Clause 157 - Provision of primary dental services

Part of Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill – in a Public Bill Committee at 8:55 am on 19 June 2003.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Simon Burns Simon Burns Shadow Spokesperson (Health) 8:55, 19 June 2003

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, and as I am in a benign mood, I will go along with him and accept that that is what he said.

Apart from giving the Committee an opportunity to improve the Bill so that there can be no misunderstanding or lack of progress, the amendments, just as importantly, will flush out more of the Government's intentions. Amendment No. 635 refers to proposed new section 16CA(1) in clause 157, which basically states that a primary care trust will now have a vital and significant role in the commissioning and, in effect, the provision of dental services in its region. That is in keeping with the Government's professed aim to decentralise the health service and make it more accountable and responsive to the needs of local communities. I have no problem whatsoever with that principle, and I think that the sooner that politicians end their day-to-day interference in the provision of dental services and health care the better.

I am not, however, convinced that what the Government propose for other areas of the health service—I shall not expand on those so as not to fall

foul of the relevance rule—will decentralise services to the extent that Ministers maintain. New subsection (1) states that a PCT

''must, to the extent that it considers it reasonable to do so, provide primary dental services''.

The amendment seeks to remove the words:

''to the extent that it considers it reasonable to do so''.

I do not understand why the Government have put that phrase in the Bill, because there is a danger that it will allow the status quo partly to continue under a different commissioning and provision regime.

What exactly does

''considers it reasonable to do so''

mean? I would appreciate it if the Minister elaborated on that in his remarks, and I hope that he reassures me. In theory, that could be a cop-out clause for PCTs. If they could argue that they do not provide a service, or do not provide it to the level that the local population might believe, they would be able to hide behind that expression. That weakens what the Government are proposing to do. However, I suspect that the Minister does not intend that to happen.