| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Gordon Prentice (Pendle): How many areas in this country have localised problems of access? Barnoldswick, in my constituency, is a town of 10,000 people with only one NHS dentist. There is a waiting list as long as your arm, and it is impossible to get treatment in the area. Was not the Minister's statement totally fraudulent?
Mr. Mark Robinson (Somerton and Frome): Following his welcome statement, will my hon. Friend consider launching a campaign to persuade those dentists who have shut their doors to new registrations--temporarily, I hope--to reopen them?
Mr. Malone: I very much hope that the statement will encourage those dentists who, in the light of the dispute, decided not to provide NHS dentistry to take a fresh look at the situation and review their decision. Having put the dispute behind us, I hope that we will enter a more positive phase and increase the expanding number of dentists providing NHS care.
Mr. Hugh Bayley (York): Does the Minister recall the report of the Health Select Committee on NHS dentistry that concluded that improvements in oral health achieved by a positive health promotion strategy would enable the Government to reintroduce at no additional cost free dental checks and a free core service of routine treatment? Why was that idea not pursued with the BDA?
As someone who has been told by his NHS dentist to go private or to go away--[Interruption.] I can tell Conservative Members that I left that practice--may I ask the Government to give a guarantee to all taxpayers, who have paid for an NHS dental service, that they will get such a service?
Mr. Malone:
I would not fancy looking into the hon. Gentleman's mouth on a regular basis, so perhaps that is understandable. His point is exactly the same as that made by his hon. Friends. It is entirely wrong. He is yet another who claims that the NHS dental service has disappeared. It palpably has not.
Mr. David Congdon (Croydon, North-East):
Does my hon. Friend agree that the facts that over the past four years, the number of patients registered--both adults and children--has increased, that the number of treatments has increased and that the state of the nation's teeth has improved show that the NHS dental service is neither in crisis nor a shambles? What steps in his proposals will give an incentive to dentists to carry out preventive treatment? On children's health, will he ensure that proper quality controls are in place for the reintroduction of an item-for-fee service?
Mr. Malone:
Yes, I can give the latter undertaking. Dentists are professionals, who have to obey the clinical guidelines set by the profession. I expect them to
Mr. Nick Ainger (Pembroke):
The Minister and several hon. Members have referred to the Welsh scheme. I endorse the comments of those who have said that it has not been a success. As an example, a dentist was relocated to my constituency in December, but has now sent a letter to all her adult patients deregistering them. After sixth months, she faces bankruptcy because of her serious problems.
I urge the Minister to recognise that there is a real problem, especially in rural areas, both in Wales and England. What he has told us today does not go far enough. Can he give any idea how many dentists who have in the past four years deregistered adult and children patients will now come back into the NHS?
Mr. Malone:
I cannot predict the precise number. We will exhort those who feel that the environment is better after the statement to resume NHS care. We will see what the numbers will be. It is important that the access schemes are successful in the long term. That will be one of the criteria that we will consider carefully when schemes are put forward by local health authorities.
Some of the relocation schemes we have tried in England did not work in the long term. We are well informed by the fact that they did not work. We will be careful, in spending the taxpayers' money on improving access to dental health care, that we get schemes that will endure and provide lasting benefits for NHS patients.
Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North):
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. May I draw your attention to page 129 of "Erskine May", which states:
Madam Speaker:
Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman. He has used the word "contempt". If it is contempt, it may well be a breach of privilege, and I cannot allow him to proceed in that manner. I ask him to write fully to me, so that I can consider the matter carefully.
Mr. Winnick:
I take that point, Madam Speaker, but it was not contempt. I quoted from "Erskine May", but I am seeking your guidance.
Madam Speaker:
I understood that the hon. Gentleman said that it was a "contempt", and did not just quote the word. I must be clear about it: the hon. Gentleman is not alleging contempt?
Mr. Winnick:
No, Madam Speaker, I am seeking your guidance on a matter arising from what I quoted.
Was it right and proper for hon. Members to vote yesterday for the ten-minute Bill on the basis that it would reduce or eliminate the chances of a candidate being put up against them by the Referendum party? Bearing in mind the fact that one Conservative Member has already described the threat as "blatant blackmail", it seems to me, in seeking your guidance, that we should know precisely where we stand. Are not threats from outside sources that say, in effect, "Vote one way and we won't put up a candidate against you," influencing Members of Parliament unduly? Is not such conduct quite inappropriate?
Madam Speaker:
Had the hon. Gentleman given me notice of his point of order, I might have been able to give him an immediate response. If he will let me consider the matter carefully, along with the quotation from "Erskine May" that he cited, I shall attempt to make some response.
Mr. Chris Mullin (Sunderland, South):
Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek your guidance on a matter of which I have given you notice. It concerns a letter that I received from Sir James Goldsmith dated15 February. I imagine that it was sent to quite a number of hon. Members--I see no reason why I should have been singled out. The letter says:
I seek your guidance, Madam Speaker, on the propriety of that letter in the light of yesterday's events. As I said, the letter was dated 15 February. I did not raise it with you at the time because its significance began to fall into place only after the events of the past few days.
Madam Speaker:
The hon. Gentleman has been kind enough this afternoon to let me have a copy of that letter. It does not seem to raise any questions of privilege, largely because, of course, it contains no threat to sitting Members carrying out their parliamentary duties. The matter seems to be about politics and the next election, not subjects on which legitimate points of order may arise. I do not know whether I received the letter, but, had I done so, it would have gone straight into the wastepaper basket.
Mr. Barry Field (Isle of Wight):
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I do not know whether you were able to observe during Question Time that, exclusively in the Chamber, I was showered by national lottery tickets from the Public Gallery. From where I was sitting, I was unable to ascertain where they came from. From your vantage point, could you tell whether they came from that long lottery finger in the advertisement that points down to people and says, "It could be you"?
I have been assiduous in collecting the tickets. After a very slow start, the Isle of Wight has done rather well out of the national lottery. Should I win this weekend as a result of collecting those tickets, would I have to declare it in the Register of Members' Interests?
Madam Speaker:
If the hon. Gentleman is successful this weekend, I will go 50:50 with him. If they were lottery tickets--I do not know what they were--I did not see any of them. It seemed to be a very mild demonstration, which, frankly, went off like a damp squib.
4.8 pm
"Conduct not amounting to a direct attempt improperly to influence Members in the discharge of their duties but having a tendency to impair their independence in the future performance of their duty may be treated as a contempt."
I raise that because a leading newspaper, The Times, today says that Tory Members who voted for the ten-minute Bill yesterday--
"At the next general election, the Referendum Party plans to field a candidate in each Westminster parliamentary constituency in which the leading candidates are not committed to a fair referendum. As you will understand, it would be extremely helpful if you were to let us have a copy of any speeches or press releases that you have made or plan to make concerning a referendum on Europe."
That, in the light of yesterday's events, is a thinly veiled threat.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |