Debate contribution: Junior Doctors’ Pay
Debate contribution by Mr Danny Donnelly on .
- MLA
- Mr Danny Donnelly
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 21 May 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Junior Doctors’ Pay
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4491915
Read the official Assembly record
Text
This is a very important motion and one that I am proud to be a co-signatory to with my Alliance Party colleagues. Junior doctors are a critical part of our Health and Social Care staff, and it is right that we recognise their contribution to the health service, especially given the unprecedented pressures that we have faced in recent years, which were exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic and political instability in this place. Junior doctors work in extremely challenging circumstances, with huge waiting lists — the worst in Europe — increasing vacancies across the system and more favourable working conditions being available in other jurisdictions. Personally, I am very aware of the long hours and the high-pressure nature of the junior house officer (JHO) role. For example, when there is a medical emergency on a hospital ward in the middle of the night, it is generally the JHOs who come running when the alarms go. It is right that junior doctors are paid appropriately, and it is concerning that, in Northern Ireland, pay is significantly lower than everywhere else in the UK. We have heard that from several Members today. According to the BMA, junior doctors in foundation training are paid a basic salary of £26,713 for a 40-hour week; in contrast, in England, junior doctors start on a higher salary of £32,398 a year. Of course, there are differences between here and England, not because of devolution but because there are different contracts and different circumstances with out-of-hours working. We have heard about them already today. Nonetheless, it is unacceptable that those differences in pay are as substantial as they are. The workforce crisis that we face in our health service is a consequence of many issues, but one key issue in particular is the pay erosion that has occurred since 2008. Calculations from the BMA estimated that junior doctors' pay has been eroded by 30·7% since 2008. That makes Northern Ireland a less attractive location to work and train in than other countries. We also need to acknowledge that, in addition to pay, wider working conditions remain a difficulty for many junior doctors. With many doctors leaving for better pay and conditions, that leads to greater burdens on the remaining staff and to regular understaffing. A BMA survey of junior doctors indicated that many were unable to take regular breaks or get a decent meal during the long shift hours. Some even mentioned having to sleep on the floor during night shifts in between exhausting jobs due to a lack of rest facilities. In that survey, 60% of junior doctors described their morale as "low" or "very low", and 49% described their physical and mental well-being as "low" or "very low". That is clearly concerning. All of this is much worse than before 2020, given the huge and lasting pressures caused by the pandemic, and things will only get worse until action is taken. Another challenge that is more specific to Northern Ireland is that pay and conditions are more favourable in other jurisdictions. That is particularly the case in the Republic of Ireland, where doctors living in Northern Ireland can work without having to move. We see that even more with other medical professionals, and we have known about consultants for a while. That is why we cannot simply copy and paste the approach of the Westminster Department of Health and Social Care. The motion rightly recognises that strikes are a measure of last resort when all alternatives have not worked. We should acknowledge that the vast majority of junior doctors have voted for strike action, with 97·6% being in favour from a 63·7% turnout. The position for junior doctors has been extremely frustrating. First, from 2022 to February this year, there was no Executive or Health Minister in place, and, as has been mentioned, the Secretary of State refused to engage on that basis because health is a devolved matter. However, it has also been disappointing that Minister Swann has insisted that we must wait and see the agreement reached in England before concluding an agreement in Northern Ireland. That has not been the case in Scotland and Wales, which have successfully averted strike action through meaningful engagement and a commitment to pay restoration. As mentioned before by me and other Members, it is essential that the Minister considers the unique circumstances here and the impact of another jurisdiction being so close and having more favourable pay and working conditions. It has been highlighted that it is only through transformation that we can deliver fair pay, but, without staff, there can be no transformation. Without staff, there is no health service. The Minister needs to engage productively with junior doctors urgently and do what he can to resolve the long-standing issues. Pay is not the sole motivation of many people working in the health sector; instead, they are motivated by a desire to help those in need. However, we must ensure that those who work in the health service are paid appropriately and at a similar level to their colleagues across the UK and Ireland. It is worrying that 72% of our junior doctors are considering leaving the health service. They are the doctors, GPs and consultants of the future, and we cannot afford to lose them. I encourage the Minister to engage productively with them and to work to resolve the unacceptable disparity.
898 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 (0.96).
- 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 | 0.96 | 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 | 0.92 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.03 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.02 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.01 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.01 |
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.