Debate contribution: Assembly Members (Remuneration Board) Bill: Final Stage
Debate contribution by Mrs Sinéad Ennis on .
- MLA
- Mrs Sinéad Ennis
- Party at the time
- Sinn Féin
- Date
- 16 June 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Assembly Business
- Heading
- Assembly Members (Remuneration Board) Bill: Final Stage
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5010235
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Go raibh maith agat, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.
I thank all Members who contributed to the debate. During the Second Stage debate, the Assembly Commission acknowledged:
"there is no good time to deal with issues relating to Members' salaries and pensions" — [Official Report (Hansard), 17 February 2025, p7, col 2].
and that no Member is happy about or comfortable with discussing those issues. However, as my colleague Andy Allen outlined, the Assembly Commission and the Assembly have a responsibility to regularise the legal position through this technical legislation, following the resolution that the Assembly passed in 2020. The Assembly Commission also noted the understandable public attitudes to those issues and the potential that that created for some to play politics with them. The Assembly Commission welcomes the fact that the scrutiny process provided an ability to correct and clarify some of the misunderstandings and inaccuracies about the Bill that have been portrayed. Indeed, we heard some of those inaccuracies and misunderstandings being regurgitated today. In progressing the Bill, the Assembly Commission focused on the process of determining Members' salaries, not the outcome. At no point has the Assembly Commission ever taken a position on or discussed what the salary of Members should be. If the Bill is passed today, future discussions and decisions on Members' salaries and pensions will shift to the independent remuneration board. That board has independence in deciding what factors it wants to consider before determining its view on the appropriate level of salaries and pensions for Members. That is the appropriate way in which to deal with those matters. Should the Bill not pass, the Assembly should be clear about the consequences. The Assembly would fail to ensure that there is legal clarity, and inconsistency would remain between the 2011 Act and the decisions that the Assembly has already taken. Voting against the Bill would also mean that no structure would be in place to determine independently Members' salaries and pensions. It is important that we are all clear: a vote against the Bill is not a vote against a particular salary level for Members; rather, it is a vote against having an independent remuneration board in place to set the salaries and pensions of Members independently. I echo the thanks given by Andy Allen to all those Members and staff who contributed to the Bill as it made its way through the Assembly Commission, the Assembly and the Ad Hoc Committee. I commend the Bill to the House.
413 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: 0.03 (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 (0.99).
- 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 | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.75 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.03 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.99 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.01 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.75 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.24 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 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.