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

Debate contribution by Mr Phillip Brett on 13 May 2025.

MLA

Mr Phillip Brett

Party at the time

Democratic Unionist Party

Date

13 May 2025

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Committee Business

Heading

Assembly Members (Remuneration Board) Bill: Consideration Stage

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 4947799

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I thank all Members who took part in what was a wide-ranging debate. We covered many issues in the Bill and indeed issues that are far outside the scope of the Bill. It was a useful discussion, and I thank those who contributed, including, first, my vice-chair, Ms Mason, who rightly highlighted the fact that the legislation will remove the power for MLAs to set their own salary. I do not think that any Member in the House wants MLAs to have a role in setting their own salary. It is absolutely correct that the Consideration Stage passes today. I confirm that the remarks made by Ms Bradshaw were entirely correct: there was no request from the Member for West Belfast Mr Carroll to come along to give evidence to the Ad Hoc Committee.

I will happily give way.

There was no request from any Member of the House to come along to the Committee to give evidence. Members also had the opportunity to provide written evidence, had their diaries not permitted them to come in person. Again, that was not received.

Mr Carroll, I shall come to your remarks later; probably the most substantial of my remarks will address some of the mistruths that you spoke earlier in the debate.

I will happily give way.

Thank you, Timothy, for that. You did put in a written submission. The point that I made was in relation to Mr Carroll. I welcome Mr Gaston's support for the amendments in my name on behalf of the Committee. They are supported by all Members of the House. When the Member for West Belfast spoke, he did not indicate, one way or the other, whether he supported the amendments in the name of the Ad Hoc Committee, but it is useful to put on the record that no Member outlined their opposition to the Committee's amendments, and that reflects the importance of those amendments. I want to respond to some of the more political points that were made during the discussion. The Member for North Antrim Mr Gaston said that amendment No 13 in his name was a "challenge" from the TUV to other unionists. I do not need a challenge from any other unionist, either inside or outside the House. I am very clear in my unionism, very confident in my unionism. The people of North Belfast elected me and gave me a mandate to speak for them, and I will take no lectures nor any diatribes from any Member of the House who is trying to challenge the credentials of my unionism. I turn now to the remarks by the "person before profit" Member for West Belfast, Mr Carroll. In the first of his remarks, he outlined that the Committee was trying to keep quiet the findings of its deliberations. I know that the Member may not do detail, but there is a 43-page report that the Committee produced. I would encourage the Member for West Belfast to read it. He then went on to articulate that he takes the average salary. He also implied that he does not draw down the full salary. Let us be very clear: Mr Carroll does draw down the entirety of his £52,500 salary. What he then does with that, whether he donates it to his political party or to any other of his Marxist causes, that is a matter for him. Let us be very clear, however: he does take the full salary offered by the Assembly.

The Member for West Belfast made disgraceful remarks about clause 5. He said that the clause was a case of "If you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours". It is important to put it on the record that the Member is factually incorrect. If a former Member becomes a member of the independent panel, any decisions made by the panel will not influence that individual's pension. Mr Carroll's attempt to mislead Members, and members of the public, needs to be called out. He went on to say that the public will give their verdict on the types of MLAs whom they want. The people of Northern Ireland gave their verdict in 2022 on whom they wanted to represent them. There are 26 or 27 Members on these Benches. There is one Member on his Bench. I think that the people of Northern Ireland gave their verdict very clearly. Interestingly, the Member for West Belfast often speaks about ensuring equality and equal rights for everyone, yet amendment No 8, which stands in his name, seeks to disbar former Members of this place from even having the ability to apply to be a member of the board. The Member is therefore so committed to equality that he wants to put discrimination into law. It is very important to make clear that, should a former Member apply, there is no guarantee that they will be appointed to the board or any more right to be. Rather, they will have equality of opportunity. I often hear lectures from Mr Carroll on that issue. It seems, however, that, once again, the Member does not practise what he preaches. This has been a useful discussion and debate. I welcome Members' support for the amendments tabled in my name on behalf of the Committee.

Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker.

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

Assessment

Not flagged

Second assessment

Jev’s answers did not settle this record, so a second model, claude-opus-5-5, read the same text (without the MLA’s name or party) and gave its reasons on 21 October 2026. How the second assessment works

Verdict

Not flagged

Public interest or divisiveness

Mainly advances the public interest

Against the published rubric

The contribution is a committee chair's winding-up speech on a Bill to remove MLAs' power to set their own salaries, and most of it deals with the amendments, the committee's evidence process and the factual accuracy of claims about clause 5 and pensions. The only identity reference is a brief rejection of a "challenge" to the speaker's unionist credentials, which defends a personal mandate rather than attacking another community or framing the Bill as a communal contest. The sharp jibes at an individual member ("person before profit", "Marxist causes") are partisan and ideological, aimed at one opponent's conduct and arguments, not at an identity group, so the rubric's tests for identity framing, communal antagonism or grievance are not met.

Public interest or divisiveness

The speech mainly advances the public interest by explaining and defending legislation on MLA pay, correcting what the speaker calls factual errors about clause 5, and arguing about whether former members should be eligible for the independent panel. It contains combative personal point-scoring against an opponent and an intra-unionist rebuttal, but this is ordinary political sparring rather than hostility towards a community or an attempt to deepen communal division.

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 12:35 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