Trevor Clarke
South Antrim · Democratic Unionist Party · Northern Ireland
“For recruitment to the current Youth Assembly and on the basis of research on the youth demographic in Northern Ireland, a minimum of 10 young people with disabilities were sought in order to be representative of the data. Of the 90 young people appointed to the Youth Assembly, 18 have a disability.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Youth Assembly regularly uses social media to promote its work, and, when preparing for a new mandate, targeted multimedia recruitment campaigns are used to engage young people and encourage participation.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Assembly Commission also has an apprenticeship and placement framework that provides the opportunity for people with a disability to avail themselves of short-term supported placements.”
“In 2025, 770 tours were delivered and the number of events hosted in Parliament Buildings almost doubled to 583. <BR /> <BR />Our Education Service promotes its programmes to schools and colleges through an annual September mail-out, outlining provision for the relevant Key Stages, including a focus on inclusive engagement for children wi…”
“Mr Speaker, I may require an extra minute to answer the question. <BR /> <BR />I thank the Member for her question. The Assembly Commission's school work experience programme is facilitated through a partnership between our internal education services team and an organisation called Futures For All, a social mobility charity.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, with your permission, I may need an extra minute to answer the question, and I thank the Member for it. <BR /> <BR />The Assembly Commission's public engagement strategy 2025-27 aims to increase awareness, improve understanding and enable participation in the work of the Assembly.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,151 lines we hold for Trevor Clarke, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 6 of 24.
“Therefore, if the Bill is passed, there will be plenty of opportunity for further engagement on the level of Members' salary and pension, and the Assembly Commission is agreed that it is for the independent remuneration board alone to lead and decide on that process. <BR /> <BR />For the avoidance of doubt for those inside or outside the Assembly, let me re-state that the passage of the Bill does not change the salary level of Members by one penny. However, the House needs to be clear that, if the Bill does not pass, the Assembly will not have regularised the legal position following the resolutions that have been already agreed. It will also mean that the Assembly has not put arrangements in place for the salaries and pensions of Members to continue to be determined independently, consistent with decisions that have already been made.”
“However, the Assembly Commission is abundantly clear that it is a matter to be determined entirely independently by an independent remuneration board and that independent body alone. <BR /> <BR />As I outlined, if the Bill is passed, it will be for the Clerk/Chief Executive of the Assembly to form a panel of independent individuals to conduct a recruitment competition to appoint members to that board. Once appointed, the members of the board will undertake a process to decide a range of factors that it wants to take into account in determining what level of salary and pension a Member should receive. It will then publish a draft determination of its findings and consult on that before publishing a final determination for implementation.”
“The report pointed out that, if a future remuneration board were to increase the salary payable to Members, that would be notified to the Department of Finance in order to secure the necessary funding at the appropriate time. In that specific context, the report noted that, given salaries elsewhere, there is the potential for the remuneration board to recommend an increase in salaries, and the Assembly Commission would therefore have to notify the Department of Finance of that budgetary pressure. The level of salaries elsewhere is only a matter of fact. For the record, at no point has the Assembly Commission discussed, let alone taken a view on, what the salary of a Member should be. Members of the House and those on the outside will undoubtedly have a range of views on that question.”
“It was a briefing document provided by the Assembly Commission's officials before they appeared before the Audit Committee as part of the normal budget-setting process for the Assembly Commission. The purpose of the document was to outline the Assembly Commission's budget requirements for 2025-26 and the budgetary pressures that it might face in the future. <BR /> <BR />The report makes it clear that the Assembly Commission in the 2025-26 budget required does not include any budget amount should there be a review of the Members' salaries and does not attempt to predict how a future remuneration board may deal with the issue.”
“<BR /> <BR />Finally, clauses 9, 10 and 11 respectively define the terms of the Bill, provide for its commencement and set out its short title. <BR /> <BR />I have addressed the history and the contents of the Bill, and as I conclude, I will briefly address the point made in relation to the report that the Assembly Commission presented to the Audit Committee last year. The Assembly Commission laid its document in the Business Office to ensure that Members had the information for the debate on the Assembly Commission's budget 2025-26 on 9 December 2024. Some have tried to portray that the Assembly Commission took a position in that briefing document on what the level of salaries for Members should be: that is clearly not true.”
“Consultation would also be required if the board were considering making a determination ahead of an election that occurs within a year of a previous election. That allows the Assembly to achieve a balance between making determinations in response to necessary circumstances and ensuring value for money, on the basis that members of the remuneration board will be paid for the number of days that the work requires. <BR /> <BR />Clause 7 makes minor and consequential amendments, including amendments throughout the 2011 Act to reflect the change of the name from "Panel" to "Board". <BR /> <BR />Clause 8 provides that the determinations made under sections 47 and 48 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 or under the 2011 Act will continue to have effect until superseded. That ensures continuity of the law.”
“<BR /> <BR />Clause 6 amends section 11 of the 2011 Act to provide a more clearly structured process around making determinations. First, it provides that the board must, so far as is reasonably practical, make a determination at least six months before the date of the poll for the next Assembly election so that those considering standing for election have notice of the remuneration that they would receive if elected. Secondly, it provides for the publication of the determinations in draft and a consultation on the drafts before a determination is made. Finally, it provides that, if the board intends to form an opinion but, due to exceptional circumstances, should make more than one determination in respect of each Assembly, the board must consult the Assembly Commission.”
“<BR /> <BR />Members from across the House will recognise that there was a perception that a number of decisions made by the IFRP did not reflect the realities of the role of Assembly Members on the ground. The Assembly Commission considers that allowing for the insight of a former Assembly Member's first-hand experience could add value to the remuneration board's work while retaining a balance of perspective on the board by allowing only one former Member to serve on the board at a time. <BR /> <BR />Some have called on the Assembly Commission to follow the example of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA) in the arrangements that we put in place. I can confirm that it is an example of how the Assembly Commission has done that: IPSA is legally required to appoint a former MP to its board.”
“Clause 5 removes the bar on former Assembly Members being members of the remuneration board, therefore putting former Assembly Members on the same footing as former Members of other Parliaments and councillors, for example. However, it ensures that no more than one former Assembly Member may serve on the board at any one time. For the avoidance of doubt, that is not the same as saying that a former Member will be on the remuneration board. There will be an open recruitment process for the board, and that will be independently overseen by the Clerk/Chief Executive of the Assembly, who will form a panel of internal and external people of appropriate experience. The recruitment panel will not involve members of the Assembly Commission or Members or former Members of the Assembly.”
“Clause 4 will also provide the Assembly Commission with an order-making power to allow it to make further provision about temporary appointments. Any order would have to be approved in draft by the Assembly before it could take effect.”
“<BR /> <BR />Clause 4 will insert a new section 6A into the 2011 Act to permit the appointment of a temporary chair and temporary members of the board, pending the usual process of five-year fixed-term appointments under section 4 of the 2011 Act. The temporary appointments lapse after 12 months but may be renewed, ensuring continuity in the functioning of the board. Other provisions of the Bill provide for the board to approach the dates of publication of determinations in a structured way. The absence of membership of the board would be undesirable.”
“As there is only one legislature in Northern Ireland, it is obvious that benchmarking comparisons will be made with other legislatures on these islands, the Members of which conduct similar roles to Members here. The requirement for the remuneration board to give due regard to the position in other legislatures simply provides that benchmarking take place; it does not in any way limit the remuneration board from considering other factors that it considers to be relevant. It is expected that that will be just one element that the new remuneration board will take into account. Ultimately, as the remuneration board will be independent, it will be for it to decide the range of factors that it wishes to consider, the weight that it gives to benchmarking against other places and the view that it takes on appropriate salary levels.”
“<BR /> <BR />Clause 3 will insert a new section 2A into the 2011 Act making it a requirement for the board, when making a determination under section 2(1) of the 2011 Act, to "have regard to" salaries that are payable to Members of the House of Commons, the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Parliament, the House of Representatives of Ireland and the Senate of Ireland. It is not unusual in public- and private-sector organisations for benchmarking exercises to be used as part of an evaluation process to ensure that relevant, comparable roles are taken into consideration when examining appropriate levels of remuneration. The purpose of the Bill is to establish an independent board to determine the salaries and pensions of those who serve as legislators.”
“Those include a range of issues relating to salaries and terms and conditions for Members' staff, including holiday, sickness and maternity pay; the level of staffing support that is made available; Members' ability to put their telephone numbers on office signage; the provision of maternity leave support for Members; and, as was just recently added, the specific provision for Members to put security measures in place at their constituency offices and their homes. The Assembly Commission thanks the Assembly Commission officials who provided advice on those matters and gave the benefit of their experience on the difficulties with the previous provisions.”
“Since the Assembly voted by resolution in June 2020 to give the Assembly the function of determining the allowances for staffing and office cost expenditure that Members reclaim, the Assembly Commission has published two determinations enabling it to address a range of issues that are either insufficiently addressed or not at all addressed by the determinations that the IFRP made.”
“Clause 1 will rename the IFRP "the Remuneration Board". That name reflects the focus that the new independent body will have on salaries and pensions. Clause 2 will amend the 2011 Act to give it legal consistency with the Assembly's resolutions of June 2020 and this month so that the board does not have the power to determine the staffing and cost allowance expenditures that Members claim or the allowances that are payable to Members who have resigned or lost their seats.”
“<BR /> <BR />Given the context that I set out, the Assembly Commission can hardly be accused of rushing to bring the Bill forward, and the Commission has not hidden the fact that it is bringing the Bill forward, as some have implied. In June 2020, the Assembly resolved to give authority to the Commission to determine allowances. The Assembly Commission made it clear that it intended to introduce the Bill and change the remit and scope of the IFRP. Not only was the Bill brought before the House in December 2020 but the Assembly Commission has been clear since then, even at the most recent debate on the Assembly Commission's Budget and the most recent Assembly Commission Question Time, that it was considering the introduction of the Bill. <BR /> <BR />I will return to the substantive provisions in the Bill.”
“It is only now, a year after the Assembly's return but before the heavy legislative workload towards the end of the mandate begins, that the Assembly Commission has come back to the House to introduce the Bill. <BR /> <BR />In summary, the House is debating a Bill that is largely technical and that deals with the process by which Members' salaries and pensions are determined. If the Bill is passed, only the independent remuneration board will decide the levels of Members' salaries and former Members' pensions for. The word "independent" is key. Neither the Assembly Commission nor Members will be involved in the decisions on Members' salaries. On behalf of the Commission, I thank all Assembly Commission officials for the detailed work that they have done on the Bill and on related issues over those many years.”
“The Bill will remove that uncertainty by reflecting in law the position that the Assembly has already resolved twice, in June 2020 and this month, and by providing the independent body to deal alone with salaries and pensions. <BR /> <BR />After the Assembly passed the resolution in June 2020, the Assembly Commission introduced the Assembly Members (Remuneration Board) Bill in December 2020. However, as it soon became clear that the pandemic had not ended as soon as we would all have liked it to, the Assembly Commission decided not to take the Bill forward, when a heavy burden of legislation was coming before the Assembly. Since then, the Assembly Commission has continued to consider the Bill.”
“<BR /> <BR />The resolution in June 2020 gave the Assembly Commission legal authority to determine allowances, but it recognised that further legislative change would be needed to resolve the overlapping issues. That was because, technically, the IFRP retained the power to make determinations on allowances for Members' offices under the 2011 Act. Should the IFRP or a similar successor body be appointed without the necessary legislative change, two separate bodies would have the power to make determinations on staffing and office cost expenditure that can be reclaimed by Members at the same time. That is undesirable and could lead to a legal uncertainty.”
“However, it quickly became clear that the system for staffing and office cost expenses set up by the IFRP in 2016 did not adequately provide for the pressures that Members and their employees face in representing their constituents. Consequently, on 30 June 2020, a few months after the Assembly returned on 11 January 2020 and after much detailed consideration by the Assembly Commission, the Assembly agreed to change the way in which allowances for the costs of Members' offices were determined. At that time, the Assembly passed a resolution that the Assembly Commission be given the power to make determinations on Members' allowances and that decisions on salaries and pensions should continue to be made by an independent body. That has been the Assembly's settled position for some five years.”
“In 2016, the IFRP made a determination that governed Members' salaries and office cost expenditure and a determination that governed Members' pensions. The IFRP's decisions on salaries and pensions are still in place and continue to govern Members' salaries and pensions. <BR /> <BR />In 2015, even before the panel issued the determinations, the Assembly Commission began to review options for reforming the system for providing financial support to Members. The term of office for the then IFRP came to an end in 2016. The Assembly Commission deferred taking a decision to proceed with appointing a new panel pending further consideration of the options for reform. Political developments soon afterwards meant that the Assembly Commission did not want to return to the matter while the Assembly was not sitting.”
“The House is debating a largely technical Bill that deals with the process of how Members' salaries and pensions are determined. We are not debating or deciding what the level of Members' salaries and pensions will or should be. If the Bill is passed, only the independent remuneration board will decide that. <BR /> <BR />I turn briefly to the history of the issue. As the House will know, in 2011, the Assembly passed the Assembly Members (Independent Financial Review and Standards) Act (Northern Ireland) 2011, which created an independent body, the independent financial review panel (IFRP). The IFRP's function was to determine the salaries and pensions payable to Members and the expenditure that Members can reclaim to rent constituency offices, appoint staff, travel in their constituencies and so on.”
“Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, the Assembly Commission welcomes the debate on the Assembly Members (Remuneration Board) Bill. It is an opportunity to present more detail on the Bill to the House and to clarify points that have been made since the Bill was introduced two weeks ago. <BR /> <BR />The Assembly Commission recognises that there is no good time to deal with issues relating to Members' salaries and pensions. Understandably, there will be a range of views, including negative ones, amongst the public whom we serve, and there is undoubtedly an opportunity to play politics with the issue. Therefore, while we are here to debate the Bill's general principles, it is important to make a distinction from the outset between process and outcome.”
“I hear what the Minister says. However, given that this is not the first time that the courts have found against the ombudsman for making sweeping statements, will you, Minister, continue to give the ombudsman cover or will you come out against her rather than hide behind what you just said?”
“I thank the Minister for that answer and the importance that he places on the issue. Minister, I am sure that you will be forgiven for believing, like me, that the arts seem to focus only on a very small number of places. What can you do to assure all those other groups that deserve equal funding and balance that what you are introducing now will address that?”
“I thank the Minister for his answer. Whilst I accept that many people may not like the idea of deer stalking, it is a necessary evil to protect forestation in some areas. As it stands, we have signage up for a period, as opposed to putting signs up on the day that deer stalking takes place, which your officials will not accept. Do you agree, Minister, that it would be safer for people to see the signage on the day when deer stalking takes place, as opposed to seeing it all season, thus preventing the risk of serious accident?”
“I need to address that comment, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I did not call out Mr Allister incorrectly. I said that Mr Allister refused to take his place on a Committee. Committee membership is allocated by d'Hondt. That is how the allocations are made. No Member has the right to pick the Committee that they want. Committee membership is allocated on the strength of a party's membership. If Mr Gaston wants to rewrite the rules for his media story, that is fine, but the reality is that Committee membership is picked on the basis of party strength, and because he did not get the Committee that he wanted, Mr Allister ran away. So, based on performance, Mr Allister did not deserve his salary.”
“However, it is, of course, important that, when looking at workers' rights, we look at their rights across the board. <BR /> <BR />I will give way.”
“I thank the Member for putting that on the record. As a Member whose family is grown-up, I have no need for that provision.”
“Sorry, it does not stand up in your mind, but it stands up in the minds of others. Whilst you do not take the full wage, which is your choice, other Members have young families —”
“I am probably at the upper end when it comes to the age of Members; there are many younger Members who have young families to keep. Why should their pay not stay in kilter with that of their counterparts in other places? I am happy to let you in, if you want in on that.”
“First, I will advocate for only myself — no one else — because I cannot speak on behalf of my colleagues. Of course, I encourage the Commission to take note of the opt-out option — I have already indicated that at the Commission — which could be used if some Members do not want to take the increase. Whether you take it would then be up you, Mr Carroll. I cannot advocate for something on behalf of my colleagues. <BR /> <BR />What I will say, for those who did not hear me the first time, is that you are talking about 5% for one year. You are also using the 28% figure. If you take the cumulative figure for an increase of 5% a year from 2015 until 2025, I imagine that it will be much more than 28%. <BR /> <BR />The other thing that you talked about was workers' rights.”
“I will allow you a very short intervention. Of course I will.”
“I thank the Member for his intervention. Of course, I distance myself and the current membership from the misuse of public moneys. There was an issue in the past, and that was recognised, hence the establishment of the independent panel, the purpose of which was to fix some of those things. The recommendations were designed to do just that. We are talking, in passing —.”
“<BR /> <BR />Given what I heard from the two Members who seem to oppose the motion — even though nothing has been decided — consideration should be given to Members' being able to opt out. If a pay rise is coming, and they do not want it, include an opt-out option. If they are very principled, they should not take a pay rise, if there is one. <BR /> <BR />I remind Mr Gaston that his predecessor did not sit on any Committees, because he opted not to do so. If we are to measure people by performance, let us look at performance. Many Members from all parties sit on multiple Committees. If we are going to base pay on performance, those who decide not to sit on Committees, or who decide to sit on only one, should get less, as the Member for North Antrim suggested. What I suggest is that we leave the matter to an independent panel to determine.”
“I will address some of the comments that have been made. I was not down on the list to speak, but, even though my intervention was considered long, I probably needed a few more seconds to cover all my points. The previous Member to speak put things on the record, so I will put on record the fact that I let no cat out of the bag. It was the Member himself who indicated that our pay is 28% behind that in Scotland and Wales. There is a danger that we are calling into question the independence of an independent panel. 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.”
“I am still on my feet. The Speaker will call me to order. <BR /> <BR />Would you support —”
“I understand the Member's point about comparisons with the public sector, and he cites the 5·5% for one year. We are working on the presumption that MLAs will get a pay rise, but the fact is that the Commission is asking an independent body to do that work. You are deciding what that body will do. Do you not agree that, whilst some workers got 5·5% for one year, the cumulative effect from 2015, when the pay was last adjusted, will be much more than the 28% that you suggest? Do you not believe in fairness for all workers? <BR /> <BR />Also, will you join me in calling for the Commission, when an Ad Hoc Committee is set up to review this —.”
“I hear what you say, Minister, and agree with your remarks about cables. The good old farmers have come out to help again, and what I am trying to find out from you, Minister, is whether there is any indication of whether we are going to retain a list of farmers who can be called on for their support and can be recompensed for the work that they do? If it were not for the farmers, some of the work would take much longer. Those farmers, who are getting hammered from every direction, are doing that work at their own expense. Will you now compile a simple register of farmers to be called on following events such as this or snow or other adverse weather?”
“In your statement, there is reference to the specialist requirements for collecting generators. The First Minister said that more generators were coming. Given that the priority should be connections and keeping the necessary expertise for that, is there an opportunity to use the engineers here, or bring in engineers from the mainland, to assist with the connection of the generators?”
“Thank you for your answer, First Minister, and I hear what you say. However, this has been a relatively mild winter, and we have the same problem with waiting lists every year. Hundreds of people are waiting to get into hospital, and, indeed, hundreds are waiting to get out. Does the First Minister have any suggestions for the Health Minister, or will he bring forward specific proposals to relieve the pressures?”
“I thank the Minister for a fulsome answer. No one doubts the impact that COVID-19 has had on many and on the health service as well. However, many now expect that, after almost four years, many things should get back to business as usual, like an appointment with your GP. Many people complain that they cannot get a face-to-face appointment; indeed, hospital appointments have been affected by that. Minister, what work can be done to bring back some form of normality so that people can get back to the health service that they used to have?”
“Significant work has been done this year to ensure the smooth return of Assembly business, and, as we look ahead to another busy year, it is appropriate, on behalf of the Assembly Commission, to wish all our staff a merry Christmas and a happy new year. <BR /> <BR />The Commission seeks the Assembly's agreement to the budget amounts for resource DEL and capital DEL as set out in the motion. I commend the motion to the House.”
“There was a clear rationale for the senior staff's pay increase at the time: they could go somewhere else and receive much more remuneration than they do in this Building. I distance myself from those remarks. <BR /> <BR />Members of the Assembly Commission have considered its requirements for 2025-26, recognising that a significant element of the budget is non-discretionary and relates to payments to Members. Constituency office and staffing costs are set out in the determination. The Commission is grateful to the Audit Committee for its scrutiny of the Commission's budget for 2025-26. <BR /> <BR />I will end the debate as my colleague began it, with a "Thank you" to all the staff who support every aspect of our work.”
“Members should not get into the minutiae of which contractors are preferable to others. <BR /> <BR />Mr Carroll talked about MLAs' pay and the £500 increase. Of course, today is not the day to debate that either. That was part of the original IFRP decision in 2016. It is outwith the decision of the Assembly to set the budget. It was linked to inflation, and some Members will agree that, while the £500 every year since 2016 is welcome, it is not much compared with the salaries of some of our counterparts in other places. He went on to single out the senior staff of the Assembly, and I want to distance myself from those comments. The senior staff in the Building do a tremendous job of keeping us right, as do the staff who got the 3% increase.”
“I thank the Member for her intervention, which differs from that when she last intervened on the subject. All that I can say to the Member is that the current system allows support only for political parties. As the Member recognised on the previous occasion, if she were to designate as a party, she would be entitled to the financial assistance. I suggest that the Member redesignate as a political party, not an independent. That is the only option open to her at the moment. <BR /> <BR />I am not questioning your authority, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. However, a degree of latitude that was not afforded to other Members was afforded to Mr Carroll when he made heinous comments about contracts provided by the Assembly. I am sure that the staff do due diligence, and I commend them for their work on the contracts that have been awarded.”
“First, Diane Forsythe spoke on behalf of the Audit Committee, and I welcome her comments. The Committee plays a helpful role in scrutinising the work of the Commission, and she added further detail to the proposer of the motion's statement for the Members who were present. <BR /> <BR />The Member for North Antrim talked about proper staffing, the FAPP and the uplift for some political parties. I remind Members, through the Speaker, that the idea behind the FAPP rearrangement was to bring fairness and equity. The Member singled out the increase given to my party and Sinn Féin. I remind the House that a single-Member party — his and one other single-Member party— still receives £26,000 to support one Member and the larger parties receive £10,000 per Member. It is fair and equitable, and we were trying to bring fairness to the system.”
“The budget proposals presented today embody the Commission's continuing commitment to ensuring that the Assembly is effectively and efficiently supported by and provided with robust, innovative and modern secure systems in a modern working environment. The budget not only meets the costs that will arise in relation to the provision of staff, running and maintaining Parliament Buildings and delivering effective constituency services for our community but seeks to invest in systems, infrastructure and support for the Assembly's scrutiny functions in order to equip the Assembly for the future. <BR /> <BR />I will respond to a few comments made by Members.”
“Thank you very much, Principal Deputy Speaker. I note the Members who have contributed to the debate. <BR /> <BR />The Assembly Commission recognises the context of wider financial pressures in the public sector and has given careful consideration to those when presenting its budget requirements. However, the Commission must balance that with its responsibilities of ensuring that the required resources are available to the Commission in order for it to provide the necessary services to the Assembly and all its Members. The Assembly Commission considers that the budget for the year is a reasonable estimate of the financial requirements needed to fully support the Assembly and deliver the required services to Members.”