Debate contribution: Commitment to the Proper Use of Public Moneys

Debate contribution by Mr Gerry Carroll on 28 January 2025.

MLA: Mr Gerry Carroll
Party at the time: People Before Profit Alliance
Date: 28 January 2025
Type: Debate contribution
Business: Private Members' Business
Heading: Commitment to the Proper Use of Public Moneys
Assembly identifier: Official Report component 4764237

Text

Every MLA, Minister and political party has a duty to act with transparency and accountability in how they use public money. It is stating the obvious, but that includes being clear about who is employed for party political and constituency work. It should also include, as the motion calls for:
"regular and robust audits of how money is spent by MLAs and political parties".
The motion also, rightly, highlights several issues with the review, including the fact that the report's author failed to speak to members of the media who could have given critical evidence. I want to use the opportunity to talk about Stormont's long record of using public money in inefficient, ineffective and improper ways. Some Ministers and Assembly Commission staff have taken an excessive number of long-haul business class flights for events and conferences that seem to be nothing more than talking shops. In the past three years, travel costs for just one senior member of Assembly staff have totalled more than £18,000 — an eye-watering sum. Clearly, that is a questionable use of public money, to put it mildly, lacking in accountability and transparency while ordinary people struggle. I support the motion, but it is also important to acknowledge the hypocrisy of some unionist MLAs who talk about the proper use of public funds. For years, DUP MLAs have been employing family members for Assembly and party jobs. Many people would see that as clear-cut nepotism and certainly not proper use of public money. During the RHI scandal, it emerged that DUP Ministers hired publicly paid spads from among the party membership despite signing papers to the contrary. The DUP has no authority to lecture anyone about transparency and accountability, given that its former MP for North Antrim failed to declare not one but two luxury holidays that were paid for by the Sri Lankan Government. Finally, I want to speak about issues with the FAPP scheme. Changes that were made to the scheme last year effectively amounted to a dramatic carve-up of public money, all to the benefit of the largest parties and the Opposition party. The DUP saw its fat budget increase by 63%. Sinn Féin saw its budget increase by 72%. My party, the TUV and the UUP have had our budgets capped. Clearly, that disadvantages smaller parties and privileges larger ones. At best, it is an unfair way in which to allocate public money. At worst, it is a deliberate attempt to stifle the voices and limit the resources of smaller parties that are not in a formal opposition role. I strongly suggest that it is the latter. Executive parties on the Commission had an opportunity to challenge that or accept an alternative calculation. They refused to do so and ran that policy through. As I understand it, at least one alternative proposal — maybe more — was put to the Commission that would have seen smaller parties' payments effectively double, but those parties voted that down. Commission members voted that down. That is another stitch-up by the bigger parties that leaves the smaller parties and independents behind — I include independents — and going without. That is totally unacceptable. It needs to be reviewed. I urge Commission members to go back and address that serious gap in the FAPP scheme.

549 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

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: 0.15 (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 (0.83).
No identity-based framing was identified (0.88).
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

Probability that each statement is true of this text (0 = no, 1 = yes). A criterion counts as met at 0.60 or above.
Question	Probability	Met?
Identity framing	0.11	No
Sectarian or communal antagonism	0.09	No
Cultural grievance politics	0.02	No
Dog-whistle messaging	0.17	No
Controversy escalation	0.09	No
Legitimate policy scrutiny	0.83	Yes
Overall judgement	0.15	At or below not-flagging threshold

Context and attribution (stance)
Option	Probability
No identity-based framing (chosen)	0.88
Reports or questions it	0.00
Criticises or condemns it	0.01
Adopts it	0.11

Subject area (top five)
Subject	Probability
No identity-related subject	0.79
Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations	0.14
Another identity-related subject	0.04
Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty	0.03
Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials	0.00

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:55 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.

Challenge this classification