Member's statement: MLA Pay Increase
Member's statement by Mr Timothy Gaston on .
- MLA
- Mr Timothy Gaston
- Party at the time
- Traditional Unionist Voice
- Date
- 10 February 2025
- Type
- Member's statement
- Business
- Members' Statements
- Heading
- MLA Pay Increase
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4790273
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I will briefly touch on the underhand manner in which the Assembly Commission has progressed the Bill designed to give MLAs a massive pay increase. Why were only the parties that are on the Commission consulted? Why, prior to the debate last week, were MLAs outside Sinn Féin, Alliance, the SDLP, the DUP and the Ulster Unionists totally in the dark about the contents of the Bill? I was aware of the projected £19,000 pay bonanza for MLAs only because I read the Audit Committee's briefing to assist in its scrutiny of the Assembly Commission's budget for 2025-26. I was totally in the dark as to the contents of the Bill prior to its publication on the Assembly website. One suspects that the parties on the Commission hoped that I had not read the Audit Committee's briefing note. It was never sent to me, and I received it only after my office asked the Business Office whether there were any papers that could be studied ahead of the debate to approve the Commission's budget on 9 December last year. Guidance from the UK Government is clear:
"consultation should take place at a stage when there is scope to influence the policy outcome."
It states that consultation:
"should normally last for at least 12 weeks".
The Executive Office guidance on consultations also sets the standard period for consultation at 12 weeks. Consultation should be an important part of the legislative process, because it permits all parties, organisations and the public to feed into the policymaking process. In this instance, however, the Assembly Commission decided to consult only parties with representation on the Commission and never dared to let the public or other parties even see the proposals, much less have their say. Frankly, the whole process stinks —
— from beginning to end. I look forward to debating the amendments to the Bill when it returns to the House.
324 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: 0.10 (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 (0.73).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.99).
- 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 | 0.07 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.06 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.08 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.06 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.73 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.10 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.99 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.01 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.78 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.14 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.05 |
| 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.