Motion or amendment: Establishment of an Ad Hoc Committee to consider the Assembly Members (Remuneration Board) Bill
Motion or amendment by Ms Claire Sugden on .
- MLA
- Ms Claire Sugden
- Party at the time
- Independent
- Date
- 4 February 2025
- Type
- Motion or amendment
- Business
- Motion · Committee Motion
- Heading
- Establishment of an Ad Hoc Committee to consider the Assembly Members (Remuneration Board) Bill
- Assembly identifier
- Document 426569
Read the official Assembly record Open Data source
Text
Establishment of an Ad Hoc Committee to consider the Assembly Members (Remuneration Board) Bill
That, as provided for in Standing Order 53(1), this Assembly appoints an Ad Hoc Committee to consider the Assembly Members (Remuneration Board) Bill; and to submit a report to the Assembly by 1 April 2025.
Composition: Sinn Féin 2 Democratic Unionist Party 2 Alliance Party 1 Ulster Unionist Party 1 Social Democratic and Labour Party 1
Quorum: The quorum shall be five Members except when no decision is taken or question put to the Committee, when the quorum shall be four.
Procedure: The procedures of the Committee shall be such as the Committee shall determine.
109 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Also tabled by
Each MLA who tabled or co-signed this item has their own record:
- Mr Andy Allen MBE – record
- Ms Paula Bradshaw – record
- Mr Trevor Clarke – record
- Mrs Sinéad Ennis – record
- Mr Colin McGrath – record
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).
- 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 | 0.01 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.01 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.43 | No |
| 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 | 0.82 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.09 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.05 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.04 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 09:02 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9. The text was identical to an already-assessed record, so the same answers were reused.
Disagree with this assessment?
Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.