Statement by TUV MLA Timothy Gaston:
“I am deeply disappointed but not surprised by the outcome of the second stage of the Bill, which paves the way for a substantial pay increase for MLAs.
“In an effort to inject accountability and transparency into the process, I tabled several amendments which would have:
• Required the independent panel to take into account the fact that MLAs surrendered control of over 300 areas of law to Brussels through the vote on the Protocol;
• Removed the obligation to benchmark MLA salaries against those of legislators in the Republic of Ireland as it is a foreign country;
• Deferred any pay rise until the powers taken by the EU under the Protocol were restored to this Assembly and to Westminster and
• Introduced a statutory duty for the Commission to consult the public on any Bill affecting MLA pay, pensions, or gratuities.
“Regrettably, these proposals were dismissed. Amendments intended to strengthen oversight of Stormont’s expenses regime and bring it into line with Westminster standards were not even permitted onto the order paper.
“Some may attempt to justify these developments by comparing them to procedures in London. If so, will those same voices now advocate for legislation introducing Westminster-style penalties, including imprisonment, for fraudulent claims? Unsurprisingly, no such assurances were offered.
“In light of the Michael McMonagle scandal, the argument for serious reform is compelling — unless, it seems, one is an MLA primarily concerned with securing a pay increase.
“It is particularly troubling that the Assembly chose to vote down an amendment that would have required public consultation on future changes to MLA pay and benefits. Public consultation is a fundamental element of the legislative process. Yet in this case, the Bill was introduced without public consultation — an approach that would not be tolerated for Executive or Private Members’ Bills.
“This opaque method of operation damages the Assembly’s credibility and undermines public confidence.
“Indeed, I would argue that there is a greater public interest in consulting on matters such as MLA remuneration than on many other legislative issues. It is wholly inadequate for the Commission to conduct internal deliberations in private, only to unveil a completed Bill once it reaches its first stage.
“My amendment sought to address this by promoting transparency and inviting broader input from both MLAs and the public. Even this modest reform was rejected.
“During today’s debate, I made the following comments about my amendments linking the pay rise to the Protocol:
“Only when this Assembly sees the return of powers it’s surrendered to Brussels – to this House and to Westminster – will the provisions of this Bill come into effect.
“I say this to fellow unionist Members: this is your opportunity to put the pressure on the pro-protocol parties in the House, prove the TUV wrong and show that, when we claim that this place is a racket where people are just interested in their pay packet, we are mistaken.
“Amendment No 13 would stop any pay rise for MLAs while the protocol remains, but do not stop there. Make it clear that, unless the amendment is built into the Bill, you will refuse to support it. That is my challenge to unionism in the House. Put some pressure on the nationalist and republican alliance, which ripped up the Belfast Agreement to impose the protocol on us.”
“Sadly, the Assembly failed to rise to that challenge.”