Debate contribution: NHS Dentistry
Debate contribution by Mr Mark Durkan on .
- MLA
- Mr Mark Durkan
- Party at the time
- Social Democratic and Labour Party
- Date
- 28 April 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- NHS Dentistry
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5510131
Read the official Assembly record
Text
For many of us, a visit to the dentist is an ingrained childhood memory and maybe not always a pleasant one, but it was a normal part of growing up. Access to relatively basic services has become increasingly out of reach for many people. Today, trying to access NHS dental care is like trying to find hen's teeth. While it is worrying how quickly access to NHS dentistry is being eroded, that has not happened overnight. The warning signs were written on the wall before the pandemic, which has been something of a catalyst for the crisis. The steady loss of basic services has almost become normalised here, met with little more than a shrug from the Executive, it would appear, along with the public's growing sense of fear of what is next. More and more people are already being pushed towards private healthcare, while others face waiting lists that stretch years into the future. The crisis was not created by dentists; it was created by a system that no longer works. It is a broken model designed, funded, albeit inadequately, and overseen by the Department of Health. Having engaged with local dental practices, I have heard a consistent and clear message: the issue is not a lack of willingness to care for patients but the fact that the current model is no longer financially viable. In many cases, practices are being paid less than it costs them to deliver treatment safely. One local dentist explained to me that, for the Strand Road postcode in Derry, they receive £1·77 per month per child. That is to cover all examinations, X-rays, orthodontic assessments and referrals for general anaesthetic. If a child needs 10 appointments in a month, that fee has to cover all the care required. We also need to remember that the sector needs more clinicians. Some dentists who are qualifying come into the profession already in debt to the tune of £70,000. Simply put, they then cannot afford to work in the health service. We have reached the absurd position where providers can, in effect, lose money by delivering basic care. As Miss McAllister said, that is not sustainable for any business, any practice or any public service. Responsibility lies squarely with the Department and the wider Executive, who have allowed the gap between the cost of care and the level of reimbursement to widen year after year. Who pays the price? The most vulnerable.
I thank the Member for the intervention. I am particularly concerned about our most deprived areas, where the problems are worst and where people who are already struggling cannot afford private dental fees and are losing access to dental care. Whether it is pensioners or parents worrying about putting food on the table, everyone should have access to basic dental care regardless of their income or postcode. In the north-west, health inequalities are already among the starkest anywhere on these islands. Tens of thousands of people are potentially being left without routine care and left to manage pain, infection and worsening conditions on their own. I welcome the recent investment in an emergency dental clinic for the Western Trust area. That is a necessary step, but emergency treatment cannot become a substitute for a functioning routine dental service. We should not have to wait until people are in agony before the system responds, yet that seems to be what is happening. I am contacted daily by constituents on the issue. As I said, many of them are desperate parents who are unable to register their child with a dentist. Is that really what this place has become? We have a cohort of children born during the pandemic who have never been registered and have never seen a dentist. That means years of missed check-ups and missed opportunities to identify problems early. That is totally unacceptable. Society will pay the price of the consequence of that failure. We have heard from the families of children with disabilities whose conditions make oral health problems more likely and more serious. We have heard parents describe non-verbal children in serious distress. Cases are escalating, because routine appointments just are not available. No family should be left in that position. As was said, the situation did not happen overnight. It was seen coming. We all saw it coming and were warned of it. Many of us have been raising the issue of the slow erosion of the service for years, yet, in that time, thousands of registrations have lapsed, and there has been no meaningful reform. The Department must engage with the profession and put in place a payment model that reflects the real cost of delivering care now. We are witnessing a growing cavity in our healthcare system —
— that must be filled now before complete extraction is required.
802 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).
- Subject area: Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits.
- 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 |
|---|---|
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.84 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.08 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.07 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:28 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.