Member's statement: Dental Services: Deregistration
Member's statement by Mr Paul Frew on .
- MLA
- Mr Paul Frew
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 10 June 2024
- Type
- Member's statement
- Business
- Members' Statements
- Heading
- Dental Services: Deregistration
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4494756
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Last month, I asked the Health Minister how many people had been deregistered by their dentist in the past six years. I asked that question because I was seeing a worrying trend in my constituency office. The figures are absolutely astounding. The number of people who were deregistered in 2018 was 572. In 2019, it was 784. You would think that that was natural. In 2020, the first year of COVID, the number was down to 243. You would expect that that was to do with the pandemic, but look at what happened with lockdown philosophy: in 2021, the figure for deregistration by dentists was 2,021, which is four times the number of deregistrations in 2018. It did not stop there. In 2022, the figure rose to 9,432, and, in 2023, a whopping 12,858 people were deregistered by their dentist.
Think how many people have been deregistered and how many people sit in pain, having trouble accessing the services that they require for proper dental treatment. Those figures are important. This is a ticking time bomb of pain, and I need the House to recognise that.
186 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not flagged”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.03 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.90).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- The overall probability was at or below the not-flagging threshold.
This is an AI-generated assessment of the text, made against published criteria. It is not a finding of fact about the MLA or their intentions. The Assembly record itself is the fact.
Jev’s structured answers
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.02 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.90 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.03 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 1.00 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.98 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.02 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 10:37 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.
Disagree with this assessment?
Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.