Debate contribution: Dental Services: Fermanagh and South Tyrone
Debate contribution by Mr Colm Gildernew on .
- MLA
- Mr Colm Gildernew
- Party at the time
- Sinn Féin
- Date
- 25 February 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Adjournment
- Heading
- Dental Services: Fermanagh and South Tyrone
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4815553
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I also thank Deborah for securing the Adjournment debate, and I thank the Minister for attending. I support everything that has been said about the difficulties and challenges that exist. As my colleagues said, there is a severe lack of NHS dentists in Fermanagh and South Tyrone and in many constituencies across the North. That has been an issue for many years, and, unfortunately, we seem to be making no real positive progress on it. Dental care is, of course, a basic healthcare necessity and absolutely not a luxury. When people are unable to see a dentist, they suffer in pain; small problems become major health issues; and tooth infections go untreated, impacting on overall health and, in some cases, leading to life-threatening complications. As mentioned, children are being deprived of early intervention that could prevent serious dental issues in the future, and they suffer in pain waiting for dental treatment. My understanding is that, a number of years ago at least, although I am not sure if this is still the case, the most prevalent reason for the admission of children to hospitals was tooth extraction. The issue at the heart of the situation is a lack of funding. NHS contracts are not financially viable for most dental practices, leaving them with little choice but to take on private patients to allow them to maintain a sustainable business model. As we have heard, however, many people cannot afford to pay the costs associated with private dental care, and they therefore go without that essential care.
We need to see radical transformation of NHS dental contracts to make them financially viable again. The Minister needs to set out a road map to show how he intends to improve the situation and give hope to the thousands of frustrated citizens in our communities who demand to see action on such an important issue. I am acutely aware from my time as Health Committee Chair of the severe workforce pressures across Health and Social Care generally, which simply underlines the need for urgency in wider workforce planning. Given the rurality and border location of Fermanagh and South Tyrone, we are already extremely marginalised when it comes to many health services, and that is no less true of dental healthcare, which contributes to the creation of further inequalities. While I acknowledge that the Minister has emphasised his desire to press down on and eradicate them, more inequalities are being built into the system. I urge the Minister to take that into account when he considers the need for improvement in the issue that we are debating today.
434 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 (0.96).
- 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 | 0.03 | 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 | 0.96 | 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 | 0.81 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.12 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.03 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.02 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.01 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 12:02 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.