Odd Allies Agree - Rachel Reeves Does Not Understand
- Details
- Published: Friday, 28 November 2025 17:25
- Written by Peter Ingle
- Hits: 764
What do a group of Private Dentists and a pressure group founded by Communist Party of Britain members have in common?
They both think that the Chancellor’s recent request that the Competitions and Markets Authority (CMA) investigates fees for private dentistry is a waste of time, and a deflection from tackling the huge gaps in NHS provision.
The British Association of Private Dentistry (BAPD) represents private dentistry across the UK. In its response to the chancellor’s announcement the BAPD made the point that with a well-established lack of access to dental care, that private dentistry has become an integral part of national dental healthcare provision for the UK. Recognising its role across the profession the BAPD sees one of its core goals to be ‘Promoting Quality Dentistry for All.’
In their statement the BAPD described the proposed CMA investigation as, “deeply misguided.” The access crisis, workforce shortages and inflationary pressures were not the result of private dentistry. In a useful primer that should be compulsory reading for any politician about to share their thoughts on private dentistry, BAPD explained that there were 2 types of private practice.
There were the mixed practices, which do receive NHS funding, but at a level so low that NHS dentistry is delivered at a loss. These practices increasingly rely on private income to subsidise their NHS contracts and keep delivering government-funded care.
Then there were fully private practices, which receive no government funding and are entirely dependent on patient choice, investment and clinical demand to remain viable.
Both types of practice are privately owned businesses. Neither receives government funding for its private activity, and both carry the full burden of rising costs – staff pay, employers NI, regulatory compliance, materials, energy, and indemnity. Treating these businesses as if they are publicly funded organisations whose fees can be regulated or controlled by government is inappropriate.
The BAPD then went on to offer the Chancellor some basic facts of financial life. These included examples of other professional’s fees. As for Rachel Reeves’ own contribution to increased dental fees, the BAPD listed the increase in NI and the minimum wage, escalating energy costs, and the effects of inflation.
Alluding to the woeful state of NHS funding and the failure of the government to set out a credible plan for improvement, the BAPD said: “What we cannot accept is the use of a CMA study as political cover for decisions that have already been made behind the scenes.”
Meanwhile speaking to Rayo, Suffolk based campaigner, Mark Jones, one of the founders of Toothless in England said that whilst he welcomed research into the dental sector the fundamental problem was access.
Mr Jones, who has written about dental issues for the Morning Star, offered his analysis of the access problem: “Whether it be inaccessible through the lack of NHS dental practices that are in our region, or if you can find a dentist, then it’s usually invariably through a private practice, and private practices financially are out of reach for the ordinary dental patient.” He said the crisis is being felt “very acutely by the fact that either you can’t afford to go private or, more importantly, you can’t get access to an NHS dentist”.
Connoisseurs of irony may appreciate a Secretary and former Chair of the East Suffolk Communist Party, demonstrating a better understanding of how the economy works than a supposedly business friendly, and growth seeking, Chancellor.
Mark Jones said: “Fundamentally, all the dentists are looking for is fair pay for a fair day’s work in providing NHS treatments to the public, our communities, our families, mums and dads, aunties, uncles, brothers, sisters, cousins, grandparents, etcetera,” he said.
“So that’s where the focus should be: getting that provision through proper funding of the contract, and proper funding in order to get dentists to pick up new contracts… and entice them into providing NHS provision once again in their communities.”
Mr Jones described some of the effects of the breakdown in dental access, and summed up the proposed CMA study as “another distraction.”
As the BAPD have observed: “Private dentistry is not the problem - it is one of the only functioning solutions left.”
You need to be logged in to leave comments.
Report
My comments