'Massive' MLA pay rises unlikely under new plans
Assembly members (MLAs) are unlikely to receive "massive" pay rises as a result of the introduction of new plans to set pay levels for assembly members, the justice minister has said.
Naomi Long added that the issue of pay was "low down" on her list of priorities and she "does not feel underpaid".
For five years, the Independent Financial Review Panel (IFRP) set wages and expenses for politicians in the assembly.
But the terms of the three panel members ended in 2016 and they were never replaced.
The Assembly Members (Remuneration Board) Bill proposes setting up a new independent board.
It is backed by the Assembly Commission, which includes representatives of the main parties.
MLAs are already set to receive a small increase in their salaries this April.
An assembly spokesperson said: "Under the terms of the Assembly Members (Salaries and Expenses) Determination (Northern Ireland) 2016, which was determined independently, MLA's will qualify for a £500 pay increase from the 1 April 2025 on the basis of criterion in relation to the rate of inflation.
"As a result, an MLA's annual gross salary will be £53,000 from 1 April 2025."
Unlike the IFRP, the new panel will only have the sole remit of setting pay and pension entitlements for MLAs.
Like the IFRP, it will also be asked to take into account the salaries of MPs, TDs and Senators in the Oireachtas, Members of the Scottish Parliament (MSPs) and the Welsh Parliament (MSs).
MSs currently take home a salary of £72,057, MSPs earn £72,196 while MLAs at Stormont get a salary of £52,500.
Speaking on BBC News NI's Evening Extra, Naomi Long said there was currently "no discussion" about what exactly salary increases might look like.
"Of course they'll use regional comparators but I don't think anybody should be thinking that suddenly we're going to see massive uplifts in MLA salaries because I don't think any of us would be expecting that to be the case."
She added that there are "many other things" she is trying "to address in the interim that are more important than this".
Long said that it was "not about whether or not I feel underpaid" but about "setting up an independent body to make that adjudication".
"I don't believe MLAs should set their own salaries, I don't think it's appropriate," she added.
"I don't think anyone else has that luxury so I don't think we should have."
She added that every day she meets people "who work in the justice sector who get paid considerably less" than her.
"So I don't feel underpaid for what I do. At the end of the day what I want to ensure is that we attract the best people into politics, people with talent and ability, so we can provide the best possible government.
"Independence for me is key. Let an independent person decide what we're worth and then we just need to accept that judgement."
On Tuesday, TUV MLA Timothy Gaston said he believed it was "highly likely" the new board would increase MLAs salaries, given the difference with their counterparts in other parts of the UK and Ireland.
"I do not believe that MLAs should receive a pay rise of one penny, never mind £19,000," he said.
"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," he added.
Trevor Clarke, the DUP representative on the assembly commission, rejected claims that a pay rise for members was inevitable as a result of setting up of the new body.
"There is a danger that we are calling into question the independence of an independent panel," Mr Clarke said.
"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."
MLAs last got a pay rise of £500 in their salary last April, in line with rules set by the IFRP before it ceased nine years ago.
Once the new bill is passed, the power to determine allowances payable to MLAs, which relates to travel and office expenses, will sit with the Assembly Commission.
MLAs previously took issue with some of the rules the IFRP imposed, including limits on salaries for constituency office staff and other matters such as office signage.
A spokesperson for the commission said the new panel will have independent membership and "take independent decisions on the appropriate level for the salaries and pensions" of MLAs.
They added that the assembly had previously agreed to change the system in 2020, which set out that salaries and pensions of MLAs should continue to be determined independently.
They said that after that decision, the changes were delayed due to the Covid pandemic and the suspension of power-sharing.
"However, in introducing this new Bill today, the Assembly Commission has taken the first step towards ensuring that the statute book reflects the position previously agreed by the Assembly.
"It will provide for the independent oversight in relation to members' salaries and pensions to continue."
MLAs could get pay rise under plans for new board
MLA pay rise eight weeks after Stormont return
Concern about assembly setting MLA allowances
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Elon will lose fight with Trump, Musk's father tells Russia
Credit: Tsargrad TV Elon Musk will lose his fight with Donald Trump and made a 'mistake' by challenging him, his father has said. Speaking at a political conference in Moscow, Errol Musk claimed his billionaire son was suffering 'PTSD from the White House' and blamed his row with the US president on 'stress'. 'Trump will prevail – he's the president, he was elected as the president. So, you know, Elon made a mistake, I think. But he is tired, he is stressed,' he told Russian media. Last week, Elon Musk and Mr Trump traded insults after the Tesla chief executive denounced the president's sweeping new tax and spending Bill as 'a disgusting abomination'. He also called for the president's impeachment and claimed the Republican was 'in the Epstein files' – US government intelligence documents on Jeffrey Epstein, the late paedophile financier. In response, Mr Trump threatened to cancel US government contracts with Mr Musk's companies, which include SpaceX. Errol Musk told Izvestia, a Russian daily newspaper: 'You know they have been under a lot of stress for five months – you know – give them a break. 'They are very tired and stressed, so you can expect something like this.' Despite the pair's war of words, Mr Musk said he still believed his son's relationship with the president could be mended, describing the row as 'just a small thing' that would 'be over tomorrow'. He made the comments during an appearance at Future Forum 2050, a conference attended by Kremlin heavyweights and led by Alexander Dugin, a Russian ultra-nationalist philosopher often described as Vladimir Putin's 'brain'. Errol Musk was also pictured sitting next to Sergei Lavrov, Russia's foreign minister. At one point he praised Putin as a 'very stable and pleasant man' and blamed Western media for projecting 'nonsense' about Russia. It came as Stephen Bannon, Mr Trump's former chief strategist, claimed that in April Elon Musk had a physical altercation with Scott Bessent, the US treasury secretary, down the corridor from the Oval Office. Mr Bannon said: 'President Trump heard about it and said: 'This is too much,'' according to The Washington Post. A source told the newspaper that concerns were also raised over Mr Musk's alleged drug use. Mr Musk, the world's richest man, helped bankroll Mr Trump's 2024 presidential campaign. He was then hired to head the new Department of Government Efficiency, controversially tasked with downsizing the federal workforce and slashing spending. The tech entrepreneur stepped back from the role late last month, ending a turbulent 130-day stint in the administration. On Saturday, the US president said his relationship with Mr Musk was over, and warned there would be 'serious consequences' if Mr Musk switched his allegiance to the Democrats and funded rival candidates. Credit: Reuters Delighting in the row, Russian MPs have offered political asylum to the South African-born businessman. Last week, Dmitry Novikov, the deputy chairman of the state Duma committee on international affairs, said Moscow would welcome him to the country 'if he needs it'. Senior Putin allies have also mockingly offered to help mediate between the two men. 'We are ready to facilitate the conclusion of a peace deal between D and E for a reasonable fee and to accept Starlink shares as payment. Don't fight, guys!' said Dmitry Medvedev, the former Russian president, referring to Mr Musk's satellite internet network. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Yahoo
10 hours 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
14 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.