Debate contribution: Assembly Members (Remuneration Board) Bill: Final Stage
Debate contribution by Mr Timothy Gaston on .
- MLA
- Mr Timothy Gaston
- Party at the time
- Traditional Unionist Voice
- Date
- 16 June 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Assembly Business
- Heading
- Assembly Members (Remuneration Board) Bill: Final Stage
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5010200
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Well, we have reached the Final Stage of a Bill that should never have made it this far. From the beginning, the legislation has been marked by secrecy, self-interest and, indeed, plenty of spin. It was conceived behind closed doors, pushed forward without proper public consultation and dressed up as reform. In reality, it is nothing more than a vehicle to enable MLAs to award themselves a substantial pay rise — one that they dare not put to the public in plain terms. One might wonder whether, had Mr Carroll and I not been here, anyone would even have mentioned the reason for the legislation before us. Let us recall how we got to where we are today. The Commission consulted only the parties that are represented on it. There was no public consultation prior to the publication of the Bill, no transparency and no input from parties excluded from the cosy carve-up. It was a stitched-up deal from the start, and all the parties on the Commission know it. The names of the Members on the front of the Bill are telling: they are from Sinn Féin, the DUP, the Ulster Unionists, Alliance — none of them are in the Chamber — and the SDLP. Every party with a seat on the Commission has put its name to the scheme and would have carried it through quietly had it not been for the two of us in this corner being determined to shine a light on what they were doing. What about the official Opposition? Do not make me laugh. There was certainly no opposition when it came to awarding themselves a pay rise. Every amendment that I proposed at Committee Stage — amendments aimed at restoring some integrity to the process — was rejected. The message from the majority was clear: "Nothing to see here. The pay rise train is running on time". We are told that the Bill merely empowers the remuneration board, but let us be honest: clause 3 gives the game away. When you instruct the board to have regard to salaries in other legislatures, each of which pays significantly more than the Assembly, it is not about reform; the dice are loaded for a guaranteed upward trajectory.
The justification from one member of the Commission is that MLAs with families need to keep up with their counterparts elsewhere. Tell that to the carers on £81 a week. Tell that to the young family on universal credit. Tell that to the nurses, the porters and the social workers. Worse, it rings hollow to compare us to other legislatures. Unlike every other legislature cited in clause 3, the Assembly has deliberately chosen not to exercise full legislative authority. It handed swathes of power to Brussels and cannot even set its own standards in key areas of economic life. An institution that abandons power should not demand parity of pay with those that exercise it. Clause 5 makes former MLAs eligible to sit on the very board that will determine future pay and pensions. That is a conflict of interest dressed up as experience. The original rules rightly excluded former Members. The Bill removes that safeguard for no good reason. The Bill is a symptom of what is wrong with Stormont: a culture of entitlement, enabled by back-room agreements and protected from public scrutiny.
Yes.
A Member from the official Opposition speaks. It is great to see some scrutiny of the issue come from the official Opposition. He looks to Westminster. Westminster exercises all the powers —.
Westminster exercises all the powers that it is given, so you
cannot compare Westminster to Stormont. The official Opposition, along with the rest of the pan-nationalist front, were happy to give away 300 areas of law to a foreign legislature.
That is something that the official Opposition cannot and will not face up to.
Chuntering from the sidelines is all that the official Opposition are good at.
The people of Northern deserve better. They deserve transparency and integrity in public office. The Bill offers none of that. That is why I have opposed it from the beginning at every stage and in every form in full view of the public, who are footing the bill for it, and it is why I will vote against it again today. Shame on those who will vote for it and who have backed it from the beginning. Self-interest reigns supreme, and the Member from the official Opposition typifies that with his arguments.
749 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: 0.32 (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).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.75).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.75).
- Subject area: Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty.
- The overall probability was low and the text did not adopt any identity-based framing.
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 | 0.19 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.17 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.39 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.12 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.75 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.32 | Between thresholds |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.75 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.01 |
| Adopts it | 0.24 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.51 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.38 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.08 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.03 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 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.