Parliamentary Dental Inquiry Off To A Troubled Start

Parliamentary Dental Inquiry Off To A Troubled Start

It might be an exercise in kicking a can down the road, but the parliamentary inquiry into dental care at least showed that the government had recognised that it needed to be seen doing something about the access crisis.

Announced at the end of last year, the Health and Social Care Committee’s inquiry into dentistry has been tasked with examining the policy, administration and expenditure of the Department of Health and Social Care. But even before its first session the inquiry is hitting serious obstacles that could undermine any conclusions that it may eventually reach.

At the time of its launch, the Committee Chair Steve Brine MP referred to the reports of DIY dentistry, which “should belong to another era.” His Committee would seek to answer “why dental treatment is so hard to find and to establish what the government and NHS England must do to improve access and reduce such unnecessary pain and suffering.” However events since the launch have left Mr Brine with some more pressing and personal “questions to answer.”

According to Politics Home, Mr Brine is being investigated by parliament’s commissioner for standards for potential breaches of lobbying rules. Labour’s chair, Annelise Dodds has referred Mr Brine regarding potential “paid advocacy” and issues relating to his “declarations of interests”

This follows leaked WhatsApp messages which suggest that Brine lobbied the then NHS England chief, Simon Stevens. Mr Brine was acting on behalf of a recruitment company called Remedium. The company was offering to provide extra anaesthetists at a time when the NHS was particularly short of them. Brine complained that his offers had been ignored and one message concluded “How might I progress this or does the NHS just not need help? S.” Brine’s register of interests shows that remedium paid him £1600 for eight hours work each month, from July 2002 to the end of 2021.

Brine’s defence has been that he was responding “in the national interest to an urgent public call from ministers and the NHS.” This investigation follows last year’s Owen Patterson lobbying scandal. Patterson was found to have broken paid advocacy rules and his resulting suspension set in train the series of events that finally ended the Johnson premiership.

The committee has powers to send for “persons, papers and records” and insist that named witnesses attend and that papers and material are produced. However there are questions about how the committee has selected those that will be providing it with oral evidence at the inquiry.

Toothless in England submitted written evidence in January and requested representation at the inquiry when oral evidence is collected. They were turned down and told that there were “a limited number of spaces available.” The Toothless campaign have not taken this well, saying on their facebook page that they interpret it to mean, “We won’t allow you to interfere.” Toothless in England’s response has been to ramp up their efforts as they move from a voluntary model, to seeking crowdfunding support to improve their website and publicity material.

Amongst the 79 items of written evidence submitted, the vast majority are from official organisations including the GDC, BDA, CQC, indemnifiers, and Denplan, as well as interested MP’s and over 25 from Healthwatch. There are very few from practicing GDP’s although one in particular puts the exercise into some perspective.

Derek Watson, former head of the General Dental Practitioners Association and former member of the BDA’s representative board, with decades spent in general practice, observed that he was now contributing to his third Select Committee on dentistry following those in 1992 and 2007. 

As a measure of progress over the last 40 years, Derek Watson noted that in 1981 approximately half the number of dentists currently on the register were able to provide dental care to a similar population, without access problems.

Those selected to offer oral evidence: Committees - UK Parliament

Submitted written evidence:  NHS dentistry - Written evidence - Committees - UK Parliament

0
0
0
s2sdefault
Gravatar
Anthony Kilcoyne
Health Select Committee NHS Dentistry woes
So in other words, the NHS GDS dental services in England, have ONLY been resourced to help a maximum of 50% of the population.

A half-service for half-England basically; that's if you accept other compromises like 2 yearly recalls (so no annual Oral Cancer checks as recommended by Cancer Research UK) and even one 'emergency' contact for a prescription, counts as full access statistically, when it was hardly everything clinically needed etc.

We know the NHS England excuses already:
1. We are in process of negotiating with the BDA as we recognise all not well
2. Covid has delayed plans and it will take a while to deal with extra problems
3. We need to change the legislation so GDC can allow DCPs to do what Dentists do on the NHS etc.
4. X% of contractors have met targets so it does work (Many didn't so clawbacks)
5. We are putting extra resources into areas of high need (from funding robbed from other NHS contracts + Charity providers etc.)

Yours realistically,

Tony.

0

You need to be logged in to leave comments.

Please do not re-register if you have forgotten your details,
follow the links above to recover your password &/or username.
If you cannot access your email account, please contact us.

Mastodon Mastodon