Access to Dental Services: West Sussex

Debate between Ben Maguire and Jess Brown-Fuller

Tuesday 16th June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Jess Brown-Fuller]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his passionate advocacy for NHS dentistry in West Sussex. I am grateful to him for caring about access to NHS dentistry across the whole country. He is a fierce advocate for Strangford and makes the important point that the situation we are in is a damning indictment of the failure of the previous Government—a failure that the Prime Minister himself referred to regularly in the run-up to the general election. It was a stick that he used to beat the Conservative Government with in every televised debate, when he spoke about rotting teeth falling out of children’s mouths.

We are still going backwards, dealing with problems on a scale not seen for generations, all at a time when the British Dental Association has warned that NHS dentistry is facing an existential threat. Parliament often hears the term “postcode lottery”, but I cannot think of a more applicable example than NHS dental services for residents in Chichester and West Sussex.

Last week I had the opportunity to conduct a little bit of research with a staff member who has recently moved to London and needs to register with an NHS dentist. Within two miles of his new postcode in London, 10 surgeries were accepting NHS patients. Entering the postcode of my constituency office in Chichester into the NHS search tool produced a very different result: zero surgeries accepting new adult NHS patients within a 12-mile radius. There were none within the city itself, and only one surgery was accepting new patients under the age of 17. That means that residents not registered locally have to travel to other towns and cities. At the time of looking, the closest surgery was in Littlehampton in the constituency of the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Alison Griffiths). That is not close to the city of Chichester.

I ask the Minister what his solution would be for people attempting to register locally, people living in the area already and people moving to it after years of increased mandated development in my constituency. I would like to share with the Minister a few examples of what this means for my constituents in Chichester, who very kindly got in touch with me to share their stories. Kathryn moved with her family to the area four years ago. She still travels to Three Bridges for dental care. Christine still returns to the Isle of Wight for treatment. Marina and Denise moved to Bracklesham in 2011—15 years ago—and have never been able to register for an NHS dentist locally. Jim contacted me to say that he undertakes a 140-mile round trip just to receive routine dental care.

[Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)]

I commend my hon. Friend on an excellent speech. Some of my residents still travel to their NHS dentist clinic in Nottinghamshire, which is a more than 500-mile round trip from Cornwall. Does my hon. Friend agree that Cornwall integrated care board needs to sort out its underspend? This year, there was a £1.2 million underspend that could have been invested in vital NHS dental services. I understand that West Sussex is a good example: it has managed to reinvest any underspend money on the services that my hon. Friend is talking about, which are so desperately needed in West Sussex and in Cornwall.

[Jess Brown-Fuller]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point about his local ICB. The underspend issue has plagued the dentistry contract over many years. The ICB for Sussex did manage to commission more urgent dental care using its underspend, meaning that it had very little to give back to the Treasury. That was absolutely the right thing to do; I commend my hon. Friend for recognising that that is an opportunity that Cornwall ICB could take. However, the Sussex ICB invested in urgent dental care while not addressing the problem that we have in routine dental care.

Residents in Chichester cannot access routine dental care in their own city and are forced to travel considerable distances. That takes time out of people’s lives, costs money, and creates additional risks. Imagine someone making that 140-mile round trip for a routine appointment, only to discover that they require an emergency procedure. They would be miles away from their home and family, and might not be capable of driving themselves home afterwards. That is completely unacceptable in today’s society.

To make matters worse, a number of individuals told me that they had been removed from their surgery’s patient list, particularly during the pandemic when they did not want to be in close contact with others. They had no notification that that was happening. Others were informed out of the blue that their surgery was switching to private care and that, unless they paid, they would need to seek treatment elsewhere. Given the costs involved, as reflected in the national figures, many simply choose to go without care altogether.

On top of that, individuals who have been lucky enough to secure an NHS place often face enormous waiting times for treatment. Jade shared her experience of being placed on a waiting list for routine root canal treatment and then being ignored for months. At 28-weeks pregnant, she suddenly found herself in excruciating pain and required emergency surgery. As we know, that costs the taxpayer a lot more than if the issue is addressed before it becomes an emergency. Another mother contacted me to say that three years ago her son developed an abscess over Christmas. They were unable to secure emergency treatment so they joined a waiting list at three separate practices. They still have not secured an appointment.

Those examples all point to a broken system in Chichester and across the country—one that is failing my constituents and worsening health outcomes. In the long run, it is also making the country poorer: the failure to invest in preventive care means that individuals require more serious and expensive treatment further down the line. This has to end. That view is shared by the dentists I spoke to ahead of today’s debate. A key issue raised by them and many across the profession is the state of the NHS dental contract. The British Dental Association identified it as a major factor driving NHS dentists into the private sector. The current settlement has been widely criticised since its inception back in 2006. The Health and Social Care Committee published a report in 2023 calling for an urgent overhaul of the system, and the Labour party promised to renegotiate the contract in its manifesto.

One former dental nurse who contacted me described the contracts as being like

“tying dentists’ hands behind their backs.”

That is hardly practical if they are trying to perform a root canal procedure. The contracts are failing patients because the number of patients a dentist can see on the NHS is limited according to the units of dental activity that they have been commissioned to deliver. The nurse I spoke to suggested patients are being referred to hospitals for routine procedures because contractual arrangements prevent practices from carrying them out themselves and being renumerated.

The Government promised to reform the contracts, but they have been slow to address problems that are widely recognised across the sector. The consultation that the Government announced in April must lead to a contract that is genuinely patient-focused, with greater flexibility in commissioning. When it was announced, the Government committed to bringing out the consultation before the summer, but the official line has changed slightly to “in due course”. I share the concern raised by campaigners that any further delay will mean that a new system will not be implemented before the end of this Parliament. Will the Minister commit to bringing out the consultation before the summer and to a firm deadline for when formal contract renegotiations will begin? Frankly, we cannot afford any further delays.

Another issue is costs. Lab costs went up 9% last year, but NHS contract holders got just a 3.55% uplift—add to that the hikes in national insurance contributions, which have exacerbated an already dismal situation. The British Dental Association believes that an average NHS dentist is losing £25 per routine dental check. Without support and changes to the contracts, many practices will continue to be pushed into the private sector, as we have already seen happen to many. In West Sussex, the number of dentists with NHS activity has dropped by 13% since 2019. I imagine that that figure is actually an underestimation, because a practice can offer just one NHS appointment a year and still feature on the list of NHS providers.

Local dentists are also concerned that the merger of the Surrey and Sussex ICBs, alongside a 50% reduction in ICB running costs, could undermine the local commissioning expertise and local relationships with providers. Can the Minister today provide any reassurance that, at a time of significant change within our ICBs, they will be given the resource to maintain and improve relationships with contract providers?

The Government talk a good game on dentistry, but they are tinkering around the edges and leaving major issues such as the contracts so far unresolved. They quietly dropped their manifesto pledge of delivering 700,000 more dental appointments, under the guise of broadening the definition of urgent dental appointments for clinical reasons. That is a sticking plaster that addresses the requirement for more urgent dental appointments, but does not address those who cannot get routine care, which in many cases would prevent them from needing the emergency care.

The Liberal Democrats have long called for reforms that will address the root of the crisis. Our £750 million plan would begin to undo years of underfunding, guarantee urgent and emergency dental care for everyone who needed it, and hopefully bring an end to DIY dentistry. That would be needed to address the backlogs in emergency care. I have heard of wait times of up to 18 months at St Richard’s in Chichester for complex dental treatment such as difficult extractions.

It is clear that the system is broken. Nobody is naive enough to believe that it can be addressed overnight, but the Government have had two years. All the while, residents in Chichester continue to have a lack of access to basic dental services. Dentists want to help patients, but it is not currently financially viable for many to stay in the NHS. That has to change, and I urge the Government to listen carefully to contributions from all Members in today’s debate, and take the steps that they promised in their manifesto.

LGBT Financial Recognition Scheme

Debate between Ben Maguire and Jess Brown-Fuller

Wednesday 9th July 2025 Westminster Hall

[Jess Brown-Fuller]

I appreciate the hon. Member’s intervention. He is absolutely right. I will come on to the fact that the scheme prioritises those who are over the age of 80 or have terminal diagnoses. That needs to be communicated to them so that they understand where their application is in the process. Some of these veterans, like the hon. Member’s constituent, have been waiting for 25 years since the ban was lifted. In some cases, they have been waiting up to 60 years for any form of recognition or redress. The charity Fighting With Pride estimates that, at the current rate, it could take five years to clear the existing backlog. That is wholly unacceptable, particularly given the age and health of many applicants. Time is not a luxury they can afford.

From the accounts I have received from veterans, the process is riddled with obstacles. Many of them have received the non-financial reparations, such as returned medals, regimental caps or letters from the Prime Minister, only to be told that they must provide additional documentation, such as military records, to claim the financial compensation. I am fully aware that someone who applies for the non-financial reparations may choose not to subsequently apply for the financial reparations or may not qualify, but surely that process can be streamlined. We could frontload it: when someone applies for the non-financial redress, their military records could be requested in anticipation of a possible financial reparation. That would ease the burden on applicants and speed up the overall process.

The Ministry’s communication has been woeful. Applicants were told to expect an update within 18 weeks. When those updates failed to materialise, many were left anxious and in the dark, fearing that their applications had been lost or rejected. For the hundreds of veterans who have waited years—decades—for justice, these delays are retraumatising. They are being forced to relive some of the most painful chapters of their lives, only to be met with silence from the very institution that wronged them.

[Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate on a vital issue. I am very proud to have her as a colleague. She is a fantastic representative of her constituents. A constituent of mine, Adrian Radford, has been waiting decades for justice to be done. As my hon. Friend said, with every delay he has to relive the abuse and trauma that he and many like him suffered. With just 44 people having received payments out of 1,200 applications, will my hon. Friend join me in urging the Minister to commit to scaling up the delivery team with urgency so that we can finally deliver justice?

[Jess Brown-Fuller]

The experience of my hon. Friend’s constituent reflects that of many others who feel abandoned and ignored. The MOD committed to updating applicants to the scheme within 18 weeks of their application, but that has not happened and has further deepened the emotional distress by reopening old wounds, as my hon. Friend said.

I am very pleased, as I said before, that my constituent Liz is in the Public Gallery. Liz’s story mirrors that of so many affected by the policy. She was discharged from the RAF in 1969 after private letters between her and her girlfriend at the time were discovered. When her girlfriend failed to meet her one evening, Liz learned that she had been arrested by military police. Liz was then coerced into providing a statement, which led directly to her dismissal. She only discovered decades later when applying for this scheme that she had also been given a criminal conviction for same-sex sexual activity. That conviction has followed her unknowingly for her entire adult life and may have affected numerous aspects of it without her knowledge.

Liz is one of the few who has received her compensation, which was fast-tracked due to health concerns. I am pleased to learn that both the dismissed and discharged scheme and the impact scheme are prioritising veterans over 80 and those with serious health conditions, but that will represent a large cohort.

I move on to my questions for the Minister. According to Fighting With Pride, 84 payments have been made out of a total of more than 1,200 applications since the scheme went live in December. I had to get that information from Fighting With Pride because the MOD does not publish the number of successful applications on a rolling basis, which fuels mistrust. Will the Government confirm today how many veterans have received compensation in the dismissed or discharged scheme and the impact scheme, and what percentage of claimants that represents? Will the Minister commit to a simple weekly update? Even a tweet—is it still called a tweet?—would go a long way in rebuilding faith in the process.

The DD scheme is currently managed by a very small number of civil servants. That scheme is for the larger sum of £50,000, and it deals with the simple question of whether the veteran was dismissed or discharged for their sexuality or perceived sexuality. Will the Minister increase the capacity to come to a decision on cases by increasing the number of civil servants working on the DD scheme so that it does not take the predicted five years to clear all the cases?

I recognise that the impact scheme, which requires a decision by a panel chaired by Lord Paddick, deals with a far more complex area of impact payments that can be awarded up to the value of £20,000. The panel is sometimes presented with up to 600 pages of records for one veteran, and therefore the preparation time needed before a panel is extensive. The panel attempts to hear 10 cases per sitting, up from six at the start of the process. Will the Minister please give serious consideration to appointing a secondary panel with a secondary chair, as the most sitting days that the current panel can manage is two a week, with two days for preparation and reading?

Now that the internal IT problems have apparently been resolved, will all veterans who have applied for either scheme be provided with an update 18 weeks after their application and every 18 weeks subsequently until a decision is reached, as the MOD previously promised? Will the information that will apparently be available on the portal be accessible to all, even those who are not tech savvy?

Will the Government take the steps outlined to streamline the process of compensation, ensuring that the collection of military records is front-loaded when applications are received so that there is no delay in the claim being processed? Is the £75 million for reparations a ringfenced fund that will be extended if the number of applicants exceeds the fund? If so, where will the additional funding come from?

I thank everyone who got in touch ahead of today’s debate, including Fighting With Pride, the Minister and all Members who came to share their constituents’ stories and show support for speeding up the scheme. We need to do better to ensure this dark period in our history has an ending that recognises the magnitude of the injustice faced by so many veterans. There is not a moment to lose.