Debate contribution: NHS Dentistry
Debate contribution by Mrs Deborah Erskine on .
- MLA
- Mrs Deborah Erskine
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 28 April 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- NHS Dentistry
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5510146
Read the official Assembly record
Text
In February 2025, I secured an Adjournment debate on the lack of dentist provision in Fermanagh and South Tyrone. Where are we in April 2026? What has changed? Quite frankly, nothing has changed on the ground; in fact, the picture has probably got worse since then. As a Fermanagh and South Tyrone representative and as somebody who needs dental care, as does my family, I hate to say that. I read my speech and the Minister's response from that time. I could honestly copy and paste it and read it out again today. Health service dentistry in Northern Ireland is facing an existential crisis and threat. Northern Ireland has been experiencing the most rapid decline in health service dentistry anywhere in the UK.
The issue has been escalating for some time and now threatens to deepen the existing health inequalities in my area and across the region. As many know, the transition of dental practices from NHS to private care has led to a growing number of people being unable to access basic dental services. We have seen that in Fermanagh and South Tyrone, leaving families and individuals with limited or no access to affordable dental care. At the heart of what the Minister says and does — I believe him in this — is dealing with health inequalities. This is a socio-economic problem, and solving it is one of the single biggest impacts that you could make in dealing with health inequalities. The socio-economic determinants are a key factor leading to poor oral health, as has been heard today, and, with increasing numbers of private dentists, many of my constituents are being priced out of accessing healthcare. It is not just about clean teeth. Visiting your dentist is crucial to detecting oral cancers as well, and visiting your dentist can actually save your life and can detect other illnesses. There is a need to look at all of it in the round when you are talking about healthcare and dental care. Dentists feel the pressure. They have been sounding the alarm, and they need action. The piecemeal announcements may sound great, but the cost-of-service review must be published. We need to see the root cause of the issues that are going on beneath the surface. Last year, I raised one of the fundamental points about dental provision in my constituency, and that is emergency dental care. I welcome the announcement that a clinic is forthcoming for the Western Trust area, but we need detail, and we need to know when that will come. We need to know the timescale, and we need to know what investment will be made in my area. I hope that that emergency dental out-of-hours service will be in Fermanagh and South Tyrone, because, currently, we are relying on the goodwill of dentists in my area to provide that cover. The current out-of-hours dental service is run by, I think, 13 practices, and it accounts for 65,000 patients. On a weekend, you are literally relying on their goodwill to provide treatment in my constituency. We need to address growing health inequalities. As a local dentist said to me, they keep their NHS lists to a minimum to be able to pay for their overheads. They do still see NHS patients, but that is getting harder because it comes at a cost to them. Looking at the situations that could arise, it is scandalous that, if a 16-year-old with facial swelling comes in as an emergency, the dentist makes zero money on that but still has to provide a service. How can you turn away patients? You cannot do that. The Health Minister needs to realise that words are no longer enough. We need to act on this. The figures are stark.
I thank my colleagues who tabled the motion and the Members who tabled the amendment.
641 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 | 0.89 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.05 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 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 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.