Debate contribution: NHS Dentistry

Debate contribution by Mr Gerry Carroll on .

MLA
Mr Gerry Carroll
Party at the time
People Before Profit Alliance
Date
28 April 2026
Type
Debate contribution
Business
Private Members' Business
Heading
NHS Dentistry
Assembly identifier
Official Report component 5510156

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I declare an interest: I have a sibling who is a practising dentist. I support the motion — I thank the Members who tabled it — and the amendment from the Alliance Party, although we have to wonder whether another strategy is needed rather than the Minister and the Executive just doing what needs to be done. As the Member opposite said, thousands of our constituents in West Belfast are living in unbearable agony. They are pulling out their own teeth and living with untreated infections because they cannot get access to a dentist that they can afford. How many oral cancer diagnoses have been missed? How many death sentences have effectively been declared because people have been unable to get access to a dentist? This is fundamentally a class issue and a poverty issue. It is a crisis that the Minister and successive Governments have allowed to fester year-on-year without getting a grip on the crisis. Fewer than a million people — just half of the population — are registered with a health service dentist in the North, which is frightening, and almost 400,000 people have been lost since 2023. I do not understand how a patient just gets lost and there is no follow-up action from the Department or a health trust. The mind boggles. The number of health service dental treatments delivered is 40% lower than before the pandemic. Health service dentistry has utterly collapsed, and I would say by design. It is no coincidence that the communities that suffer most are in constituencies such as West Belfast, as was mentioned, and other deprived areas with high levels of poverty and inequality, where private dental fees are unaffordable for working-class families. The link between poverty and poor oral health is well established. Children in deprived areas suffer disproportionately from tooth decay. Untreated dental disease leads to children missing school, missed work appointments and missed hospital admissions, and, quite often, lifelong health consequences and complications. When NHS dentistry crumbles, it is never the wealthy who are left behind.

As I said, the crisis did not appear from nowhere. Almost since the NHS was founded, decades ago, dental care has been coming under sustained attack. Just a year after its creation in 1948, the Labour Government introduced dental prescription fees, while charges for dentures followed in 1951. That slow privatisation has never stopped. Today, under a different Labour Government at Westminster, with a Stormont Executive doing their bidding at home, dentistry is closer than ever to breaking point. I do not think that the alarm bells have gone off in the Department, however. NHS dentists are losing money. They are being forced to subsidise NHS work with private income, and that simply should not be the case. Market solutions created the crisis, and they will never be able to solve it. As the British Dental Association has put it, the service is running on empty. Dentists across the North are either going private or simply giving up. Dentists who spend the majority of their time delivering treatment on the NHS earn, on average, 46% less than those whose work is mostly private. That is unacceptable and, obviously, unsustainable. Dentists are being financially punished for providing public healthcare. The cost-of-service review has still not been published, and it must form the basis of a genuine rebasing of fees and a serious programme of payment reform. Tinkering at the edges is not enough to end the crisis, however. We need full public ownership of dental services, free at the point of use, properly resourced and taken out of the hands of private profit entirely. That is the only permanent solution to the dental emergency.

613 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

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: 0.06 (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 (0.99).
  • 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

Probability that each statement is true of this text (0 = no, 1 = yes). A criterion counts as met at 0.60 or above.
QuestionProbabilityMet?
Identity framing0.08No
Sectarian or communal antagonism0.03No
Cultural grievance politics0.01No
Dog-whistle messaging0.04No
Controversy escalation0.03No
Legitimate policy scrutiny0.96Yes
Overall judgement0.06At or below not-flagging threshold
Context and attribution (stance)
OptionProbability
No identity-based framing (chosen)0.99
Reports or questions it0.00
Criticises or condemns it0.00
Adopts it0.01
Subject area (top five)
SubjectProbability
No identity-related subject0.54
Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues0.23
Another identity-related subject0.17
Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups0.04
Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations0.01

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.

Challenge this classification