Debate contribution: Health and Social Care Pay Awards 2025-26
Debate contribution by Mr Mark Durkan on .
- MLA
- Mr Mark Durkan
- Party at the time
- Social Democratic and Labour Party
- Date
- 23 September 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Health and Social Care Pay Awards 2025-26
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5129839
Read the official Assembly record
Text
First and foremost, I put on record our deep gratitude to and admiration for our health heroes. They are the people who keep our system afloat and keep our citizens alive in the most difficult of circumstances. They are overburdened, undervalued and underpaid, yet, day in, day out, they continue to provide stellar care. They deserve fair pay, and they deserve it now, not after months and months of political wrangling and "pass the problem" being played around the Executive table. I had reason to visit Altnagelvin Hospital's emergency department recently, and what I witnessed was pretty chaotic. I saw a team stretched to breaking point, with queues down corridors and staff under immense strain and pressure, yet their professionalism and compassion shone through. That chaos is their daily and nightly reality. They bring humanity to a system that is not just creaking at the seams but cracking down the middle. The comfort that they bring to patients and their families during their darkest days is invaluable. I am acutely aware, however, that our gratitude is not enough. If it were, our health service would not be losing staff to burnout or better-paid jobs elsewhere, be those in the private sector or in other jurisdictions. Staff need fair pay and respect, and that should be reflected not just in rhetoric but in their pay packets and in their purses and wallets. They are the backbone of society, and it is a disgrace that the Executive continue to delay funding for what is a crucial and critical pay award. I want to raise another issue. When these increases inevitably arrive, having been delayed and delayed, the way in which payments are made will impact on the lowest-paid staff: those who are on universal credit. Too many of our lowest-paid staff will see any additional award that they get in a lump sum clawed back, almost pound for pound, through the universal credit system. That money is given with one hand — eventually — but the delay in its being taken back is not quite so long. If we truly value those workers, we cannot allow that to happen, so I urge the Minister to work with colleagues to engage directly with trade unions and, crucially, the Minister for Communities. There must be a way in which to ensure that the pay award can be delivered in instalments or in a manner that prevents it from being swallowed up in universal credit calculations. Otherwise, as has happened before, some staff will see no benefit from the increase when it eventually arrives. Our health and social care system is only as strong as the people who staff it. We are losing nurses, specialists and porters to burnout and to significantly better pay opportunities elsewhere, and no longer just to Liverpool or London but to a couple of miles down the road in Letterkenny. If we are serious about rebuilding our health service, tackling waiting lists and improving patient care, we must start by valuing our staff. Fair pay is not a luxury but the foundation on which the health service stands. Let us ensure that the staff, who give us everything and are the lifesavers and the caregivers, are finally given in return what they deserve. They are not demanding the impossible. Rather, they are asking for a pay packet that helps them keep the lights on, a roof over their head and food on the table for their children. As Mr Butler said, today's ask is not optional. It is long overdue. If it does not come, with our health workers left with no option but to strike, the Executive parties, which would not prioritise this pay increase, dare not land on the picket lines to pose for pictures while holding placards.
630 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 (0.94).
- 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 | 0.04 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.03 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.03 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.94 | 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 | 0.91 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.06 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.02 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 13:11 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.