Consultation Summary Report on the Independent Remuneration Board’s draft determination on MLA Salaries for the 2027-2032 Assembly Mandate
Download this report as a PDF (17 pages, 520 KB)
Introduction
- The Independent Remuneration Board sought the views of the statutory consultees listed in Section 11 (5B) Assembly Members (Independent Financial Review and Standards) Act (Northern Ireland) 2011 as well as the public on its draft determination relating to MLA salaries for the 2027 to 2032 Assembly mandate. Elections for this mandate are scheduled for May 2027.
- The Board received responses from the Assembly Commission and the Assembly Members’ Pension Scheme Trustees. Neither consultee commented on the substance of the draft Determination. The Assembly Commission emphasised the importance of preserving the Board’s independence and noted that, having taken advice from officials, it had identified no significant technical or implementation issues arising from the draft Determination. The Commission therefore declined to express a view on the merits of the proposals, noting that political parties and individual Members remained free to submit their own views directly to the Board.
- The Trustees of the Assembly Members’ Pension Scheme considered the draft Determination at their meeting on 23 September 2026 and confirmed that they had no collective comments to make on the proposals. The Trustees noted, however, that individual trustees retained the right to submit separate responses in their capacity as Members should they wish to do so.
- The Board also received responses from the Alliance Party and Sinn Féin. Both parties expressed opposition to the proposed increase in MLA salaries, citing concerns regarding the appropriateness of a further increase following the substantial uplift implemented in 2026 and the wider context of pressures on public expenditure and public services. The responses also highlighted the importance of maintaining public confidence in the remuneration framework and ensuring that MLA remuneration remains proportionate, justified and aligned with broader public expectations.
- Responses from the statutory consultees are available in full at Appendix 1.
- A public survey was hosted on Citizen Space and was open for four weeks, from 17 September to midnight on 15 October 2026.
- A link to the survey was published on the home page of the Assembly’s website on 17 September and posted on the Assembly’s X and Facebook accounts[1]. The same messaging and link to the survey was published once a week, while the consultation was live.
- The consultation invited views on:
- the proposed MLA salary of £69,216 to be paid to Members returned following the next Assembly election;
- the proposed use of the Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings (ASHE) as the mechanism for determining annual salary uplifts;
- the proposed additional salaries payable to Assembly officeholders; and
- the sanctions regime, involving staged reductions in MLA salaries in circumstances where the Assembly is not formed or where Assembly operations are suspended.
- A total of 274 responses were received to the consultation survey. All responses were from members of the public responding in an individual capacity. A summary of the responses to each question is provided below.
- Lastly, the Board received seven email responses from members of the public. Overall, the email responses reflected strong opposition to the proposed salary increase and emphasised themes of affordability, public sector pay comparability, accountability, value for money and public confidence in political institutions.
Public Consultation Summary
MLA Salary Level
- Respondents were asked for their views on the proposed MLA salary of £69,216 for MLAs returned at the next Assembly election. Respondents were also asked whether they considered the proposed salary appropriately reflected the complexity and importance of the role and whether it would be sufficient to attract capable and committed candidates to seek election to the Assembly.
- 272 respondents provided their views on the proposed MLA salary of £69,216. The majority of respondents (253, 92.34%) considered the proposed salary to be too high. Fourteen respondents (5.11%) considered the proposed salary to be about right, while five respondents (1.82%) considered it too low. Two respondents did not answer the question.
Table 1: Views on Proposed MLA Salary (£69,216)
|
Response |
Number |
% |
|
Too high |
253 |
92.34% |
|
About right |
14 |
5.11% |
|
Too low |
5 |
1.82% |
|
No response |
2 |
0.73% |
- Respondents were asked whether they agreed that the proposed salary fairly reflects the complexity and importance of an MLA's role. All 274 respondents answered this question.
- A total of 237 respondents either disagreed (42, 15.33%) or strongly disagreed (195, 71.17%) that the proposed salary fairly reflected the role, compared with 22 respondents who agreed (12, 4.38%) or strongly agreed (10, 3.65%). Fifteen respondents (5.47%) neither agreed nor disagreed.
- Respondents were also asked whether the proposed salary would, on financial grounds, discourage capable and committed people from seeking election to the Assembly. There were 273 responses to this question.
- Just over half of respondents (147, 53.64%) agreed or strongly agreed that the proposed salary would not discourage prospective candidates from standing for election. Sixty-six respondents (24.08%) disagreed or strongly disagreed, while 60 respondents (21.90%) neither agreed nor disagreed. One respondent did not answer this question.
- The consultation responses on the salary level questions indicate that a substantial majority (over nine in ten) of respondents considered the proposed MLA salary to be too high. Respondents also disagreed that the proposed salary appropriately reflects the complexity and importance of the MLA role. Views were more mixed, however, on whether the proposed salary would be sufficient to attract capable candidates to seek election to the Assembly.
Annual Salary Uplifts
- The Board sought views on its proposal that annual adjustments to MLA salaries should be linked to changes in the Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings (ASHE) figures for Northern Ireland, subject to a maximum annual increase of 3%. Respondents were asked whether they agreed that annual salary increases should be capped and, if so, whether the proposed 3% cap was appropriate.
- 273 respondents provided their views on capping annual salary increases. There was overwhelming support for placing a cap on annual salary increases, with 255 respondents (93.07%) agreeing that increases should be capped. Eleven respondents (4.01%) disagreed, while seven respondents (2.55%) indicated that they did not know. One respondent did not answer this question.
Table 2: Views on Capping Annual Salary Increase
|
Response |
Number |
Percentage |
|
Yes |
255 |
93.07% |
|
No |
11 |
4.01% |
|
Don't know |
7 |
2.55% |
|
No response |
1 |
0.36% |
- Respondents were then asked whether the proposed cap of 3% was too high, about right, or too low.
- Of the 273 respondents who answered this question, 228 (83.21%) indicated that the proposed cap was too high. Thirty-six respondents (13.14%) considered it to be about right, while nine respondents (3.28%) considered it too low.
Table 3: Views on Proposed 3% Cap
|
Response |
Number |
Percentage |
|
Too high |
228 |
83.21% |
|
About right |
36 |
13.14% |
|
Too low |
9 |
3.28% |
- The consultation responses show support for the principle of restricting annual salary increases through the use of a cap. However, respondents were less supportive of the level proposed by the Board. While over nine in ten respondents agreed that salary increases should be capped, more than four-fifths considered the proposed maximum annual increase of 3% to be too high.
Officeholder Additional Salaries
- Respondents were asked for their views on the proposed levels of additional remuneration for officeholder roles within the Assembly. They were also asked whether those additional salaries should remain unchanged throughout the mandate or be increased over time.
- Across all officeholder positions, the most common response was that the proposed additional salary was ‘too high’. This view was particularly frequent in relation to the offices of First Minister and deputy First Minister, where three-quarters of respondents considered the additional salary paid to those office holders excessive. Similar views were expressed in relation to Ministers and the Speaker
Table 4: Views on Proposed Additional Salaries
|
Officeholder Position |
No of responses to this Q |
Too High |
About Right |
Too Low |
Should Not Be Paid |
Don't Know |
|
FM/dFM (£72,000) |
274 |
207 (75.55%) |
19 (6.93%) |
3 (1.09%) |
43 (15.69%) |
2 (0.73%) |
|
Minister (£38,000) |
274 |
172 (62.77%) |
57 (20.80%) |
6 (2.19%) |
36 (13.14%) |
3 (1.09%) |
|
Junior Minister (£12,000) |
271 |
143 (52.19%) |
60 (21.90%) |
23 (8.39%) |
36 (13.14%) |
9 (3.28%) |
|
Speaker (£38,000) |
272 |
175 (63.87%) |
48 (17.52%) |
2 (0.73%) |
41 (14.96%) |
6 (2.19%) |
|
Principal Deputy Speaker/Deputy Speaker (£12,000) |
274 |
150 (54.74%) |
63 (22.99%) |
10 (3.65%) |
40 (14.60%) |
11 (4.01%) |
|
Commission Member (£9,000) |
274 |
150 (54.74%) |
53 (19.34%) |
9 (3.28%) |
50 (18.25%) |
12 (4.38%) |
|
Chair of a Statutory Committee, PAC or DSC (£12,000) |
273 |
154 (56.20%) |
49 (17.88%) |
8 (2.92%) |
51 (18.61%) |
11 (4.01%) |
|
Chair of a Standing Committee (£6,000) |
273 |
148 (54.01%) |
52 (18.98%) |
9 (3.28%) |
50 (18.25%) |
14 (5.11%) |
- The strongest opposition was expressed in relation to the additional salary currently paid to the First Minister and deputy First Minister, with 207 respondents (75.55%) indicating that the amount was too high and a further 43 respondents (15.69%) stating that no additional salary should be paid. Only 19 respondents (6.93%) considered the proposed level to be either about right or too low.
- For the remaining offices, over half of all respondents also considered the proposed additional salaries to be too high. Between 52.19% and 63.87% of respondents selected this option across the various Assembly and Executive roles. Between 13.14% and 18.61% of respondents additionally expressed the view that no additional salary should be paid for these officeholder roles.
- Respondents were also asked whether additional salaries for officeholders should remain unchanged throughout the five-year Assembly mandate or increase over that period.
- A clear majority supported maintaining the proposed additional salaries at their initial level throughout the mandate. Of the 274 respondents who answered the question, 256 (93.43%) agreed that officeholder additional salaries should remain unchanged, while only 18 respondents (6.57%) supported increases during the mandate.
Table 5: Changes to Additional Salaries During the Mandate
|
Response |
Number |
Percentage |
|
Remain unchanged throughout the mandate |
256 |
93.43% |
|
Increase during the mandate |
18 |
6.57% |
- The consultation responses indicate opposition to the proposed additional salaries for officeholders. For every officeholder position examined, the majority view was that the proposed additional salary was too high. In addition, a notable minority of respondents considered that no additional salary should be payable for certain officeholder roles.
- Respondents were also opposed to any increase in officeholder additional salaries during the Assembly mandate, with 93.43% favouring the retention of the proposed rates without further uplift.
Salary Reduction Measures
- The Board asked for views on its previous determination that set out that MLA salaries should be reduced in circumstances where the Assembly is unable to carry out its core functions. Specifically, respondents were asked whether salaries should be reduced where an Assembly is not formed following an election and where the Assembly is suspended following its formation. Respondents were also asked whether the scale of the proposed reductions was appropriate.
- The consultation responses demonstrate overwhelming support for the principle that MLA salaries should be reduced where the Assembly is unable to function as intended. All 274 respondents (100%) agreed that MLA salaries should be reduced if an Assembly is not formed following an election. Similarly, 273 respondents (99.64%) agreed that salaries should be reduced if the Assembly is suspended, with only one respondent (0.36%) disagreeing.
Table 6: Circumstances for Salary Reductions
|
Circumstance |
Yes |
No |
Don't Know |
|
If an Assembly is not formed |
274 (100.0%) |
0 (0.0%) |
0 (0.0%) |
|
If the Assembly is suspended |
273 (99.64%) |
1 (0.36%) |
0 (0.0%) |
- Respondents were then asked whether the proposed reductions were too high, about right or too low.
- The majority considered that the proposed reductions were insufficient. Of the 274 respondents who answered the question, 245 (89.42%) indicated that the reductions were too low. Only twelve respondents (4.38%) considered the proposed reductions to be about right, while 17 respondents (6.2%) regarded them as too high.
Table 7: Views on the Proposed Salary Reductions
|
Response |
Number |
Percentage |
|
Too low |
245 |
89.42% |
|
About right |
12 |
4.38% |
|
Too high |
17 |
6.2% |
Additional Comments
- Respondents were invited to provide further comments or suggestions in relation to the Board’s draft determination. 194 of the 274 respondents provided comments. Overall, the comments were overwhelmingly negative toward the proposed salary increase and were largely focused on fairness, accountability, public sector pay parity and Assembly performance. The recurring themes raised in these responses are set out below.
Opposition to the proposed salary increase
- Respondents frequently stated that: MLAs are already adequately paid and receive expenses; the proposed increase is unjustified; The recent 2026 salary increase should be taken into account before any further increase is considered. The increase is viewed as inappropriate and out of touch with current economic circumstances.
Public sector pay and NHS concerns
- A large proportion of respondents compared MLA pay proposals with public sector workers including nurses, teachers and civil servants. Many argued that public sector workers are struggling to secure pay awards while MLA salaries continue to increase.
Cost of living pressures
- Many responses referred to: rising food costs; energy and heating costs; housing pressures; financial difficulties faced by working families. Respondents frequently stated that increasing MLA salaries during a cost of living crisis sends the wrong message.
Assembly performance and value for money
- A common view was that Assembly performance does not justify higher salaries.
- Respondents cited: failure to agree a budget; previous Assembly suspensions; limited legislative output; perceived lack of progress on key public services; a perception that politicians are focused on political disputes rather than delivery.
Stronger sanctions when the Assembly is not functioning
- This was a common recurring themes. Many respondents argued: salary reductions should be larger; salaries should cease immediately if the Assembly is suspended or not formed; and that the current sanctions are too lenient.
Pay linked to performance
- A substantial number of respondents suggested: performance-related pay; salary reductions linked to failure to deliver outcomes; formal performance management arrangements; payment based on attendance, legislation passed, budgets agreed or targets achieved.
Objections to comparisons with other legislatures
- Several respondents objected to comparisons with the other legislatures. The main argument was that salaries should reflect: circumstances in Northern Ireland, local performance and local public sector pay rather than salaries elsewhere.
Public confidence and trust
- Many comments expressed: low confidence in politicians; dissatisfaction with the Assembly; concerns about accountability and transparency.
Consultation process
- A smaller number of respondents commented on: question design; limited answer options; concerns that the outcome may already have been decided.
- Overall, the comments provided by respondents reflected concern about the affordability, fairness and public acceptability of the proposals, alongside an expectation that MLA remuneration should be accompanied by effective accountability and meaningful financial consequences when the Assembly is not functioning.
Conclusion
- The consultation responses demonstrate a consistent pattern across all aspects of the draft determination. Respondents generally favoured lower levels of remuneration than those proposed by the Board, opposed increases in officeholder remuneration during the mandate and supported stronger limits on future salary growth.
- There was also overwhelming support for the application of salary sanctions where the Assembly is not functioning, accompanied by a widespread view that the proposed reductions should be more severe.
- Comments provided were overwhelmingly negative toward the proposed salary increase and were largely focused on fairness, accountability, public sector pay parity and Assembly performance.
- Taken together, the findings indicate a strong public preference for restraint in MLA remuneration and officeholder payments, alongside robust financial consequences where Assembly institutions are unable to discharge their functions.
Appendix 1
Download Appendix 1
