Debate contribution: Junior Doctors’ Pay

Debate contribution by Ms Liz Kimmins on .

MLA
Ms Liz Kimmins
Party at the time
Sinn Féin
Date
21 May 2024
Type
Debate contribution
Business
Private Members' Business
Heading
Junior Doctors’ Pay
Assembly identifier
Official Report component 4491902

Read the official Assembly record

Text

"Without the workforce, we will only have empty buildings".

Those were the stark words of the representatives of the BMA at the Health Committee on 9 May, detailing the serious situation facing our hospital doctors and GP trainees as the result of years of pay erosion and the growth in staff vacancies. As we have heard today, for the first time, junior doctors voted overwhelmingly in March of this year to take strike action, emphasising just how dire the situation on pay and conditions is. That was in March, and we are here again, two months later, with no progress on the issue. Junior doctors are once again taking to the picket lines — this time for 48 hours — demanding action on pay. Junior doctors work in the most challenging conditions, looking after sick patients and with huge responsibilities, for as little as £12·50 an hour. It does not take a lot of imagination to see why we are losing junior doctors in their droves when they can earn more doing the same job in the South of Ireland, in Britain or overseas. If we are really serious about tackling the crisis in our health service, that cannot be ignored. A survey by the BMA in 2022 showed that just 7% of medical students here intended to stay and work in the North. After two years with little to no change, I doubt that those figures have got any better. Like others, I have met the junior doctors committee on a number of occasions. They outlined to the Health Committee their engagements to date with the Minister and his Department. The lack of progress has been disappointing, particularly on moving the pay issue forward. When the Health Committee was told that the suggestion of an increase in pay above the DDRB recommendation as a starting point was given a flat "no", even before the Budget was agreed by the Executive, we were all, it is fair to say, fairly disappointed to hear that. That, ultimately, appears to have closed down any prospect of further negotiations. I am aware that the Minister met the BMA this morning but am not aware of any further progress on that. There is no doubt that we are all realistic about the financial picture. The Finance Minister continues to challenge the British Treasury on the significant underfunding of public services here. The comments of the Member who spoke previously about the Executive's and our being disingenuous are pretty rich. I do not know what the alternative is to voting for a Budget when we have absolutely no control over how much we have. We have talked this to death. We want to make progress with full pay restoration, but, in reality, that is not achievable in the here and now. That does not negate our responsibility to progress the issue, find a way forward and give a commitment that we will work towards that.

I will, yes.

I thank the Member for her intervention. It leads on to my next point and is exactly the point that we need to hear loud and clear. They are realistic in their expectations. They know that full pay restoration of over 30% cannot be delivered right now, but they want a commitment to work towards it, and, until they have that, they cannot move forward in good faith on any of the other non-pay issues. That is not unreasonable, given that they are still waiting for their 2023-24 uplift. I think that they said in Committee that they had been told that they would get it in June but did not know whether that meant June of this year, next year or another year. Our health service is, no doubt, running on empty. Primary care is in crisis. Secondary care is in crisis. Social care is in crisis. We see colossal waiting lists and a lack of bed capacity. Staff vacancies, including among our junior doctors, are putting patient and staff safety at dire risk. I do not underestimate the challenges faced by the Health Minister, so I do not want to come across as being too critical, but this will only get worse if we do not address the issues that force valuable staff out of the job that they have trained to do, a job that they love and, in many cases, want to stay in but for their feeling, sadly, that they have no option. Striking is a last resort for all the doctors who are going back to the picket lines tomorrow. They should not be in that position. I urge the Minister to continue engagement with representatives of the striking doctors to reach an agreement urgently, as his colleagues across the water have been able to do. If the matter is not resolved, patients and healthcare staff will suffer as a result, and that will have huge consequences for our health service for a long time.

824 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: 0.03 (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 (0.95).
  • 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 framing0.03No
Sectarian or communal antagonism0.02No
Cultural grievance politics0.01No
Dog-whistle messaging0.03No
Controversy escalation0.03No
Legitimate policy scrutiny0.95Yes
Overall judgement0.03At 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 subject0.89
Another identity-related subject0.07
Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups0.03
Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues0.01
Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials0.00

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 10:33 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