Debate contribution: NHS Dentistry

Debate contribution by Mr Danny Donnelly on .

MLA
Mr Danny Donnelly
Party at the time
Alliance Party
Date
28 April 2026
Type
Debate contribution
Business
Private Members' Business
Heading
NHS Dentistry
Assembly identifier
Official Report component 5510182

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I am pleased to speak in support of the motion and the amendment, and I welcome the opportunity to make a winding-up speech. Members across the Chamber have reflected on the seriousness of the pressures facing NHS dentistry and on the very real consequences for the constituents who can no longer access the care that they need. There has been clear recognition during the debate that it is not a short-term pressure nor a localised difficulty; it is a deep structural problem that now requires a serious and strategic response. Many of the comments made in today's debate were strikingly similar. I will not go into all of them, but a few of them deserve to be highlighted. The horrible idea that people are doing DIY dentistry on themselves is absolutely harrowing, and the issue was raised by Diane and Gerry. I cannot get that idea out of my head. I hope that there is no evidence, but, if there is, we should take urgent action.

Yes, certainly.

Thank you. The evidence is anecdotal. If dentists see teeth with those impacts or people say that they have done it or that other people have done it, it has to be reported to the political representatives.

Yes. The Member is exactly right. Certainly, I hope that the practice does not exist, but, if it does, we need to take urgent action. Órlaithí mentioned the fact that people who are without dental care end up in A&E, and that is another impact on our secondary healthcare system. Mark Durkan mentioned that the loss of services has become normalised, and he is absolutely right that people accept that now as part and parcel of the system. The motion rightly highlights the deterioration in access to NHS dentistry and the consequences for patients across Northern Ireland. Our amendment calls on the Minister not simply to accelerate an action plan but to develop a new oral health strategy. As we have heard, the British Dental Association has been clear that NHS dentistry in Northern Ireland has shrunk at a faster rate than in anywhere else in the United Kingdom. It has also warned that the absence of meaningful workforce planning over many years is compounding the crisis. Reforming the payment model is essential, and the Minister suggested in his contribution that he intends to address the contract that has been in place since 1990 and that the cost-of-service review will be with him in a matter of weeks. Funding is an important part of the problem. I want to reflect on the Minister's recent response to a question for written answer that I asked about a £2·1 million reduction in expenditure on NHS dentistry. I asked the Minister about the impact of that reduction on NHS dentistry services, and his response stated:

"registrations have decreased by a further 17.1% in the last year. This reduction has led to a reduction in the costs of registration fees paid to Dentists and in turn a reduction in the cost of treatments paid during the 2025/26 financial year and the realisation of savings of £2.1m."

Would anyone here credibly present that as a genuine saving? A reduction in expenditure caused by shrinking services is not a success; it is a false economy. Poor oral health is not a stand-alone issue. When patients cannot access dental care, it affects the whole healthcare system. It increases the risk of heart disease, diabetes and other systemic conditions. It is also an equality issue. When the rates of dental decay among both children and adults are highest in the most deprived areas, as we have heard time and time again today, there is an obvious two-tier system. For a Minister who has often spoken about his commitment to tackling health inequalities, this surely has to be one of the worst. Closing that gap means prioritising prevention, increasing access to NHS dentistry, integrating oral health into wider health policy and ending any assumption that access to dental care is somehow optional or secondary when it is, in fact, fundamental to health and well-being. Older patients who have attended the same practice for decades are being told that NHS provision is no longer available; some parents are struggling to find care for their children; some adults are putting off treatment until the pain becomes unbearable, because they cannot find a NHS appointment and cannot afford the private fees; and we have heard some of the options that people are trying for themselves. That is not sustainable or acceptable. We need to stop managing decline and to start leading reform.

771 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: 0.02 (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

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 framing0.02No
Sectarian or communal antagonism0.02No
Cultural grievance politics0.01No
Dog-whistle messaging0.02No
Controversy escalation0.03No
Legitimate policy scrutiny0.97Yes
Overall judgement0.02At or below not-flagging threshold
Context and attribution (stance)
OptionProbability
No identity-based framing (chosen)1.00
Reports or questions it0.00
Criticises or condemns it0.00
Adopts it0.00
Subject area (top five)
SubjectProbability
No identity-related subject0.60
Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups0.31
Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues0.05
Another identity-related subject0.02
Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy0.01

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