Member's statement: Members' Pay: Independent Remuneration Board
Member's statement by Mr Timothy Gaston on .
- MLA
- Mr Timothy Gaston
- Party at the time
- Traditional Unionist Voice
- Date
- 2 March 2026
- Type
- Member's statement
- Business
- Members' Statements
- Heading
- Members' Pay: Independent Remuneration Board
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5432506
Read the official Assembly record
Text
For the first time in my 20 months as an MLA, I will use the terms "Stormont" and "efficient" in the same sentence: Stormont has discovered how to be efficient, but only when it comes to MLA pay. Two weeks ago, we were told that there is no time left in the mandate to legislate on support for children with special educational needs when they leave school, but there was no problem finding space in the Order Paper to rush through a Bill to implement a massive 27% rise in MLA pay. Of course, that is only because of the independent remuneration board, my detractors tell me, saying, "But, it's an independent board: it's nothing to do with me, guv'". Let us examine that fig leaf. The only meaningful amendment to the legislation that established the board was to insert the term "independent" into its title. The amendments that would have made the board genuinely independent were voted down, and the amendments that would have allowed for real public consultation were rejected by the House. When MLAs made it a requirement for the board to benchmark salaries against other roles for which pay is higher, they knew exactly what they were doing. The dice were loaded from the outset. The press were told, "This is out for consultation", and the Assembly even sent the press an email address, which was carried in some outlets, but there is no public consultation: the only people being asked to comment are MLAs and pension trustees. At a time when households are struggling and we cannot fix our potholes, Sinn Féin, the DUP, Alliance, the Ulster Unionists and the SDLP constructed a process that excludes the public. That is not independence; it is a process that will result only in this place sinking lower in the public's estimation. If there was ever a sign of a Government being out of kilter with their people, a £14,000 pay increase for MLAs is it. I call on each MLA present to make their response public when the consultation closes on Thursday. Failure to do so will speak volumes on where they stand on the issue.
359 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: 0.08 (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 (0.83).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- Subject area: Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits.
- 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 | 0.06 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.06 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.09 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.06 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.83 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.08 | 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 |
|---|---|
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.51 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.45 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.02 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.01 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 14:57 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.