Health and Social Care Update

Debate between George Howarth and Thérèse Coffey

Thursday 22nd September 2022 Commons Chamber

[Dr Coffey]

Indeed. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who was successful in being a Health Minister. I am conscious that ABCD has caught the attention of many people because it has aspects of real focus, but prevention is of course at the heart of what we do so that people do not need to turn to the health service at all for treatment. That is why we will continue with aspects of the strategy to make sure that people have better care and that it is both strong and resilient for their physical and mental health.

[Sir George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)]

I welcome the Secretary of State to her new responsibilities, which, as she has pointed out, are very challenging. I agree with her that there are too many dental deserts. She will perhaps be aware of recent BBC research that revealed that one of those dental deserts is the whole of the Liverpool city region, where not one dental practice is taking on new NHS patients. What measures will she be taking—in the short, medium and long term—to address this disgraceful situation?

[Dr Coffey]

I set out in the plan today what we are seeking to do with dentists. First of all, it is the role of the local NHS—the ICB—to take responsibility for such provision, and I expect it to do so. I alluded to the contract earlier. We have started to make some changes—only very recently, admittedly—whereby, instead of it being more profitable for a dentist to do NHS care only on extraction or cleaning of teeth, rather than the more complicated elements, we need to make sure that more dentists are offering NHS provision. On other dental practice features, we need to make sure that people are using their qualifications to their full extent by undertaking particular procedures. For example, some people might not be full dentists, but they will have trained as technicians and will be able to undertake care of children. There are different levels and we need to continue to go into the detail, but, practice by practice, I am going to have to work with the NHS locally a lot more in order to unveil that opportunity.

Private Members’ Bills

Debate between George Howarth and Thérèse Coffey

Wednesday 13th April 2016 Westminster Hall

[Dr Coffey]

My hon. Friend makes an important point, which is that hon. Members should think about the outcome of what they are trying to do. Using their Bill as a device might not always result in an individual Act of Parliament but, as he says, such Bills often result in change.

The hon. Member for Burnley (Julie Cooper) mentioned her Bill. Carers UK has supplied written evidence to the Procedure Committee’s current inquiry, and it is fully aware of how to use private Members’ Bills. Carers UK rightly encouraged people to come along to support the Bill, but it is happy that it secured a change in ministerial guidance, which was committed to on the Floor of the House that day. Even though the Minister said directly that the Government would not support that Bill, he said that they would support some of the Bill’s outcomes through a change in guidance.

[Mr George Howarth]

I congratulate the Deputy Leader of the House on being successful in getting a private Member’s Bill through Parliament but, as a generality, does she agree that, in all seriousness, we are not legislators?

[Dr Coffey]

I disagree with the right hon. Gentleman. He has been a Minister, and he can use that experience in his role as a Member of Parliament. I believe that we can, if we wish, make a serious contribution to the progress of any law going through this House.

Traditionally, private Members’ Bills have been used to raise smaller issues, as well as big, significant issues of conscience, which have already been mentioned. The private Members’ Bills that have been successful have either changed an outcome in Government policy in due course or have made a modest and sensible change to the law with which people agree. In this Session, six such Bills have passed through the House of Commons, of which three have received Royal Assent and three are in the Lords.

It is important to say that, although the Government do not, and should not, have a monopoly on legislation, they have a mandate to legislate, whereas private Members’ Bills do not necessarily have an elected mandate from the country. As a consequence, I support the fact that we should encourage people to write to us if they want to support particular legislation, and I will shortly address expectation management and the role that each of us can play.

It can be difficult to get legislation through if the Government are opposed to it, but it has happened. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) succeeded with the Autism Act 2009. She secured a closure against the wishes of the then Labour Government by getting a sufficient number of Members to come and support the Bill—those Members were not just from the Conservative party. She then managed to make progress through the House. The right hon. Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth) knows that such Bills are in the control of hon. Members because we can get closure motions. There were several such closures in the previous Parliament, including on the Daylight Saving Bill, several on European Union (Referendum) Bills, on the Affordable Homes Bill, on the National Health Service (Amended Duties and Powers) Bill and on the International Development (Official Development Assistance Target) Bill. Members were ready in case a closure motion was needed on the Live Music Bill. There was an unsuccessful attempt to move a closure on the Tenancies (Reform) Bill, when not enough people were here. I understand that constituency days are important, but if Members genuinely believe that a piece of legislation should make progress, it is within their power to make that happen.