---

Dentists Act 1984 (Amendment) Order 2005

My Lords, several points have been raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, and the noble Earl, Lord Howe, to which I shall try to respond briefly. On the subject of the five-year period for erasure being too harsh, I remind noble Lords that patient safety is paramount. It is important that patients are protected from the few dentists and professionals complementary to dentistry who act unprofessionally. Erasure will be used only in the most serious circumstances. The order will give the General Dental Council a range of penalties short of erasure with which to deal with less serious cases. In addition, the Government want to ensure consistency across the profession. The same minimum period of erasure is already in place for other professions, such as doctors, nurses, opticians and professions regulated by the Health Professions Council. Perhaps I may gently remind the noble Earl, Lord   Howe, that surgeons and physiotherapists also need to keep their hand in, if I may put it that way. We are content that the General Medical Council can match the penalty to the offence in the most appropriate way. I turn to disclosure. It is important for patient protection that those who employ or contract with dentists are alerted as soon as possible when the GDC is investigating an allegation. That is a tried and tested approach that we consider represents an appropriate balance between a dentist’s privacy and the need to protect members of the public, which is the goal of all professional regulation. Similar provisions already cover other professions, including doctors, nurses and the professions regulated by the Health Professions Council, so dentists are in line with their fellow health professionals in that area. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, asked about the GDC giving guidance on bodies corporate. It does not do that in the same way that it can for individual dentists. The order does not change the law in the area; it is maintaining the status quo. Ultimately, impaired fitness to practise is by an individual, which are the cases that do the most harm to the patient. We sought consultation views on indemnity insurance. There was a debate on the type of indemnity that fulfils   the requirement; both indemnity insurance and discretionary indemnity were discussed. The only significant issue that arose was the appropriateness of different types of cover. The Government’s position, which is reflected in the order, is that registrants should be able to use mutual organisations that provide discretionary indemnity as well as insurance companies. We have tried to maintain that balance and the order will make indemnity cover compulsory, but it will allow the General Dental Council to decide what cover is adequate and appropriate. We are not seeking to discriminate between one or the other in this area. I have tried to answer most of the questions. If I find that I have not done so I will write to the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, and the noble Earl, Lord Howe. On Question, Motion agreed to.