cent of dentists have reduced their NHS commitment and that that figure is likely to increase, and that 34 per cent were either retiring or leaving to start a new career. David McColl, can you rehearse for us why people are leaving and why dentists are reducing their NHS commitments?

Okay. Let me come back to you on one small point; I will then take us on to prevention. You did not mention training at all. Are there sufficient training places in Scotland, but the destination of the trainees is the private sector rather than the NHS?

I will pursue some of the issues that Murdo started off with, relating them specifically to staffing. Douglas Thain, you referred to NHS dentistry being a “treadmill”. Will you unpack that point a little so that people understand it?

Sure. I just needed to understand that point so that we are clear about it.

You seemed to suggest that the model that is currently in place with the statement of dental remuneration for treatments and materials clearly disincentivises people from going into NHS dentistry because, as Douglas Thain and you have described, the activity is not matched by the sheer pace of payment. How would you change that to a prevention model?

Thanks. Other people will ask you about childsmile. I will just say that I share your view of it.

I want to turn to the issue of dental corporates operating in the United Kingdom, some of which are now operating in Scotland. What impact do you think that that has on NHS dental services?

I want to pursue the point about which aspects of oversight a board is responsible for, which Antony Visocchi touched on. Let me take the example of a scale and polish, which one would think is an aspect of front-line prevention work. Some 59 per cent of providers are operating at pre-pandemic level, so there is still a way to go to recover that service. Does your board have any oversight of such treatment? Is it happening in your areas? Can you take action, or does the problem belong to someone else? I put that first to our witness from Shetland.

Although I would always note that registrations are not activity, I absolutely agree with your concerns that, if people are not registered in the first place, it is very difficult to make an impact.

Can I take you back to before the pandemic? I do not know whether it was you or one of the other witnesses who, in their evidence to the committee, suggested that

“Prior to the pandemic, persistent inequalities in child oral health were recognised as an ongoing challenge for the programme.”

Why was that the case, given the effective community infrastructure that you have described? Was childsmile in need of reform? Did the pandemic expose its weaknesses?