Gerry Carroll
West Belfast · People Before Profit Alliance · Northern Ireland
“Yesterday morning, as others did, I stood alongside our resident doctors as they commenced a 24-hour period of industrial action. We often praise our healthcare workers in the House and more generally, saying things such as that they are invaluable and that we wish them well.”
“If we have learnt anything from the political events of the past week, it is that powerful people — powerful men, in particular — and institutions should always be held to maximum account when it comes to abuse, neglect and victims, and that victims and survivors should be believed and supported on every occasion.”
“Agency spend has, again, gone through the roof and is sky-high; locum spend has gone up and continues to go up — it has gone up by in the region of £0·5 billion over the past few years; and, almost every single year out of the past five to 10 years, hundreds of millions of pounds of public money have been pumped into the for-profit privat…”
“With bills increasing month-on-month and year-on-year, that is true, and those workers need a proper settlement that meets their needs and the ever-increasing cost of living. One striking doctor put it to me starkly yesterday. They said that they left Scotland and took a more senior position in the health sector in Belfast.”
“I commend Stephen and his colleagues in the Bill Office and the Executive Office officials, who worked closely with me to try to support, amend or help along my amendments — whatever way you want to look at it. I also want to commend the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone who spoke out during the last few stages.”
“I commend people for speaking out on the issue, especially Sharon Burke. I think that she might be in the Gallery. She has been emailing Members on that issue.”
The complete record
Every one of 4,137 lines we hold for Gerry Carroll, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 83.
“I commend the Bill and offer my support for it at Final Stage.”
“I commend Stephen and his colleagues in the Bill Office and the Executive Office officials, who worked closely with me to try to support, amend or help along my amendments — whatever way you want to look at it. I also want to commend the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone who spoke out during the last few stages. I pay tribute to her and to her mother for speaking out and for being here. <BR /> <BR />Today is about victims and survivors. That is right and proper. The fact that we are here debating the Bill is no accident: it is down to the tenacity and doggedness of victims and survivors who had doors shut in their faces for decades but refused to be quiet or to let that stop them. Never again should we allow any institution to lock up, imprison and abuse women or anybody else.”
“<BR /> <BR />I hope that the inquiry process will not adopt a timid approach to truth and accountability but will take an aggressive and uncompromising approach when chasing down documents, seeking truth and ensuring that the state and religious institutions actually cough up the finance and documents that relate to their role in allowing and furthering abuse, neglect, people trafficking and many other crimes that happened on their watch. <BR /> <BR />I commend the Committee members. I do not always agree with them and they do not always agree with me. Maybe that is no surprise. The Chair and members have, however, done important work.”
“I commend people for speaking out on the issue, especially Sharon Burke. I think that she might be in the Gallery. She has been emailing Members on that issue. <BR /> <BR />I am happy to have played a small part — I emphasise that it was a small part — in the Bill and to have raised issues that were previously not included by working alongside victims and survivors to table amendments. I thank them for bringing issues to my attention, and I thank Members for voting for such matters as payments for people who were in an institution on two separate occasions and ensuring that the chairperson of the inquiry takes every single step to ensure that documents are obtained when victims and survivors reside outside the North.”
“If we have learnt anything from the political events of the past week, it is that powerful people — powerful men, in particular — and institutions should always be held to maximum account when it comes to abuse, neglect and victims, and that victims and survivors should be believed and supported on every occasion. <BR /> <BR />There are a lot of positives in the Bill — it would be remiss of me not to mention that — which have been welcomed broadly in the House and by victims and survivors more generally. It would, however, be remiss of me not to mention some glaring omissions. Workhouses, the people who were in them and their families are excluded from the Bill on payment issues. That is a massive oversight. My simple proposed amendment would have rectified that anomaly but was voted down by the Executive parties.”
“I want to speak briefly on the Bill. The Bill should always have been about victims and survivors. Sometimes, it was, and the voices of victims and survivors came through and were heard, but, quite often, it was not, especially when it came to certain amendments not being heard, selected or voted for. I commend all the people in the Gallery and the people who are watching the debate for not being quiet or piping down because to do so might have suited some of those people in power. I commend them for speaking out and speaking up, and I commend the groups that work alongside them and support them.”
“<BR /> <BR />I call on the Health Minister to sit down with the BMA and the striking doctors, meet their demands and find the money to make sure that those doctors do not leave the North and go to the South or Australia or England, where they are more respected and better paid.”
“With bills increasing month-on-month and year-on-year, that is true, and those workers need a proper settlement that meets their needs and the ever-increasing cost of living. One striking doctor put it to me starkly yesterday. They said that they left Scotland and took a more senior position in the health sector in Belfast. They actually took a pay cut. So, they left Scotland, took a more senior position and took a pay cut of several thousand pounds, despite taking on more responsibility and more work. They also said that corridor care, as it is euphemistically — or maybe offensively — called, does not exist to any real extent in Scotland — maybe here or there — but it is a daily occurrence in the North. That shows the kind of normalisation that is taking place as a result of this process.”
“Agency spend has, again, gone through the roof and is sky-high; locum spend has gone up and continues to go up — it has gone up by in the region of £0·5 billion over the past few years; and, almost every single year out of the past five to 10 years, hundreds of millions of pounds of public money have been pumped into the for-profit private healthcare sector. Again, if the will were there to properly pay our healthcare workers, including the doctors who were out on strike yesterday, the money would be found, repurposed and prioritised. The question is whether this Health Minister and the Executive value our doctors and other healthcare workers more broadly. <BR /> <BR />It was said yesterday on the picket line at the Royal Victoria Hospital, on the Grosvenor Road in west Belfast, that, "Claps don't pay the bills".”
“Yesterday morning, as others did, I stood alongside our resident doctors as they commenced a 24-hour period of industrial action. We often praise our healthcare workers in the House and more generally, saying things such as that they are invaluable and that we wish them well. However, when questions arise about adequate pay, properly resourcing hospitals and other issues, we are quite quickly told that the money is not there. That is repeated ad nauseam in the House and elsewhere, but it is a complete fallacy. If the will were there to pay our doctors, healthcare workers and all other public-sector workers properly, it would have been done by now. <BR /> <BR />In recent days, the Health Minister in particular has been at pains to say that he has no money for healthcare workers. I challenge that assertion: it is not true.”
“If that does not apply to the women and their children who went through workhouses, I do not know what we are talking about with that description. <BR /> <BR />Junior Minister Bunting talked about how the amendments might derail the Bill but provided no evidence or explanation on how an amendment could derail a Bill, and, in response to an intervention, she could not — I thought that this was quite significant — give a guarantee to, I think, the Chair of the Committee that workhouse victims and survivors will be included in future redress payment schemes. If people want workhouse women and their children to be in the scheme, they should, in my view, support the amendment. I hope that Members can do that this evening.”
“Despite people's best efforts and best intentions, something has to be in the Bill or it will not be there at all. In many ways, I am used to being fobbed off and patronised, and I am big enough for that, but I ask Members whether, if they do not accept my amendment, they will find it so easy to look victims, survivors and their families in the eye and dismiss them. Despite what Members may think of me or what I am saying today, they should stand by workhouse victims and their families and not fob them off. <BR /> <BR />An Executive Office letter that came to Members this morning, I think, was referred to. I have had sight of it. It states:”
“The delay is because the women have been ignored and failed by the state and the Executive generally. I am not pointing at the Ministers here but at the Executive over the decades. That is where the delay is, not because of an amendment brought by me or any other Member. It is important to acknowledge that. <BR /> <BR />Timothy Gaston summed the aims of the Bill up well and outlined how my amendment works in conjunction with what the Bill aims to do, is supposed to do and is about. I commend him for that. He also said that, if something is not put in the legislation by amendment at this stage, it will not happen. I have paraphrased what he said, and I absolutely concur with that. I have been in this place for quite a long time, and that is my experience.”
“I thank the Member for that intervention. I will come on to those concerns in a second. The point that I made at the start is that some are hiding behind legalistic arguments. I think that there is a financial motivation in some quarters — you can say who they are, and they can take exception to that or not — to not include workhouse families. Mr Butler raised that issue, and that is the point that I am making. <BR /> <BR />I will come on to the delays that the Member raised. I have been working with victims for a similar amount of time as her. She may have been in the Assembly just before me, or maybe we came in around the same time. I have been working with victims and survivors for more than a decade, and the delay is not because of an amendment in my name or that of any other Member.”
“One second. <BR /> <BR />I totally agree with everything that the Chair of the Committee said about those being left out because of the posthumous date, but the same applies to the workhouse victims and the people who were abused by an institution. Also, there is no rule that the redress scheme has to be admissions-based with no further eligibility requirements. <BR /> <BR />I give way to the Member.”
“I thank the Member. It may have been used once or twice, but it exists and can be used. <BR /> <BR />The Member for Lagan Valley mentioned cost. I disagree with using costs as an excuse not to back policy, especially when we are righting historical wrongs that relate to institutional abuse. However, he was, at least, honest, when others were not. You cannot put a financial cost on justice and doing the right thing, which is what my amendments are intended to do.”
“It is rarely used, but it exists if a Minister needs to bring technical amendments. I will correct the record for the Member on that. <BR /> <BR />The other Member for Lagan Valley is not here. He was honest about his comments and cited cost as the reason why he would not back my amendments.”
“I thank the Member for that. They can be challenged, but anything can be challenged. However, her points are on the record. <BR /> <BR />The Member for North Belfast — he is still here — said that my amendments changed the Bill. The Member knows that amendments are designed to change Bills, and it happens in most legislative processes. There were 150-odd or whatever it is amendments tabled on the Justice Bill. If the Member is against amending Bills, what is the point of Consideration Stage and Further Consideration Stage? Do we do away with those stages if he is against amendments that are designed to strengthen legislation? Through the Speaker, I will correct the Member. There is another stage for consideration. Standing Order 37A mentions an Exceptional Further Consideration Stage.”
“My amendments are admission-based: the women were admitted to workplaces because they were pregnant. Therefore, my amendment is admission-based.”
“However, any legislation can be challenged in the courts, so a blanket letter from the Executive Office on the day of Further Consideration Stage should not be used as an excuse not to support an amendment if Members think that its political aim is right and proper, which it absolutely is. There is an irony, which is not lost on me and others, that the Opposition are spooked and have, unfortunately, used a letter from the Executive Office that was presented on the day of the Bill stage as an excuse not to back the amendments. It is not right, and Members should not be spooked by letters that have been designed to do that. People have the right to do that, but Members should not be taken in by the letter. <BR /> <BR />The admission-based element is being used as an argument against the amendments.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Chair of the Committee said that it may be difficult to assess who will be eligible under the remit of my amendment. That may well be, but it does not mean that we should not do it. It does not mean that we should not pass and implement the amendment. We are talking about trying to correct the historical wrong of institutional abuse, and the best way to do that for this cohort is to back the amendment in my name. <BR /> <BR />Some Members mentioned complex changes and how the amendment could jeopardise the Bill but have not elaborated on why that would be the case. They have given no concrete examples, and any legislation can be challenged. Members opposite are taking through important Bills on free school meals in summer and the Irish-medium education workforce strategy that I support.”
“Some Members talked about my amendments being subject to legal challenge, but the legislation itself could be subject to legal challenge if people think that it is not reflective of what is in its title. <BR /> <BR />There has been some insinuation that my amendments have not been adequately or properly drafted. What Members are effectively saying is that the Bill was not properly drafted, because the amendments in my name take something that is already in the Bill and extend the redress payment to cover it. I am not precious, but, if Members want to say that my amendments are not drafted properly, they are effectively admitting that the Bill was not properly drafted. I do not say that: I just think that there are omissions in it.”
“I thank Members for their comments. Throughout the debate, the comments have been varied. There has also been a pattern of comments that I will try to address as much as I can. A lot of technical and legalistic arguments have been used for what is a political decision to omit workhouses, and that needs to be challenged. I repeat that the Bill already identifies a workhouse cohort for inquiry purposes, including pregnant women, women who gave birth in a workhouse and their children. The redress payment should therefore be extended to those people. I ask this question: why is redress treated differently? The word "workhouses" is in the title of the Bill.”
“The fact that concerns remain unresolved about people from workhouses being excluded from the scope of the Bill strengthens the argument for, rather than against, an amendment. <BR /> <BR />I am happy to support amendment No 11 on posthumous claims, because 1953 marks a significant improvement on 2011, which was a completely arbitrary date and a slap in the face for so many families. <BR /> <BR />I am happy to listen to Members' contributions, and I will do my best to respond to as many questions as I can.”
“The exact purpose of a redress scheme is often to identify and recognise a specific group that experiences a particular harm, abuse or other form of ill treatment. The existence of married women in workhouses does not prevent the Assembly recognising a distinct cohort of unmarried mothers if there is a legitimate concern. <BR /> <BR />An argument is doing the rounds that the amendment could jeopardise the Bill: I reject and challenge that. The issue is not new, having been raised with Members for some time. If the Executive believed that problems existed and that the amendment could have been drafted differently — I say this respectfully — Ministers could have tabled another amendment, but they did not do so.”
“It is an obvious point that any Minister, a Member from any Executive party or any other Member who thought that the amendment was too broad could have proposed an alternative, but they decided not to do so. Concern about the drafting of the amendment is not a reason to exclude a cohort of people. <BR /> <BR />On the equality argument, my understanding is that the Equality Commission has no objection in principle to the identification of a specific cohort where there is a rational basis for doing so. Where there is evidence of a particular experience or harm in a general sense, legislatures routinely distinguish between groups. Why can that not be done through my amendments to the Bill?”
“As I said, any legislation is subject to legal challenge, including through the Supreme Court, if people deem it necessary and get the necessary support, and there is scaremongering going on in relation to the amendment. <BR /> <BR />The Bill, by design, already identifies a workhouse cohort for the purposes of the inquiry that includes pregnant women and women who gave birth in workhouses and their children. If TEO — I say it respectfully — is concerned that the category in the amendment may be too broad for redress, that is more of an argument for having a more precise eligibility test than for excluding the workhouse cohort of unmarried mothers altogether. In general, drafting can be improved and finessed, but exclusion, if accepted, is a policy decision, and people are upset, annoyed and angry about that, to put it mildly.”
“<BR /> <BR />Any redress scheme that creates such a hierarchy of victims by excluding workhouse victims is fundamentally flawed and not trauma-informed. Even as it stands and as could be the case for any legislation, the Bill could be subject to legal challenge and a fight through the Supreme Court or anywhere else. Thousands of women and children had traumatic experiences in workhouses. That trauma was a direct result of state, societal and religious attitudes of the time. It is only fair that that omission is rectified, and we have a chance to do that through the amendment. <BR /> <BR />I know that a communication is circulating to Members advising them basically not to support the amendment, and I will address some of the issues in that.”
“I ask Members to support the amendments in my name as I go through them. The aim of amendment Nos 9, 10, 13 and 14 is to extend redress to mothers and children who were admitted to workhouses. That is being achieved by tying entitlement to clause 4(1)(b). The redress scheme is, of course, admissions-based. It seeks to recognise a specific misogynistic discrimination faced by unmarried mothers and their children. In my view and that of many others, the current exclusion of workhouses from the redress scheme creates an unacceptable hierarchy of victims and goes against the spirit and aims of the Bill that the Ministers and the Executive more generally have introduced. That has been highlighted repeatedly by the truth recovery independent panel, including at its most recent evidence session at the Committee about two weeks ago.”
“In some ways, that could be seen as a sensible safeguard in cases of statutory exceptions and reasonable excuse provisions — that was stated by Members and the Minister at the previous stage — but some would say that it could weaken transparency and reporting more broadly. Any clarity and further information on that would be useful. I am happy to support the amendments.”
“I will begin with amendment No 8. My original amendment on the inquiry chair being able to publish reports in the public interest was about independence. The revised amendment appears to remove the ability to publish at any time and ties publication more closely to ministerial agreement. Can the chairperson of the inquiry still publish information where they believe it to be in the public interest but where Ministers may say no or prefer to delay? Minister, I would appreciate an answer to that in the winding-up speech or in writing. <BR /> <BR />I move now to amendment No 6. The original amendment placed a duty on the inquiry to report non-cooperation. The revised amendment says that the chairperson may report if they consider it "appropriate".”
“I will speak briefly on group 1. I am grateful to the First Minister, the deputy First Minister and the junior Ministers for working alongside me after Consideration Stage on evidence gathering and doubly affected individuals. I also thank the Executive Office officials for working alongside me, and I thank the Bill Clerk, Stephen. Rather than wasting people's time, people worked with me to reach a common position, and I think that is what is done regularly in the House, so I take a slightly different view to the Member for North Belfast, but maybe that is not surprising. <BR /> <BR />I have some questions on amendment Nos 6 and 8, Minister. I think that it is Minister Reilly who will be winding up. Hopefully she can answer these today or through correspondence, and I thank her for her recent correspondence.”
“I commend the Members for tabling the motion and am happy to support it.”
“That requirement obviously comes with health risks and creates financial costs.”
“<BR /> <BR />The disparity in the care received by same-sex couples is equally unfair; they must go through a number of unsuccessful artificial insemination attempts in private clinics to prove that they are infertile and therefore eligible for IVF treatment. It seems, to me, to be quite cruel. I am not medically trained, but I do not see the necessity for that, and maybe the Minister can tell us why that is the case.”
“The number is likely to continue to rise because the global trend is for people to have children later in life. The state should not decide who is or is not able to become a parent and get access to more than one cycle of IVF treatment. That, to me and to many others, seems cruel. <BR /> <BR />It is also worth noting that delayed parenthood is, in part, due to the financial pressures associated with children. Once again, class is the key determinant in the debate, as it is with many other health issues. The cost-of-living crisis is getting worse, and childcare has become unaffordable for too many families. It is totally unfair that the ability to have children depends on income.”
“I thank the Member for raising that point. I pay tribute to her and the other Members who have spoken about their experiences. Finances should not come into healthcare decisions; it is not supposed to come into those decisions. However, the Member and others have been told that their chances of having a baby depend on whether they have money or can borrow money and get into debt, which is completely unacceptable. I thank the Member for her intervention, and I agree with her point. <BR /> <BR />The wider issue is that one in seven heterosexual couples is now struggling with infertility. The issue has increased over the past 20 years. In 2023, approximately 20,000 children were born after IVF treatment, whereas there were just under 9,000 in the year 2000.”
“The limited system that exists puts an unnecessary emotional and financial burden on those who are struggling with infertility, and that should be a cause for concern for everybody here. It also creates a tiered system where those who can afford multiple rounds of private IVF have a better chance of having children than those who cannot. Far too many eligible patients are being forced to spend thousands of pounds of their own money or get into debt to fund private IVF treatment, and that is completely unacceptable, but it is also normalised.”
“I thank the Members who tabled the motion. I pay tribute to the people in the Gallery who raised the important issue. <BR /> <BR />As we have heard, the NICE guidelines recommend that the NHS should offer three full cycles of IVF treatment to eligible parents, and that has proved to be the most clinically effective method. The method has been adopted in Scotland, and there is no reason why parents, or those who want to be parents, should be denied the opportunity. In Wales, patients are entitled to two cycles of IVF treatment under the NHS, but patients in the North are entitled to only one cycle. Once again, we are being left behind, and this place is an outlier. <BR /> <BR />The ability to have a family should not be a postcode lottery, but, unfortunately, much of our health system is just that.”
“I commend the First Minister on her strong anti-racist statement, which is really important at this time. Obviously, our first concern is for the migrants, asylum seekers and people of colour who are under the threat of violence and are likely to be so over the summer. A lot of people have been financially penalised by the violence over the last two weeks because they have lost their homes and businesses. Have the Executive discussed financially supporting people who have been affected by the racist violence? If not, when will that happen?”
“I thank the Minister for giving way. He knows all too well that I have consistently said that this place is underfunded. I have also consistently raised the need for proper taxes on profits, something that I do not think that the Minister has articulated, but if there is a meeting with the new Chancellor, I will be happy to go along if he wants to bring me along with him.”
“<BR /> <BR />I would have preferred to support the motion unamended, as it refused to let Executive parties off the hook and demanded that the Minister explain to every worker and family who is bracing for the squeeze why, in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis, the answer to underfunding is to fund our services even less. Hopefully, the Minister can explain that.”
“Shamefully, the Secretary of State ignored the voices of community workers — the experts on the ground — who warned about the disastrous consequences of that. The Executive refused to step in with the necessary funding, however. Tens of thousands of vulnerable adults and young people have now lost access to employment support. Hundreds of jobs have already started to disappear from the sector. It is simply not good enough for the Executive constantly to point the finger at Westminster while refusing to move mountains to support people and the services on which they rely.”
“We are therefore all in agreement, or are for the most part, that we are funded below our level of need. Many of us know that Westminster does not give a damn about the lives of working-class people here. <BR /> <BR />When, however, the Finance Minister tells us in the Chamber and at the Finance Committee that the only lack of urgency about the Budget is across the water, I have to push back and strongly disagree. The Executive have had months. The choice to drift towards a de facto Budget cut is one that was made in this Building by Ministers from here. We cannot rage against austerity from London while quietly imposing it from Belfast. The community and voluntary sector was dealt a massive blow back in April with the re-profiling of the local growth fund.”
“House prices here are rising at roughly six times the UK average, which is putting homeownership, and even rent, out of reach for an entire generation. Food and energy prices are still through the roof, forcing thousands of families to make impossible choices. Meanwhile, supermarkets make record profits and not a word is uttered about it. That is the reality in working-class communities across the North: people are not getting by; they are going without. On top of that, the Executive propose to spend 5% less. To be fair to the Finance Minister, he is right to say, as he has done consistently, that Westminster has short-changed this place for years. There is no disagreement from me on that. Nobody should pretend that the Labour Party has been any better than the Tories were before it.”
“It is not the people who fail to agree the Budget who will pay; it is workers and families, who are already being squeezed from every side. <BR /> <BR />Hospital doctors have been balloted for strike action after being offered a pay rise that does not come close to undoing 15 years of real-term pay erosion. Health and education workers are being driven towards the picket lines simply to stop their wages falling further behind. Those are the same people who hold our public services together, and they are being told to do more for less year after year. The cost-of-living crisis is now a permanent fixture in politics. In Belfast alone — to take one example — the average price of a new let private rent is now over £1,100 a month.”
“to Keir Starmer and "Good riddance" to the man, because he was a disaster for working-class communities in Ireland, England and elsewhere. His Budgets have been absolutely brutal. <BR /> <BR />As has been said in the debate already, from the end of July, with no Budget agreed, the Executive will be legally able to spend just 95% of last year's allocation. That is a self-imposed 5% cut, with no vote and no mandate from the people who will pay for it. To make matters worse, that 95% is measured against the opening figure, before a single penny of in-year funding. If we layer inflation on top, we are looking at a cut that bites far deeper than the 5% mentioned, affecting services that are already stretched to breaking point.”
“I hope that Members will join me in saying, "Slán"”
“Does he have any concern about that, and, if he does, what action will he take?”
“I pay tribute to all of the families who have spoken out about Muckamore and the abuse, especially my constituents and Alicia Fox, Laura Sharp and their families. The Minister mentioned the trust. Does he have any concerns about the approach of its legal team? My understanding is that, at best, it has been obstructive towards the families and that it has probably been worse than that. It is often said that a fish rots from the head, and I believe that the rot in Muckamore started with the leadership at the Belfast Trust and at Department level. As was touched on, there is huge concern, Minister, about accountability at senior levels of the health service. People at the heart of the health service and the Department from the time of the events of the Muckamore inquiry have been rewarded with well-paid jobs and, in some cases, royal titles.”