Syria

Debate between Judith Cummins and Jim Shannon

Thursday 19th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call Jim Shannon to ask the final question.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

When I speak in the Chamber, I always see myself as a rear gunner. I thank the Minister for her statement and her clear commitment to human rights, prevention of religious persecution and righting wrongs. While I welcome the fall of Assad, I fear for what will replace that regime. As we have seen in Afghanistan and Iraq, if we do not —I say “we” collectively—secure democracy, a dictatorship under a different guise will arise. How will the UK and our UN allies ensure that those women and children who have lived through horrific oppression will not simply taste freedom for a short time before entering a new despotic regime? What specific support can our Government give to women and children at this time?

Border Security: Collaboration

Debate between Judith Cummins and Jim Shannon

Wednesday 11th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

For the final question, I call Jim Shannon.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement today. We all agree in this House and across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland that the issue of immigration needs to be realistically prevented. To give the right hon. Lady credit, she has shown that determination and commitment through the statement today and we look forward to seeing the action on the ground.

Let me gently take the Secretary of State on another journey, across to Northern Ireland. What discussions have taken place with the Republic of Ireland to secure the border with Northern Ireland? The Irish Government have implemented checks for their security. I believe that the time has come for the Government here to do likewise, and to prevent immigration through the back door.

Carbon Capture, Usage and Storage

Debate between Judith Cummins and Jim Shannon

Monday 7th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

And the final word goes to Jim Shannon.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Maybe not the final word, Madam Deputy Speaker, as that will be for the Secretary of State. I welcome the statement, in which he rightly underlined that anybody who ignores carbon capture, use and storage does so at their peril, and the Government’s commitment to carbon capture. While the amount set aside is incredible, so too is the requirement that every penny brings an achievement. How will the Secretary of State ensure that each region of the United Kingdom is involved in this net gain? I say to him gently that Northern Ireland is not mentioned in his statement; I am sure he will address that issue. There must be accountability to ensure the realisation of environmental goals, rather than simply the aspiration of achieving them.

Lebanon

Debate between Judith Cummins and Jim Shannon

Tuesday 30th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Thank you. I call Jim Shannon.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I always have a question. [Laughter.] Sorry, humour is not what this is about. I apologise for that—I should not have said that.

I thank the Secretary of State very much for his calm and measured statement, which encapsulated the temperament and concern of all of us in this Chamber, on both sides. The attack at the football pitch in Majdal Shams was deadly and full of complete evil: 12 children and young adults were slaughtered. Will he outline what steps are being taken to find the perpetrators and hold them accountable, and to ensure the message is sent that these attacks will not bring peace, but instead further division? What steps will be taken to assist Israel, whose very existence is under threat from Hezbollah? Hezbollah are terrorist murderers of innocents, and must be neutralised.

Code of Conduct and Modernisation Committee

Debate between Judith Cummins and Jim Shannon

Thursday 25th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure, Madam Deputy Speaker, to speak for the second day running with you in the Chair. May I say what a pleasure it is to follow the hon. Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan). I wish him well, along with all the others who made their maiden speeches today. This House is enriched and blessed by the contributions of Members from all parts of the House. It augurs well for the future. We all benefit when everyone brings their knowledge and their expertise of other subject matters to the Chamber.

In the very short time that I have, I wish to refer to the important conversation that needs to be had about MPs and double jobbing. As MPs and elected representatives, our three main priorities are accountability, scrutiny and representation. There are ways to be critical and compassionate in relation to this subject. For instance, we should consider those who may have had established businesses before they came to this House.

A report in 2015 indicated that 26 MPs declared more earnings from directorships, paid employment and shareholdings than they did from their parliamentary salary. That puts a question in my mind.

On the other hand, I have never made any secret of how grateful I am to be able to carry on with my role. I dedicate so much of my time, as do others, to doing my job to the best of my ability. But we have seven Sinn Féin MPs who are elected but do not take their seats. They do not get a wage, but they can claim for office expenses.

Undoubtedly, there are issues in relation to double jobbing that need to be addressed, but many of those are down to individual circumstances. I do not know everybody’s circumstances, but an MP who is elected to this House could be here for five years—for one term—and, at the end of it, they will still have a mortgage to pay. What about the job or even the opportunity that they may have had before they came here? I just pose that as a question. I was a councillor and a Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly before I became an MP. Once I was elected, I gave up my council job and my role as an MLA. I gave the business that I owned to my son. That is what we can do, but consideration should be given to both sides of the argument. However, my stance is clear. My No. 1 priority is doing the job that I was elected to do, which is to represent the people of Strangford, to scrutinise Government legislation, and to be held accountable to my constituents.

The other issue that I wish to speak to is modernisation. I can well remember coming to this House, sitting on these green Benches, and feeling the overwhelming weight of responsibility on my shoulders. I am innately aware of what it means to have the honour of representing my constituency in the greatest seat of democracy.

Although I noted the difference in the way that things were handled when I was first elected in 2010 and struggled to come to terms with some of the traditional aspects of the House, I now treasure those traditions. There are those who express the other point of view and want to see lots of change, and then there are those who, like me, see the traditions as something to hold on to.

I agree with the rationale behind these timeless traditions, which is something that I am afraid we will lose if we blindly modernise. Mr Speaker said to hon. Members, “If you want to catch my eye, wear a tie.” Well, everybody who can and should wear a tie is wearing one today. I support the rationale behind that. I think it is the right way to do things.

If we do not move with the times, then the times will move without us; however, I urge caution. We should ensure that not one thing is changed simply because we can rather than because we should. Not all modernisations are welcome. There are now rules in place that preclude me from being an officer of more than six all-party parliamentary groups. That has been difficult, as I am letting some of those groups down. I put that forward as a point of view; obviously others will take a different view on that.

Some modernisations are necessary. The overhaul of financial claims was a vital tool in restoring public confidence. Modernisation of the voting system was necessary for functionality during covid, and I am thankful that the flexibility was there, but we need to be incredibly careful, if we consider changes to Commons voting, that they do not result in more absenteeism and remote voting. Some have suggested that we change the voting system; I suggest that we do not. Modernisation of the maternity system was long overdue, and I am thankful for that. We need modernisation, but it must be for a clear purpose and not for ease of operation.

The traditions of this place should not be dismissed as mere traditions; there is wisdom behind many of them that must be protected. I urge the House to ensure that such protection is in place. I am all for modernisation as necessary, but I feel strongly that it must be done with wisdom and sensitivity, and that our centuries-long traditions should not be abandoned to give an appearance of modern society. Yes, I would love to speak first in every debate, but I am not going to. I would not be allowed to do so; it would not be the right way of doing things. I respect the convention that would prevent it as ancient but necessary. Every single issue discussed must be considered in that way.

Just because something has aged does not mean that it ceases to be of use. That must be the premise of any discussion on modernisation in this great House, in this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland—better together. With all the culture, history and traditions from all parts of society that we have here, we can work together to make changes in the right way—not change for change’s sake, but the changes that are necessary.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call Gordon McKee to make his maiden speech.

Education and Opportunity

Debate between Judith Cummins and Jim Shannon

Wednesday 24th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate you, Madam Deputy Speaker, on being elevated to the position of First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means. Those of us who know you are very pleased to see you in that position. I believe that you will be impartial and fair to everyone, as you always are. I look forward to you calling me to speak and intervene in debates on many occasions.

What a pleasure it is to see the Ministers in their place. The Secretary of State was here earlier, and the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell), is here now; I look forward to her summing up. The contribution of the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), was also excellent.

We have had wonderful maiden speeches today from Conservative, Liberal Democrat and Labour Members. The House has been enriched by the combination of contributions, including the intervention of the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood), who will make her maiden speech at a later stage, as other Members from Northern Ireland have. I especially thank the hon. Member for Harlow (Chris Vince), whose story about young carers resonated with me in particular, as I have had an interest in this area over the years. I think it resonated with everyone, to be truthful, but it resonated with me because I know young carers in my constituency. Perhaps they were not the best students, but they had reasons for it. The story that he told may be 10 years old, but it is still relevant today, and I thank him for it.

It is so important that we have debates on education. I have said in this place so many times that our young people truly are the future. To ensure that they have the tools needed to succeed, we have to make difficult decisions. Education is devolved in Northern Ireland, so Ministers here do not have respond on it. They do not have to take any notice, and they do not need to say to themselves, “I must reply to the hon. Member.” They might wish to say something, but they do not have any responsibility for our education. However, I want to give a Northern Ireland perspective, as I always do, and make two points.

There are so many opportunities out there for young people. Some may know what route they want to take in life, and for those who do not, there are other options. Education may not be everybody’s option, as the hon. Member for Harlow said, but there are other things that we need to do through education as well. Ministers will no doubt take that on board. Whether in employment, further education or apprenticeships, there are opportunities for people to avail themselves of. Furthermore, I am a big supporter of work experience and the prospects that it can bring for young people, especially in their education and future employment. It can give young people a taste for work and the possibilities that it can lead them to. I try to offer it every year in my office, as I did when I was a Member of the Legislative Assembly and when I had my own business.

Two of my youngest staff members, one aged 29 and one aged 24, both did their work experience in my office, one back in 2012 and the other in 2017. We never realised that they would one day end up working for me. They went and did another job in between, but ended up coming back to me. Whether they thought I was a soft touch, or what it was, I am not quite sure. I am sure that they did not think that—the fact is that they loved what we do in the office. Like others elected to this House, my whole life has been about helping people and making their lives better. That is our job. It does not matter what political party we are in; we have to try to do that in every part of life. Years later, an opportunity came up for new staff, and knowing the skillset that those two people were able to bring through their work experience, they were able to come into the job like they had always been there. That sticks in my mind.

Whether it be in aerospace; healthcare; science, technology, engineering and maths; government; law; media; trades such as mechanics or plumbing, and so on—the list is endless—it is no secret that more needs to be done on funding for the devolved nations. It was revealed last year that Northern Ireland student numbers were reduced with funding cuts. Indeed, it has been indicated that the teaching grant for Northern Ireland’s universities will be reduced by 10% to save around £14 million. It was also planned that funding for further education colleges would be cut by 4% to save an additional £9 million.

In the limited time that I have left, I want briefly to discuss the opportunities that apprenticeships provide for young people. I mentioned earlier that not every person can have a civil service job or be in university or another form of education, but they can have opportunities out there in society. Our universities are incredible, but there are young people out there who do not see university as a path for them to go down. The number of people aged 16 to 24 pursuing an apprenticeship has been increasing consistently since 2013, showcasing how the world of work can provide opportunities for young people who perhaps do not want to go to university. Apprenticeships are provided in so many industries; there is always something that can be found to give young people the best start on their employment path.

The issues always lie with funding, and that is why it is so important that these issues are represented. Northern Ireland has suffered for too long from ill thought-out budgets and lack of funding. It is time for our words to be listened to and for budgets to be reconsidered for the betterment of young people and their futures. I believe, as everybody participating in this debate does, that our young people are the future, and I want them to get many more opportunities than I got. We are responsible for ensuring that education and employment opportunities are available to all young people across this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, because, as you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, we are always better together.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call Catherine Fookes to make her maiden speech.

Osteoporosis

Debate between Judith Cummins and Jim Shannon

Thursday 26th October 2023 Commons Chamber

[Judith Cummins]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that important intervention. The condition predominantly affects women, but it does affect men as well. Small changes to lifestyle, as well as detection and prevention, are very, very important.

Osteoporosis often develops during menopause, when a decrease in oestrogen can lead to a 20% reduction in bone density. A loss of bone density affects people of all sexes as they age, but women lose more bone density more rapidly than men.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Lady for securing the debate. I referred to this point earlier in the debate on menopause, but my staff and I deal every day of the week with benefit issues relating to osteoporosis. It is clear that the understanding and capacity that maybe should be there in the health sector is not there. Mindful that the Minister is not responsible for the Department for Work and Pensions, does she think that within the Department there should be a better understanding when assessing those with osteoporosis to ensure they can gain the benefits in the system that the Government have set aside and have a better quality of life?

[Judith Cummins]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that important intervention. Osteoporosis suffers from some mystery, and any light that we shine on the condition is welcome. It is entirely possible for someone with osteoporosis to work and have a very full life, given detection and treatment.

Fracture liaison services are integral to that. They are essential because throughout our lives our bones continuously renew themselves in a process called bone turnover. With osteoporosis, bone turnover becomes out of balance. Bones lose strength and become more fragile, bringing an increased risk of fractured bones time and time again. The FLS can identify osteoporosis at the first fracture through methods including DEXA scanning, and offer treatment that can reduce the risk of further fractures. The FLS also systematically monitors patients after an osteoporosis diagnosis to ensure they get the best out of their treatment plan. With the FLS, patients who would otherwise face a fracture or multiple fractures can continue to lead healthy and fulfilling lives.

With osteoporosis designated as the fourth most consequential health condition when measured in terms of disability and premature death, we have to question the Government’s current record on assessment, treatment and prevention. There is a postcode lottery for access to these vital life enhancing and lifesaving services, with only 57% of the eligible population in England currently having access to the FLS. What we desperately need is a central mandate requiring integrated care boards to invest in established FLS for everyone.

Let me stress not only the moral imperative of acting on this issue, but the clear financial argument for establishing 100% FLS coverage in England. One million acute hospital bed days in England alone are taken up by hip fracture patients. Research shows that FLSs reduce the refracture risk by up to 40%. Applying that to the national picture, we find that a staggering 750,000 bed days would be freed up over five years, saving the NHS £665 million. This would have a significant and positive impact on the social care system. For every pound invested in FLS, the return is more than threefold. With the NHS in crisis, the Government must be bold and recognise the value of services such as FLS.

The future of the NHS lies in prevention, but this argument extends beyond the NHS. Every year, 670,000 people of working age suffer from fractures due to osteoporosis, and a third of those will leave the workplace permanently owing to the impact of chronic pain. We also know that every year 2.1 million sick days are taken in England as a result of disabilities caused by fractures. Any Government would surely understand how consequential this is for our economy. A new analysis provided for the Treasury shows that universal access to FLS can prevent up to 750,000 sick days every year, and that is why trade unions, the TUC, the Federation of Small Businesses and other business groups have joined the campaign to extend FLS access to everyone aged over 50.

It is clear that the Chancellor cannot succeed in addressing labour shortages without taking decisive action on FLS. To provide this vital support—to provide 100% FLS coverage in the UK—would cost an estimated £27 million per annum, which is less than 2% of the UK’s current expenditure on hip fractures. Preventive osteoporosis treatment not only presents a sound financial case for the NHS, but presents a strong business case by ensuring that so many women can continue to work. Improved osteoporosis treatment does not just mean that people can work for longer; it means—perhaps much more important—that those living with osteoporosis can enjoy a higher quality of life beyond their work.

It is time to do away with the stigma because, with people in the UK living to an older age than ever before, 50 has become the new 40. Osteoporosis is no longer an old person’s condition. We have allowed it to become accepted as a natural part of ageing, but it does not have to be. In this country, we have a choice: to diagnose and treat it, or to simply continue to ignore it. This is an opportunity to address old prejudices. Osteoporosis is one of many conditions, mostly experienced by women, that have historically been swept under the carpet. In the 19th century, during the period of its earliest identification, studies crudely described the condition in terms of women tripping over “their long skirts”. Even today, people refer to osteoporosis in crude and demeaning terms such as “a dowager’s hump”. Raising awareness of this long-overlooked condition is essential, and I am grateful for the opportunity provided by today’s debate to further demystify osteoporosis as a health issue which affects so many people across this country.

After centuries of inattention in the world of medicine, we now have revolutionary new technologies and systems such as DEXA scanning and FLS. These services have the potential to transform the lives of so many women throughout the country—women who have so much to offer, who should not be left undiagnosed, but whose quality of life is left literally to crumble along with their bones; women who are left to suffer in pain when treatment can and should be made available. The decision to provide full FLS coverage is not only fiscally responsible and right, but it would be an historical leap forward in terms of women’s healthcare. Today, two thirds of those who need anti-osteoporosis medication are left untreated. That is roughly 90,000 people, every year, missing out on necessary treatment due to Government inaction. This is life-changing medicine. As many people die from osteoporosis-related issues as die from lung cancer or diabetes, so FLS and fracture prevention need to be part of the mandated NHS core contract. We must establish new guidelines to support the establishment of FLS across England.

In August, the Minister publicly stated that the Government would make an announcement on establishing more fracture liaison services by the end of this year. In September, the Minister in the other place said that the autumn statement would include

“a package of prioritised measures to expand the provision of fracture liaison services and improve their current quality.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 14 September 2023; Vol. 832, c. GC241.]

I understand that, since then, there has been a walking back of this commitment. On behalf of the 90,000 people missing out on life-saving, life-changing medication, I yet again ask the Government to hold their nerve and act quickly.

Now is the time for this Government to turn their back on outdated attitudes towards osteoporosis, now is the time to protect women whose quality of life would otherwise be left to crumble along with their bones, and now is the time to commit to 100% FLS coverage across England. By ensuring that every person in the UK has access to fracture liaison services, we have the power to make this vision of life-saving early intervention and prevention a reality.

British Indian Ocean Territory: Sovereignty

Debate between Judith Cummins and Jim Shannon

Wednesday 7th December 2022 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon]

On a point of order, Mrs Cummins. I have spoken to the Doorkeepers about this room. It is so cold you could hang dead people in here and they would not go off. The Doorkeepers have asked the staff to do something with the heating. They say the heat is turned on. I am not sure where it is, but it is not on here. Can I ask, Mrs Cummins, that you use your power as Chair to do something about that?

[Judith Cummins (in the Chair)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that issue. I know that the Doorkeepers are busy, and I am very aware of just how cold it is in here. I am sure that that will be on the record.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the sovereignty of the British Indian Ocean Territory.

Rugby League World Cup 2022

Debate between Judith Cummins and Jim Shannon

Tuesday 25th October 2022 Westminster Hall

[Judith Cummins]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I hope that he and his dad very much enjoy the match at the weekend. I absolutely agree that rugby league is just the best game in the world. Anything that does it good in terms of growth in the community is worth celebrating. I hope he has a great time at the weekend.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for securing this debate. Her enthusiasm for the sport is self-evident. Does she agree that the focus on team sports in the media and on TV can be the impetus that young men and women need to join a team that builds character and self-esteem, creates friendships, and brings people out of social isolation to social interaction? The promotion of that can only be a good thing for the mental health of people of all ages who could be involved in the riveting game of rugby. I have to say that I am a rugby union man rather than a rugby league man, but that does not make me less of a supporter.

[Judith Cummins]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. I married a rugby union player, so I am saying nothing. It is a totally inclusive sport. It is great to celebrate sport full stop, but it is especially great to celebrate the rugby league world cup being held here. It is fantastic because it is so inclusive. We also have a very interesting mental health programme, which I will cover later in my speech.

We have 20 nations competing in the tournament, from Australia to Wales, Canada to the Cook Islands, Fiji to France and Scotland to Samoa—and Greece and Jamaica have made their debuts in the tournament. Every second of every minute of every match will be streamed live on the BBC, which has its own unique heritage with rugby league. Most games will be carried on either BBC 1 or BBC 2.

At its heart, rugby league is about people and communities. Week in, week out, local communities come together to support their clubs, their local kids’ teams and young players, giving up their time, money and energy, and sometimes even their blood, sweat and tears. The late Colin Welland said:

“Rugby league provides our cultural adrenalin. It’s a physical manifestation of our rules of life, comradeship, honest endeavour, and a staunch, often ponderous allegiance to fair play”—

very much like this place. Strong and insightful words indeed. The sport of rugby league has that power and potential. The tournaments are competitions at the very pinnacle of the sport, and they are spectacular, but the event is so much more; it is laying the foundations for the future of the sport, and for communities, regeneration and levelling up, through its social impact agenda and its legacy.

As chair of the all-party parliamentary rugby league group, I am incredibly proud that the world cup organisers and the Rugby Football League have placed that legacy at the heart of their plans before and after the event. Their trailblazing social impact programme has generated £26 million of investment in equipment and facilities, volunteering, mental fitness, education, culture, and an international development programme. That investment in facilities has helped transform clubs into hubs for their communities.

Access to NHS Dentists

Debate between Judith Cummins and Jim Shannon

Tuesday 12th September 2017 Commons Chamber

[Judith Cummins]

It is an absolute disgrace.

In the meantime, Ms Akhtar’s son had suffered chronic pain. His adult teeth had grown over the top of his milk teeth. I can only imagine the distress in having to watch your child facing chronic pain day in, day out, powerless and abandoned.

Low-income families face a double whammy: they are unable to find local NHS dentists with open lists, and more to the point, they are unable to afford the high cost of private treatment. That double whammy has left working-class areas hardest hit. Over the past seven years, the Government’s unspoken policy has been to force dental practices to rely increasingly on patient fees, and, more insidiously, to force dental practices to rely even more on patients who pay privately. Revenue from patient charges has grown by 66% over the last decade and totalled £783 million in 2016-17. Meanwhile, direct state investment has been in steady decline.

The British Dental Association analysis also reveals that the Government have only commissioned enough dentistry to treat around half the adult population. That is an absolute disgrace.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this debate. Does she feel that the Minister and the Government should set aside the idea of patients per practice and set extra money aside so that more dentists can take on more patients?

[Judith Cummins]

I absolutely do.

Dental practices in working-class areas, facing spiralling overheads and a decline in their income, are struggling to stay afloat. In better-off areas, dental practices have been able to cushion themselves through extra revenue from privately paying patients. That extra income makes a difference. In working-class areas, the realities of life are hugely different. After many families have paid their rent or mortgage, covered day-to-day essentials and put food on the table, a visit to the dentist has now become one of life’s luxuries.

Research by the BDA supports that idea. Figures reveal that four in 10 patients have delayed a dental check-up because of fears about the high cost of treatment. That is understandable when we realise that the patient charge for treatment in the highest band—such as crowns or bridges—is £244.30. Working-class people, such as those in Bradford, are being hit the hardest. They have been abandoned by the Government, and they suffer failing oral health and chronic pain day in, day out. Worst of all, they are powerless to do anything about it because they find it difficult to access an NHS dentist. There is a clear human cost of poor dental health, which affects every part of a person’s day-to-day life.

The BBC spoke to a Mr Oldroyd during their investigations. Mr Oldroyd, a middle-aged man, has been trying to find an NHS dentist for four long years, during which he had suffered from chronic pain caused by his terrible tooth decay. He told reporters:

“The state of my teeth has made me depressed and I’ve literally begged to be taken on by an NHS dentist, but every time I’ve been turned away.”

Mr Oldroyd told reporters that his pain became so unbearable that, in the end, he resorted to self-extraction. He pulled out his own teeth. This is simply unthinkable. Mr Oldroyd believes that his poor dental health has contributed to him being out of work. As he puts it:

“The tops of my teeth are gone. I’m on benefits and trying to get a job, and when someone sees my teeth they just think I’m another waster.”

This crisis has been a long time in the coming. It has not crept up on the Government; it has been visible and in plain sight. The Government were put on notice when they came to power in 2010. There have been repeated warnings from dental professionals working in the sector, from within Parliament, and from the British Dental Association. All have warned that inaction is not an option, but sadly that is what we have seen.

It was not long ago that I, and many other Members, spent the afternoon right here in the Chamber in a Back-Bench business debate about health inequalities. During my remarks I set out a number of simple, uncontroversial steps that promised to improve access to NHS dentistry. First among those steps was to expedite reform of the NHS dental contract. Time and again when challenged about the reform of this contract, the Government have done little more than lay the blame at the door of the previous Labour Government. With respect, if that excuse was ever persuasive, it is now threadbare following seven years of a Conservative Government, two Conservative Prime Ministers and three general elections.

Reform of the contract is critical, as it promises to spend taxpayers’ money more effectively. The current dysfunctional contract sets quotas on patient numbers, fails to incentivise preventive work, including effective public information campaigns, and implicitly places an ever-growing reliance on dental practices to pursue private charging as a means of staying afloat. This Government are forcing dentists to make a terrible decision: either to stop providing NHS services altogether and go private, disregarding those who have less ability to pay, or to provide overstretched NHS dental treatment to their patients—or a combination of the both. That is a toxic choice for the dental profession.

Since first being elected in 2015, I have campaigned for more funding for Bradford. The city has among the worst oral health outcomes in the country, despite the hard work of local public health officials. We have received additional funding, to the credit of the previous Minister, the right hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), but frustratingly this was only temporary. Despite my efforts, the Government still have not announced whether any permanent funding will be put in place. That is simply unacceptable. Official figures reveal that a five-year-old in Bradford is four and a half times more likely to suffer from tooth decay than a child in the Health Secretary’s constituency of South West Surrey. According to figures, a third of children in Bradford have not seen a dentist for more than two years. Children should be given a check-up every six months.