Seòmar agus comataidhean

Caveating everything that you have put into that answer, I took from it that the matter would have to come back in front of the Parliament should there be any changes—unless those changes came from a challenge to a court having made a decision on that basis.

When any legislation is enacted, there will always be a period of review—as you rightly pointed out, one is built into the bill—to consider what can change as practice develops over time.

Would anybody else like to put across their thoughts about the slippery slope argument? I will hand back to the convener after that, because I am conscious of time.

Understanding the need to break down silos is important. If we are thinking about primary prevention, we want to prevent as far upstream as we can, so that people do not experience any of the situations that you described and so that, if they do, they have a pathway to access support for their oral health.

There are more than 10,000 children in temporary accommodation in Scotland, and I have a concern about their access to programmes such as childsmile. Having worked in a women’s refuge, I know that children often change schools repeatedly when they experience homelessness and can move from accommodation to accommodation. Therefore, I have a concern about certain groups of children missing some childsmile provision in a school setting and not getting fluoride sealants applied to their teeth. How can we work with the third sector and other organisations to drive good oral health for groups of children who are perhaps being missed?

I will briefly explore the requirement to “make safe” versus “repair”. Some local authorities were questioning what that actually means. Will further guidance be offered to them in that respect? In my experience, making safe is about staking and tying the headstone so that it will not further deteriorate. Some local authorities are worried that a “repair” requirement means that they will have to undertake actual repair work to the headstones. That would normally be the responsibility of a lair holder but, obviously, some headstones are very old, so there might be nobody who has that responsibility.

Do we understand why the PDS is struggling to attract dentists? Is there an issue with the limitations on what they can do in practice versus what other dentists can do in private settings?

Previously, I was a peripatetic homelessness worker. At the time, I was occasionally supported by a health and homelessness nurse. We became aware of how much oral health was at risk in that population. I am very aware of the report “Smile4life: The oral health of homeless people across Scotland”, which was published back in 2011. That was about targeting support for populations who are at the hard edges, have experienced severe and multiple disadvantages and often live with health comorbidities. Will you give us a flavour of how the aims of that report work in practice across the country to improve access to oral health for those who are homeless?

Health boards tell us that public dental services are under pressure but that the service could support resilience when access is challenging. What more can you do to fund and support public dental services to ensure that there is resilience and better equity of access? Was anything in the recent budget statement designed to support that public service?

I bring members’ attention to my entry in the register of members’ interests as a former councillor in East Ayrshire Council.

The committee has received the report that says that the majority of people are in favour of the regulations as set out, but several local authorities raised questions and issues, so I will explore them with the minister.

One of the issues that East Lothian Council brought to the attention of the committee is the requirement to “make safe” versus “repair”. Given that the ultimate responsibility for headstones lies with the lair holder, can we explore that a little? Local authorities say that they have a backlog with regard to bringing headstones up to the required level, as set out in the instruments.

I have one other wee question—you touched on it earlier—about many of the workers within the sector being part time; also, a lot of them are women. I would like to explore a little how we will make sure that the workforce will have their lot improved, as far as we can possibly do that.

If we are not proceeding with the national care service at this stage, how can we protect that workforce as much as possible in the meantime, given the precariousness that we are now seeing, with the added pressure of that national insurance change?

Good morning, minister. I want to explore some issues around the fair work agenda. We have already touched on some of that, but I would like to go into a bit more detail.

Stakeholders have advised that a definition for ethical commissioning should be discussed and agreed, emphasising that that is critical in delivering the fair work agenda.

We have heard from you this morning about the sectoral bargaining issues that you have been discussing with your UK counterpart, which was quite helpful. It might be good to get a bit more information about that.

We have also heard about the pressures that will be put on the system by the estimated £21 million in additional costs for the third sector because of the national insurance changes. We know that there are good examples of collaborative commissioning and procuring arrangements, such as the Granite Care Consortium and the Fife care at home collaborative. How do you intend to further facilitate and accelerate more ethical commissioning models and improved procurement practices, bearing in mind that those new pressures will perhaps put some spanners in the works?