Debate contribution: Northern Ireland Assembly Commission: Budget 2025-26
Debate contribution by Mr Gerry Carroll on .
- MLA
- Mr Gerry Carroll
- Party at the time
- People Before Profit Alliance
- Date
- 9 December 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Assembly Business
- Heading
- Northern Ireland Assembly Commission: Budget 2025-26
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4697997
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Some aspects of the budget are fine and are even required, but I want to raise other aspects. The first is MLAs' pay. That is a bone of contention among some in the House who believe that the £500 increase included in the budget is probably not enough and want to go further. I note that Scotland has been mentioned in some of the papers on the budget. I have consistently made the point that MLAs should be on a wage that reflects the people whom they represent: their constituents. With the increase in the budget, an MLA's wage will increase to £53,000, not to mention, of course, the scale for a Minister's salary, which goes through the roof. That adds insult to injury, when teaching unions are balloting their members on a pay deal and potential strike action; when Health and Social Care workers, who were promised pay parity and promised that money would be restored to them when Stormont was up and running, are still waiting; and when NI Water workers are still waiting for their money to be processed. It is completely unacceptable that politicians' pay is once again prioritised over that of public-sector and other workers. There is a small improvement — 3%, to be precise — in pay for Assembly Commission staff. It is worth mentioning that, earlier this year, some senior staff in the Building received a 12%-15% pay increase. Compare that with 3%: it is totally unfair, when we are talking about workers on lower salaries further down the pay scale. We have to ask questions about the organisations with which the Assembly Commission pays to do business. I have raised the issue before with Information Services. We should not do business with Hewlett-Packard (HP), which services the offices of Netanyahu and the Israeli war-makers. That company also provides technology for Israel's Population and Immigration Authority, which really enforces the apartheid system. There is a worldwide call for boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) action towards HP, and the Assembly should heed it. We should also point out the Assembly's involvement with other dodgy companies.
Sorry? It does not end with HP. I have raised the point about Aramark before. It has hired workers on zero-hours contracts. It is also involved in the prison industrial complex in America and the direct provision system in the South of Ireland.
Sorry, do you want to make a point?
Thank you, Principal Deputy Speaker. I was bringing my remarks to a close. During the debate, somebody mentioned that my comments were not challenged, but I heard noises from my right and left when I was speaking. I am happy to hear comments, but people were offered a chance to intervene and they did not want to. That is their prerogative. I was making the point that this is about the Commission's budget: what the Assembly spends its money on. The final point that I was making, before I was shouted at and noise was made in my direction, was that staff in the building who work for Aramark should be brought in-house. They should be employees of the Assembly. Those were my points on the Commission budget.
530 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: 0.17 (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 (0.82).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.51).
- Subject area: Immigration, asylum, race, ethnicity and Travellers.
- 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 | 0.12 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.07 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.14 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.50 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.82 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.17 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.51 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.01 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.23 |
| Adopts it | 0.25 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Immigration, asylum, race, ethnicity and Travellers | 0.66 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.27 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.04 |
| Religion and belief (including people of no religion), churches, faith communities and religious prejudice (including antisemitism and anti-Muslim prejudice) | 0.01 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.01 |
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.