Debate contribution: Health and Social Care Pay Awards 2025-26
Debate contribution by Miss Órlaithí Flynn on .
- MLA
- Miss Órlaithí Flynn
- Party at the time
- Sinn Féin
- 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 5129842
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I also support the motion and restate our unwavering commitment to pay parity for Health and Social Care staff. As outlined by the Member who spoke previously and many others, our health workers are the backbone of the system. We have all had our personal experiences of the health system, as have our family members, the people around us and the constituents in our constituency offices. What those people — nurses and doctors — do every day is the life and breath of our public health system. It is not right that we have got to the point again where people feel the strain and stress of possibly having to go back onto picket lines. None of us wants to see our healthcare workers put in that position. They are the ones who care for patients. As Mark said, they are often in difficult circumstances. Day in, day out, they work long hours with heavy workloads and often at significant personal risk. They deserve decent, fair pay, safe working conditions and the recognition of a system that values their contribution. We owe them nothing less. The NHS Pay Review Body recommended a 3·6% rise for Agenda for Change staff in 2025-26. As we know, that includes nurses, midwives, ambulance staff, porters, cleaners and health visitors: the full spectrum of staff who ensure that our health service operates safely and effectively. The recommendation has already been implemented in England, Scotland and Wales. Yet, in the North, our workers still wait for what is rightfully theirs. No Member will say that the delay is fair or acceptable. It sends the wrong message about how we value our workforce in our health system. As has been said, responsibility for delivering the pay award ultimately lies with the Department of Health, as the lead Department. However, it is important that engagement takes place with the Department of Finance and other Departments. Everyone needs to come together, on whatever level, simply to find a resolution and get the issue solved. That is what needs to be done. Paula mentioned the responsibilities of the Health Minister, which are important and, no doubt, difficult, but he must prioritise where his money goes. Stretched as his budget is, it is important to have that priority set out. It is also important that, at the end of the day, we do not have people back out on picket lines. We must do whatever needs to be done to fulfil the pay awards. No one thinks that it is an option for the staff not to receive the pay awards. Nobody wants to see further delay. With every day that passes, staff feel increased strain on their pay. Without resolution, confidence will be eroded and morale undermined. That is not what those workers need, when they work in an environment where they help people, for their physical and mental health. Mark made the point that the later the pay award comes, the more pressure it puts on people who are in receipt of benefits and universal credit. We must bear that in mind too. I hope that we will get the payments over the line ASAP, but then we have to factor in how it will impact on people who may miss out because they are on universal credit. Mitigations must be discussed and put in place to protect those people and ensure that they receive the fair pay that they deserve.
572 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 (0.92).
- 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 | 0.92 | 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 | 0.84 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.11 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.03 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.01 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.01 |
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.