NHS Dentistry: Recovery and Reform

Debate between Victoria Atkins and Siobhan Baillie

Wednesday 7th February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Victoria Atkins]

The hon. Gentleman articulates the case against Labour-run Wales with great power. There is £200 million on top of the £3 billion that we already spend on NHS dentistry in England

[Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)]

I have raised dentistry a lot, because Stroud constituents and dentists have been really worried, so I welcome the Government’s plans with NHS England. I give credit to Gloucestershire ICB, which recognised the complexity of this issue. Post pandemic, it set about raising provision and we have decent take-up so far. My plea to the Secretary of State and to the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my right hon. Friend Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom) is to continue their relentless focus on prioritising children’s appointments, and not to let parents off the hook, because we can all do better even if it is hard to get a toothbrush in a three-year-old’s gob every night. Will the Secretary of State say more about how ICBs will be supported to deliver the plans and integrate the work that they are already doing? The local areas that are prioritising this are making a difference.

[Victoria Atkins]

My hon. Friend was probably summing up this morning’s toothbrushing ahead of the school run for many mums and dads up and down the country. That is the point—we want to work with parents. We do not want to patronise them. The overwhelming majority of parents do a great job looking after their kids’ teeth. Our plans are to support those who are struggling. The expectation on ICBs is clear. The plan is a document between NHSE and us. We want to deliver this plan at local level. Expectations will be set on ICBs to make sure that they fulfil the potential of this great plan.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Victoria Atkins and Siobhan Baillie

Tuesday 5th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[Victoria Atkins]

Yes, I was. What is more, we looked carefully at the figures in relation to overseas care workers. We are grateful to all international people who work in our NHS and our care system, but we need to tackle the migration rate, which is too high. The package presented yesterday by the Government is a thoughtful and careful one to tackle legal migration.

[Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)]

Stroud Maternity Hospital is doing a great job, but the post-natal beds are still not open. We have been chasing a ministerial meeting about that for some time. Will my hon. Friend meet me and the Gloucestershire NHS scrutiny chair, Andrew Gravells, to discuss the issue? We think that we need some help with the Care Quality Commission.

Afghan Citizens Resettlement Scheme

Debate between Victoria Atkins and Siobhan Baillie

Thursday 6th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Victoria Atkins]

I am grateful to all local authorities that are helping, including those in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency. I hope he will understand that I cannot give an answer at the Dispatch Box, but I will happily meet him imminently to discuss the case he raises.

[Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend for her work on this hugely complex and important task. Stroud constituents have put me in touch with more than 100 Afghanistan people, largely in family groups, whose life and work in the Government in pre-Taliban Afghanistan mean that they are now in daily danger. Sadly, over the past few months I have made very little progress on these cases, particularly since we were told that cases were sent to the Ministry of Defence. For the sake of completeness, will my hon. Friend clarify what happens to those cases being held by the MOD now that the new resettlement scheme is live? What message would she give to those people and to my constituents whom we are trying to help?

[Victoria Atkins]

I thank my hon. Friend for all the hard work and diligence she has shown in representing her constituents, who understandably have real concerns about their family members. I will happily meet her to discuss the matter. Because the launching of the scheme is such a significant event and many, many constituents throughout the country have contacted their Members of Parliament, it will take us a little bit of time to sort through individual cases, but I am happy to meet my hon. Friend to clarify the situation and to see whether we can make progress. As I say, people who are already here in the United Kingdom will be on the pathway to settlement because we have worked so quickly after Operation Pitting.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Victoria Atkins and Siobhan Baillie

Monday 22nd November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Victoria Atkins]

I know the hon. Gentleman well, and I know that he will not have overlooked the 15,000 people whom we evacuated during the emergency conditions of Operation Pitting. Of course, there are still agreements carrying on with third-party countries for evacuating people—where it is safe to do so, where checks have been conducted and so on—each and every week. Not only do we have the ACRS in the process of being built, but we are meeting our commitment to those who have worked with the UK Government and the UK Army under the Afghan relocations and assistance policy, so work is ongoing to protect people. We are working with international partners; indeed, I met the German delegation during the Conservative party conference to discuss with them the work the Germans are doing. However, we are very much in the hands of our international partners when it comes to opening up safe and legal routes through Afghanistan to us.

[Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)]

12. What steps her Department is taking to support special constables.

Strategy for Tackling Violence Against Women and Girls

Debate between Victoria Atkins and Siobhan Baillie

Wednesday 21st July 2021 Commons Chamber

[Victoria Atkins]

As the hon. Lady will know, the inspectorate’s report landed a matter of days, perhaps only a week, ago. We are working through these details, but, as I say, we have absolutely accepted the inspectorate’s recommendation that there should be a national policy lead whose sole focus is eliminating violence against women and girls.

[Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)]

On combating virginity testing, I welcome the work of my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Mr Holden), and I want to express my support and praise for the campaigner Nimco Ali, who has done an awful lot behind the scenes on that. Separately, I have said before that Stroud’s schoolgirls came to me to raise the issue of public and sexual harassment. They were quite desperate and it was really upsetting; girls are struggling, at school, on the streets and in relationships right now. I welcome the measures in this strategy, but I ask the Minister to use her energy to work across government to deliver safety for our young girls.

[Victoria Atkins]

My hon. Friend is a brilliant advocate for her constituents and in raising these issues with me. On street harassment, as I have said before, we are looking at every option to try to ensure that women and girls feel supported in reporting such incidents, at whether there is room within legislation in this regard and, importantly, at cracking down on the behaviour of perpetrators. Men must not think—we are talking about some men, a minority—that it is appropriate to behave in the way we have seen in the survey; that must stop. By acting together across the House and across society, we will achieve real change.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill (Tenth sitting)

Debate between Victoria Atkins and Siobhan Baillie

Committee stage
Tuesday 8th June 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Victoria Atkins]

First and foremost, the hon. Lady is certainly not being annoying; she is doing her job and her duty on the Committee. I am feeling my way here carefully because obviously Ministers should not comment on individual cases, but, on her example, in a scenario where someone is being at shouted at or spoken to as she described, there is a very good argument for saying that the person doing the shouting is committing a public order offence under the 1986 Act—that could be a section 5 offence of causing harassment, alarm or distress at the moment.

Again, I read across to other parts of public order legislation. That is why the objective test is an important one. We want first to be consistent with other public order measures. However, we recognise that there may be some instances in which an individual, for whatever reason—medical or otherwise—may have a particular sensitivity. In the criminal law, we say, “Look, we have got to deal with this on an objective basis, because it is the criminal law and the consequences of being convicted of a criminal offence are as serious as they are.” I have some hypothetical examples to give a bit of colour in due course, but, if I may, I want to complete outlining the checks and balances as written in the Bill so that everyone has a clear picture of the steps that a senior officer will have to go through to satisfy herself or himself that a condition can be imposed on the grounds of noise.

The senior officer must decide whether the impact is significant. In doing so, they must have regard to the likely number of people who may be affected, the likely duration and the likely intensity of that impact. The threshold at which police officers will be able to impose conditions on the use of noise is rightly very high. The examples I have been provided with—I am sure the Committee will understand that I am not citing any particular protest or assembly—are that a noisy protest in a town centre may not meet the threshold, but a protest creating the same amount of noise outside a school might, given the age of those likely to be affected and how those in the school are trying to sit down to learn on an average day. A noisy protest outside an office with double glazing may not meet the threshold, but a protest creating the same amount of noise outside a care home for elderly people, a GP surgery or small, street-level businesses might, given the level of disruption likely to be caused. Again, that refers to the conditions in clause 54(3) about the likely number of people, the likely duration and the likely intensity of that impact on such persons.

[Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)]

We have heard an awful lot about the police having to apply judgment and make decisions quickly, but, given the examples that the Minister has just read out, does she agree that there is a good dollop of common sense in much of what we need to apply with this legislation?

[Victoria Atkins]

Indeed. Of course, we are rightly sitting here scrutinising every single word of the Bill carefully, but a senior police officer on the ground will have had a great deal of training and years of experience as an officer working in their local communities. They will also have the knowledge of their local communities. I imagine that policing a quiet village and policing the centre of Westminster are two very different experiences, and the officers making such decisions will be well versed in the needs of their local areas. None the less, officers across the country will be bound by the terms of subsection (3)—those checks and balances I have referred to throughout—and the European convention on human rights.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill (Tenth sitting)

Debate between Victoria Atkins and Siobhan Baillie

Tuesday 8th June 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Victoria Atkins]

[Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)]

[Victoria Atkins]

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill (Ninth sitting)

Debate between Victoria Atkins and Siobhan Baillie

Committee stage
Tuesday 8th June 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Victoria Atkins]

It is, as always, a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe. It is a pleasure to appear opposite the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate. He did a fine job in the temporary absence of the hon. Member for Croydon Central.

I welcome this debate because it is only in a Public Bill Committee that we get the chance to scrutinise a piece of legislation line by line, word by word, as has been amply demonstrated this morning. Second Reading is important, of course, but it simply does not provide the time for this sort of back and forth about the Government’s intentions behind each line of legislation, and indeed the intended consequences, so I genuinely welcome this approach..

I also very much welcome the constructive views that have been put forward by Opposition Members in relation to this part of the Bill, because it goes without saying, of course, that it is our job as a Public Bill Committee to do this. It also demonstrates the important role that this place plays in scrutinising legislation and holding the Executive to account.

I note that there are some misunderstandings about what the Bill entails, and I very much welcome the opportunity to correct some of those, in a way that I hope and expect will reassure Committee members. Hon. Members have made very fair points about the right to peaceful protest being part of living in a democracy, and part of the social contract between the state and citizens. As part of that social contract, there are constraints both on citizens—we are expected, as members of this society, to observe and abide by the rule of law—and on the state.

That is why, for example, we have this process in Parliament, and not just in relation to this piece of legislation; it is for every single piece of legislation introduced by any Government of any colour. We have measures such as the European convention on human rights, an incredibly important document whose influence runs throughout this part of the Bill and other relevant parts. I say this because I very much want to approach this discussion with a constructive tone, to try to clear up some of the misunderstandings that have emerged about what the Bill encompasses.

I have enjoyed hearing some of the recollections of hon. Members about attending protests, particularly that of the hon. Member for Stockton, North, who I think is claiming credit for a Prime Minister standing down because he went out protesting—perhaps I am being mischievous. In a mischievous tone, I also note that nobody has yet mentioned the Iraq protests and how those massive protests did not change the course set by the Government who were then in power.

The first misunderstanding that I want to clear up—first and foremost—is that this Bill is not about banning peaceful protest, and nor can the measures within it enable the police, or indeed the Home Secretary, to ban peaceful protest. Nothing in the Bill does that. I state that clearly and proudly on the record, so that people listening to this debate from outside this Committee Room understand that that is simply not the case. That is a misunderstanding and I am very keen to clarify it.

[Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)]

We have probably all received emails suggesting that the Bill will ban protest. Indeed, we have not just seen emails but violence, and protests that have led to violence and attacks on the police. I think that it is incumbent on all of us to ensure that we use language in such a way that, while we are challenging the provisions of the Bill and talking about churches and noises and having all those debates, we make it absolutely clear that we are not stopping protests with this legislation.

[Victoria Atkins]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point. There is a responsibility on all of us in the language we use. I know that in the heat of debate and the joy of advocacy, one can sometimes get a little bit carried away. But I am really keen that in this Committee we understand that the Bill is not about banning peaceful protest, particularly because of the unrest that we have seen in some parts of the country, which I will come on to in a moment.

Another perhaps colourful piece of advocacy that seems to have crept into the debate this morning is that the Bill is somehow about imprisoning more people. That is simply not correct. Indeed, anyone making such allegations should be mindful of the fact that, of course, as with any other criminal offence, the standard and burden of proof remains the same: namely, that it is for the Crown to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. Those fundamentals of our criminal justice system remain throughout this process.