Proceeding contribution from Lord Colwyn (Conservative) in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 29 February 2012. It occurred during Debate on bill on Health and Social Care Bill.
Health and Social Care Bill
My Lords, I support everything that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has said and declare an interest as vice-president of the British Fluoridation Society. I believe in the efficacy of the fluoride ion, and during my own dental career have seen the beneficial results of this public health measure. I do not want to repeat what the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has said, but the Government envisage that, in future, local authorities will be the bodies that consult on fluoridation and decide whether to introduce and maintain a scheme. The issue is about funding for existing schemes and for possible future schemes. The Bill as it stands would mean that on 1 April 2013 the money currently spent by the NHS on existing schemes would pass to local authorities, which would then have to pass it on to the Secretary of State via the new organisation, Public Health England, to pay the bills presented by water companies. This would be a complex, bureaucratic process. If, for example, the money got stuck somewhere, the water company affected would quickly get fed up and stop fluoridating. How much smoother and quicker it would be if the money that the NHS is currently spending went directly on 1 April 2013 to the Secretary of State and Public Health England. This would mean that the organisation that will actually pay the bills will have the money in its account and not be reliant on local authorities transferring it. The Bill as it stands also means that if any of the new schemes are ever voted for by local authorities when they take charge of consultations on fluoridation, the Secretary of State will look to them to pay for those schemes. Yet local authorities are not responsible for dentistry and have no dental budget. So where would they get the money from? In all probability they would not and, as a result, no new schemes would ever be implemented. This amendment means that, although the local authorities will be the decision-making bodies in future, the money for any fluoridation schemes that they support will come from the dental health services budget of the NHS Commissioning Board, the body that stands to benefit from the reduced treatment costs that would follow. The NHS Commissioning Board would transfer funds to the Secretary of State, who would pay the bills submitted by the water companies. I may have got this wrong, but I would be delighted to hear what my noble friend the Minister has to say.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 735 c1362
- Session
- 2010-12
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords chamber
- Subjects
- Conditions of employment Accountability Charities Conflict of interests Health Health services Finance Fees and charges Education Governing bodies Health and safety Undocumented migrants Health professions Infectious diseases Health authorities HIV/AIDS Emergencies Migrants Dismissal Local government NHS Medical treatments Ministerial powers Recruitment Public appointments Prescription drugs Procurement Mental health services Overseas visitors Standards Water supply Training Reform Research Social services Travellers Fluoride Care Quality Commission Benzodiazepines NHS Commissioning Board Healthwatch England Public Health England National Institute for Health and Care Research Clinical commissioning groups
- Legislation
- Health and Social Care Bill 2010-12
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-12-03 13:57:33 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_813396
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_813396
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_813396