IT’S a politically toxic issue. How much is an MLA worth? Should we pay our politicians more?

The answer rests upon fundamental ideas about politics, economics, and societal assumptions about the relative status and rewards of different occupations.

The Independent Remuneration Board has proposed raising MLA salaries from £53,000 to £67,200 from April 2026, a rise of 26.8 per cent.

This proposed new salary would put MLAs roughly in the top 10% of earners here.

Sophie Clarke: The Belfast buildings we walk past every day – and why they must be saved

Fabien McQuillan: What I have learned about farmers from living in Co Tyrone

Furthermore, £67,200 will be their base pay. If they assume additional responsibility (eg minister, committee chair, etc) they will be paid more.

Public reaction on a range of platforms was swift and hostile. There was outrage and incredulity that this could even be considered, with many critics suggesting they were already overpaid and underperforming.

Politics is about timing and reading the public mood. Raising salaries exponentially in a cost-of-living crisis is tone-deaf.

With public sector workers in the civil service, health, education and the police having had to fight tooth and nail for modest increases, as public services are collapsing, the optics of this could hardly be worse.

Trust and confidence is already on the floor and this risks pushing it even lower.

The justification for this from the chair of the pay review body is that MLA pay has increased marginally since 2016, and if salaries had been uplifted in line with inflation they would already being paid somewhere within this ball park.

This proposal was described as a “corrective measure” and not indicative of future pay rises, which would be expected to be in line with inflation.

Our politicians have gone unusually silent on this issue. None of the familiar “we are in dire financial straits” or “there is no money” when public sector workers seek the bare minimum.

They have distanced themselves from this debate, suggesting that the proposals are from an independent board and therefore they cannot be held responsible. It’s not as though they were rewarding themselves, is it?

Well, actually one could reasonably argue the ‘independent’ body is simply doing what it was intended to do, distance MLAs from inevitable decisions to increase their pay.

Or, as Gerry Carroll put it, MLAs voted for an ‘independent’ pay review body knowing full well that their pay would be increased. The die was cast.

The pay review board was established under the Assembly Members (Independent Financial Review and Standards) Act (Northern Ireland) 2011.

The terms of reference state that when exercising its function, it must have regard to the salaries payable to members of the House of Commons, the Scottish, Welsh and Irish parliaments.

When this legislation was passed only two MLAs were opposed, Gerry Carroll and Timothy Gaston.

Essentially the deliberations of this “independent body” had to be benchmarked by the salaries of counterparts across the UK and Ireland.

Given that all the comparable parliamentarians were attracting higher salaries, this huge hike was in many respects a fait accompli.

We are told this body considered evidence– what evidence? Did MLAs make submissions?

Interestingly, a focus on aligning with salaries of other legislative bodies, but no mention of performance-related pay, outputs, delivery of the agreed Programme for Government, passing legislation, agreeing priorities, improving public services, productivity or reform.

On these metrics MLAs would surely be looking at a pay cut rather than an eye watering increase?

Additionally, if there is such a keen interest in aligning with other regions, then surely population size should be a key consideration?

Based upon representation in the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly, the number of MLAs in the north should decrease to 46, approximately half of the current number.

Scotland has one MSP for 43,000 people, while we have one MLA for 21,000 people. Scotland has the lowest health waiting lists in UK, we have by far the highest.

If we want to be comparable, shouldn’t it be on all aspects of representation, rather than cherry-picking salaries without context?

Pay-setting for politicians is an important issue and the pros and cons of wage increases are often hotly debated.

Many will argue that if we want to attract a higher calibre of politicians, we need to pay them more.

There are two major flaws with this contention. Firstly, there is zero evidence than higher salaries automatically means more talented people or improved performance. Existing research demonstrates that increased salaries have an insignificant impact on work rate or attendance.

Secondly, we do not have normal politics in the north. Tribal politics means that talent is very much a secondary consideration.

We have some talented politicians, but far too many of our representatives are career politicians without any strategic or leadership experience.

The fact that the current system doesn’t attract or retain the best people has little to do with remuneration. Come the next election, flag-waving, petty sectarianism and culture wars will ensure that it will be more of the same.

A fundamental issue here is that the public have had no say in this. It flies it the face of democratic politics that public opinion has been ignored.

There is a two-week consultation process. However, this is for feedback from MLAs, political parties and pension bodies, but not the general public.

We are paying for this, but apparently there is no interest in what we think. Let that sink in.

In an attempt to defuse criticism, they have sought to take the matter out of politics, through recourse to the independent assessment and comparison of salaries by a review body.

Attempts to abstract this key issue from the realm of politics are doomed to failure. Politicians’ pay, by definition, is a political issue.

If our politicians had an ounce of credibility or self-awareness, they would reject this unjust proposal, but they won’t – turkeys don’t vote for Christmas.

If you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article and would like to submit a Letter to the Editor to be considered for publication, please click here.

Letters to the Editor are invited on any subject. They should be authenticated with a full name, address and a daytime telephone number. Pen names are not allowed.

© The Irish News