Debate contribution: Assembly Members (Remuneration Board) Bill: Final Stage
Debate contribution by Mr Andy Allen MBE on .
- MLA
- Mr Andy Allen MBE
- Party at the time
- Ulster Unionist Party
- Date
- 16 June 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Assembly Business
- Heading
- Assembly Members (Remuneration Board) Bill: Final Stage
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5010188
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I beg to move
The Assembly Commission welcomes the opportunity to bring the Bill back to the Assembly to conclude its legislative process. From the outset, the Assembly Commission has set out that the Bill is a technical Bill, dealing with the process of how the salaries and pensions of Members are determined. That has been clear as the Bill has progressed through the House. I am therefore not going to go back through all the technical aspects of the Bill today. The key point is that the Bill gives effect to the resolution that was passed in June 2020, when the Assembly voted to give the Assembly Commission the power to make determinations on Members' allowances and agreed that decisions on salaries and pensions should be made by an independent body. That has been the settled position of the Assembly for some five years. The Bill simply seeks to amend the Assembly Members (Independent Financial Review and Standards) Act (Northern Ireland) 2011 to remove the independent body's powers to make determinations about allowances and ensure consistency with the 2020 resolution. In passing the Bill, the Assembly is fulfilling its responsibility to regularise the position and provide legal clarity. As the Bill has been so long in development, it is appropriate that I acknowledge all of the Assembly Commission members who have been involved in the process over the past almost 10 years. I particularly thank all the Assembly Commission officials who have undertaken the detailed work over that time to get us to the final version of the Bill. I also thank the Chairperson, members and staff of the Ad Hoc Committee for the scrutiny of the Bill that they have undertaken in the past few months. The work that they have done, and the evidence that they have taken, has effectively dealt with some of the myths and false claims that have been made about the Bill. The Ad Hoc Committee brought forward an amendment to ensure that the independence of the remuneration board would be clearly reflected in the Bill's title. The Assembly Commission welcomes the Assembly's support for that amendment, as the core purpose of the Bill is to ensure that salaries of Members are determined independently. Throughout the Bill's development and scrutiny, the Assembly Commission's focus has been on ensuring that it upholds the independence of the board. Once the Bill has passed and been granted Royal Assent, the role of the members of the Assembly Commission, and Members of the House, ends. The Clerk to the Assembly/Chief Executive will oversee a process to appoint the independent remuneration board. No Member or party will be involved in it. The debate and the decisions around what the levels of pensions and salaries for Members should be will therefore rest with the independent remuneration board, not the Assembly Commission or the Assembly.
That is only right and is the main objective of the Bill. Whatever outcome is reached, the independent remuneration board will have made its decisions through its own process and judgement. Members should not lose sight of the fact that that is what they are voting for today: for salaries and pensions to be determined independently. It is difficult to see how anyone could reasonably object to that. On behalf of the Assembly Commission, I commend the Bill to the Assembly and look forward to Members' contributions to the debate.
565 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: 0.02 (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).
- 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 | 0.02 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.47 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.02 | 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 | 0.98 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.02 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 12:50 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.