Debate contribution: GP GMS Contract 2025-26
Debate contribution by Mr Mike Nesbitt on .
- MLA
- Mr Mike Nesbitt
- Party at the time
- Ulster Unionist Party
- Date
- 19 May 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Ministerial Statement
- Heading
- GP GMS Contract 2025-26
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4967968
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank the Member for her question. Of course, if you want to make becoming a GP attractive, you will put more into GP practices, but the money does not exist. There is a shortfall of half a billion pounds in the current Health and Social Care budget. We are investing, and we are investing in the GP workforce. I say to the Member that, to help primary care to deliver and to grow, which is what her question was on, you have to train, develop and retain the GP workforce. Despite the number of GPs who are on principal salary retainers having increased by about 9% between 2018 and 2023, that has been offset by changing patterns of workforce. The annual intake to GP training sits at 121, and that is an increase of 86% since the 2015-16 financial year. In less than a decade, it is up to 121.
I would just draw the Member's attention to the fact that I began by saying that I believe that I am a friend of the GPs because of my emphasis on the shift left. What I have done is state the facts. If the Member does not like the tone, that is a matter for the Member.
I thank the Member for his question. I cannot quantify how many GPs or surgeries are now beginning to contemplate contract hand-back, but I can tell the Member this: if we had not put the additional £9.5 million in, it is likely that even more would be finding themselves thinking in that direction.
I thank the Member for his comments. Am I unwilling to respond? If you are talking about giving GPs an extra £80 million for doing more of the same, I am unwilling to respond, because I cannot afford to respond in that way.
I thank the Member. I outlined in my opening remarks some of the measures that we were intending to propose to GPs. We will continue to press GPs to address the serious issues with access.
I thank the Member for his question. I assure him that there was no accusation — no accusation — in my opening remarks. I regret that we have come to this pass, but it is a pass — it is an impasse — because GPs want £80 million that I do not have; in fact, it is questionable whether that would be the best investment across Health and Social Care. I regret that we are in this position. I emphasise the fact that I have spoken to the chair of that committee today, and we have agreed that we will meet again and discuss a way forward. That is not to say that the negotiations for 2025-26 are still open — they are not — but we need to take a longer-term view for the sake of all the people of this country.
I thank the Member for her question. She made the point that the situation is the outworking of decades of underinvestment, failure and missed opportunities. I have said that I am not going to criticise what has gone before, because it will not improve the outcomes for a single patient or service user. I want to be forward-looking. I have already told you about the 86% increase in GP training places over the past nine years. I made a major announcement last week about pre-registration training right across a range of specialities, and I direct the Member to that statement.
I thank the Member for her question. On rurality, there will be an equitable distribution of the funds. The £5 million for indemnity and the £3·5 million plus for National Insurance are not for urban or rural areas; they are for all GP practices. The Member will be aware that, recently, the transformation fund promised £61 million to increase the availability of MDTs, but that will only take the teams to 12 of the 17 GP federations. Unfortunately, it will be the end of the decade before we can realistically look at making MDTs available to every GP in all 17 GP federations.
685 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: 0.04 (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 (0.89).
- 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 | 0.03 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.04 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.05 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.89 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.04 | 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 | 0.99 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 12:36 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.