Debate contribution: Northern Ireland Assembly Commission: Budget 2025-26
Debate contribution by Mr Timothy Gaston on .
- MLA
- Mr Timothy Gaston
- Party at the time
- Traditional Unionist Voice
- Date
- 9 December 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Assembly Business
- Heading
- Northern Ireland Assembly Commission: Budget 2025-26
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4697968
Read the official Assembly record
Text
When I read the Commission's briefing to assist the Audit Committee in its scrutiny of the Commission's budget, I noticed that the first paragraph quoted section 40(4) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998:
"The Commission shall provide the Assembly, or ensure that the Assembly is provided, with the property, staff and services required for the Assembly’s purposes."
I also draw Members' attention to paragraph 75 of the briefing paper, which says that, "The 2025-26 budget for FAPP" now sits at £1·048 million and:
"has assumed a 3% uplift on the 2024-25 rates".
I remind the House that the 3% uplift did not apply equally to all parties. No, the Commission decided that, when it came to the Assembly, apparently, some staff were more equal than others. Sinn Féin got an additional £90,000 in public money; the DUP got an additional £45,000; and the Alliance Party, too, obtained additional moneys. It seemed that other parties, like mine, could just do with what they have had for the past eight years. It is worse than that, however. Since the 3% uplift in the budget for the FAPP scheme was agreed, we have had the Michael McMonagle scandal. He was universally acknowledged inside and outside the House to have been a Sinn Féin press officer. He was employed as a constituency officer worker by a succession of MLAs, including our First Minister and the Sinn Féin Member for North Antrim, Philip McGuigan. On 23 October, when the First Minister was before the Executive Office Committee, I asked her how many days a week Michael McMonagle was in her constituency office. After all —
I am coming back to it, Principal Deputy Speaker.
After all, it is expenditure associated with the scheme that we are talking about. Mr McMonagle was employed by the First Minister from March to May 2020. As detailed in paragraph 18 of the report, the money is for "expenditure associated with Members", not political parties or press offices. At the Committee, the First Minister would not say how many days a week. It is pertinent that we talk about that today. Sadly, on that day, the Chair of the Committee, true to form, was anxious to make sure that she avoided that question.
No, but we are talking about FAPP.
Principal Deputy Speaker, it seems to me that, any time I try to raise issues in relation to this, I am shot down, whether at the Committee or in the Chamber. We are talking about the FAPP scheme, which is about financial assistance for political parties. We are talking about Members and what they can spend their money on. It seems that we do not want to talk about the thorny issues. I am mightily disappointed in that, mightily disappointed. We have an opportunity to air some of the issues, but it seems that, perhaps because you are a Member of Sinn Féin, you do not want to listen to what I have to say.
I will bring my remarks to a close.
503 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: 0.41 (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 (0.86).
- The overall probability was low and the text did not adopt any identity-based framing.
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 | 0.18 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.10 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.03 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.24 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.21 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.57 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.41 | Between thresholds |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.86 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.02 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.12 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.51 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.29 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.10 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.07 |
| Religion and belief (including people of no religion), churches, faith communities and religious prejudice (including antisemitism and anti-Muslim prejudice) | 0.02 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:40 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.