‘No easy answer' to determining salaries for politicians
There is 'no easy answer' to determine how much elected representatives should be paid, MLAs have been told.
It comes as MLAs consider a proposal for a new independent board to determine salaries for Northern Ireland Assembly members.
The Assembly Members (Remuneration Board) Bill was introduced in the Assembly earlier this year by the Assembly Commission.
It proposes the establishment of an independent Remuneration Board to determine MLA salaries and pensions, to follow the previous Independent Financial Review Panel which has been defunct for a number of years.
An ad hoc committee has been set up at Stormont to consider the Bill following concern expressed by some MLAs, who have claimed it is an attempt ensure salaries are increased.
Currently, the basic salary for an MLA is £51,500, but this can rise with position including chairing some committees or serving as a minister, with the First and deputy First Ministers receiving a salary of £123,500.
A report alongside the Bill showed MLA salaries are lower than those received by Members of the Scottish Parliament (£72,196), Assembly Members at the Welsh Assembly (£72,057) and members of the Irish Parliament (113,679 euro/£94,537).
Richard Lloyd, chair of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority – which sets pay and pensions for MPs, said pay for public representatives is 'a matter quite understandably of considerable public interest'.
He told MLAs on the committee there is 'no easy answer to the question as to what elected representatives should be paid'.
He said they take into account a range of factors, but described 'unique roles' which are hard to compare, adding 'there is no single simple approach that had stood the test of time in terms of the level of pay'.
Stressing the importance of fairness, he said: 'For example, enabling people from all backgrounds without independent wealth to become parliamentarians, transparency, explicability and the independence of the decision making body have all been important components of our work'.
Mr Lloyd also made the point that at a time when trust in Parliament is low, and 'democracy itself is increasingly under threat around the world', he said 'it is incumbent on bodies like IPSA to communicate to the public in very clear terms why it's necessary to support the parliamentary work of members and how we decide their pay'.
He added: 'We know when we publish our proposal and that goes public, we will get a very strong reaction from the media and the public, I can summarise that reaction as often being, either pay them nothing or pay them much more. I think we're ending somewhere in between those two.
'But I think understanding the pressures on MPs, kinds of roles they are playing, the degree to which remuneration affects people's decision to stand in the first place, and also how we can ensure that we are reflecting the experiences of citizens in an appropriate way, setting an appropriate level, those things we consult on informally and engage with people on informally throughout the year, in addition to our statutory consultation process.'
Committee chair Philip Brett told members that it will be necessary to seek a short extension to the committee stage of the Bill, which is due to end on April 1.
He said they intend to move forward with the clause by clause consideration of the Bill later this month.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
39 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Around 1,000 doctors urge MPs to vote against ‘unsafe' assisted dying Bill
Around 1,000 doctors have written to MPs urging them to vote against the assisted dying Bill describing it as 'simply not safe'. The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill will return to the House of Commons for debate on Friday, with MPs expected to consider further amendments. But in a letter, published this week, doctors from across the NHS have urged lawmakers to listen to those 'who would have to deliver the consequences of this deeply flawed Bill'. They warn the Bill 'poses a real threat to both patients and the medical workforce'. In its current form the proposed legislation, which applies only to England and Wales, would mean terminally ill adults with only six months left to live could apply for assistance to end their lives, subject to the approval of two doctors and an expert panel. Last month, MPs approved a change in the Bill to ensure no medics would be obliged to take part in assisted dying. Doctors already had an opt-out but the new clause extends that to anyone, including pharmacists and social care workers. Encouraging or assisting suicide is currently against the law in England and Wales, with a maximum jail sentence of 14 years. The letter to MPs said: 'As experienced medical professionals who regularly work with dying patients and who have reviewed the worldwide evidence on assisted dying, it is our opinion that this Bill poses a real threat to both patients and the medical workforce, and we urge you to vote against it. 'We are concerned that the private member's Bill process has not facilitated a balanced approach to the collection of evidence and input from key stakeholders including doctors, people with disabilities and other marginalised groups. 'This Bill will widen inequalities, it provides inadequate safeguards and, in our collective view, is simply not safe. 'This is the most important piece of healthcare legislation for 60 years and we urge you to listen to the doctors who would have to deliver the consequences of this deeply flawed Bill.' Sir Ed Davey welcomed the letter on Monday, telling Sky News he had 'real concerns'. 'I have voted against this assisted dying legislation, as I did on previous occasions,' the Liberal Democrat leader said. 'I have real concerns about the pressure on individuals, that they will put on themselves, if they think they are a burden on their family, so I welcome this letter.' He added: 'I hope, as time has gone on, as the arguments have been better exposed, that MPs will switch sides and join the side that I and many MPs are on.' But Sir Chris Bryant said he would be voting in favour. The technology minister told Sky News: 'The Government doesn't have a formal position at all and individual members are free to choose how they vote. 'I'm not going to hide my own personal preference. I abstained on the first time round, I decided I wasn't going to vote because I wanted to hear the debate. 'I have listened to a lot of the debate. Of course, I don't want anybody to feel that they are a burden on society and that should lead them towards taking their own life, but I also have heard the cries of people who are absolutely miserable, and that's why I will be voting for the Bill.' Some of the Bill's opponents have urged MPs to focus on improving end-of-life care rather than legislating for assisted dying. Ahead of last month's Commons debate on the Bill, two royal medical colleges raised concerns over the proposed legislation. The Royal College of Physicians (RCP) said it believes there are 'concerning deficiencies', while the Royal College of Psychiatrists (RCPsych) said it has 'serious concerns' and cannot support the Bill. Opinions among members of the medical profession remain varied, with TV doctor Hilary Jones describing assisted dying for the terminally ill as 'kind and compassionate', adding that he would help a patient to end their life if the law was changed. The GP, often seen on ITV's Good Morning Britain and the Lorraine show, told the PA news agency he believes medicine will go 'back to the Dark Ages' if proposed legislation being considered at Westminster is voted down. While Friday is expected to see debate on further amendments to the Bill, it is thought a vote on the overall legislation might not take place until the following Friday, June 20.


New York Post
5 hours ago
- New York Post
‘60 Minutes' correspondent Scott Pelley warns a CBS settlement with Trump would be ‘very damaging'
'60 Minutes' correspondent Scott Pelley spoke out about President Donald Trump's lawsuit against CBS and its parent company on Saturday, arguing that a settlement would be 'very damaging.' 'Well, it'd be very damaging to CBS, to Paramount, to the reputation of those companies,' Pelley said during a conversation with CNN's Anderson Cooper on Saturday, who asked how harmful a settlement and potential apology would be to the network. Trump filed a lawsuit against Paramount Global, CBS News' parent company, over a '60 Minutes' interview with former Vice President Kamala Harris in October 2024. Fox News Digital confirmed that Trump rejected a $15 million offer to settle his lawsuit, according to a source familiar with the matter, as the president's legal team is also demanding at least $25 million and an apology from CBS News. Cooper, who is also a correspondent on '60 Minutes,' also asked Pelley about former show producer Bill Owens resigning from the program in April. 'Bill's decision to resign may not have been much of a decision for him because he was always the first person to defend the independence of '60 minutes.' Bill didn't work for Paramount. Bill worked for our viewers, and he felt very keenly about that. And so I'm not sure Bill had any choice, once the corporation began to meddle in Bill's decisions about the editorial content, or just place pressure in that area, Bill felt that he didn't have the independence that honest journalism requires,' Pelley said. 4 Scott Pelley warned that a settlement between President Trump and CBS would be 'very damaging.' 4 President Trump rejected a $15 million offer to settle his lawsuit, according to Fox News Digital. AP Pelley also said he wished he had the public backing of CBS News, but added that his work was still making it onto the program. 'You really wish the company was behind you 100%, right? You really wish the top echelons of the company would come out publicly and say '60 Minutes', for example, is a crown jewel of American journalism, and we stand behind it 100%. I haven't heard that. On the other hand, my work is getting on the air, and I have not had anyone outside '60 Minutes' put their thumb on the scale and say, 'you can't say that. You should say this. You have to edit the story in this way. You should interview this person.' None of that has happened. So while I would like to have that public backing, maybe the more important thing is the work is still getting on the air,' Pelley said. 4 The Federal Communications Commission accused '60 Minutes' of heavily editing an interview with Kamala Harris in 2024. 60 Minutes / CBS 4 Former show producer Bill Owens resigned from the program in April. The '60 Minutes' correspondent recently went viral for calling out Trump during a commencement address. 'In this moment, this moment, this morning, our sacred rule of law is under attack. Journalism is under attack. Universities are under attack. Freedom of speech is under attack,' Pelley said during his commencement speech at Wake Forest University. 'And insidious fear is reaching through our schools, our businesses, our homes and into our private thoughts, the fear to speak in America. If our government is, in Lincoln's phrase, 'Of the people, by the people, for the people,' then why are we afraid to speak?' Pelley addressed the remarks during the CNN interview and told Cooper that he felt 'strongly' it needed to be said. 'I don't refer to him or the president or the White House or the administration. But I was talking about actions that have been taken by the government over these last many months. But, there was a little bit of hysteria among some about this speech, and I simply ask you, what does it say about our country when there's hysteria about a speech that's about freedom of speech?' the CBS correspondent added.
Yahoo
10 hours ago
- Yahoo
'Discrimination' concerns over Stormont constituency jobs
Dozens of Northern Ireland Assembly members are recruiting staff in a way that could risk claims of unlawful discrimination, a BBC News NI investigation has found. They include First Minister Michelle O'Neill, as the "essential criteria" for some jobs in her constituency office suggested applicants should hold certain political beliefs. Recruitment guidance issued to members of the legislative assembly (MLAs) says they should give "equality of opportunity to all candidates irrespective of... political opinion". The Equality Commission for Northern Ireland said that, while there are "exceptions" in employment law, the job ads could be "open to a claim for unlawful discrimination". An assembly spokesman said MLAs are given "advice on best practice" and "it is for each MLA to appoint employees on merit after a fair and open competition". Sinn Féín said staff are employed by MLAs to "pursue their priorities for constituency and assembly business", and "these priorities may legitimately be influenced by their own political perspective". MLAs claimed more than £8m in expenses in 2023-24 for constituency office staffing costs including wages. The job ads and criteria for almost 300 constituency office posts were examined by BBC News NI. The documents for many of them stated that applications were welcomed from "all backgrounds" regardless of "political opinion". Some said candidates should have an "understanding of" the objectives or values of the MLA's political party. But others suggested applicants must hold those political beliefs. Most of those jobs were with Sinn Féin MLAs. In the "essential criteria", they said candidates should have a "strong" or "proven commitment to Sinn Féin's values". This included posts with Michelle O'Neill, the party's deputy leader. Some jobs with MLAs for the Ulster Unionist Party (UUP) and Social Democratic and Labour Party (SDLP) had similar wording. Caseworker jobs in former UUP leader Doug Beattie's office said candidates needed a "strong commitment" to the party's values. Some jobs for Cara Hunter also said candidates should have a "strong commitment to SDLP principles and values". Belfast-based employment solicitor Cormac Rice expressed concern over job vacancies being "contingent upon a predisposition towards a specific political persuasion". He said it "may undermine equality of opportunity and the need to ensure that the best candidate is appointed". Stormont's "best practice guidance" issued to MLAs for recruitment of their office staff advises that "equality of opportunity is integral". It said recruitment should be "solely on the basis of merit" and provide "equality of opportunity to all candidates", irrespective of protected characteristics including gender, religion and "political opinion". The Equality Commission said all employers must "operate within our equality laws". "Any employer who states or implies in a job advertisement that an applicant must hold, or not hold, a particular political opinion to be eligible for the role, may leave themselves open to a claim for unlawful discrimination," a spokeswoman said. However, she said the Fair Employment and Treatment (NI) Order 1998 "includes an exception in relation to political opinion" where the "essential nature of a job requires it". "We advise employers to contact us for advice before publishing job advertisements that rely on this exception," she added. A Sinn Féin spokesman said: "Every MLA is resourced to employ staff to support them to serve their constituents and pursue their priorities for constituency and assembly business. "These priorities may legitimately be influenced by their own political perspective. "MLAs can seek HR support from the institution to ensure fair and consistent recruitment processes that promotes equal opportunities." An assembly spokesman said MLAs employ staff to support their work. "This is distinct from support that may be provided centrally by their political party," he added. "Guidance published to MLAs by the Assembly Commission provides advice on best practice in recruitment, including the need to ensure that no unlawful discrimination occurs when making employment decisions. "Taking this guidance into account, it is for each MLA to appoint employees on merit after a fair and open competition." The UUP was approached for comment. The SDLP said it "remains committed to ensuring a fair and transparent process for all job applicants and appointments are made solely on merit". "We are confident we have upheld these principles throughout," a party spokesman added. The recruitment documents were obtained through Freedom of Information requests. They also give an insight into who is being recruited by MLAs, and the kinds of jobs being advertised. Eleven of the 90 MLAs have declared employing family members. More than 60% of the staff recruited since May 2022 were members of their MLA employer's political party. Many of the jobs advertised have titles such as constituency caseworker, manager or policy adviser. Nearly 50 had "communications" in their title, while a further 19 were "social media officers". Pat McCartan, a former member of an independent Stormont panel which set rules on MLA expenses, expressed concern about some of the job titles. "It's very far removed from assisting people with their constituency enquiries," he said. "They're not paid to be extra party workers." Mr McCartan said there was a need for a "serious audit of the financial arrangements". An assembly spokesman said MLAs employ staff for "a range of roles such as casework, research and communications". "This is distinct from support that may be provided centrally by their political party," he added. He said staff support MLAs "to serve their constituents and pursue their priorities for constituency and assembly business". "Those specific priorities will differ for each member and may be naturally influenced by their political perspective." Stormont spend on business-class flights 'out of touch' MLAs could get pay rise under plans for new board