I beg to move

That this Assembly notes the resolution of 30 June 2020 that Members’ salaries and pensions should be determined by an independent body and that Members’ allowances should be determined by the Assembly Commission; and resolves that any allowances payable to former Members of the Assembly, under section 48 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, including resettlement and winding-up allowances, should also be determined by the Assembly Commission; that any change to these allowances may have retrospective or prospective effect; and that the Assembly Commission should publish any such determination.

The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes to propose and 10 minutes to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who wish to speak will have up to five minutes. Nuala, please open the debate on the motion.

Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I move the motion on behalf of the Assembly Commission to make a technical addition to the Assembly Commission's functions, which is consistent with decisions previously made by the Assembly. I will briefly set out some background for the benefit of Members.

Members may recall that the Assembly Members (Independent Financial Review and Standards) Act (Northern Ireland) 2011 established the independent financial review panel (IFRP) with powers to make determinations in relation to Members' salaries, allowances and pensions. The panel last exercised that power to make the Assembly Members (Salaries and Expenses) Determination (Northern Ireland) 2016. After the panel left office in 2016, the Assembly Commission decided that it was appropriate to review the existing arrangements and legislation. Political developments after 2016 meant that the Assembly Commission did not believe that it was appropriate to treat the matter as a priority when the Assembly was not sitting.

On 18 March 2020, the Assembly Commission decided that, while it would introduce legislation to appoint a new independent body to continue to determine Members' salaries and pensions, it would resume the function of determining the allowances paid to Members. Consequently, on 30 June 2024, the Assembly passed a resolution to confer power on the Assembly Commission to make determinations on Members' allowances. That resolution was passed in accordance with section 47 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, which provides for payments to be made to current Members of the Assembly, including payments of allowances.

Subsequently, the Assembly Commission made the 2020 determination, which amended certain allowances provisions in the 2016 determination, notably those relating to Members' employees. However, the resolution made by the Assembly in June 2020 did not confer functions on the Assembly Commission in relation to section 48 of the 1998 Act, which provides for payments to be made to former Members. That was not problematic at the time, as the 2020 determination was not concerned with issues related to former Members. However, going forward, today's motion will provide the authority for the Commission to determine allowances to former Members, most notably winding-up and resettlement allowances. Therefore, the motion will provide consistency for the Assembly Commission to make determinations for the full range of allowances payable to Members and former Members.

The motion in itself introduces no changes to allowances to Members or former Members; that will require the Assembly Commission to subsequently publish a determination. Therefore, the motion has no financial implications. The House will also be aware that allowances paid to former Members do not form a significant proportion of the Assembly Commission's overall expenditure, and that is unlikely to change.

Members will note that the debate on the motion has been scheduled to coincide with the introduction of the Assembly Members (Remuneration Board) Bill. That Bill is the formal mechanism under which the power to determine allowances is separated from the power to determine salaries and pensions, although, in practical terms, that occurred in 2020. The Bill ensures that the salaries and pensions of Members will continue to be determined by an independent body. Today's motion, together with that passed by the Assembly in June 2020 and the introduction of the Bill, will provide coherent arrangements for the salaries, pensions and allowances payable to Members and former Members. I commend the motion to the House.

I will find the right words. I have come down without paper.

As has been said, the motion is technical in nature but is consistent with previous Assembly decisions. It would not introduce any changes to Members' or former Members' allowances; such changes would require a subsequent determination by the Assembly Commission. That is in line with previous decisions taken by the House, as the proposer of the motion outlined.

The motion will ensure that the Assembly Commission has the authority to determine allowances for former Members, in particular winding-up and resettlement allowances. That was not done in the June 2020 determination process, which made no changes relating to former Members, so this is about redressing the imbalance.

The motion has no financial implications, as it does not alter the allowances that are paid. As a former member of the Commission, I commend it and the audit team for the work that they do. However, it is a reality that it is up to us, as individual Members with responsibilities, to ensure that we operate within the confines, rules and regulations of that which is laid down.

The Ulster Unionist Party welcomes the Commission motion.

The motion begins by noting:

"Members’ salaries and pensions should be determined by an independent body".

Really? It does that in a context where the briefing to assist the Audit Committee's scrutiny of the Assembly Commission's budget for 2025-26 said:

"given that Members' Salaries have not been reviewed since 2016, it is perhaps helpful to note that the current salary for a Member is now more than £19k less than the salary payable to an MSP in the Scottish Parliament or an MS in the Senedd. It therefore seems highly likely that a Remuneration Board will increase Members' salaries."

I make it clear that I do not believe that MLAs should receive a pay rise of one penny, never mind £19,000.

While the briefing did not note this, I urge any independent body reviewing MLA pay to link it to our performance in the House; to consider the fact that we are Members of a legislative Assembly that seldom legislates; to consider that MLAs sit on scrutiny Committees that do not scrutinise; and to remember that MLAs, when asked whether they would like to have a say on laws that govern our economy, voted to hand power to those in a foreign Parliament. Is that the track record of an Assembly whose Members deserve a £19,000 pay hike? I think not, and I trust that the remuneration board will take those indisputable facts into account.

A similar move is afoot in local councils, In the 2025-26 rate-setting process, councils are preparing for a £7,000 increase in councillors' salaries along with generous back pay. Many councils are building in between £250,000 and £500,000 to cover the costs to flow from the announcement expected from Minister Lyons before the summer.

As with the council increase, the motion is an attempt by the parties represented on the Commission to give cover for the awarding of a pay rise to MLAs. I do not believe that we are worth it and will therefore vote against the proposal. Anyone who thinks similarly can join me in the No Lobby.

I oppose the motion, which is a clear attempt to move the dial on a familiar conversation: MLA pay and allowances. The motion reminds us that MLA salaries and pensions are determined by an independent body, effectively laying the groundwork for an inevitable and substantial salary increase for MLAs under the guise of independence and objectivity. Straight after the debate, the Assembly Members (Remuneration Board) Bill will be introduced in the Assembly. When a board is being set up, we all know what it will recommend. There is a clear direction of travel.

In a briefing to the Audit Committee, the Assembly Commission noted that MLA salaries had not been reviewed since 2016 and that the current salary for MLAs is, as we heard, £19,000 less than members of the Scottish and Welsh Parliaments. The Assembly Commission concluded:

"It therefore seems highly likely that a Remuneration Board will increase Members' salaries."

I say this to those who tabled the motion: do not insult our intelligence; do not insult the intelligence of people looking at this debate. If MLA salaries were increased in line with Scotland and Wales, that would mean a 28% — 28% — pay increase for politicians. That would be a kick in the teeth for every worker who stood on a picket line and fought for pay increases that barely kept pace with inflation. Imagine if teachers got a 28% pay increase, health workers got a 28% pay increase or workers in this Building got a 28% pay increase. Remuneration boards for our public-sector workers are not so generous.

Last year, a UK pay review body recommended a 5·5% increase for Health and Social Care workers. It took months of lobbying and the prospect of industrial action for the Health Minister to finally accept that recommendation. In no other job would a 28% pay increase be considered reasonable or affordable.

Will the Member give way?

Yes, I will give way.

I understand the Member's point about comparisons with the public sector, and he cites the 5·5% for one year. We are working on the presumption that MLAs will get a pay rise, but the fact is that the Commission is asking an independent body to do that work. You are deciding what that body will do. Do you not agree that, whilst some workers got 5·5% for one year, the cumulative effect from 2015, when the pay was last adjusted, will be much more than the 28% that you suggest? Do you not believe in fairness for all workers?

Also, will you join me in calling for the Commission, when an Ad Hoc Committee is set up to review this —.

That is a long intervention.

I am still on my feet. The Speaker will call me to order.

Would you support —

Excuse me —

Would you support —

Excuse me. You need to resume your seat. The Member indicated that he would take an intervention. Interventions are meant to be brief, however. The Member has an extra minute.

Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. Interventions are meant to be brief, and the Member's was a bit long. He may have let the cat out of the bag when he said that we are working on the presumption that there will be a pay increase for MLAs. I do not know whether he has more to reveal on the subject. He can speak after me if he wants to.

In no other job would a 28% pay increase be considered reasonable or affordable. Why should MLAs be treated differently from any other worker? The Member fails to grasp that point, when he should.

The motion reminds us that, in 2020, the Assembly Commission was granted powers to determine Members' allowances. It is worth noting that allowances include not just expenses but staff salaries and office rents, yet powers for MLAs to determine their own allowances were granted despite a litany of examples showing that some MLAs cannot be trusted to control the purse strings. A DUP MLA claimed over £4,000 in heating oil in just one year. Mileage expenses of £19,000 were claimed on behalf of a Sinn Féin MLA who did not drive. For 10 years, Sinn Féin MLAs claimed £700,000 of expenses for a research company, Research Services Ireland, that did not exist. Remember that?

Westminster and the Welsh Senedd make use of independent boards to set allowances. There are very few legitimate reasons for MLAs to insist on setting their own allowances, especially when parties here have a track record of misusing public money. We cannot, on the one hand, claim that an independent body is objective enough to set MLAs' salaries while, on the other hand, claim that it cannot be trusted to determine their allowances and expenses. That is completely incoherent.

The motion goes even further. It states that MLAs should set resettlement and winding-up allowances for former MLAs and that those determinations can be applied retrospectively. It is a scheme that is ripe for exploitation. Other workers do not get to set their own expenses and allowances, never mind those of former workers. Again, I ask this: why should MLAs be treated any differently?

It is long past time to have a completely different conversation on pay and allowances, one that asks how MLAs can credibly claim to represent their constituents when their salary is £20,000 more than the average wage. Some would accept its being £40,000 more. The next time that we talk about our pay and expenses, I hope that that is the main topic of conversation. I oppose the motion and urge other parties, including the Opposition, to do the same.

I will address some of the comments that have been made. I was not down on the list to speak, but, even though my intervention was considered long, I probably needed a few more seconds to cover all my points. The previous Member to speak put things on the record, so I will put on record the fact that I let no cat out of the bag. It was the Member himself who indicated that our pay is 28% behind that in Scotland and Wales. There is a danger that we are calling into question the independence of an independent panel. Members have not decided anything. Indeed, Members agree with many of the points made about why we should not set our salaries. That was agreed many years ago, hence the need for an independent panel to set them.

Given what I heard from the two Members who seem to oppose the motion — even though nothing has been decided — consideration should be given to Members' being able to opt out. If a pay rise is coming, and they do not want it, include an opt-out option. If they are very principled, they should not take a pay rise, if there is one.

I remind Mr Gaston that his predecessor did not sit on any Committees, because he opted not to do so. If we are to measure people by performance, let us look at performance. Many Members from all parties sit on multiple Committees. If we are going to base pay on performance, those who decide not to sit on Committees, or who decide to sit on only one, should get less, as the Member for North Antrim suggested. What I suggest is that we leave the matter to an independent panel to determine.

I thank the Member for giving way. MLAs' pay is obviously a prickly subject, and one that will pique the public's interest. As a former member of the Commission, I am happy to put on record the fact that, on multiple occasions, the Commission decided not to move on something that would have been difficult for us to debate. Furthermore, the Commission has been operating outside its vires. The legislative provision meant that we should have had a panel in place years ago to address the matter. The Commission chose not to do that because it understood the sensitivities involved. The allegations that have been thrown around today are absolutely baseless. I am happy to support the Commission in that regard.

The Member has an extra minute.

I thank the Member for his intervention. Of course, I distance myself and the current membership from the misuse of public moneys. There was an issue in the past, and that was recognised, hence the establishment of the independent panel, the purpose of which was to fix some of those things. The recommendations were designed to do just that. We are talking, in passing —.

Will the Member give way?

I will allow you a very short intervention. Of course I will.

I will not be as long as you were.

The Member said that a decision has not been made on a pay increase. Will he confirm that, if there is to be a 28% pay increase for MLAs, he and his party will advocate at the Commission for a 28% pay increase for workers in the Building?

First, I will advocate for only myself — no one else — because I cannot speak on behalf of my colleagues. Of course, I encourage the Commission to take note of the opt-out option — I have already indicated that at the Commission — which could be used if some Members do not want to take the increase. Whether you take it would then be up you, Mr Carroll. I cannot advocate for something on behalf of my colleagues.

What I will say, for those who did not hear me the first time, is that you are talking about 5% for one year. You are also using the 28% figure. If you take the cumulative figure for an increase of 5% a year from 2015 until 2025, I imagine that it will be much more than 28%.

The other thing that you talked about was workers' rights. I am probably at the upper end when it comes to the age of Members; there are many younger Members who have young families to keep. Why should their pay not stay in kilter with that of their counterparts in other places? I am happy to let you in, if you want in on that.

As someone who has a young family and does not take the full wage, I do not see how you can use that as justification for supporting a pay increase of 28% for MLAs. That does not stand up.

Sorry, it does not stand up in your mind, but it stands up in the minds of others. Whilst you do not take the full wage, which is your choice, other Members have young families —

Will the Member give way?

I will.

I thank the Member for giving way. The resolution conferred the function of allowances to the Assembly Commission. That enabled Members to take maternity leave, which is something that the independent body had not provided for. I am proud that the Assembly Commission moved on that to support those in the Building with young families.

I thank the Member for putting that on the record. As a Member whose family is grown-up, I have no need for that provision.

Will the Member give way?

However, it is, of course, important that, when looking at workers' rights, we look at their rights across the board.

I will give way.

I would like to give the Member the opportunity, in the remaining seconds that he has, to correct the record. He said that Mr Allister did not take up his position on a scrutiny Committee. He wanted to be on the EU scrutiny Committee, but the big parties kept him out of it.

[Interruption.]

You have to take some responsibility for that.

Mr Gaston, please take your seat.

[Inaudible.]

Mr Gaston. Take your seat.

That is why you kept him off it.

So —.

Mr Gaston and Mr Clarke, if you do not mind, will you please return to the subject?

I need to address that comment, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I did not call out Mr Allister incorrectly. I said that Mr Allister refused to take his place on a Committee. Committee membership is allocated by d'Hondt. That is how the allocations are made. No Member has the right to pick the Committee that they want. Committee membership is allocated on the strength of a party's membership. If Mr Gaston wants to rewrite the rules for his media story, that is fine, but the reality is that Committee membership is picked on the basis of party strength, and because he did not get the Committee that he wanted, Mr Allister ran away. So, based on performance, Mr Allister did not deserve his salary.

[Interruption.]

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker —

Your time is up.

— I commend the motion.

Thank you. That is marvellous.

I call Colin McGrath to make a winding-up speech.

Thank you very much, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. What a lovely, edifying debate to wake us all up on a Tuesday morning.

As stated by Nuala McAllister at the beginning of the debate, the motion essentially addresses a straightforward, technical matter. The motion is consistent with the resolution that the Assembly made in June 2020. Taken together, the motion and the resolution will allow the Assembly Commission to determine the allowances that are payable to Members and, especially, former Members whose allowances cannot be set by anybody in any great term at this stage. It is a bit of a housekeeping exercise to bring that together. The resolution of the Assembly in 2020, today's motion and the Bill that will be introduced later today — later today — will bring clarity to the legislative arrangements for the determination of Members' salaries and allowances.

I will briefly reflect on some points. If there is a question about the level that MLAs should be paid, maybe they should be paid in a way that is commensurate with their ability to read what a motion is actually about, interpret what a debate is about and then have a debate about that as opposed to having a debate about something completely different. If they have checked their emails — something that I hope that a consummate MLA would do — they will have seen that there is a revised Order Paper with new indicative timings for today, which means that the next item of business might be the issue that some have spent the majority of their time discussing.

I hope that

[Interruption.]

I do not wish to have to teach people the parliamentary process, but that item is the First Stage of a Bill.

[Interruption.]

You will get plenty of opportunity in the Second Stage of the Bill, but allowances — as in, a little bit of goodwill — will be made for Members who are yet to understand the parliamentary process.

Colin, will you take your seat, please? Mr Gaston and others, while this is obviously amusing for some, it is a very serious subject. I ask Members to refrain from shouting from a sedentary position. Continue, Colin.

Thank you very much, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. Of course, you correctly, at regular times, try to keep Members on the subject matter. Some seem to stray completely. A basic of parliamentary process is being able to stick to the matter at hand.

The scrutiny of the Bill in the weeks ahead will allow further debate on those matters through the different approaches that have been taken. However, it is welcome that those developments have been brought forward with the agreement of the five parties that are represented on the Assembly Commission so that those technical matters on allowances that were not addressed in 2020 can be addressed. I commend the motion to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That this Assembly notes the resolution of 30 June 2020 that Members’ salaries and pensions should be determined by an independent body and that Members’ allowances should be determined by the Assembly Commission; and resolves that any allowances payable to former Members of the Assembly, under section 48 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, including resettlement and winding-up allowances, should also be determined by the Assembly Commission; that any change to these allowances may have retrospective or prospective effect; and that the Assembly Commission should publish any such determination.