Debate contribution: Assembly Members (Remuneration Board) Bill: Second Stage
Debate contribution by Ms Paula Bradshaw on .
- MLA
- Ms Paula Bradshaw
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 17 February 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Assembly Business
- Heading
- Assembly Members (Remuneration Board) Bill: Second Stage
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4802441
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I support the Bill. It is effectively an amending Bill that ties in with two motions passed by the Assembly: one in June 2024 and the other two weeks ago. As Trevor Clarke has outlined, those motions made a technical addition to the Assembly Commission's functions in line with decisions previously agreed by the Assembly. As Members will recall, it means that the Assembly Commission will determine the allowances paid to Members, but an independent body, named the "remuneration board" to clarify its purpose, will determine salaries and pensions. That is consistent with decisions previously made by the Assembly, and I will briefly set out some background for the benefit of Members. For absolute clarity, a fortnight ago, we heard that, on 30 June 2024, the Assembly passed a resolution to confer on the Assembly Commission the power to make determinations on Member's allowances. The resolution was passed in accordance with section 47 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. However, no resolution had conferred functions on the Assembly Commission in relation to section 48 of the 1998 Act, which provides for payments to be made to former Members. Two weeks ago, we provided the authority for the Commission to determine allowances to former Members, most notably winding-up and resettlement allowances, securing that through a motion that delivers consistency for the Assembly Commission to make determinations for a full range of allowances payable to Members both current and former. The motion introduces no changes to the allowances of Members or former Members, nor do allowances paid to former Members make up a significant share of the Commission's budget. That motion was intentionally scheduled to coincide with the introduction of this Bill. The Bill is a formal mechanism under which the power to determine allowances is separated from the power to determine salaries and pensions, even though, in practice, that is already the case and has been since 2020. It is worth re-emphasising that the Bill ensures that the salaries and pensions of Members will continue to be determined by an independent body. Therefore, the Bill will provide for coherent arrangements for the salaries, pensions and allowances payable to Members and former Members. There has been some public commentary that seems to derive from the point that the Bill will allow former MLAs to sit on the remuneration board and requires the board to have regard to the salaries payable in other legislatures. On the first point, it seems wise to have people who know the job assessing how those carrying it out should be compensated; indeed, it was arguably that lack of knowledge that led to the provision made in respect of MLAs' offices that caused such practical difficulties in the past. On the second point, it may simply bring us into line with Scotland and Wales, where salaries are determined as a share of an MP's salary. There is no requirement for that share to be the same in any particular jurisdiction, as the precise nature of the role of a legislator varies somewhat in each institution, and that will be something for the remuneration board to consider, as Mr Clarke has already outlined. It is worth reinforcing why the 2016 determination led to such difficulties. It reduced maternity and sick pay, reduced annual leave for employees to the minimum statutory level, made the terms of employment unattractive and, bizarrely, allowed an office address to be displayed on an office sign but not an email address or a telephone number. There were further curiosities, some of which have already been rehearsed, such as the bar on holding surgeries elsewhere in the constituency other than in the constituency office, although they were largely resolved by the 2020 amendment to the 2016 determination. I reinforce that there will be a call for evidence by the Ad Hoc Committee on which we may seek an extension and that there will be a public consultation on any draft determination. The recent public commentary that there will be no opportunities for public input is therefore simply wrong. I commend the Bill's progress to its next stage.
681 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: 0.02 (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 (0.77).
- 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 | 0.02 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.77 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.02 | 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 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.09 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.04 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.02 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.02 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:57 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.