Report by the Senior Salaries Review Body

The next four motions relate to the report by the Senior Salaries Review Body. Of these, one is a substantive motion and the others are consequential. I therefore propose to group the motions and to conduct one debate only. If the substantive motion is not carried, the consequential motions will not be moved.

I beg to move

The motions relate to the recommendations contained in the report of the Senior Salaries Review Body. In February 1999, the Assembly made the following resolution:

When I moved that motion in the House on behalf of the Commission and recommended to Members that we accept an independent body's decision about Ministers' and Members' salaries and allowances, I said that

I should like Members to keep those thoughts in mind during the debate.

The first motion, which is on the report by the Senior Salaries Review Body (SSRB), seeks the Assembly's agreement to implement recommendations 2 to 9 of the review body's report. It also seeks agreement for recommendation 1 to be reviewed at a later date.

Recommendation 2 relates to payments for the Chairpersons of the Committee of the Centre and the Public Accounts Committee. The report comments that those two Standing Committees

The report recommends that those Chairpersons should receive the same remuneration as the Statutory Committees' Chairpersons. It is estimated that that sum be £22,000 in this financial year. The second motion proposes the changes to the Northern Ireland Assembly (Members' Salaries) Determination 2000 that are necessary to enable those payments to be made.

Recommendation 3 of the SSRB report says that

That recommendation was made because of concerns that the SSRB raised about the slippage that has occurred in the differential between the salaries of MPs and MLAs. However, I shall return to that point in more detail shortly.

Recommendation 4 suggests that

The report says that Members must have the "right level of support" and recommends that they

It suggests that Members may find it useful to

The broad advice in the Hay Report, in appendix E of the SSRB Report, is a useful framework document, and, if the Assembly is content, the Commission will develop guidance for Members.

Recommendations 5 and 7 relate to an increase in the level of office costs allowance (OCA) to £48,000. The Hay Report says that

The SSRB report concludes that

The motion proposing a change in the Northern Ireland Assembly (Members' Allowances) Determination 2000 will give effect to the increase in the office costs allowance to £48,000 if the Assembly approves. That cost is estimated to be £1·28 million.

From previous debates on such matters, Members will know that the winding-up allowance for them is set at one third of office costs allowance. The current winding-up allowance is £11,617. If the Assembly approves the increase in OCA, a consequential increase should be made to that. The draft Statutory Rule laid in the Business Office on 17 June titled The Allowances to Members of the Assembly (Winding Up Allowance) (Amendment) Order (Northern Ireland) 2002 makes provision for that to be increased to £16,000. That would come into operation on the day after the Assembly approved it.

Following on from the recommendations that provide for an increase in OCA to allow Members to employ two members of support staff, the SSRB has suggested in recommendations 6 and 8 that

If that is agreed, the Commission will develop the guidance as suggested by the SSRB. The Commission will also put in place the necessary procedures for the provision of IT equipment for up to two members of staff for each Member, if the Assembly accepts that recommendation. The capital cost is estimated at £216,000, with annual running costs of £10,000.

The SSRB points out that, at present, Members are required to fund from OCA any changes necessary to constituency offices to meet the requirements of the disability discrimination legislation. In recommendation 9, the review body recommends that

If that recommendation is accepted, the Commission will give detailed and careful consideration to it.

I shall now deal briefly with recommendation 1 in the SSRB report, which relates to Members' salaries, and ask Members to cast their minds back to my opening remarks. The SSRB has recommended that

In 1999, the SSRB considered that the job weighting of an Assembly Member was 82% of that of a Westminster MP. In the present report, the review body reaches the same conclusions and proposes that the ratio of 82% should be retained. With the annual upgrading of salaries, that would increase Members' salaries to £45,250.

Members need to be clear about the consequences of not adhering to the review body's salary recommendation. To not implement the recommendation means stepping away from the principle of job weightings established by the review body, which the Assembly previously accepted and endorsed. It will mean that the job weighting of an MLA will drop to 74%, below that of a Member of the National Assembly for Wales, which does not have primary legislation powers.

Members will know from the 'First report of the Northern Ireland Assembly Commission', which was debated in the Assembly yesterday, of the work accomplished by the Assembly and its Members from devolution in December 1999 to 31 March 2002. There were 125 plenary meetings, 8,477 questions for written answer, and 1,168 Committee meetings, with most Members sitting on two, and some on three, Committees. Some 71 Committee reports were produced and 34 Bills were introduced. Members will also know that in the past seven weeks 18 Bills have been introduced. None of that takes into account the amount of constituency work in which Members are also involved. That is the work of the Assembly. It is a sad comment on the standard of some of our reporters that they have not had the intelligence to accept that the Assembly does more than work one day a week.

The Commission is well aware of some Members' views about increasing their salaries and is also aware of the views held by some that the Assembly is still not fully functioning, and that Members' salaries should not, therefore, be increased.

I leave Members to draw their own conclusions from what I have said about whether the Assembly is functioning fully. In the light of Members' and parties' views on the salary increase recommended by the SSRB, the Commission proposes that no action be taken on the implementation of that recommendation at this time.

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Sinn Féin's position on pay increases is a matter of record, as is its opposition to any increase in the office costs allowance. In previous debates, Members have said that we could not reject the SSRB's report. However, in the run-up to an election, Members have changed their tune and are running scared of the perception that they are lining their pockets, while all around them they see the consequences of poverty.

When the Assembly first debated the issue, John Fee, speaking for the Assembly Commission, said:

He added:

What has changed? In a previous debate, Alex Maskey said:

Robert McCartney said:

Conor Murphy said:

When the Assembly first agreed the motion from the shadow Executive, the shadow Commission urged the Assembly to commit itself to accepting the recommendation of the SSRB on Members' salaries and other costs. That would mean making a commitment to accept the SSRB recommendation unseen, not only with regard to the report that we expect to be published within the next week, but the remainder of the life of the Assembly. Of course, subsequent Assemblies can decide whether to follow that practice.

If Members have views on the level of their salaries, they can meet the SSRB to express them. If the public believe that Members are being paid too much, they can contact the SSRB and make their case. Sinn Féin, like other parties, has met with the SSRB. We also made a written submission rejecting a pay rise and an increase in the office costs allowance.

As Assembly Members, we have a duty to the public. The public scrutinise our actions closely, which is both appropriate and welcome, and we have a duty to show that we are restrictive in rewarding finances to ourselves.

Will the Member give way?

No, Mr McCarthy, I shall not give way.

In 1999, Sinn Féin welcomed the placing of decisions on salary rates with the SSRB. It makes for a more transparent and accountable system of government, and is preferable to MLAs deciding their own pay. However, that does not tie us to accepting the recommendations, or to making representations, to the SSRB.

Members also say that we cannot vote in favour of a pay rise for ourselves because the Assembly has not proved itself. Whatever the merits of that argument are, the reality is that we have already voted in favour of two substantial pay increases. We reject the proposal to increase the office costs allowance. Yes, there are good arguments in favour of employing more staff in our constituency offices, but it appears the height of hypocrisy to vote for an increase in personal office cost allowances, especially for those who voice the argument that we have yet to prove ourselves as an Assembly. Go raibh maith agat.

I listened to what the previous speaker said, and, insofar as she reiterates the views that I expressed in a previous debate, I endorse those views. I am happy that the Commission, in view of the public reaction to the proposed increase in salary, has acted with a degree of wisdom, and has decided to recommend to the Assembly that, at this time, there will be no acceptance of the SSRB's suggestion that the salary should be increased to £45,000 or thereabouts.

I voiced my opposition to the acceptance of that increase publicly and shared a radio programme with the Minister of the Environment, Mr Nesbitt. Among other things, he indicated that democracy did not come cheaply, and therefore, to some extent, this pay rise would be justifiable. Like Rev Robert Coulter, he reiterated the vast amount of work that Members are alleged to be undertaking. All I can say is that, on that occasion, something like 20-odd people phoned in and not a single member of the public endorsed Mr Nesbitt's view. Moreover, insofar as the proposed increase was the subject of communications to the press, I do not recollect a single letter in the local newspapers that endorsed any acceptance of the review body's recommendation.

It is to be welcomed that the Commission has shown a great degree of wisdom in recognising the public view of a salary increase at this time. That is so, bearing in mind the enormous black hole in the capital infrastructure of the Province, and the enormous amount of money that will be required to make it good. It also takes note of the tremendous defects in the services that are being offered to the people of Northern Ireland, particularly health services. Our waiting lists now enjoy the unenviable distinction of being not only the longest in the United Kingdom, but in Europe. Therefore, as the previous speaker mentioned, it would be very difficult, to use a Northern Ireland expression, for the public to thole an increase in MLAs' salaries at a time when there is such a need for both capital moneys and improved services for those whom we purport to serve.

I thank those Members who have participated in the debate. I shall be brief. I wish to reiterate that this initiative was not taken on the whim of the Assembly Commission. There is a statutory obligation under the Northern Ireland Act 1998 to try to advance certain measures and supports for all Members. The Commission has tried to do that as diligently and transparently as possible. Therefore, it is somewhat disappointing that we are damned if we do and damned if we do not when it comes to Members' salaries and other supports.

My Colleagues on the Commission and I have always defended the principle that Members should not, under any circumstances, be responsible for setting their own rates of pay, and we are not doing that. We defended, and it was agreed, that the recommendations of an independent body - the Senior Salaries Review Body - should be accepted. I said in the House that the recommendations should be accepted sight unseen. That is still the safest and best way forward.

This time around, the review body has made two recommendations. Recommendation 1 would have meant a substantial rise in Members' salaries. However, recommendation 3 states that

Therefore, we are trying to interpret the SSRB, to be fair and to implement precisely what it is saying without prejudice about what the end salary of future MLAs might be. We are protecting the principle that those figures and supports should be determined in comparison with other public organisations, the Civil Service and other public servants.

I must point out the context of the package of proposals that will be discussed this afternoon. This is being done in the light of a pay and grading review for all Assembly Secretariat staff. One of today's motions will restore the link between Members' salaries and the Civil Service. It is being done in a context in which we shall not take a substantial pay rise. No Member or party asked for that, and I understand that no Member has any appetite to accept it. We are trying to consider the pay, grading and conditions of everybody who works within or for this organisation.

Members need the proper resources and information technology, and also properly qualified staff who are suitably paid to ensure that they can perform their role, represent their people, scrutinise legislation, et cetera. If the recommendations are accepted, the Commission will introduce guidance on issues such as rental for offices, terms and conditions, and the salary levels for our staff.

This is not an isolated issue; it is part and parcel of being a good employer. We are trying to be an employer of choice, and we are trying to ensure that the people who come to work in the Assembly have the resources that they need. It may be a dreadful flaw that we must return to the Chamber every year to debate the issue. By holding our breath and accepting a recommendation that we review everything connected with Members' salaries, I hope that we can get a system in future that will not permit this unseemly occurrence. Nonetheless, it must be done.

The recommendations are properly thought out in the right context. A new mandate and new Members will arrive next year. Our responsibility now is to ensure that public representatives have the resources that they need to do the job.

If the Assembly accepts the recommendations, an MP's salary will be £55,000, a Member of the Scottish Parliament's salary will be £48,000, a Member of the National Assembly for Wales's salary will be £41,500 and MLAs here will receive £41,321. I do not believe that we can be open to a charge of any great extravagance.

Finally, there is a recommendation for the Assembly Commission to consider central funding for the provision of disabled access to constituency offices. That would be difficult and could be enormously costly. The Commission wants the commitment from the Assembly that we implement that recommendation although I suspect that it will take some time to devise how it can be done properly.

I commend the motion to the Assembly.

Determination on Members' Salaries

TOP

I beg to move

This is a technical motion required as a result of changes to the Senior Civil Service pay bands. Under the Northern Ireland Assembly (Members' Salaries) Determination 2000, the annual uprating of Members' salaries is linked to the percentage by which the mid points of the nine Senior Civil Service pay bands below that of permanent secretary have increased compared to the previous year.

The Senior Civil Service pay bands changed from nine bands below that of permanent secretary to two, with effect from 1 April 2002. A technical change is therefore required to ensure that the provisions of paragraph 3(2) of the Determination can be applied.

I had notice that one person wished to speak; however, he is not in his place. I invite Rev Robert Coulter to make the winding-up speech.

I wish to stress that this is a technical motion that is required as a result of changes in the Senior Civil Service pay bands: it is not a question of Members voting to give themselves a pay rise. There is provision for the annual uprating of Members' salaries in the Salaries Determination. This motion seeks to amend the Determination to allow the provisions of paragraph 3(2) of the Determination to be applied. I commend the motion to the House.

Financial Assistance for Political Parties

TOP

I beg to move

The revised scheme was laid before the Assembly on 24 June. The Commission recognises that that has given little time to Members and parties for detailed consideration of the proposals in the scheme. However, it is hoped that Members and parties will accept the scheme today as a genuine attempt by the Commission to provide proper financial assistance for political parties.

Mr Deputy Speaker, you will know that financial assistance to opposition parties has been paid in the House of Commons since 1975. It is known as "Short money" after the then Leader of the House of Commons, the Rt Hon Edward Short. The purpose of the scheme is to assist opposition parties in the Commons to carry out their essential parliamentary duties. It is, however, important to point out, and particularly relevant in the context of the proposed revised scheme for the parties in the Assembly, that in addition to "Short money" in Westminster, the Government Whips' Office has a budget of about £1 million a year. An additional scheme provides funding for costs incurred in the running of the office of the Leader of the Opposition.

The arrangements in Westminster were examined by its Committee on Standards in Public Life, chaired by Lord Neill of Bladen. In its fifth report of October 1998, the Neill Committee examined funding for political parties in the devolved institutions. In respect of the devolved institutions and the Assembly, the Committee said that it was

In December 1999, when the Assembly debated the Second Stage of the Financial Assistance for Political Parties Bill, the only Member to speak was the mover of the motion, John Fee, who presented the Bill on behalf of the Commission. No issues were raised by Members at that Stage or at the Bill's Consideration Stage on 25 January 2000. That could have been viewed as a tacit acceptance of the scheme and the financial assistance that it would provide. However, the Bill merely made provision for a scheme to be laid before the Assembly for approval. It did not include any detail or information about the provisions of the scheme.

The scheme, which is in operation, was made by the Secretary of State on 4 April 2000, as the Assembly was in suspension at the time. It provides for payment of up to £20,000 for each party and up to £2,000 for each seat in the Assembly held by a member of that party. Since then, there has been growing concern among Members and some parties about the level of financial assistance available under the current scheme. The proposals set out in the revised scheme provide for a payment of up to £24,000 for each party with one Member, £48,000 for each party with two or more Members and £3,000 for each Member connected with a political party who is under the direction of the party Whip and who does not hold a ministerial or junior ministerial post.

The core element of funding for a party with two Members or more has been set at £48,000 to provide funding for the payment of the necessary support staff and for costs associated with running an office, such as rental and IT support. That is based on the recommendations in the report of the SSRB as the amount required for office cost allowance for the employment of two members of staff and for office costs.

The current level of payment for each seat in the Assembly held by a Member has been increased from £2,000 to £3,000, and that is intended to reflect the contribution made by most Members to the work of the Assembly, including work in the Committees.

The report by the SSRB in relation to party allowances stated:

The Commission has therefore proposed in the revised scheme that each party should receive some element of core funding, irrespective of whether they are represented in the Executive. In Westminster there is substantial funding for the Government Whips' Office and the Office of the Leader of the Opposition. However, in recognition of the assistance that Ministers and junior Ministers receive from Special Advisers and their supporting teams of civil servants - including research staff - the Commission proposes that parties should not receive the payment of £3,000 for each Member in a ministerial or junior ministerial post.

The increased cost in this financial year will be £322,000. That is a rise from £416,000 to £738,000 and can be met from the existing budget for 2002-03.

The drawing up of the scheme was a difficult task and, on behalf of the Assembly Commission, I thank the Commission staff and the acting head of finance for their consistent help. I commend the motion and the revised scheme to the Assembly.

The issue of increasing party costs goes to the heart of the nature of democratic practice in the Assembly. On more than one occasion I have referred to the fact that democracy in a real sense is not practised here. The fundamental principle of representative democracy in any modern Government is that the electorate may turn out a Government and replace it with another. That does not happen here. There is, in point of fact, no way - no matter how many elections we may hold - that the same people will not be returned in broadly the same numbers by broadly the same parties, who will nominate their members of the Government.

As a result, unlike Westminster, the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales, there is no true opposition in this Assembly. The four major parties, with seats representing more than 90 Members, form the Executive of Northern Ireland. They may suggest that they are the opposition - indeed, I have suggested previously that what we have here are 10 independent political warlordships.

When the Minister of Health is under pressure, do her Colleagues in the Executive gather round, as one would expect in an ordinary democratic Government, to support her on the basis of some collective responsibility? Not a bit of it - they all weigh in. When the Minister of the Environment or the Minister for Regional Development is in a similar position, everyone acts as an Opposition in accordance with not the best interests of Northern Ireland, but the best interests of their party as they conceive them at that time. There is no Opposition, because all the major parties are in Government, and all the major parties, with the exception of Sinn Féin and the Alliance Party, have, apparently, through the agency of the Commission, endorsed the scheme.

Let us consider the original purpose of "Short money". As Leader of the House of Commons, Edward Short introduced the concept of "Short money" on 20 March 1975. He had this to say as the conceptual basis for its payment:

What we have here is 10, nay 11, Departments all benefiting and being run by the four major parties - not by anybody else - who act as a Government. Where is the Opposition, when everyone except the minor parties is in power, when everyone except the minor parties is in Government, when everyone except the minor parties has the benefit of an enormous pyramid of skilled civil servants in their Departments to give advice and direction?

Not only does the Civil Service, with its benefits and experience, offer a continuum of Government, but we also have a modern accretion: Special Advisers. Each Minister has a Special Adviser, and four, if not six, are attached to the "Department of the Centre". They are on a salary of between £55,000 and £75,000. All the Special Advisers are available to the major parties in Government. Therefore, one asks why, given the principles on which "Short money" was established in the House of Commons, are we now going to deluge them not with the present £412,000 - of which they have the overwhelming portion - but with an added £312,000 or £314,000?

Most of the vast increase of more than £300,000 is going to parties that are not in opposition, and their receipt of that does not conform to the basic principles upon which Edward Short advanced the idea of "Short money". Those parties benefit from all the services that the Opposition in Westminster at that time was denied and that "Short money" was supposed to furnish. It has been suggested that the provision is being made because Northern Ireland is not the same as anywhere else, and of course it is not. However, even in Scotland the ordinary principles of a devolved democracy apply: a party with an overall majority or a party in coalition with others to form a majority runs the country in accordance with the accepted normal principles of democracy. That is not so here. We do not have democracy; we have a thing called democracy in that we are allowed elections, and now we have the travesty of the larger parties wanting it both ways. They want to be in Government under d'Hondt, which affords them the benefit of Ministries and the services of the Civil Service and its Special Advisers. However, lo and behold, when it comes to "Short money", they want, by waving some magical wand, to become the Opposition and so be entitled to the money that they claim ought to be theirs under the "Short money" principle.

The issuing of "Short money", the parties to which it is to be paid and the suggested increases show the fundamental principle that Westminster Governments have employed for years - corrupt political life in devolved Government with money, first through salaries and now through the parties with this additional money. It is for the House to decide whether it is right that, despite a vast shortage of money for hospitals, schools, housing, roads and water and sewerage systems, a substantial sum of more than £300,000 should be offered to political parties other than on the fundamental principles upon which the concept of "Short money" was based. It is for the Assembly to decide whether it will be advancing its image with the public, who will go short if the parties accept the benefit of "Short money".

I speak from my party Benches, because I am not contributing on behalf of the Assembly Commission, though I have some insight into its thinking. It is because of the dreadful flaws in the principles behind the "Short money" in Westminster that the Commission has produced a scheme that will not allow abuses that pertain in Westminster to be replicated here.

Consider all the money available to run the Government Whips' Office, which is paid for by the Prime Minister's office, and the £1 million-plus that allows the Government Whips' Office to control Back-Benchers, dissenters, opposition, the business of the House, and so on. By comparison, in this Assembly, where we have a much higher level of scrutiny of legislation, we have Committees with policy development proposals, and we have Back-Bench Members who form, in many cases, the opposition to their Colleagues in the Government. We have rules that Special Advisers cannot give our political parties the type of support that is given in Britain or cannot put the brakes on them. We have such a different system. The Commission's view is to ensure that every Member, in every aspect of his job, whether as a constituency representative, a legislator or a scrutineer on a Committee, has the type of support that Members at Westminster have.

I do not for one moment believe that Mr McCartney is suggesting that the Assembly should introduce or support a budget like that which exists to run the Government Whips' Office in Britain, where full-time civil servants are involved in supporting the Government parties. The Commission wants to ensure that every Member and every political party - big or small - has the resources to enable them to do his or her job. That means asking what the core costs are. The core costs are those that are required to run an office, with secretaries and perhaps some research staff.

The Assembly has a wonderful research service, which ensures that every Member - if he or she wishes to dissent from what is happening - has the necessary resources. If Members need research to be carried out, they can have that service. The Commission has also been trying to ensure that nobody will be able to muzzle an individual Member - whether pro-agreement or anti-agreement, and whether he or she belongs to an Executive party, an opposition party, or none at all. We still have to resolve that last one.

Although Edward Short did a good job, the Government response in Britain was to put up a massive budget to enable them to run their own Whips' Office. That would be wholly undemocratic in Northern Ireland. The Commission's proposals are fair enough to allow every party and every Member to make his or her own judgement on how to represent constituents.

Some Members may not have had a chance to read the documentation on the changes to the office cost allowance (OCA) and party support levels. In its introduction it states:

Article 2 states:

Crucially, it continues:

Members may not be aware of just how strong the safeguards are in the necessary rule to ensure that this money is spent entirely on Assembly purposes. It is not to be spent for party political purposes or on external matters. It is to be spent to equip Members in political parties to scrutinise and monitor effectively the actions of the Departments. I want to emphasise that. The scheme is modelled on that of the National Assembly for Wales, which seems to have overcome many of the problems that were highlighted today.

Adjourned at 3.54 pm.