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 3 of 83.
“<BR /> <BR />To return to the Minister's questions earlier about my amendment, from my understanding of her intervention, the Minister said that that would be covered in the PACE code. If she and other Members have no issue with the principle of and intent behind the amendment, there should be no issue with putting it through and putting it in the Bill.”
“Amendment No 38 makes all those other protections actually work, because it puts the information in the citizen's hands rather than leaving it locked inside a PSNI computer or database somewhere. The presumption of innocence should, at the very least, mean that an innocent person is told that the state is holding their DNA and why. Working-class communities that have lived under the eye of the state for generations know exactly what it is like to be watched, stopped, photographed and recorded. For people whom I represent in West Belfast, the principle that you have the right to know what the state holds on you is extremely important indeed. That is the bare minimum that a person is owed when the state takes parts of their body and keeps that. For that reason, I ask all Members to support the amendment.”
“It also says that, if any of that changes later — say, if the clock is reset on the retention period because you are charged or convicted, or because a national security determination is made — you are told in writing as soon as possible. <BR /> <BR />We are rightly debating amendments to give people the right to review their retained material and the right to ask for confirmation that their data has been destroyed. Those are obviously welcome and important amendments. However, I say to Members that a right that you have never been told about is not really a right in anybody's definition. You cannot appeal a decision that you do not know was taken. You cannot ask for your DNA to be deleted if you do not know that it is still being held.”
“I will move on to my own amendment No 38. It is based on quite a simple idea, which is that, if the state is to take a person's DNA or fingerprints and hold them on a police database for years or decades, the least that it can do is tell that person the truth about what it is doing. The amendment simply says that, when your biometric material is taken, you are handed, in writing, five plain facts. There is nothing groundbreaking here. Those facts are: the legal basis on which your data is taken, how long it can be kept, when it must be destroyed, what your rights are and how you can find out more about it.”
“A case-by-case model is the preferred model. The current one is too blanket. The Minister should look at a case-by-case model to explore what the best options are. That would be a better preferred model in a general sense, rather than any prescriptive model that I could give on my feet here.”
“<BR /> <BR />In summary, my party and I will support moving away from indefinite retention because the current law is an ongoing breach of people's rights, and that has to end. However, we have serious concerns that the photographs power is a surveillance framework that is being smuggled in through the back door, with the promise to fill in the detail later.”
“I appreciate the Minister's giving us that information. While I think that the concern about independence remains, I appreciate that information. <BR /> <BR />I also ask whether the commissioner will be given the remit to keep the whole retention regime, including looking at a future photographs and facial recognition framework, under meaningful review. The Committee was right to be alarmed that Part 1 has no commencement time frame. It wants to insert a five-year backstop. Every day that the old indefinite regime stays in force is another day that the state is doing to people exactly what the courts told it to stop doing. I press the Minister to move this at speed.”
“OK. I thank the Minister and the Chair for that. <BR /> <BR />On the position of the commissioner for the retention of biometric material, I think that one of the Members opposite raised the question of independence from the Department and PSNI. If I heard correctly, the Minister has the power to appoint the commissioner. Did I pick that up correctly?”
“The Committee acknowledged that that is being done because the policy work and public consultation have not been undertaken. <BR /> <BR />I have concerns about that, regardless of who the Minister is now or may be in the future. What does a framework for the retention and use of photographs mean in 2026? It means a facial image database. Facial images are the raw material of facial recognition and biometric surveillance. It seems that, on a matter that goes to the heart of everyone's privacy, we are being asked to hand the Department a blank cheque, by regulation, with a fraction of the scrutiny that primary legislation gets.”
“OK. <BR /> <BR />There are also serious concerns about the provisions related to police photographs, and I hope that either the Minister or the Chair will come in as I raise issues. The Minister's amendments — the new clause and the new schedule — give the police a power to take photographs and compel people to return to a station at a specified date and time in order to be photographed, fingerprinted and sampled. That is being presented as an operational fix, putting photographs on the same footing as DNA and fingerprints. However, far more significant is the Committee's amendment that creates an enabling power: a power for the Department to bring in, by regulation, a whole framework for the retention and use of police photographs within five years.”
“I will give way in a second. <BR /> <BR />Those amendments replace the original long, fixed and stigmatising data retention periods for children with a short review-gated model, which is the right approach and one that is rooted in children's rights and protection. Those are not only my words; that is the view of many human rights organisations and children's rights organisations that addressed the Committee. <BR /> <BR />I will give way to the Minister.”
“They do stigmatise young people, despite what the Minister said earlier. If the Minister is serious about strengthening children's rights, the state should not be empowered and enabled to build a database that holds on to information, not exclusively but primarily, relating to working-class teenagers' DNA for 50 years because of a mistake or a non-serious or less serious crime. I thank the Sinn Féin Members for raising those points and for their amendments.”
“I thank Members for intervening. I agree with the Member. <BR /> <BR />I will move on slightly. As we have heard, excessive data retention periods have a particularly harmful effect on young people.”
“I will come to the Member in a second. <BR /> <BR />I asked the Minister about it because she drafted the Bill and has the resources to put it in place. She has taken a different perspective, which she is entitled to do, and that is why I posed the question. <BR /> <BR />I will give way to the Member for East Derry.”
“I appreciate that, Minister. I do not understand why it is not practical, but I will move on.”
“I thank the Minister for her intervention. I suggest that a case-by-case basis is a better format than 75 years, which is indefinite retention by another name.”
“I am happy to give way to the Minister if she can tell us where the proportionality is in the Bill? Why is it 75 years and not a model tied to the seriousness of the offence and the evidence of reoffending on a case-by-case basis? I will give way.”
“For the best part of two decades, rights have been breached here because holding biometric data indefinitely breaches article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The courts have plainly said that, and successive Ministers have sat on their hands. We should welcome the move away from a blanket, indefinite retention of biometric data, but that is only the bare minimum required to stop the state breaking the law. <BR /> <BR />As Members have stated, the Bill replaces a keep-it-for-ever model with a 70/50/25-year model. For most people, 75 years is their entire adult life, and that is indefinite retention by another name for a huge number of people. I believe that the experts who came to Committee said that we should move towards a genuine proportionality model.”
“There are a lot of technical amendments in the group but also a lot of important issues that Members have addressed. I am not on the Committee, but it is my right, as it is the right of any Member, to table amendments. I am sure that Committee members will keep me right if I go astray. <BR /> <BR />This part of the Bill contains some of the most important and fundamental justice questions. How much data will the state keep and for how long, particularly if you have done nothing wrong? As other Members have said, we are debating ending the indefinite retention of DNA and fingerprints because the state was dragged into doing something not once but twice by the European Court of Human Rights.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I knew you would not forget about me.”
“I appreciate that. Does the Member agree that that is somewhat voluntary, because people do not have to travel by aeroplane, whereas the data that we are talking about is being held without people's consent, in many cases? There is a bit of similarity, but it is slightly like comparing apples with pears.”
“I appreciate the Member giving way. He has been very kind with his time. <BR /> <BR />I mean this in the most genuine way. When he was on the Health Committee, the Member expressed concerns about COVID vaccines and different issues, which is not wholly disconnected because that is about the storing and presentation of data. The Member has, perhaps, undergone a bit of a conversion as Chair of the Justice Committee, because this is a whole lot of data that we are consenting to being held. I am not OK with that, but other Members seem to think that it is OK for the PSNI to hold that amount of data on people. Does he not have serious concerns about that? With respect, I am not hearing that from him.”
“I appreciate that. Will the Member agree that the term "breach of the peace" is a pretty wide definition? I was previously in a court case for protesting peacefully, and that was classed as breach of the peace. Obviously, there are more serious elements of breach of the peace. Is he concerned that that quite loose term could be used to keep people's data for quite a long time where, by most people's definition, the person may or may not have been involved in a serious crime? Does he have any concerns about that?”
“Although it is not directly the responsibility of the First Minister and deputy First Minister, pressure from them could help to resolve the dispute. I call on them to intervene and put pressure on the British Government, the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State, Hilary Benn, because the British Government are paying Sodexo, and it is Sodexo that is coming for workers. I call on those Ministers to intervene, apply pressure and stand by those workers, who keep the building operating. The first picket line begins on Thursday at 12.00 noon. PCS has extended an invitation to everybody here, and all members of the public who are interested in workers' rights, to come along.”
“Unfortunately, in different sectors across the board, staff and workers are told by management and companies that they no longer have a job. The workers in Erskine House who are employed by Sodexo will take strike action later this week. As I am sure that Members know, Sodexo is not some small-scale corner shop cleaning company; it is a huge multinational organisation that operates in some 45 countries across the world and made at least £1 billion in profit last year. <BR /> <BR />Those vital workers keep Erskine House operating. They keep it clean, they allow people to come in and out of the building, and they supply food in the building. Obviously, the building does not operate without their labour. Their strike begins on Thursday.”
“I will briefly bring Members' attention to a workforce dispute that will come to a head in the coming days. Erskine House is known to many Members here. Some of us, including me, have been outside it on many occasions, protesting against government decisions. Occasionally, I have been inside it, having meetings with Ministers and officials. Other Members have done likewise. <BR /> <BR />Erskine House, like this Building, does not exist out of thin air; it exists due to the work and labour of people who are employed to clean, act as porters and receptionists, and perform other roles inside the building. The workers in Erskine House are in the Public and Commercial Services Union (PCS), and 100% of them have voted to take strike action. The nature of the dispute is against forced redundancies.”
“I appreciate the Member giving way. I share her concerns. This is the Department cracking the whip instead of consulting. She will be aware that, when there is a health strike — the Member to my right referred to health strikes — the health unions put in place derogations, which, as I understand it, is not in legislation but is done through cooperative working and talking between the unions and the trusts and the Department. Does the Member agree that that is generally a better approach than the cracking-the-whip approach that the Department has taken with this Bill?”
“Whatever their view on religious education reform — I think that we all agree that change is overdue — I urge all MLAs to ask themselves whether threatening teachers with sanctions for taking part in lawful industrial action will fix our broken education system. <BR /> <BR />I oppose the Bill. Everyone in the Chamber who says that they value our teachers should vote against it as well.”
“five times. It is clear what the Minister is trying to do. If we were to take him at his word that he really cared about safeguarding, he would deal head-on with the following risks: the fact that our children are being taught in schools that are riddled with black mould, which is unacceptable; the fact that our classroom assistants and teachers face physical violence in the course of their work; and the fact that our education workforce, including school leaders, has passed the point of burnout and exhaustion, because staff have been managing societal crises in mental health, poverty and SEN complexity with little or no support.”
“<BR /> <BR />Teachers do not want to take industrial action; they want to do what they do every day — educating the next generation — but they have been doing that in an increasingly unsustainable and unsafe environment. When teachers take industrial action, they do so on behalf of the entire school community. An attack on them for that is an attack on the entire trade union movement and, more broadly, on people who believe in democracy. <BR /> <BR />The Minister said that the legislation is just about safeguarding. The short Bill — it consists of four pages — uses the phrase:”
“The Executive have underfunded education for years. Schools are in debt, buildings are crumbling, SEN is in crisis and teachers are dealing with workloads that the Department's independent review described as "unmanageable". Rather than break that cycle and invest properly in the profession, the Minister wants to muzzle teachers who dare to challenge his agenda. The NASUWT is in a formal trade dispute with the Minister and the Department because they have failed to implement the recommendations of that workload review. To introduce these proposals against that backdrop is to act entirely in bad faith, and the Minister knows it. It damages trust between teachers and the Department at exactly the moment when meaningful engagement is needed most.”
“They are highly controversial, have serious implications for workers' rights and remain deeply contested across the teaching and education sector. I am opposed to the Bill not just because of how it would punish teachers in that regard but because it could and would set a precedent.”
“Nobody in the Chamber should be in any doubt about that. However, not just in my view but in that of many people, the Minister has deliberately used that legal necessity as cover for something far more sinister, which is a provision designed to punish teachers — I repeat: punish teachers — for taking lawful industrial action. I am concerned that it could create a chill factor for anyone to be told that a Minister can dictate to unions what action they can or cannot take. I fear that that would send a bad message and set a bad precedent. We have to be honest about what is happening. The two issues in the Bill are entirely separate and should be treated as such. The religious education provisions arise from a specific court judgement. The ETI proposals are something else entirely.”
“A lot of scorn was poured on the fact that trade unions got in touch with MLAs, with some suggesting that it was political. God forbid that trade unionists get involved in political debates. I welcome the contact from trade unionists from the NASUWT and from the Irish National Teachers' Organisation (INTO) as well as principals and others who emailed me and, I am sure, other Members over the weekend. That was important. It is important that our legislation be shaped by the people who are primarily affected by it, who, in this case, are education workers and teachers. I declare an interest: I have three siblings involved in the teaching sector. <BR /> <BR />The Bill is a Trojan horse. Nobody disputes that religious education needs reform and oversight. The Supreme Court was clear on that, and schools deserve urgent clarity.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. Does the Member share my concern that the Minister, based on his intervention, would support extending the ban to social workers, who support children and old people who are at risk? Going by the logic of his intervention, he is against those workers taking strike action as well. The Bill seems to be a dangerous, slippery slope, whereby the Education Minister is saying who can strike and when and where they can strike. Does the Member share that concern held by me and others?”
“It will not take as long as the previous intervention. Do the Member and his party share concerns when the Education Minister — indeed, any Minister — dictates to unions and workers the type of industrial action that is acceptable? That is what the Minister is doing with the Bill. I am deeply concerned that it will set a precedent for other workers to be treated in a similar way. Is the Member concerned about that?”
“I recently heard from parents and grandparents of children at St Teresa's Primary School in West Belfast about extending its speech and language unit beyond Key Stage 1. For some inexplicable reason, such provision does not exist in that school, when it does so elsewhere. I had a very productive meeting with the EA, which is open to looking at that. Minister, has the matter come across your desk? If it has not, would you be keen to explore it?”
“I thank the Member for giving way. Does she agree that, sometimes, the process that people have to go through can be a long one, especially for independent Members or Members who represent smaller parties?”
“Scotland strengthened its legislation in 2023 and closed loopholes in the Hunting Act 2004. This Bill aims to do the same by recognising trail hunting as a smokescreen for illegal hunting. No animal should be torn apart by dogs for sport. It is time to end that barbaric, colonial practice, and I urge Members to support the Bill.”
“Some 80% of people said in their responses that ending hunting with dogs was important to them. Members can raise different views, as they are entitled to do, but they should note those significant figures. The public have clearly spoken, and the Assembly should listen. <BR /> <BR />We should also recognise that there is no universal rural experience, which was touched on by some Members. Farmers struggling in difficult economic conditions are not the natural allies of the hunt. Many have banned hunts from their land because of biosecurity risks, damaged fences and disturbed livestock. I have been contacted, as other Members may have been, by many rural farmers who have indicated that. <BR /> <BR />Legal hunting with dogs provides cover for illegal activity, including badger baiting, one of the most sadistic practices imaginable.”
“No, thanks. You did not extend that favour to me, so I will move on. <BR /> <BR />I am content that the Bill contains sufficient exemptions for the legitimate use of dogs, including hunting pests, protecting livestock and carrying out humane killing and certain management of wild mammals. That is clear in the Bill, so, again, a bit of misrepresentation has taken place today. <BR /> <BR />The fact is that an overwhelming majority of the public support the Bill. A LucidTalk poll found that 76% of people in the North want fox hunting to be banned, and those figures generally hold in rural and urban areas. The Member's consultation, as we heard, drew over 12,000 responses, which was sniffed at, but that is more than the number of responses to most ministerial consultations and consultations on private Members' Bills.”
“For the majority of people and organisations that are lobbying against the Bill, hunting with dogs is not about pest control or land management; it is a blood sport with deep roots in British aristocratic culture, in which wild animals are chased to exhaustion and torn apart for the entertainment of a tiny, privileged minority. Dressing it up in the language of countryside tradition does not change that fact. It is nothing short of cruelty. I emphasise that it is a bit rich for the Members to my right, who lambast even limited forms of climate change legislation that will protect and conserve the environment, to use that language to endorse cruel hunting with animals.”
“My party and I back the legislation without reservation. As has been said, England, Scotland and Wales have taken a stand against the shameful practice of hunting with dogs. I say this to the Member for Upper Bann: just because a Member is not in the Chamber does not mean that they are not listening to the debate upstairs. He knows that all too well, but he refused to allow an intervention on that basis. I will move on. <BR /> <BR />It should be regarded as a source of shame that the North is an outlier on hunting with dogs, as on many other things. The Assembly has a chance to put the practice to an end.”
“I commend the Member for bringing the Bill to the House. It is hard work. It is not easy to do a private Member's Bill. I commend him for his work. I also take the opportunity to say that I hope that my private Member's Bill will make its passage through the House as well. <BR /> <BR />As a side comment, I suspect that, had I said half of what was said about drafters, I would have been kicked out of this place, but maybe we will leave that for another day. <BR /> <BR />As a dog walker whose dog occasionally chases a squirrel up a tree, I will not be criminalised. I have no fear of being criminalised, locked up or fined or of facing a court case because of the Bill. That was scaremongering. I was going to use the term — well, it was scaremongering. <BR /> <BR />I thank the Member for introducing the Bill.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. The Member mentioned that he is a keen conservationist. I remind the Member that he is quite often one of the most vociferous voices against climate change legislation being rolled out and passed in the North, so how does he square the circle of being a conservationist but also being dead against climate legislation?”
“Instead, they hand tax breaks and rate reliefs to corporations that turn over millions and, in some cases, billions of pounds in revenue and profit while funnelling money away from public services and into the profiteering private sector, with no objection from this or any other Minister. Poverty is a political choice, and the Executive have chosen to make ordinary people poor while the rich get richer. Without mass pressure from below, Stormont, in its current form, will never do more than tinker at the edges. That has always been the way. In truth, it is people power that will force change and eradicate the scourge of poverty from our communities.”
“That is not true, Minister. I sent you a detailed document several weeks ago. If you have not read it, that is your fault. Maybe you should go and read it. It details the fact that most European countries and North American cities have a form of rent control. The Minister repeats the myth that rent controls do not work. They do not work for landlords, and maybe that is why the Minister is opposed to them, but they do work in that they reduce rent for renters. Minister, I suggest that you read that report and come back to me on it. <BR /> <BR />Westminster and Stormont could eradicate poverty if they wanted to.”
“Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. <BR /> <BR />I do not know whether the Member was listening, but I have two pages of notes that I just spoke about. I urge her, if she wishes to reduce poverty, to put pressure on her Minister to start implementing the rent controls and the no-fault eviction ban to which the Minister and the Member's party are completely opposed. If the Member is interested in tackling poverty, she should put pressure on her Minister in that way.”
“Rather than facing that failure, we have seen cynical sectarianism, the scapegoating of migrants and the mimicking of Trump's anti-woke, pro-war crusades from the Minister and the DUP in general: anything to distract from the housing crisis and the general rise in poverty, healthcare waiting lists and other things that are wreaking havoc on our communities.”
“As the Committee's report makes clear, poverty can be tackled only in a genuinely cross-cutting, cross-departmental way. The structural drivers of housing, childcare, rural transport and sustainable funding for the community and voluntary sector, which Members have mentioned, require coordinated action to be taken across every Department, and I am not convinced that that is happening yet. The answers to tackling poverty are not a mystery; they are in the expert panel's original proposals. The Minister does not need to look far. <BR /> <BR />The decades-long failure to properly tackle poverty belongs to the entire Stormont Executive.”