Diego Garcia Military Base
indicated dissent.
Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,779 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
- Hansard source
- Hansard source
Diego Garcia Military Base
Thank you, Mr Speaker—I mean it this time. The Secretary of State has asserted from the Dispatch Box that it is the risk of an UNCLOS judgment that is requiring this capitulation of sovereignty. Can he therefore answer this specific question: is he aware of a single case that is live under UNCLOS at the moment against the United Kingdom?
- Hansard source
Independent Sentencing Review
In her statement, the Lord Chancellor said that under her earned progression plans, if offenders follow prison rules they will win earlier release. The review says that thousands of offenders will benefit from that. Can she explain to my constituents why simply following the rules means that serious offenders will serve only a third of their sentence? Where is the punishment and where are victims’ interests in that approach?
- Hansard source
Diego Garcia Military Base
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. Before I go into the detail, however, I wish to place two important points on the record. First, it was beneath contempt for the Prime Minister in his press conference to state that those who oppose this deal are on the side of Russia and China. I am intensely proud of the role that my party has played in supporting Ukraine— I have worn this badge of the Ukrainian flag every day. I and many of my colleagues have been sanctioned by Russia and China and passionately believe that we must stand up to them. Indeed, that is one of the reasons we oppose this deal. Let us not forget that only last week Mauritius agreed to deepen maritime co-operation with Russia, and this week China said that it wanted to deepen its strategic partnership with Mauritius and that that country was well placed with strategic advantages. This is a democracy: if we as elected parliamentarians choose to take a different view on this issue and vote against the deal, that does not make us pro-Russian or pro-Chinese. Voting against this deal does not make us traitors to this country; it makes us patriots. Secondly, the Secretary of State and his Defence Ministers have said 26 times on the Floor of the House that the urgently needed strategic defence review would be delivered by the spring, but he has broken that promise. Here we are, at literally at the last sitting moment of this spring, and instead of the SDR he has come to the House to announce a total, abject surrender of our territory and a fundamental betrayal of the UK’s national interest. The Government are not surrendering British sovereign territory because of military defeat, or because of a binding legal verdict, but wilfully due to a total failure to take a stand and fight for Britain’s interests on the world stage—a complete and utter negotiating failure. Yes, it is true that we held talks with the Mauritians when in government, but we never signed a deal. Why? Because we fundamentally oppose the idea of spending billions of pounds on a surrender tax to lease back land that we currently own freehold. And it is billions of pounds. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the deal will cost £1 billion over the next five years? When the Prime Minister recently gave a statement to the House about defence spending, he used the cash figure to state by how much spending would rise. Will the Secretary of State confirm that, on the same basis, this deal will cost UK taxpayers over £10 billion? Will he confirm definitively how much of that cost will come from the Ministry of Defence budget? Mr Speaker, you will be interested to hear that, on military operations, the treaty confirms that we must “expeditiously inform Mauritius of any armed attack on a third State directly emanating from the Base on Diego Garcia.” Will the Secretary of State confirm that that means we would need to tell Mauritius if the base were to be used to launch strikes against Iran or its proxies? What guarantees has he received that Mauritius would not tell potential adversaries? As we all know, the key issue is that the Government fear a binding legal judgment. [Interruption.] They are following the legal advice to act definitively to our detriment, entirely on the basis of hypothetical risk that has not yet materialised and that we could challenge, and that is part of a pattern. On Monday, with the EU defence pact, the Secretary of State admitted that he has secured only “potential participation” in the rearmament fund, but despite no guarantee of hard cash for defence, the Government have already given up our sovereign fishing grounds for over a decade. Yesterday, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland refused to explain why this Government failed to appeal the legal decision that now threatens our veterans with a new era of lawfare for the crime of serving this nation and keeping us safe all those years ago. And today, with Chagos, once again the Government have prioritised heeding the most pessimistic legal advice, even though we have exposed the fact that fear of binding threats from the International Telecommunication Union or the United Nations convention on the law of the sea are overblown. As the hon. Member for Crawley (Peter Lamb), a Labour Back Bencher, said earlier, we are all “Getting real tired of this ‘the courts have settled it’ line of argument”. It is not so much a case of “no surrender”, as “yes, surrender” every single time, always listening to the lawyers instead of our national interests, even if that means surrendering our veterans, our fishing grounds and the Chagos islands—[Interruption.] May I suggest they change the lyrics of their Labour party song, because we all know that they will keep the white flag flying here?
- Hansard source
Diego Garcia Military Base
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman was expecting to hear the strategic defence review, as all of us were, given the Government’s multiple promises. Finally, the Chagossian community has been shamefully sidelined by this Government from start to finish, with only tick-box engagement by junior Ministers. Is it not the case that the treaty offers no protection to the Chagossians whatsoever? When Labour negotiates, Britain loses. The Government should not be surrendering strategically vital sovereign territory, especially when we face such threats, and they certainly should not be paying billions for the privilege. We would abandon this deal, but we would never abandon the Chagos islands. This is a bad deal for Britain and we will do everything possible to oppose it.
- Hansard source
Diego Garcia Military Base
Are we on?
- Hansard source
Diego Garcia Military Base
Because we care about them.
- Hansard source
EU-UK Summit
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey, and to take part in this debate this afternoon. Having been first elected to this place in 2019, I feel I missed out on the meaningful votes and the main Brexit wars of a few years ago. However, I had the privilege, for the whole four and a half years of the 2019 to 2024 Parliament, to be a member of the European Scrutiny Committee under the wonderful chairmanship of Sir William Cash. His choice to retire before the last election leaves this debate and indeed the whole House of Commons poorer. I am sure that he would have had many points to make in the debate. The reason that I refer to the European Scrutiny Committee is the detailed work that Committee did to truly understand the way that EU law pre-Brexit and indeed post-Brexit, and the involvement of the European Court of Justice post-Brexit, still pervaded our nation, our country and the way that many of our laws were made. After Labour won the election last July, the Government took the deeply regrettable decision to disband that Committee. We lost not just that parliamentary scrutiny, which would have been invaluable in considering the deal that we are debating today, but the expertise of the Clerks and the expert advisers who served that Committee, and who often ensured that parliamentary debate on all matters between ourselves and the European Union was well informed. If the Government do anything after this new deal has been struck—a deal that I do not support and that I believe sells out the decision of 17.4 million people in 2016—it should be to re-establish the European Scrutiny Committee, so that each and every one of those rules that we will now take is scrutinised line by line, and reported to the whole House and the relevant Select Committees. Then, whatever side of the Brexit debate we fall on and whatever our view of the world may be, we can all understand where those rules have come from and what they mean to our constituents and our country.
- Hansard source
EU-UK Summit
I am grateful to the hon. Member for her intervention, but I am not sure that I fully agree with her analysis. This deal is relitigating Brexit. It is reintroducing dynamic alignment and a role for the European Court of Justice in many ways that we thought we had put behind us after the last Government delivered on Brexit, which meant that we left the European Union.
- Hansard source
EU-UK Summit
Clearly, in any trade negotiation an agreement is made between two countries. The difference with a negotiation on, for example, our accession to the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership, or the trade deal-lite that the Government managed with the United States and the Trump Administration, or indeed the India trade deal, is that there is no dynamic alignment. No foreign court will be the arbiter of UK law, UK standards and our sovereignty. The principle on which I believe people voted for Brexit was that we would be in control. There was a very good reason why the Vote Leave campaign came up with the “Take Back Control” slogan; it resonated with the British people. However, that slogan will only ever mean something if we actually are in control. This deal, which we saw being announced with some glee by the Prime Minister the other day in the Chamber of the House of Commons, gives control in many areas—certainly on agrifood and the carbon trading mechanism—back to the European Union, and takes it away from this House and this Parliament.
- Hansard source
EU-UK Summit
I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was a leave voter himself, as I know many traditional Labour voters around the country voted for Brexit. I certainly voted for Brexit and campaigned for it. I think the hon. Gentleman is making some presumptions as to why people voted. My central pitch when knocking on doors in that referendum was the point around control and sovereignty, and that it would be this Parliament that set our laws. Dynamic alignment blows a huge hole in that. I will touch briefly on a couple of other factors that have come up in the debate. There is a point that is made that somehow Brexit has been economically damaging. In the Government’s own rationale—[Interruption.] It is always good to have an audience laughing, but I am going to quote from the Government’s own rationale. They talk about declining trade and so on from 2018. I hate to break it to them, but we had not left the European Union in 2018. The withdrawal Act did not come into effect for years after that. Figures from the Office for National Statistics show that in 2018, for example, UK food exports were £10.6 billion. Guess what had happened by 2024? They had gone up to £11.34 billion. We need a little greater clarity in this debate where we get the dates right and compare apples with apples, rather than apples with pears.
- Hansard source
EU-UK Summit
I have given way several times. I may well come back if time allows, but I am aware of the time limit that you have set, Ms McVey. My constituency could pretty much not be further from the sea, but we do enjoy a lot of fish in Buckinghamshire. I am very much aware of just how angry fishermen around the country are, particularly Scottish fishermen. Yesterday, I debated with SNP Members on the BBC, who confirmed how angry fishermen in Scotland are at this deal. Once again, it is important that we look at some facts. The crude trade gap for fish is actually about 274,000 tonnes in the EU’s favour. The key point I make to those who argued that the deal is somehow good because it means we can export more fish to the European Union is that we cannot export that which we have not been allowed to catch in the first place. I would invite hon. Members that have made that point to reflect on it a little more.
- Hansard source
EU-UK Summit
The hon. Gentleman is trying to relitigate the past again. The deal that the last Government did would have seen us able to take back full control of our waters in a year’s time. Instead, we have a 12-year deal that gives the EU rights to our fishing waters. That is the point to be angry and dismayed about, not a deal that could have returned total control of our waters next year. This is not a good deal for the United Kingdom and it is not a deal that honours the referendum result. I invite the new Government to reflect, reverse course—they have managed it on winter fuel and they can manage it on this—and think again. If they cannot do that, at the very least they should reintroduce proper scrutiny of EU law having direct effect in this country through a full-time Select Committee.
- Hansard source
EU-UK Summit
It has been reported in the media that a very senior president of one of the biggest regional fisheries committees in France said: “We couldn’t have hoped for better…We are very satisfied and relieved. This changes a lot of things. If we no longer had access to British waters, we would have suffered a significant loss of revenue.” In whose interest does the hon. Gentleman think the deal was actually struck?
- Hansard source
EU-UK Summit
Will the Minister give way?
- Hansard source
EU-UK Summit
As the Minister is talking about pragmatism and the national interest, perhaps I can set him a very brief maths test. On dynamic alignment on carbon trading, the EU’s carbon price today is £58.84 per metric tonne, while the UK’s price is £38.13. Does that increase or decrease costs on British business?
- Hansard source
School Teachers’ Review Body: Recommendations
I am full of admiration for all the hard-working teachers across my constituency, and indeed the whole country, and my sister-in-law is a secondary-school English teacher, but I have no doubt that every teacher and headteacher watching our proceedings, either live or later, will have had their jaw on the floor when they heard the Minister say that she wants to give them time to plan, but will not tell them what funding they will get to pay for this. It is inconceivable that she does not know the answer to that question, given that a statement on the issue will be published at 1 o’clock. Is she not giving the answer because, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Sir Oliver Dowden) said, No. 10 has told her not to? Better still, is it because the Department is in a live negotiation—some might say a row—with the Treasury to get that settlement for our teachers?
- Hansard source
EU-UK Summit
Order. I remind Members that an intervention is an intervention and not a small speech. Others have put in to speak, so can we get to the question please?
- Hansard source
EU-UK Summit
Order. We must have just one person speaking at a time.
- Hansard source
EU-UK Summit
I remind Members that they should bob if they want to be called to speak, and that I will call the Front-Bench spokespeople just before 4 pm to allow Stella Creasy time to make a wind-up speech.
- Hansard source
EU-UK Summit
I did not put a time limit on speeches at the start of the debate, but we have had so many interventions and feisty exchanges that have eaten into the time available. I suggest that speeches should take a maximum of eight minutes.
- Hansard source
EU-UK Summit
That is for you to say.
- Hansard source
Topical Questions
I will enter the great parliamentary ice cream competition and say that Cheshire, of course, does the best ice cream. Given the huge riches in the Premier League, should there not be a greater expectation that more money flows down into grassroots football and non-league clubs such as Knutsford FC and Witton Albion in my constituency, which work unbelievably hard just to stay afloat? I say that especially as so many Premier League footballers live just up the road from the two clubs.
- Hansard source
Independent Sentencing Review
Public confidence in the criminal justice system—and, importantly, the confidence of victims—is paramount. Since 2010, the use of community-based orders has decreased by 61%. That is in no small part because of concerns about offender engagement in the process. If the Government are going to pursue this route, what steps has the Lord Chancellor taken to model how many will reoffend and, more importantly, that they will be rigorously reinforced?
- Hansard source
Business of the House
The petition to protect Northern Ireland veterans from prosecution has, in a matter of days, amassed over 98,500 signatures. Will the Leader of the House commit that the petition, once it reaches the 100,000-signature threshold, will be granted debating time at the earliest opportunity?
- Hansard source
Diego Garcia Military Base
The Government’s position appears to be predicated on a hypothetical judgment to a hypothetical claim. In this hypothetical scenario, why would the Government not simply appeal?
- Hansard source
Business of the House
Last Friday, I was lucky enough that my private Member’s Bill was the second Bill listed. Unfortunately, it was timed out—rightfully so—for the assisted dying Bill. Two of my constituents, Roux and Ada, have been in contact with me about my Bill, which is about dog-on-dog attacks. I must declare an interest: Roux and Ada are my whippets and they live with me, but they are concerned about dog-on-dog attacks, as are many people up and down Leicestershire. Could the Government find time to have a debate on dog-on-dog attacks and responsible dog ownership?
- Hansard source
Mental Health Bill: Legislative Scrutiny
I commend the hon. Member for Bracknell (Peter Swallow) and his Committee for the report. We on the Opposition Benches will be looking favourably at it, especially as the Bill goes into Committee. I have one technical question. He talked about restraint for people who have autism and learning disabilities. Currently, the timetable for working out whether they have a mental health disorder or it is related to their condition is 28 days. Did his Committee look at that from a human rights perspective, to see whether it is the right time in which to make that assessment?
- Hansard source
Diego Garcia Military Base
I respect the expertise of the Defence Secretary, so I hope he can help me here. The ICJ said that it was a non-binding decision. The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea is the court that he is worried about. The country will wonder why he would not challenge this in the court, stand by it, and see what that process would look like. If he was worried he would lose, will he publish the documentation that shows why he was advised that he would lose, so that the country can understand why he is not making that challenge? If he failed in that challenge, he could appeal as well. To the public it looks like we are just giving into the deal without even using the courts that we could legally use.
- Hansard source
Topical Questions
Billinghay swimming pool in my constituency is a much-cherished local facility, which has sadly fallen into disrepair and been unable to open for the community this year. A very good local group is trying to raise funds to restore it. What can the Minister do to help?
- Hansard source
School Teachers’ Review Body: Recommendations
For the Government to come here today, fulling knowing their pay rise intentions but refusing to say so until this afternoon to avoid scrutiny, is disrespectful to this House, to every Member, to every constituent and to every teacher. If I may say so, it is somewhat cowardly. Schools across my constituency find themselves short of money to cover national insurance bills. Five schools in my constituency that have approached me are £176,000 short between them. Does the Minister know how many schools are short of money to pay their national insurance bills?
- Hansard source
Independent Sentencing Review
Crimes against children are among the worst crimes humanity can commit. There is relatively little, if anything at all, about offences against children in this review. Could the Lord Chancellor confirm that those who have abused children will not be allowed out early?
- Hansard source
Access to NHS Dentistry
I congratulate the hon. Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn) on securing this debate. Dentistry is important. Dentists do not just deal with our teeth; they deal with our mouth and gums, they identify physical diseases that include cancer and they prevent sepsis. Last month, I visited The Dental Design Studio in Sleaford to celebrate its 20th anniversary of great dentistry and I met some fabulous, committed professionals. Somewhat unexpectedly, given the venue, I was asked to help judge a cake competition. Members and my dentist will be pleased to know that I brushed my teeth very well afterwards. Access to NHS dentistry has been a problem for a very long time. When I moved house in 2001, there was no NHS dentist available and I travelled two hours to Redcar to see the wonderful dentist Mr Dixon for many years until he retired. After that, there was no dentist at all. Are we therefore short of dentists? No, we are not. The Conservative Government increased the number of new trainee places and the number of new dentists, and although the population increased, there are still more per capita than in 2010. As the Minister for Care has said, “The issue is not the number of dentists…but the paucity of dentists who are doing NHS work.”—[Official Report, 25 March 2025; Vol. 764, c. 766.] I encourage the Minister for Secondary Care to consider more dental places, because we see that one in 15 of the youngsters who want to become a dentist is turned away and, as such, they go overseas to train or train to do something else. Will she commit to a dental school not just in Norwich, but in other underserved areas, such as Lincoln? The main problem, as many have identified, is the 2006 contract with the UDA bands for procedures, and there are several issues with that. First, the amounts vary between practices based on historical volume data; secondly, there is a disincentive to treat new or high-need patients; and thirdly, the UDA simply do not cover all the costs. The Conservatives improved that a little bit, ironing out some of the bizarre UDA contract terms and setting a new, higher floor for minimum UDAs. Yet there is much more to do, as we have heard today, to reform it completely. How are the Government getting on with that? Will the Minister give us an update, please? As the Public Accounts Committee notes, “NHSE and DHSC do not yet know what that reform might look like or to what timescales it can be delivered”, beyond a vague assertion that some reform is imminent.
- Hansard source
Access to NHS Dentistry
I will not because there is not much time at all. I met Eddie Crouch from the BDA recently, who talked about the national insurance costs. Before today’s announced pay rise, dental practices were facing a 9.5% increase in staff costs, again pushing more of them further to private practice. Will the Minister ask the Chancellor to exempt NHS dentists from the national insurance contribution rise? There has also been discussion about compelling dentists to do a proportion of their work in the NHS, either by compelling dentists who are newly trained or by incentivising with the use of student loan repayments. Have the Government considered that? We have many overseas trained dentists—some are British students who were trained overseas, some are foreign nationals—but the overseas registration exam has 2,000 people on its waiting list. Somewhat bizarrely, those who pass can work in the private sector, but not in the NHS without supervision. That seems somewhat incoherent. Does the Government have confidence in the exam or not? It is illogical to allow a person to practise as a private dentist but not in the NHS. It is also a clear disincentive to NHS practice. What good discussions have the Government had with the General Dental Council about this issue? My right hon. Friend the Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich (Sir Roger Gale) has repeatedly raised the issue of Ukrainian dentists. There are 200 Ukrainians dentists in the UK. Why not assess them and allow them to work? It is better for them and for us. Dentists form part of a wider team of hygienists, nurses, technicians and therapists. What are the Government doing to help people in each of those roles practise at the top of their skill range to provide greater dental care? What are the Government doing to support rural areas since they cancelled the mobile dental vans? What are they doing to ensure they deliver the 700,000 promised appointments a year, since they have delivered hardly any of them so far?
- Hansard source
Access to NHS Dentistry
I will not give way because there is very little time. It has been clear today that the NHS is not fit for purpose when it comes to dentistry. The Government need to get grip of this, and soon.
- Hansard source
Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords]
As hon. Members know, the substance of this Bill began with the previous Government, in recognition of the need to streamline and harness the use of data to grow the economy and drive improvement in the delivery of public services. As I have said before, when the Bill started its life, most of us had no idea that it would become the vehicle for addressing some of the most important social and technological issues of our time. Although I welcome the huge benefits that the Bill will bring to the economy and public services when it comes into force, I fear that it will go down on the Government’s record as the Bill of missed opportunities. It is a missed opportunity to fix our flawed public data sets, which present a barrier to tracking and tackling inequalities in areas such as women’s health; a missed opportunity to commit to a review of protections for children in their use of social media platforms, and to taking action to increase those protections where the evidence shows there is good reason to do so; and a missed opportunity to provide much-needed certainty to two of our key growth industries, the creative and AI sectors, on how they can interact to promote their mutual growth and flourishing. It could be seen as somewhat dispiriting to be back at the Dispatch Box again, having the debate on copyright and AI with the Department’s ministerial team, but I see that there has been an upgrade since our last outing at the Dispatch Box. I pay tribute to the Secretary of State for his tone and his approach to this debate, particularly his recognition of previous mistakes made. As politicians, we do not say sorry often enough, or recognise mistakes or where we would have wanted things to go better. I appreciate the statements he has made from the Dispatch Box, but the fact that we are here is testament to the determination and sincere concern of Members of both Houses. Whatever Benches they sit on, they are deeply concerned that we must not miss this opportunity to find a solution to such a significant challenge. Our colleagues in the other place have spoken about their commitment to the primacy of this House, and their reticence to delay the passage of this Bill any further than is absolutely necessary. Their resolve demonstrates the importance of this issue to Members of both Houses and the stakeholders they represent. The Government have spoken repeatedly of their commitment to protecting the creative industries, but their actions are still yet to match their rhetoric. It appears that “reviews” have today been upgraded to “working groups.” Many excuses have been made for why the Government feel unable to act now. Baroness Kidron and other noble Lords have acted in good faith on the Government’s stated concerns, and have sought to address them in the latest iteration of their transparency amendment on copyright and AI. Lords amendment 49D would provide the Government with flexibility to put in place proportionate regulations on the transparency of AI enterprises by reference to their size. Importantly, it would allow a reasonable timeframe for the Government to complete their review of responses to their consultation, which concluded in February, before the Secretary of State is compelled to lay draft transparency regulations before Parliament. For the third time, an amendment on this topic received the overwhelming support of Members in the other place, and the debate at the last round showed that the strength of feeling is mirrored in this House. Amendment 49D is a balanced clause that would put in place a much-needed long-stop date to provide the certainty that creatives and the technology industries alike have been calling for. As the hon. Member for East Thanet (Ms Billington) suggested, it is a backstop. The Government have run out of excuses for failing to act. Today we have an opportunity to achieve something relatively rare in our political climate: creating effective, balanced legislation based on cross-party compromise. It is important to public confidence in Government to show that we can put sound principles above politics when the overwhelming need arises. The Government have another opportunity today; let us make sure that it is not another missed one.
- Hansard source
School Teachers’ Review Body: Recommendations
The schools in my constituency tell me that any efficiencies they could possibly make have already been made. Therefore, the result of what the Minister is announcing—the national insurance increase that is underfunded and this welcome but unfunded increase in teacher pay—can only be that teacher numbers are cut. As the father of a primary school teacher who works really hard and is absolutely committed, that impacts on me personally, and it will impact on every child and every parent in my constituency. Is that not the reality, and should the Government not be up front and admit that this will mean that teachers will lose their jobs?
- Hansard source
Business of the House
One of the burning issues in my constituency is that of waste incinerators. When can we have a debate on the Government’s proposals for either placing a moratorium on them, as happens in Scotland and Wales, or introducing a tax on incineration—a bit like the landfill tax—to encourage the reduction, reuse and recycling of waste, rather than consigning it to the great landfill in the sky?
- Hansard source
UK-EU Summit: Policy Priorities
I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his statement and on the work of his Committee. Clearly, renewable energy is an important part of our relationship with the European Union. What opportunity did his Committee have to examine that and the trade of energy between the UK and the European Union, particularly in the light of the possibility in the near future of an interconnector between Morocco and the UK by way of the UK-Morocco Power Project, or Xlinks? He may know that if the UK does not greenlight that in the near future, other European countries certainly will.
- Hansard source
Access to NHS Dentistry
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I prefer Ben— I have never enjoyed Andrew—but Andrew will do. Quite honestly, NHS dentists are saints. As my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) has said, the reason why we do not have any NHS dentists is that it is far more remunerative to do expensive dental work than the sort of grinding service work that NHS dentistry implies. The reason for that, fundamentally, is the so-called new dental contract introduced in 2006. That is the problem. Units of dental activity have plagued the dental profession and the provision of NHS dentistry all these years. I am delighted that the Government are revising the dental contract that their Labour predecessor introduced 20 years ago, but, unless they are prepared to underwrite it, I am afraid that we will still be more or less in the same position. It is not as if we are not training dentists—we are training more and more dentists and there are more and more dental schools, and rightly so—but if those professionals are going to practice in the NHS, they need to be incentivised to do so.