Debate contribution: Assembly Members (Remuneration Board) Bill: Consideration Stage

Debate contribution by Mr Timothy Gaston on 13 May 2025.

MLA

Mr Timothy Gaston

Party at the time

Traditional Unionist Voice

Date

13 May 2025

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Committee Business

Heading

Assembly Members (Remuneration Board) Bill: Consideration Stage

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 4947657

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Since the Bill first came before the House and, indeed, before that, I have been clear on the matters on which it touches. Back in December, when I saw the briefing that was prepared to assist the Audit Committee in its scrutiny of the Assembly Commission's budget for 2025-26, I made clear my position on the reason for the Bill: a pay rise for MLAs. I will read out paragraph 28 to remind Members:

"given that Members’ Salaries have not been reviewed since 2016, it is perhaps helpful to note that the current salary for a Member is now more than £19k less than the salary payable to an MSP in the Scottish Parliament or an MS in the Senedd. It therefore seems highly likely that a Remuneration Board will increase Members’ salaries."

That was back in December, and it paved the way to where we are today. To whom was that helpful? Indeed, it was helpful to the MLAs who sit in the House. I have no issue with the semantics of the amendments tabled by the Assembly Commission. If the parties on the Commission want to call the board "independent", they have the numbers to vote that though. Go on ahead, because I have no plans to oppose amendment Nos 1, 9, 10, 12 and 14. If you sleep better at night because you have inserted the word "Independent", that is for you to clear with your conscience. However, I want to be on record as making it clear that there is nothing independent about the decision on whether MLAs should get a pay rise. Clause 3, which insists that MLA pay be benchmarked against pay from legislative bodies that is higher than that which is currently obtained by Members of the House, makes that clear. The dice has been loaded before it has even been rolled. The dice has been loaded in favour of MLAs receiving a pay rise, and it has been loaded by the same people who are so anxious to introduce the word "Independent" to clauses 1, 7, 8 and 11. Members, that fools no one; it does not fool the electorate. I will now deal with my amendments to clause 3, which are on the Marshalled List. It would be one thing for MLAs to ask for additional pay if they were taking on additional responsibilities, but the reality is that Stormont has, by virtue of a vote by the majority of MLAs, decided that, in 300 areas of law, we should not be governed by the Assembly. They do not want to be governed either by the other place to which they should send elected representatives, namely Westminster. Instead, in 300 areas of law, the Assembly decided to be governed by Brussels. When asked the question, "Do you want to hand over control of something like 60% of the laws that govern your economy to a colonial power?", the answer from the Assembly was yes. To set that in context, it was not a resounding yes, but it was a yes nonetheless. Had the vote been treated like every other significant vote that has been held in the Chamber in the past 50 years, it would not have passed. The sacred Belfast Agreement states that nothing controversial or significant can be decided without the consent of both communities, yet, for that vote — arguably, the most significant vote in any Parliament or Assembly in Northern Ireland's history — that was dispensed with, was set aside and did not come into the equation. Today, in spite of surrendering 300 areas of law to our colonial masters in Brussels, which has not happened in any other legislature, some in the House want us to benchmark ourselves against those legislatures. Well, here we go. It makes no sense to pay people 19% more for doing less work. MLAs will still have a more limited legislative role than would otherwise be the case because of the wretched protocol. That is an argument for not increasing MLA pay at all. MLAs voted —

Yes. Go ahead.

You miss the point that Mr Allister has taken up the role and is being paid to do the job that he is doing. My goodness, look at what we have here: in annex 2 of the protocol, there are 300 areas of law — laws that should be governed by either this House or Westminster — on which you have given away power.

You do not care. You gave it away.

Thank you very much, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, for reining me in and bringing me back to where we should be. However, I am talking about the amendment. My amendment touches on the protocol, so I believe that what I have said is in scope. If other Members try to take me away and distance the debate from the amendment, I hope that you will pay close attention to what they say. My amendment gives me the opportunity to open up a debate about the protocol and make it clear that, while Members want a pay rise, the Assembly decided to give away power on 300 areas of law. MLAs voted for that arrangement, knowing that it would result in their constituents being subject, in 300 areas, to laws that are made by a two-chamber legislature in which they are not represented. Those constituents are represented in neither the European Parliament, the lower chamber, nor the Council of Ministers, the upper chamber.

Not only does it make no sense to pay MLAs more for doing less but the House has chosen to act recklessly by voting in a way that agreed to laws being made for our constituents by a legislature that they knew would not represent our constituents.

They knew that, in that legislature to which they voted to submit their constituents, there would be legislators elected to represent the people of Estonia, Bulgaria, France and Spain — my goodness — but there would be no one to stand up for the development of legislation to represent the people of Northern Ireland. That was a decision taken by the Assembly, knowing where we are today. The House knew exactly what it was voting for. It had the opportunity to say no, but it knew better and instead voted yes. It is doubtful that any legislator anywhere in the world who is entrusted with the right to represent his or her constituents should ever have agreed to their disenfranchisement in that way. At a time when trust in politics is low, that is an appalling way for an elected politician to treat their constituents whilst planning for a pay rise in the background. I will not detain the House by rehearsing the arguments in relation to amendment No 4, but linked to amendment Nos 3 and 4 and perhaps requiring a little more explanation is amendment No 13, which should be supported by any Member who opposes the protocol. I note Mr Butler's opposition to it, but I will set out my reasons why. In essence, that amendment would mean that any pay rise for MLAs is suspended until such times as the protocol has gone. Only when the House has seen the powers that have been surrendered to Brussels returned to Stormont and Westminster will Members see the provisions of the Bill come into operation. I say this to fellow unionist Members: this is your opportunity to put the pressure on the pro-protocol parties in the House, prove the TUV wrong and show that, when we claim that this place is a racket where people are just interested in their pay packet, we are mistaken.

I will bring my remarks on amendment No 4 to an end and continue with my previous remarks. Amendment No 13 would stop any pay rise for MLAs while the protocol remains, but do not stop there. Make it clear that, unless the amendment is built into the Bill, you will refuse to support it. That is my challenge to unionism in the House. Put some pressure on the nationalist and republican alliance, which ripped up the Belfast Agreement to impose the protocol on us. Forgive me for dancing about somewhat. I will go back to the Marshalled List of amendments and amendment No 4. That amendment seeks to remove reference to the houses of Parliament in the Irish Republic from the bodies that the board must have regard to when considering MLA pay. To justify that, I refer Members to the opening text of the Bill and, in fact, of any Bill that is introduced to the House:

"BE IT ENACTED by being passed by the Northern Ireland Assembly and assented to by His Majesty".

Northern Ireland is, as the Bill acknowledges, part of His Majesty's United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Why any unionist would seek to dilute that by introducing reference to a foreign Parliament is beyond me. If you want to benchmark pay against other parts of the UK, that is one thing, but to introduce a foreign Parliament where a Government hold office that make no secret of the fact that they want Northern Ireland to cease to exist is yet another unnecessary way of linking this part of the UK to the Republic. That is not sectarian, Ms Bradshaw. Once again, you have thrown out a number of slurs and produced no evidence to back them up. I will go back to the amendment.

That takes away your argument about Sinn Féin being abstentionists at Westminster. My goodness, I know that you would appreciate that. I know that Sinn Féin, the SDLP and their helpers in the Alliance Party would appreciate that this voice would not be heard, but I do not want to give them that pleasure. I will be here for as long as I am co-opted into this seat. I will seek —.

That brings me back to my earlier point. I am trying to focus on the Bill, but other Members seem intent on pulling me in other directions.

It is OK for SDLP Members to acknowledge the Belfast Agreement when it suits, but when it came to the protocol, they were happy, when it was stacked in their favour, to set it aside with no cross-community vote needed. Moving on, I will leave it to the Member for West Belfast to develop the case for his amendment No 8, but he can be assured of my support. As the Marshalled List makes clear, I will oppose the question that clause 5 stand part of the Bill. I am doing so for no other obvious reason than that former Members of this place are likely to remain on very good terms with their colleagues. It is highly likely that they will stand and still be members of the parties that they once represented. Some may claim that that is what is happening at Westminster. Well, if we are going to bring the Westminster model here, why is the Bill not wide enough to permit the amendments that I tabled, which would have seen Westminster-style penalties for the abuse of the expenses system?

You will be pleased to hear that that brings my remarks on that issue to an end.

Yes.

1,879 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Qualifying Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 12:33 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 reviews every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.

Challenge this classification