Debate contribution: Dental Care
Debate contribution by Ms Paula Bradshaw on .
- MLA
- Ms Paula Bradshaw
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 27 May 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Dental Care
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4972132
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I beg to move
Thank you, Principal Deputy Speaker. The Alliance motion highlights the challenges facing dental practices, which cause difficulties for our constituents in accessing their services; calls on the Minister of Health to introduce a new oral health strategy to address access to services and workforce challenges; and calls on him to conclude and publish the general dental services cost-of-service review as soon as possible. I welcome the amendment from colleagues in the DUP, which calls for proposals to improve access to dentistry, including ways to address regional inequalities. Unfortunately, as MLAs, we will be all too familiar with the difficulties in accessing dental services through our health service. Whilst we all get contact from constituents who are unable to access GP services, almost as many get in touch because they are unable to source dental services on the NHS.
According to the most recent working patterns data from the General Dental Council (GDC), which had looked at the number of dental practices that are committed to at least 75% of their work being provided through the health service, Northern Ireland has had the largest shift away from NHS dentistry in the direction of private services, with only 43% of practices here being committed to meeting that 75% target. Furthermore, statistics that emerged last month have confirmed that, of the more than 350 dental practices in Northern Ireland, only two are now fully NHS practices, while more than 53,000 health service patients have been removed from practices' lists over the past two years. We are currently witnessing the end stages of the privatisation of a crucial section of our health service. Oral healthcare plays a major role in the prevention of diseases, not least of oral cancers, and dentists are often on the front line of recognising the need for further treatment and referring patients on. Oral healthcare is especially crucial for children and young people. Tooth decay, which is an almost entirely preventable condition, remains the leading cause of hospital admissions among children in the UK. I acknowledge that the Department of Health consulted on new oral health improvement plans for children and older people last year. We now need to see action on those plans as a result of the consultation. There is another glaring example of Northern Ireland's ever-growing two-tier healthcare system. As a South Belfast MLA, I am regularly contacted by constituents who are experiencing extreme dental pain but can neither afford to pay for treatment nor access it on the NHS. As the British Dental Association (BDA) has put it, it is those who need healthcare the most who are the most affected. During his tenure, the Minister of Health has not outlined many priorities from his Budget allocation, but one priority that he has spelt out is that of tackling health inequalities. I therefore ask the Minister to give an example of where inequality is as glaring as in people's inability to access health service dentistry. We cannot wait. Urgent action is needed now if we are to turn the tide of privatisation. Ultimately, it is a funding issue. I appreciate that the Department of Health created the dental access scheme as a way in which to assist individuals to access health service dentistry, but the reality is that it does little but buff the edges of the problem. Only 29 out of 364 practices have signed up to the scheme, with practices being given little incentive to get involved. If we are to ensure that dental practices are in a position to provide health service dentistry, the Department of Health needs to ensure that independent contractors are on a sustainable financial footing. It is my understanding that discussions are ongoing about investment proposals for general dental services (GDS) for 2025-26. I remind the Minister that we are almost into the month of June, so the first quarter of the financial year is almost complete, yet general dental practitioners still have no clarity on what financial arrangements will be in place for undertaking health service work. A number of other outstanding issues need to be addressed. How will funding be allocated to support the increase in employers' National Insurance contributions? As is mentioned in the motion, where is the cost-of-service review, and will it be expedited, as it is an urgent matter? The British Dental Association has engaged with the Minister and his officials on several occasions since February 2025 on the proposals, which, if implemented, could enable practitioners and practices to maximise GDS health service activity and, in turn, deliver better patient access. It is my understanding that there has been no engagement with the BDA in return. I therefore appeal to the Minister of Health to expedite the cost-of-service review as a priority; to develop a new oral health strategy; and to engage with the BDA on proposals to improve access to health service dentistry as a matter of urgency.
820 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 (0.97).
- 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 | 0.97 | 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 | 0.83 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.13 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.02 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.02 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 12:33 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.