‘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
Wales Online
8 minutes ago
- Wales Online
GMB doctor Hilary Jones says he would help people to end their lives
GMB doctor Hilary Jones says he would help people to end their lives The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill will return to the House of Commons for debate on Friday Dr Hilary Jones attend the Good Morning Britain Health Star Awards (Image: 2017 Mike Marsland ) TV doctor Hilary Jones has described 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, said medicine will go 'back to the Dark Ages' if proposed legislation being considered at Westminster is voted down. 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. In its current form the Bill, 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, with approval needed from two doctors and the 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. Dr Jones, in an interview with the PA news agency, said medics are 'looking over their shoulders because of the legal repercussions of the law' as it stands. Encouraging or assisting suicide is currently against the law in England and Wales, with a maximum jail sentence of 14 years. Asked about the significance if the law does change, Dr Jones told PA: 'It will relieve healthcare professionals who deal with terminal illness. There are wonderful people who are caring and compassionate, who just live in fear of their actions being misinterpreted, of being accused of wrongdoing, and because of that fear, people at the end of life are often undertreated. 'People are looking over their shoulder because of the medications they're using or the doses they're using, it means that patients aren't getting the best palliative care that they could have. And I think the Bill, if it passes, will alleviate a great deal of that, and put people's minds at rest that they're not going to suffer unnecessarily at the end of life.' Article continues below 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. Dr Jones, who has been practising medicine for more than 45 years and spent time working on cancer wards during his career, said he has 'always supported it (assisted dying)'. He added: 'I've always felt it is the most humane, kind and compassionate thing that relatives and doctors can provide, knowing that that person's wishes are respected and known, that there is full mental capacity and that they're surrounded by love. 'And for me, it's always been very clear.' Asked if, were the law to change, he would be content to help someone who had chosen assisted dying at the end of their life, he said: 'Absolutely, if I know the patient, I know what their wishes are, I see them suffering, and there's nothing more I can do to help their suffering then, absolutely, I would hold their hand and help them achieve what they want to achieve.' Some of the Bill's opponents have urged MPs to focus on improving end-of-life care rather than legislating for assisted dying. But Dr Jones said his mother, who was a nurse and died 'suffering unnecessarily' despite the 'best possible palliative care' would be 'proud of me speaking on this subject now, in the way I am'. He told of his respect for people's 'religious beliefs, cultural beliefs and personal feelings' in being opposed to assisted dying but insisted it should be an area of choice. He said: 'The bottom line is that I think it's the patient's individual choice. I think we should respect the right of the individual to choose what they want. 'This is not a mandatory thing. This is not being imposed on anybody. And I think people should have the individual right to make a decision about how they end their life if they've got a terminal illness where there's no prospect of cure and they're suffering and they fear an undignified death.' Asked about the prospect of the Bill being voted down by MPs, Dr Jones said: 'We would be back to square one, back to the Dark Ages, in my opinion, medically, and that would be a shame. 'I don't think we would be advancing medicine if the Bill is not passed.' Our Duty Of Care, a group of healthcare professionals campaigning against a change in the law, said the question must be whether someone is making a 'true choice' if they apply for assisted dying. Article continues below Dr Gillian Wright, a spokesperson for the group, said: 'If someone has not had access to palliative care, psychological support or social care, then are they making a true choice?' 'At a time when the NHS is on its knees, when palliative are social care are struggling and our amazing hospices are having to close beds and cut services because of lack of money, as someone who has cared for people at the end of life, I would urge MPs to vote against this Bill but instead invest in excellent specialist palliative care, social care and psychological support.'
The National
an hour ago
- The National
Scotland's future is something that is worth talking about
It's our second such gathering, following our Spring Convention in Edinburgh in March, and we're making good on our promise to move around the country. This time, we're visiting the fair city of Perth, and we look forward to welcoming 90 or so participants to the Salutation Hotel for a day of fascinating presentations and discussions. The main purpose of the convention is to address issues affecting Scotland's future. We're not directly discussing independence and how we get there, but as we deal with questions about various key subjects, we tend to find that in every case at least part of the answer is independence. READ MORE: SNP must turn support for independence into 'real political action', says Swinney The opening session of Saturday's event will be about identity and cultural issues: 'Wha's like us? A look at Scottishness, Scotland and independence.' Why? Well, culture, language and history are pivotal facets of nationhood. When a nation is absorbed into another, or into an empire, there is a very real danger that these crucial facets are diluted or lost. Thus a vital part of regaining independent nationhood is a rediscovery of our culture, language and history – yet, at least until recently, this has not figured greatly in Scotland's campaign for independence. The session will be led by Stuart McHardy – the writer and historian who has demonstrated how our history has been distorted and suppressed over the years – and Roger Emmerson, a distinguished architect whose latest book, Scotland In 100 Buildings, was published last month. Stuart and Roger will outline how culture leads politics, not the other way round, and lead participants in an examination of Scottish distinctiveness and why it matters. With Stuart's penchant for storytelling, we expect a lively conversation which will inform and, we expect, inspire everyone in the room. Our discussions from the Spring Convention are still ongoing, of course, so the remainder of the morning will be devoted to catching up on the topics we covered in Edinburgh. It's been great to witness the progress our colleagues at Energy Scotland have been making since their splendid contribution to the Spring Convention. They've featured in the pages of The National several times; developed a strong website, published papers on various key energy topics; made a splash at last month's Scottish Sovereignty Research Group conference, and featured on a special Lesley Riddoch podcast. John Proctor, the chair, will update us further on their activities and put a number of policy propositions to the convention. The need for land reform, as a means of unlocking the potential of our nation and its population, continues to be a major issue in Scottish politics. It's been frustrating to see all manner of good intentions over the past 18 years failing to shift the dial. At present, our hopes are vested in the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill, which is at stage two of its consideration by the Scottish Parliament. John Hutchison will report on its progress and the work of Community Land Scotland, which held its annual conference at the end of last month. The third strand of the Spring Convention we'll revisit is democracy and governance. Here, while our aspirations are for the restoration of Scotland's independence, we don't want that to result in a replica of the limited democracy that the UK provides. Geoff Bush will review the multitude of views expressed by participants in Edinburgh, and the discussion will continue from there. READ MORE: SNP candidate calls out Tory rival for being in 'lockstep with failed ideology' At lunchtime, we're delighted to be able to present a feature common to many gatherings – a fringe event! For those who are interested (quite a few, we suspect) David Younger of Scotland Decides will give a presentation about his organisation's independent blockchain voting platform, technology-enabled Direct Democracy which offers a way forward backed by international law and free of UK interference. He'll also outline how this fits with this own vision of how a National Convention might be organised – and what it could achieve. In the afternoon we'll be concentrating exclusively on the massive issue of poverty and the wellbeing economy. We've got a host of speakers and panellists lined up, including William Thomson of Scotonomics; Craig Dalzell of Common Weal; lawyer and activist Eva Comrie; Jim Osborne of the Scottish Currency Group, and Annie Miller of Basic Income Network Scotland. Not yet signed up for the Summer Convention? There are still one or two places available, and we'd be delighted if you could join us. It's free to attend, but booking is essential, and you can do so via We'll also be happy to answer any questions you may have – just email us at convention@ Looking forward to seeing you in Perth!
South Wales Guardian
5 hours ago
- South Wales Guardian
TV doctor Hilary Jones says he would help terminally ill to die if law changed
The GP, often seen on ITV's Good Morning Britain and the Lorraine show, said medicine will go 'back to the Dark Ages' if proposed legislation being considered at Westminster is voted down. 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. In its current form the Bill, 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, with approval needed from two doctors and the 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. Dr Jones, in an interview with the PA news agency, said medics are 'looking over their shoulders because of the legal repercussions of the law' as it stands. Encouraging or assisting suicide is currently against the law in England and Wales, with a maximum jail sentence of 14 years. Asked about the significance if the law does change, Dr Jones told PA: 'It will relieve healthcare professionals who deal with terminal illness. 'There are wonderful people who are caring and compassionate, who just live in fear of their actions being misinterpreted, of being accused of wrongdoing, and because of that fear, people at the end of life are often undertreated. 'People are looking over their shoulder because of the medications they're using or the doses they're using, it means that patients aren't getting the best palliative care that they could have. 'And I think the Bill, if it passes, will alleviate a great deal of that, and put people's minds at rest that they're not going to suffer unnecessarily at the end of life.' 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. Dr Jones, who has been practising medicine for more than 45 years and spent time working on cancer wards during his career, said he has 'always supported it (assisted dying)'. He added: 'I've always felt it is the most humane, kind and compassionate thing that relatives and doctors can provide, knowing that that person's wishes are respected and known, that there is full mental capacity and that they're surrounded by love. 'And for me, it's always been very clear.' Asked if, were the law to change, he would be content to help someone who had chosen assisted dying at the end of their life, he said: 'Absolutely, if I know the patient, I know what their wishes are, I see them suffering, and there's nothing more I can do to help their suffering then, absolutely, I would hold their hand and help them achieve what they want to achieve.' Some of the Bill's opponents have urged MPs to focus on improving end-of-life care rather than legislating for assisted dying. But Dr Jones said his mother, who was a nurse and died 'suffering unnecessarily' despite the 'best possible palliative care' would be 'proud of me speaking on this subject now, in the way I am'. He told of his respect for people's 'religious beliefs, cultural beliefs and personal feelings' in being opposed to assisted dying but insisted it should be an area of choice. He said: 'The bottom line is that I think it's the patient's individual choice. I think we should respect the right of the individual to choose what they want. 'This is not a mandatory thing. This is not being imposed on anybody. 'And I think people should have the individual right to make a decision about how they end their life if they've got a terminal illness where there's no prospect of cure and they're suffering and they fear an undignified death.' Asked about the prospect of the Bill being voted down by MPs, Dr Jones said: 'We would be back to square one, back to the Dark Ages, in my opinion, medically, and that would be a shame. 'I don't think we would be advancing medicine if the Bill is not passed.' Our Duty Of Care, a group of healthcare professionals campaigning against a change in the law, said the question must be whether someone is making a 'true choice' if they apply for assisted dying. Dr Gillian Wright, a spokesperson for the group, said: 'If someone has not had access to palliative care, psychological support or social care, then are they making a true choice?' 'At a time when the NHS is on its knees, when palliative are social care are struggling and our amazing hospices are having to close beds and cut services because of lack of money, as someone who has cared for people at the end of life, I would urge MPs to vote against this Bill but instead invest in excellent specialist palliative care, social care and psychological support.'
