NHS Dentists: South-West England

Robert Syms Excerpts

Wednesday 24th May 2023 Westminster Hall

[Sir Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Chris Loder), who set out not only the problems but some of the solutions to the crisis in NHS dentistry, and my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax) reinforced his arguments.

If one is honest, there has never been an ideal NHS system. Before covid, people still needed a degree of luck and persistence to find an NHS dentist, but one of the main impacts of covid was to create a crisis in dentistry that was not there before. There is a massive backlog and a lot of people are leaving the profession. It is certainly one of those issues that needs to be higher on the political agenda.

The Government have already done one or two things to help. The changes to the annual allowance and lifetime allowance for professionals, particularly those in dentistry, will keep more people in the profession. We need a short-term and a longer-term plan to increase the number of people in the profession. Most of my hon. Friends have come up with solutions. My hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) said that we need to train more people, not just generally in the national health service but in dentistry.

We have a common problem. Parents find it difficult to find NHS dentists for their children. I get a lot of emails from pregnant women in Poole and those with special care needs who tell me that, because a number of NHS practices have packed up, they are shuttling around trying to find treatment that is not there.

Like my colleagues, I think the Government need to speed up the dental recovery plan to give those who at the moment are not getting treatment some hope of better times ahead. That is the short-term solution. In the long term, we will simply have to spend more to train people in the dental profession and raise the cap on dental schools. About 20 years ago—not too long after I was first elected—there was a proposal for Southampton to have a dental school, and the rationale for that was that dentists tend to stay in the area they train. That did not go through because the Blair Government decided not to go ahead, but I am interested in the proposals for a dental school in Dorset. We need more in the south-west of England so that people come in, train, like the communities they are living in and stay.

In our inboxes, we get a sense of our constituents’ urgency. There are people in need of treatment, so we need fundamental reforms and possibly some additional money from the Government. I know the Government and local health authorities are looking at this issue seriously. There is no magic bullet, but the sooner we get proposals from the Government to start to recover the situation, the better it will be for my constituents who are struggling to get the services they thought they would be provided with.

NHS Winter Pressures

Robert Syms Excerpts

Monday 9th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Steve Barclay]

The hon. Lady makes a good point about the risk of introducing infections into care homes, as happened in the past. It is worth the House reflecting on the fact that we are in a very different position from the start of the pandemic. First, we now have vaccines in place for care home residents and staff. Secondly, we now have antivirals. Thirdly, we now have huge knowledge about covid. From an infection point of view, the risk of releasing people into care homes is now in a very different place.

On the wider workforce, part of the reason for the £500 million announced in the autumn statement is to support measures for the workforce, but we are also looking to boost numbers through international recruitment.

[Sir Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)]

I welcome what the Secretary of State says about community pharmacists, who have always wanted to do more. They can take a lot of the burden off GPs and, if access to GPs were improved, fewer people would turn up at A&E. It seems to be a win-win-win situation, so let’s do it.

[Steve Barclay]

I could not agree more. There is a huge opportunity for pharmacists to do more, and I have asked the Department and NHS England to explore that at pace. I expect to say more on that when I announce our recovery plan at the end of the month.

I think we can go even further because, alongside pharmacists, there is much more scope to work with employers. Staff absences due to cardiovascular conditions are a significant cost to employers, so it is in their interest to work with us on prevention measures.

Much more can also be done through home testing. One of the lessons from covid is that the public will test at home. In looking at the challenge of excess deaths, there is a significant opportunity to do more home testing, employer testing and work in the community, particularly through pharmacists.

Covid-19 Update

Robert Syms Excerpts

Monday 6th December 2021 Commons Chamber

[Sajid Javid]

On vaccine donations, I refer the hon. Lady to the answer I gave to a similar question. In terms of transport, I also refer her to an answer I gave previously.

[Sir Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)]

My constituents Mike and Carol Parkin are paying £2,700 for the privilege of being imprisoned in a Delta hotel in Milton Keynes and my constituent David Brayshaw £3,700 for being in a 3-star hotel in downtown Hounslow. The highlight of the day is meals in boxes, with plastic cutlery, that are inedible, cold or both. Can we go back to a proper quarantine where people can go home? What they are getting is very poor value indeed.

[Sajid Javid]

I think my hon. Friend will understand the difference in terms of public health between a managed quarantine facility and home quarantine, but he is right to point to an important issue. Of course no one is going to enjoy being quarantined in this way—why would anyone? I think everyone understands the issues, but it is really important that the quality of care provided there is equally decent and of good quality. If my hon. Friend can share with me some of the information he has about his constituents, I would like to look into that.

Coronavirus

Robert Syms Excerpts

Wednesday 16th June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

Up to a point, and the point is that, should that be taken as an absolute principle, there is a challenge should there be an overwhelming demand on the NHS that would impact on others. Of course, with a communicable disease, there is an impact on others in terms of spreading the disease, so we do have to have an eye to that. That is why I phrased it as I did, but in terms of my right hon. Friend’s argument, I think she and I concur on the broad thrust of the case being made.

[Sir Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)]

My point is slightly niche. The reason why we developed all the vaccines was that thousands of Brits volunteered to trial them. There are now a number who trialled vaccines that are not yet approved, such as the Valneva vaccine, and who therefore cannot use the NHS app and some other things. Should they go for two shots of another vaccine, or will the Health Department take that into account?

[Matt Hancock]

Being certified as having had a vaccine includes being on a vaccine clinical trial. The deputy chief medical officer, Professor Jonathan Van-Tam, has written to participants in vaccine clinical trials, who are doing, as my right hon Friend says, a great service to their country and indeed to the world by offering themselves to have an unlicensed vaccine in order to check that it works. I am very grateful to all of them. We will not put them in a more difficult position because of that.

We will make sure that when it comes to someone proving that they have been certified as vaccinated, being on a clinical trial counts as certified and continues to count as certified during a grace period after they are unblinded, so that if they are in the placebo arm, they can get both jabs and will not be disadvantaged for being on the clinical trial. That is a very important point. I am very glad that right hon. Friend raises it. If anybody from any part of the House gets that question from a constituent, please point them to the comprehensive letter by Professor Jonathan Van-Tam that explains and reassures.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)]

The pandemic has been a massive challenge to the British Government. I happen to think that, given the uncertainties that they have faced, the Prime Minister and senior Ministers have done a pretty good job. In terms of the vaccination programme, they have certainly proved to the world that Britain can go alone and do a lot to safeguard its population when it uses its science and its ability to get things done.

When the road map was unveiled, I thought to myself, “At least that stops me voting against the Government again”— until we get to the point when the Government have delayed opening up. I do think that this is a matter of balance and judgment. My view is that most of the senior Ministers who took this decision need a damn good holiday. If we look at the data and at what is happening in the country, the restrictions are totally out of kilter with the sense of the problem.

Let me take the south-west of England. There are 5.6 million people in the south-west of England.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. Sir Robert, can you please face the Chair? Your voice is not being picked up by the microphone and Hansard cannot hear you.

[Sir Robert Syms]

There are 5.6 million people in the south-west of England. There are 23 people in hospital. There are two in ICU. In Dorset, where there are nearly 1 million people, we have one person in hospital. Yet there are hundreds of couples who want to get married, businesses that want to be viable, and people who want to get their lives back in order. I just think that the balance is wrong. Most of the population have now been vaccinated. We may not totally break the link with people going into hospital, but there are more than 100,000 beds in the NHS. One per cent. are taken by covid patients. Now it might go up to 2%. We already have experts on TV saying, “In order for the NHS to catch up, we may well have to keep restrictions for longer.” I think that is unacceptable to the British people. As a Conservative, I am perfectly willing to accept restrictions when hundreds and thousands of people are dying and we are dealing with a virus that we do not understand, but we have sort of got to the point where we have won the battle. There will be variants. There will be challenges, but we have to get on with normal life.

The points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox) are perfectly right. If it is simply that we need to get second doses in—if that had been explained—we might be a little more relaxed. If we look at the explanatory notes, though, we will see that we have a review of data in two or four weeks’ time, and not necessarily a release date. We need to get people’s freedoms back. We cannot save everybody, but what we have done is save thousands and thousands of lives. Now we need to safeguard employment, safeguard businesses and safeguard people’s personal relationships.

I began by saying that the Government have done a pretty good job and that the vaccine programme is outstanding, but we have to now take the dividend from that to get people back to normal life. When they queued up with their enthusiasm to get that jab in their arm, they thought that that meant that things would get back to normal. They did not expect that they would be in further restrictions which would go on and on and on. I think we should have lifted all restrictions on 21 June. I hope and I pray that, in two weeks’ time, the Government will look at the data again and set people free.

Public Health

Robert Syms Excerpts

Wednesday 6th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

I am a man after my hon. Friend’s heart. I can tell the House that we have removed a series of unnecessary training modules that had been put in place, including fire safety, terrorism and others. I will write to him with the full panoply of training that is not required and that we have been able to remove. We made this change as of this morning, and I am glad to say that it is now in force. I am a fan of busting bureaucracy, and in this case I agree that it is not necessary to undertake anti-terrorism training in order to inject a vaccine.

[Sir Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)]

I notice also a story about not delivering vaccines on Sunday. As I understand it, it is thought that there will be sufficient vaccines to be able to do seven-day inoculations. If somebody runs short, they will get topped up, which is a little different from what The Daily Telegraph said today.

[Matt Hancock]

My hon. Friend is quite right. The supply of vaccines can take place on all seven days of the week, but, in a regular way, we do it on six days of the week and then, on the seventh day, people can either rest or deliver further vaccine if that is what is necessary. As a result of this delivery schedule, there has been no point at which any area has been short of vaccine. We have a challenge, which is to increase the amount of vaccine available. The current rate-limiting factor on the vaccine roll-out is the supply of approved, tested, safe vaccine, and we are working with both AstraZeneca and Pfizer to increase that supply as fast as possible. They are doing a brilliant job, but that is the current rate-limiting step. As that supply increases, we will need more people to give vaccinations. We will need to get pharmacists involved in the vaccination. I very much hope to get my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison), a former doctor, and others involved in vaccinations. We will need more people, but the current rate-limiting factor is the supply of vaccines.

That is not to say that the companies are not supplying on the schedule that was agreed; they are, and they are doing their bit, but we do need to increase that supply and then the NHS will increase its delivery. I hope to make that point crystal clear, because Public Health England work to get the vaccine out is not a rate-limiting factor, the current discussion with pharmacists is not a rate-limiting factor, and the fill and finish is not a rate-limiting factor. What is a rate-limiting factor is the amount of the actual juice—the actual vaccine—that is available, which is not manufactured like a chemical. It is a biological product. I do not know whether you bake your own bread, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I sometimes do and it is a bit like the creation and the growth of yeast. That is probably the best way to think of it. It is a complicated and difficult task and that is the rate-limiting factor. I pay tribute to those who are engaged in the manufacturing process of this critical product.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)]

This is a difficult crisis for the Government, and no doubt the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Health must each have the constitution of an ox to deal with the very difficult decisions they have to deal with every day, but I am afraid that I cannot support this legislation today. The principal reason is that, at the end of last year, I thought we had got to the point where Parliament would be consulted on a regular basis. We have regulations today set out to 31 March, which is a full three months. Although we have had warm words—“Of course, we’re going to review and we’ll come back to discuss with Parliament”—as of right we do not have any ability to influence this once it is passed. It is essentially a blank cheque for three months to Public Health England to do what it wishes, and that is why I worry about the legislation today.

If the legislation said there would be a month and then a review or two months and then a review, I might even be tempted to vote for it, but the three-month nature of the regulations seems to me too long, and I do not think it is proportionate to where we are. Parliament is sitting—the reality is that we are here—so we need to be involved in these decisions. I notice that regulations have been passed saying that if someone sits by a river with a fishing rod, they are breaking the law under the current lockdown regulations. People will follow sensible regulations if they feel it saves lives, but the bureaucratic nature of this essential lockdown is such that I think people will get frustrated and they may well actually break the regulations because they cannot understand why they are there. So we need this reviewed, we need Parliament involved and we need the Government to listen.

I was somewhat concerned earlier when the Secretary of State was talking about when this would be lifted. We need a programme, and we need the criteria for lifting it. Is it hospitals, is it infection rates or is it deaths? Is it all the vulnerable people actually being inoculated, because we heard earlier that, once they are inoculated, the Government will think about it?

I have businesses in my constituency, I have people who work and I have people trying to pay a mortgage. People have worked for generations sometimes, and certainly for decades, building up businesses, and they are being closed down and they may not survive. Taking away the freedom of people to trade is a very substantial thing to do, and there are some people who will not survive the regulations and the way in which we are locking them down. That is one reason why I will call a vote tonight. If we are going to take away people’s liberties and freedom, let us do it with our eyes open and a vote of this Chamber, because I feel very queasy about destroying people’s livings in my constituency when people work so hard. The people who make these decisions are superannuated, pensioned and public sector: they are safe and they can retire. In my constituency, there are people who do not have these advantages.

Covid-19 Update

Robert Syms Excerpts

Thursday 26th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

Yes. There are five indicators that we take into account in deciding on which tier. One is pressure and anticipated pressure on the local NHS, and bed occupancy rates are of course a critical part of that assessment. I know that people are looking for a clear numerical boundary between the different tiers, but because we are looking at five different indicators rather than a single one, there is no automatic figure at which a different tier is triggered. We have to look at all the circumstances, including, for instance, outbreaks. Some cities, on their pure numbers, would be in tier 3, but because an outbreak is specific—for instance, in a school or care home—it is appropriate that they are in tier 2. We have to look at these very localised issues as well, and that is why the engagement with local directors of public health is so important.

[Sir Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)]

There will be bitter disappointment in Dorset, in both the urban and rural areas, that we are in tier 2 even though our infection rates are now falling quite rapidly. My main interest today is finding out how we get out of tier 2 and into tier 1. If we are going to have regular—that is, weekly—reviews, that is great and fine, but if we are not, and we are stuck in that tier for two or three weeks, would the Secretary consider some kind of appeals process, and might his admirable Minister for Health be the appeals process?

[Matt Hancock]

We work as a very cohesive team of Ministers in the Department, and we all work on covid-related issues. I take my hon. Friend’s gentle chiding that he would rather my No. 2 took these decisions, but I am afraid he is stuck with me for the time being.

On the serious point that my hon. Friend raises, we will review the tiers in a fortnight and then regularly, which he can reasonably take to be weekly. We have a weekly cycle of meetings, with the chief medical officer chairing a meeting, typically on a Tuesday. I then chair a meeting on a Wednesday for an announcement on Thursday of any change to the tiers.