Debate contribution: NHS Dentistry: North Belfast
Debate contribution by Mr Colin McGrath on .
- MLA
- Mr Colin McGrath
- Party at the time
- Social Democratic and Labour Party
- Date
- 14 April 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Adjournment
- Heading
- NHS Dentistry: North Belfast
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5482971
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank Mr Brett for securing this important Adjournment debate. The key fact is that, while this debate is relevant to North Belfast, it could relate to anywhere, because such issues are faced in every constituency. Members have referenced the fact that they have had to deal with their constituents' inability to get services, and, likewise, I have had to deal with that in South Down. I should place it on the record that, like Miss McAllister, I am registered with an NHS dentist. I have been lucky to have maintained that for many years, but I know that that practice is one of the last such practices in my area and that people struggle to get access. The message that has occurred over and over this evening is that we have got to the point of saying that we are at the end. We cannot continue the decline in dentistry any more. We have to decide whether that is what we want to see. Do we want to see dentistry being purely privatised? Many Members have put forward eloquently why that is not really an option. When we look at areas of deprivation such as those in North Belfast and others across Northern Ireland, we see that the people who cannot afford the services will be impacted on most. They will be left with declining oral health, and that will lead to other complications that, ultimately, we will have to deal with.
Less than half the population is registered with a health service dentist. That statistic tells us that access is absolutely collapsing. The system is broken, but it is not because dentists do not want to deliver the service; they absolutely do. If there is one thing that is clear, time and time again, when we meet dentists and the BDA, they say that they would absolutely love to be able to deliver a service. However, when you sit down with them and they go through the costs that are associated with some of the care that they provide, you realise that, from a business perspective, it costs them money to provide the service. We have to let that one land for a moment. It costs them to deliver a service. Who would do that? Who would go into business and say, "I will provide a service that is free, but beyond its being free, I will have to put my hand in my pocket and take from my business to provide that service"? The alternative is that there is an industry around dental treatment. People like to have good-looking teeth. They like the sense of self-confidence and self-worth that comes with having a good set of teeth, and people are prepared to pay for that. We have taken something that should be a health service matter, and we have moved it into the private economic market. Unfortunately, it will always be the case that those who have the money will win in that scenario. We have to take a fundamental decision that we do not want that to be the future landscape. If we take the decision that we value everybody receiving basic care for their teeth, we have to be able to provide that service. I will ask the Minister a series of questions to get some feedback. Does the Minister accept that, without urgent reform, we will lose what remains of health service dentistry in this mandate? That is the sort of crisis point that we have reached. We are not talking about the next 20 years or the next 50 years; we are talking about the next number of years. That statistic of less than half the population being registered with a dentist will decline. Other Members referenced the full cost of service review. When will it be published? Hopefully, there will at least be an analysis of where we are in that review. Then, we can see where it falls short, and we can work to try to move forward. Crucially, what is the estimated gap between what dentists are currently being paid and the real costs of delivering care? If that margin is too wide, there will be no provision of services. If that can be reduced to the point where they can deliver the service and get money back for doing it, I think that we will see an uptake in people accessing the services. Will the Minister agree to seeking a reformed dental payment model with the BDA before the end of the mandate that will make health service dentistry sustainable in North Belfast and right across the North? The BDA has been lobbying many of us for many years now, and I think that we have accepted the point that, if it is not financially viable to deliver the service, the service will not be delivered, and we will see the problems stacking up for the future. Hopefully, we can get some light from the Minister this evening as to what will take place next, and, hopefully, services in North Belfast and beyond will improve.
846 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 | 0.96 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.01 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.01 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.01 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:20 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.