---

Dentists Act 1984 (Amendment) Order 2005

My Lords, we, too, welcome the order. I thank the Minister very much for the way in which he introduced them to the House. The format in which they were printed and presented to us was also extremely helpful. We welcome the order as it has been welcomed by the profession, particularly because it opens up and extends the range of measures that may be taken when a dentist is known to have failed in their performance. It introduces powers to insist on further professional training. We have a number of concerns similar to those put forward by the noble Earl, Lord Howe. We too are of the view that the five-year period of erasure appears wholly arbitrary. It seems insufficient reasoning on the part of the Government to say that it is necessary to have the same term of erasure for different professions. The effect of a five-year ban on a dentist will be wholly different from a ban on a nurse. That seems not only arbitrary but somewhat draconian, at a time when we already know from the many debates that we have had in your Lordships’ House in the past few weeks that there is an acute shortage of dentists. I support the noble Earl, Lord Howe, in questioning the Government in his suggestion that there should be greater flexibility. I refer to the notification and disclosure by the council in Article 25. It seems unreasonable that there should be a general notification at the allegation stage. Will the Minister say why the Government have not considered implementing such measures only after an investigating committee has looked at the allegations and considered whether there is any foundation to them? The public have a right to know that the dentists in their area perform to a decent standard. However, it is not inconceivable that somebody with a grudge could try to orchestrate a campaign against a dental practice or a particular dentist if he knew that this draconian means of doing so was at his disposal. The Minister needs to consider the issue again. On Article 39 and dental bodies corporate, I, too, agree with the noble Earl. The issue is about dentists who work for the dental body corporate having to follow practices set by that body, rather than acting on the basis of their own professional knowledge. It therefore seems right that there should be parallel powers, as there are in social care, when CSCI can address practices that are failures of the corporate body, which is the provider, rather than addressing the practitioners on the front line. Will the Minister confirm that the requirements for there to be compulsory insurance cover will not force dentists to abandon the mutual indemnity insurance that they have hitherto enjoyed? Other Ministers have heard me on other subjects talking about indemnity insurance policies, which can be so limited and exclusive that when push comes to shove, they provide very little cover. It would seem wholly wrong if this power had the reverse effect of making cover within dentistry more limited for patients. On Article 29, it is welcome that the order provides for dental care professionals to pay their annual retention fee by instalments. Will that provision also be made available for dentists?