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

Debate contribution by Mr Gerry Carroll on 13 May 2025.

MLA

Mr Gerry Carroll

Party at the time

People Before Profit Alliance

Date

13 May 2025

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Committee Business

Heading

Assembly Members (Remuneration Board) Bill: Consideration Stage

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 4947719

Read the official Assembly record

Text

The Ad Hoc Committee makes a recommendation that the board must have regard to the wider financial circumstances of the North. You would presume that those would be the same financial circumstances that mean that pensioners are sitting freezing in their homes during winter, the circumstances that led to 90,000 emergency food parcels being delivered to families last year — over twice as many as five years ago — or the fact that, in the news today, we see that the North's top 100 businesses made pre-tax profits of £2·5 billion.

The North's financial circumstances have served to line the pockets of a few extremely wealthy people and companies, but, for the vast majority of ordinary people, the financial circumstances here mean poverty and deprivation. A pay increase for MLAs that gives more weight to politicians' inflated salaries in other jurisdictions than to the everyday experiences of those whom we represent would be completely unfair, not to mention tone-deaf, hence my opposition to clause 3.

It is worth elaborating on a point that was kept quiet by defenders of the process. When the public were consulted, almost 70% of respondents to the call for evidence disagreed or strongly disagreed with the proposal for the board to have regard to salaries paid to politicians in other jurisdictions. Despite what the Member for South Belfast said about my not going before the Committee, the Committee ignored the view of the public, and that is contemptible, to be perfectly honest. Despite the strength of public opinion, the provision remains in the Bill. The voice of the public does not matter. Lip service has been paid once again. No matter how often and how loudly MLAs have protested in prior debates, the provision is paving the way for a completely unjustified pay increase, and I challenge people who say the contrary. To repeat, band 3 health and social care (HSC) workers have a starting salary of just over £24,000 a year, while administrative officers (AOs) in the Civil Service start on £23,000 a year, if they can get through the interview process without the computer system crashing. That is not to mention the hundreds of thousands of retail and hospitality workers on zero-hours contracts and minimum wage being forced to work longer on Sundays. My amendment No 2 would also limit increases to the rate of CPI inflation, which acts as a restraint on the board in case there is a temptation or pressure applied to increase salaries by a disproportionate and unreasonable amount, not that an independent board would ever dream of doing that, of course. CPI inflation in the year up to March 2025 was 2·6%, which is a much more reasonable increase than a potential 38%, 28% or 18% hike, or whatever percentage hike may come down the track. For the benefit of the Member for Lagan Valley, I will say that I take the average wage of people in my constituency, so, for the record, I do not get that money. When giving evidence to the Ad Hoc Committee, the Assembly Commission said that it was reasonable to benchmark pay against comparable employment rather than against an unrelated field, but that fails to consider the role of an elected representative. We are here to represent our constituents, not, as some think, to be above them and earn far more than them. At the most basic level, we need to have some practical understanding of the everyday lives and struggles of the people whom we represent. A salary of £70,000 or more would make MLAs become out of touch and disconnected from reality, and some are already there.

The Member may not understand, but our party policy is to accept the average wage of workers.

Your party does not do that, so that is for you to explain.

Listen if you will and check the website, or do what you want. I know that the Member is perhaps passionate about getting that pay increase, but it is worth pointing out how disgraceful it would be.

You will take it, and your party will take it, so perhaps you will be opposition for a time. I will move on. Another argument in favour of massive pay hikes for MLAs, and perhaps the Member for Strabane will agree, is —.

Apologies, West Tyrone. Another argument is that they will attract the right kind of people. The Member for Lagan Valley Mr Butler said that. The question, however, is this: what kind of people do the public want to be their representatives? Ordinary people and the people whom I talk to in the real world do not want bankers or big business CEOs as their representatives. Plenty of people from high-flying private-sector backgrounds have entered politics, only to tank the economy, such as Rishi Sunak and Liz Truss, to name but two in recent years. The UK Chancellor of the Exchequer, Rachel Reeves, used to work for the Bank of England and is now pushing hundreds of millions —.

Yes, I will do.

The point that I am making is that being on a higher wage does not mean that an MP, an MLA or any other public representative has the skills and knowledge to make people's lives better. By my argument, and in most people's view, it means that they are less likely to understand the daily struggles of the people whom they represent. That is why it was easy for the Labour Party to cut the winter fuel payment.

On the removal of the power to determine the allowances, an independent board is, rightly, considered necessary for setting MLAs' salaries, and it is important that salaries are set fairly, objectively and with no interference from people who have a material interest in the outcome. This legislation deems it appropriate for salaries to be set by an independent board, yet MLAs will have responsibility for setting their own staffing and office cost expenditure via the Assembly Commission. There is no independence in that process whatsoever. It does not matter that the Assembly passed a resolution to confer those powers back to the Commission back in 2020; we have an opportunity now to correct that and admit that the determination of allowances needs objectivity and independence. Adequate provision for staff maternity allowance, disability access to offices and the lifting of restrictions on office signage are, obviously, positive things to be welcomed, but they were addressed in 2020. It is also worth emphasising that the majority of people who responded to the Committee's call for evidence — 53% — disagreed that powers to determine allowances should be set by MLAs themselves rather than an independent board. Yet again, parties want to plough ahead and ignore the views of the people. When people are asked for their views, the Committee and the parties here do not want to take them on board. In Wales and in Westminster, the same independent board sets pay and allowances for politicians. Why should it be any different in Stormont? In its evidence to the Ad Hoc Committee, the Commission stated that allowing the board to make determinations on MLAs' expenses would result in the board being bogged down with work, with considerable cost to the public purse. Pull the other one. Surely one of the main aims of the independent remuneration board is to achieve good value for public money, not a stitch-up. Given that Ministers have no problem jet-setting around the world to events and conferences with no tangible outcomes and staying in opulent five-star hotels, it is hard to believe that some Executive parties are genuinely concerned about cost to the public purse. On the membership and independence of the remuneration board, 81% of people who responded to the call for evidence — another high number — agreed or strongly agreed that MLAs' salaries and pensions should be set by an independent board rather than the Assembly Commission. Despite that, the Bill makes provision for a former MLA to take a seat on the independent board. There is no independence there if a former MLA is sitting on it. Ask anybody outside this Building and they will say the same. Former MLAs on the remuneration board will have responsibility for setting the salaries of their party colleagues as well as their own pensions. Scratch my back and I will scratch yours. People Before Profit supports the principle of a remuneration board that is truly independent. That is not what is being proposed with this Bill. As it stands, given that a former MLA can, and, if the amendments do not pass, likely will, be a member of the independent remuneration board, it is independent only in name. My amendment restores some independence and requires at least two thirds of the board to be made up of active trade union representatives. For all the positive talk about trade unions in this place, parties are seemingly going to vote against that amendment. How many times in this place have parties in the Executive restricted the pay of workers and trade unions, yet they do not want them to have any say over the pay or allowances of MLAs? I am happy to support amendment No 11 in the name of the Member for North Antrim, who made some very important points about parties wanting to shut down public consultation on this process. I support the amendments in my name.

1,569 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