Debate contribution: Dental Care
Debate contribution by Mrs Diane Dodds on .
- MLA
- Mrs Diane Dodds
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 27 May 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Dental Care
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4972201
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Thank you. I thank all those Members who contributed to the debate. The fact that there is unanimity on the motion and the amendment is a measure of how much we hear from our constituents about issues with dental health and access to NHS dental care. That is very important, and it is a very significant message for the Minister and the Department. There is absolutely no doubt that our NHS dental services are in an extremely fragile position. That is not just the case for Northern Ireland; all nations across the UK have experienced a drop in access to dental services. However, it is the most significant in Northern Ireland, and it should be addressed. In April 2025, the BBC reported that 53,000 NHS patients were removed from dental lists. However, if we dig into that figure a little bit more, we see that 12,924 patients were removed in 2023 and 40,980 were removed in 2024. The situation is escalating, and it requires urgent attention. Clearly, it is a very fragile situation. Minister, you talked about the enhanced child examination scheme, and I acknowledge the funding that has been put into it. You indicated that 37,000 children were registered with the scheme last year. That is good, but the number of children who are registered with an NHS dentist has still dropped. In quarter 3 of 2023-24, it was 332,012 children. In quarter 3 of 2024-25, it was 317,000 children. Therefore, even with the scheme, the number of children who have been able to register with an NHS dentist continues to drop. As you said, Minister, it is more likely to affect children who are in deprived areas, who are more likely to have extensive or severe dental decay. I know that health inequalities is one of your priorities, and that needs urgent attention. It is also clear that, as colleagues on the Opposition Benches outlined, dental examinations are about more than just fillings; dentists check for oral cancers. Again, it is more likely to be prevalent and a more serious issue if we cannot have that examined in areas of highest deprivation. That is extremely important. I will say a bit about access to dentists in rural areas. It is a significant problem, and I thank my colleague Deborah Erskine for bringing it forward. In the Fermanagh and Omagh District Council area, only 49% are registered with an NHS dentist. That is an extremely low figure. I think that she said that it is 17% less than the average across Northern Ireland. Indeed, the description of that area as being a dental desert is pretty apt. As Colin McGrath said, we really need to think of dentistry not as a luxury but as an absolute necessity. I thank my colleague Claire Sugden for acknowledging the issue of dental access and women's unique health challenges. Sometimes, I think, we gloss over that particular idea. The Women's Institute did a report on it recently, and it gave evidence that said that women have unique oral health challenges and have poorer oral health in comparison with men over their lifetime. Again, those are the inequalities in access that need to be cleared up. Minister, we need work on the cost-of-service review, and I note that you said that that will be done in this financial year. Dentists in particular would like to understand how the metrics will be applied to the allocation of the £2·5 million, which we acknowledge that you have allocated for the increase in National Insurance. We acknowledge all the other schemes that you talked about —
— including the Happy Smiles scheme, but they are bits and pieces. We need the overall strategy to improve dental health.
620 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).
- Subject area: Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups.
- 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 | 0.04 | 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 |
|---|---|
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.81 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.17 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 12:35 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.