Debate contribution: Assembly Members (Remuneration Board) Bill: Second Stage
Debate contribution by Mr Robbie Butler on .
- MLA
- Mr Robbie Butler
- Party at the time
- Ulster Unionist Party
- Date
- 17 February 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Assembly Business
- Heading
- Assembly Members (Remuneration Board) Bill: Second Stage
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4802453
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Legislatively, this Bill is long overdue. It has been the settled will of the Assembly since 2020 that salaries and pensions should be determined independently — a word that I will return to shortly — and free from political interference. That the Assembly Commission has delayed its progression, first due to the pandemic and then due to the pressures of the heavy legislative programme of the previous session, is a credit to the Commission members with whom I served. Let us be honest: the delay was a deliberate choice. There really is no good reason to ensure that, going forward, independence is not part and parcel of how this place determines Members' salaries. However, we need to be clear about what the Bill does, not add to the misinformation that has been spread in the Chamber, the media and on social media. It does not set the salaries for Members. It simply ensures that pay and pensions are set independently, while allowances remain under the Assembly Commission's remit. This is a matter of process. It is not an outcome. It is not predetermined, and it was never mentioned that it would be predetermined. Anybody who implies that that was ever my intention or the intention of any other former member of the Commission is absolutely wrong, and I reject that outright — absolutely outright. Every party in the Chamber has criticised past decisions of the independent financial review panel. However, complaints alone solve nothing. The Bill will ensure that MLAs' salaries and pensions are managed independently, while allowances will benefit from the practical expertise of Assembly officials who understand the day-to-day challenges of running an office and serving constituents. Since 2020, as has been said, the Assembly Commission has improved conditions for members of staff, including the introduction of maternity leave support, better employment protections and enhanced security measures. Crucially, every claim is subject to robust scrutiny, with 25% of claims audited externally. This is about transparency, good governance and public confidence. The last couple of debates caused me to reflect on the last discussions that we had in the House. It is interesting to note that the amendment that the TUV tabled when we last debated the matter sought the granting of powers to the Commission to influence the independent panel, which would have removed every essence of independence. It will be interesting to see whether the TUV will continue to adopt that new policy position today. These are difficult things to talk about, but rigorous independence in determining MLAs' salaries is absolutely what this should be about. I hope that the TUV will not table the amendment that it sought to have made in 2020. Perhaps the Member would like to speak to that, if he gets a chance.
461 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: 0.05 (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 (0.86).
- 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 | 0.04 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.03 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.06 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.06 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.86 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.05 | 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 | 0.89 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.03 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.03 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.03 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.01 |
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.