Debate contribution: Assembly Commission Budget for 2026-2030
Debate contribution by Mr Gerry Carroll on .
- MLA
- Mr Gerry Carroll
- Party at the time
- People Before Profit Alliance
- Date
- 11 November 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Assembly Business
- Heading
- Assembly Commission Budget for 2026-2030
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5349113
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I will make a few brief comments. The irony should be lost on nobody that health and social care (HSC) workers had to fight tooth and nail for pay parity just to secure a below-inflation pay increase of 3·6%. By contrast, the Independent Remuneration Board will likely recommend a pay increase of much more than that for MLAs. Criminal barristers are considering taking industrial action, as are Translink workers and teachers, potentially, while waiting for their pay award. That is not to mention the hundreds of thousands of people working in low- and minimum-wage jobs in the private sector, retail and elsewhere. Will politicians be left waiting for the Department of Finance to find the cash for what is set to be an astronomical pay rise? Will MLAs be forced to use food banks, get into debt or take on second jobs to pay their rent, mortgage or bills? I would hazard a guess and say that the answer is no. I put on record again my opposition to a lucrative hike in MLAs' pay. The annual Assembly Commission budget offers a chance to look at whom the Commission does business with. I have raised the issue of Hewlett-Packard (HP) devices in these Buildings multiple times. HP is a company that is complicit in genocide and supporting Israel, and it actively administers the digital infrastructure for Israeli apartheid. It is involved in supplying the computer hardware for the Israeli occupation forces, the Israel Police and many others. It is a moderate demand to say that we should not do business with it and should stop spending hundreds of thousands of pounds of public money on its equipment. It has been described as the "Polaroid of our times". Polaroid was a company that was marred in controversy because it continued to trade with the apartheid system in South Africa in the 70s and afterwards. We should also turn our attention to companies, such as Pi Comms and Aramark, that operate in this Building and have a public record of mistreating their workers. In the case of Aramark, it was completely discredited as it was directly involved in the administration of direct provision in the South. Workers in this Building from both organisations have raised serious concerns about those companies. The Commission has been silent. It has closed its ears to those matters. I welcome any information on any work that has been commissioned by the Commission to re-examine those contracts and look again at the huge spend of public money and the practices of those organisations. Commercial sensitivity simply will not cut it. The final point that I want to raise is about a question for written answer that I submitted to the Commission earlier this year. The answer stated:
"As at 1 September 2025, there were 2 staff members on a fixed term contract under the IS Scholarship scheme, and 41 Agency Workers placed on assignment with the Assembly Commission."
It is my understanding — I am happy to be corrected — that, in this Building, there are at least 41 staff who are on agency contracts. That is shocking and completely unacceptable. The Assembly needs to lead by example. In respect of what the Chair of the Audit Committee said, I say that workers do not want thanks or to be patronised; they want decent terms and conditions, and that has to mean proper permanent contracts. I urge the Assembly Commission to get on with that really important work.
580 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: 0.14 (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 (0.89).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.78).
- Subject area: Immigration, asylum, race, ethnicity and Travellers.
- 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 | 0.07 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.05 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.07 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.25 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.89 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.14 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.78 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.12 |
| Adopts it | 0.10 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Immigration, asylum, race, ethnicity and Travellers | 0.54 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.36 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.04 |
| Religion and belief (including people of no religion), churches, faith communities and religious prejudice (including antisemitism and anti-Muslim prejudice) | 0.02 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.02 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 13:37 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.