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 4947715

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Thank you very much, Principal Deputy Speaker. I do not want to be distracted but, in that vein, I have been quite generous in letting people in. I sense that I am running close to the wire, and your patience seems to be getting tested with some of this, so I will finish my remarks by talking about amendment No 11. The new clause that would be created by amendment No 11 places a duty on the Commission to consult on any Bill that makes provision for salaries, pensions and gratuities to MLAs or former MLAs. The amendment would place a duty on the Commission to consult MLAs, trustees of the pension scheme, the public and any other people whom the Commission considers appropriate. It places a duty on the Commission to publish a report on the outcome of that consideration and sets the period for consultation at 12 weeks. There is a need to bring in this new clause. Yes, people might take it for granted and say, "Well, sure, that is what we do for all Bills in this House". Well, this has been the need. Yes, it should be standard practice. It was actually Mr Butler who raised this in his opening remarks. Look at this Bill and benchmark it against the 12 weeks, which is the norm. I raised this before. The consultation was open for 11 weeks, and two of them were over the Christmas holidays, so this Bill failed to meet the 12-week benchmark. That is why I felt the need. Yes, it should be something that is taken for granted and should be built into every Bill as common practice, but, unfortunately, with this Bill, the consultation that ran did not meet the threshold, hence the need to bring in this new clause to make it a statutory duty in future. In fact, the Bill Office, in discussions, was unaware of such clauses being built into other Bills, and that is why I have outlined that there is a simple reason for this amendment. Consultation is such a natural part of the legislative process that such clauses are considered unnecessary, but when it came to the Bill before the House today, prior to First Reading, no one outside the parties on the Commission had had sight of it. That would not be the case with an Executive or private Member's Bill, so why should it be the case for a Bill on Assembly pay? That is such an underhand way of operating, and it did nothing for the credibility of this Assembly. It does nothing to build confidence between MLAs and their electorate. In fact, the electorate would argue that there is stronger public interest in consulting on Bills of this nature than others, and that is why I strongly believe that we need to build in the 12-week consultation and ensure that those outside the Commission are being consulted. It is not good enough that matters such as this are debated in the House by the Commission until it publishes a completed Bill only after it is moved at First Stage. My amendment opens the door to more transparency in the Assembly and more input from the House and the public. Anyone who opposes this amendment will have to tell the public why they believe that the public should have no say in the setting of MLA pay and allowances. I want to close with a final observation. To my mind, the Bill and the amendments in the Marshalled List do not address an issue of concern for the public. In fact, when it came to the only chance for the public to have any say in the Bill during the Committee Stage, 69% of responses either disagreed or strongly disagreed that the board should have regard to the salaries paid to Members of other legislatures. Ask the public about the abuse of the expenses system in this place, and I have no doubt that you will find widespread support. When it comes to the matter that I raised, it is with deep regret, as I said, that the amendments tabled were not considered. That was a missed opportunity to restore confidence in this tainted system.

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

Assessment

Not flagged

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 reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.

Challenge this classification