---

Health and Social Care Bill

moved Amendment No. 56C: 56C: After Clause 107, insert the following new Clause— ““Dentists register: non-practising dentists (1) The Dentists Act 1984 (c. 24) is amended as follows. (2) In section 15 (qualification for registration in the dentists register), after subsection (1)(a) insert— ““(aa) any person who is a graduate or licentiate in dentistry of a dental authority who no longer practises dentistry;””. (3) In section 19 (regulations with respect to the register)— (a) in subsection (1)(b) after the word ““fee”” insert the words ““, or non-practitioners reduced fee””; (b) in subsection (2A) for the words ““a person’s name”” substitute ““the name of a person who practises dentistry””; (c) after subsection (2A) insert— ““(2AA) Where the name of a person who falls within section (15)(1)(aa) has been erased by virtue of failure to pay a fee prescribed under subsection (1)(b), that name shall be restored to the register on that person’s application if he pays the prescribed fee.”””” The noble Baroness said: My Lords, we debated this amendment on 21 May. It is set out in detail in col. GC539 of Hansard of that date. I presented many reasons and comments and do not intend to repeat them, because time is valuable. Anyone who followed the debate or would like to know more can look those up. In her very helpful reply, the Minister said: "““The noble Baroness made a powerful case. I would like to reassure her that, should the view of the General Dental Council on this point change in the future, the Government would consider making such a change through an order under Section 60 of the Health Act 1999. We do not consider that primary legislation would be required””.—[Official Report, 21/5/08; col. GC544.]" She goes on to say that the Government already have the flexibility to do this through secondary legislation. Since then, I have seen a letter written by the president of the General Dental Council, dated 12 June. It is quite unbelievable that it should be so contrary to what the Minister has said. The letter was sent to someone who was strongly supporting my case. It says: "““I certainly agree with you that retired or non-practising dentists can still offer a great deal to the profession and the public at large. I don’t think anyone would dispute that. I do not believe however that for most of these activities registration with the GDC is required. In principle, many members of the Council are entirely sympathetic to the concept of some sort of retired list ... The Council, however, is not convinced that a list of retired, i.e. non-practising dentists, is in the public interest. I have no doubt whatsoever that this matter will be discussed again and while I think it is unlikely it will be done in the lifetime of this Council I have no doubt that it will be on the agenda of our successor’s and I think that is certainly sensible since””—" this is the bit that impressed me— "““there is no immediate prospect of a legislative opportunity being available””." He goes on to say: "““It is widely recognised that there is a significant queue of legislation for healthcare regulators to be passed through Parliament’s lawyers and in turn Parliament and, in some cases, the Scottish Parliament, over the next two years and””—" again, I stress this— "““therefore there is absolutely no prospect of early legislation””." He finishes by saying: "““The time to have a discussion is when the window of opportunity is possible. I am sorry I can only give you sympathy and cannot do anything practical to advance this in the meantime””." To me, that is unbelievable. Here we have an opportunity—that is why I have tabled this amendment—and the General Dental Council is saying it cannot possibly do it. For years, it has hidden behind the cloak of not being able to do it because doctors have the legal power and dentists do not. As I said in my previous moving of this amendment, doctors and solicitors remain on the register when they have retired honourably. The only people who are not on the register are those who have been struck off. Why are dentists second-class citizens? Why should they be different from all other healthcare professionals? The noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, commented on how important it was that all healthcare professionals should be treated in the same way. That is absolutely true. At the moment, if someone wants to cease practice through illness, maternity leave or any other reason, they are removed from the register. To me, that is extraordinary. I do not accept that it is not in the public interest to retain retired dentists’ names on the register. I do not mind in what way it is done: it could be on a separate list, or as part of the same list. The essential point about any of these registers, whether for doctors or dentists, is whether they have an annual practising certificate. If you have a practising certificate, you can practise. If you do not have a practising certificate, you cannot practise. Surely that is a clear enough distinction. I do not see why anything more is required. Why would dentists be treated as second-class citizens, which is what is being done in this case? As I mentioned at the last hearing, an extraordinary number of posts and positions are filled by dentists who have to remain on the register, even though they are not practising. They have to pay the full £400 registration fee and do all this continuing professional development, even though they are not going to touch a patient. They are in teaching or lecturing professions, or writing journals, or doing all sorts of other things, but they still have to be on the register. Yet they do not really require practising certificates because they are not practising. It is very important that dentists should not be treated differently from other healthcare professionals. I think that there is value in that. Some dentists wrote to me this week to say that another good reason for retaining on registers doctors, dentists and all sorts of other people is that, if there was any sort of national emergency, you would immediately have a list of people to go to who, although they may not be currently practising, would have knowledge that might be useful in those circumstances. There are many reasons in the public interest why this should be the case. I thank the Minister for making clear in the past that it would be very simple for the Government to do it. Whereas in the past I believed that it would be possible and did not need to be put aside, when I now see that letter, which states that there is no opportunity to legislate, I cannot allow this opportunity to pass. It is very important that we seriously consider adding this to the Bill to avoid the suggestion of so many years of waiting before any possibility of legislation. My amendment was only intended to be enabling legislation, not to force the General Dental Council to do this, but I really worry when I see the council’s attitude. I beg to move.