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 30 of 83.
“Those who look after our children, older people and those with physical and mental illnesses and disabilities are usually women, and young carers are often girls. For many years, women have been described as the shock absorbers of poverty. They lessen the harsh impacts of austerity through their unpaid labour, and it is labour. That includes unpaid care, which acts as an invisible subsidy to the global economy. <BR /> <BR />I commend the motion and urge the Minister to operate at speed to implement a carer recognition payment. I welcome his commitment to engage with DWP, but he needs to set up a scheme urgently. This is too important an issue to leave carers behind.”
“Executive parties handed over £73 million last year in rates relief to big companies such as Coca-Cola, Moy Park, Kingspan and many more. <BR /> <BR />Updates to the relevant IT systems should not be cost-prohibitive or complicated. The change has already been made in Scotland. I welcome the Minister's commitment to engage with the Department for Work and Pensions, but I suggest that we need to move at speed on the issue. I and many other people ask, "If the Executive are able to find cash for landlords, big businesses and arms companies, why can money not be found for carers?". That is a fairly reasonable question. <BR /> <BR />Some Members raised the issue of the gender dimension of unpaid care. That is an absolutely vital and important point.”
“<BR /> <BR />As was mentioned, the cost of implementing a carer's allowance supplement would be around £26 million per year, but I think that the Department has updated its estimated cost of all the additional welfare mitigations recommended by the independent review, including the cost of the recognition payment. The Minister should commit to publishing those updated costs. Assuming that the cost is around the £26 million figure, the Executive could find that in various avenues already. A sum of £3·4 million spent on temporary accommodation is largely going into the pockets of landlords and hotel owners. Invest NI is spending £20 million on companies with questionable human rights practices, to put it mildly.”
“Carers need long-term, sustainable services to meet their needs across the community and voluntary sector and the statutory sector. <BR /> <BR />In June last year, as was mentioned, a petition with 1,300 signatures calling for a carers' recognition payment was handed to the Minister. At the time, he said that delivery would be dependent on supporting funding from the Executive, and he said something similar today. If all Executive parties vote for the motion, which, it seems, will be the case, I hope that that can be considered support for a recognition payment — who will oppose it? — as well as a young carers' recognition payment. If cross-party support exists for the motion, it will follow logically that funding will come.”
“What is the point of devolution if the Executive are not willing to break with a broken welfare system that already punishes the poor? The Minister talked about finance as well, but I say that we cannot afford not to implement a support scheme. <BR /> <BR />I will make a few more comments before I close. We heard a lot of good words and warm words from MLAs and Executive parties about the invaluable work that carers do, but, over the decades, we have not seen much action from the Executive. The carers' strategy, for example, is almost 20 years old. The support for carers fund helped many organisations to run projects that provided vital support for carers, but, shockingly, the fourth and final funding round was two years ago. Short-term injections of funding into the community and voluntary sector will not cut it.”
“I and my party welcome that support, and I assume and hope that carers welcome it. The reality is, however, that there is a lack of support services, especially respite. That would suggest that, so far, that support is only rhetorical. <BR /> <BR />The Minister also talked about the difficulty of divergence in welfare support and payments. I would say that divergence exists and is already in place. There is more financial support available for carers in Scotland that is not available here. The motion proposes that such support should be introduced. Carers and people who work in the sector in England say that support and services are available there that are not available to carers here. There is already divergence, but it is divergence that does not suit people and their carers here.”
“That is, obviously, a connected issue. <BR /> <BR />Timothy Gaston talked about the issues that come from this corner, shedding light on matters that are not being addressed by the Executive or the Opposition, and I tend to agree with that position. He talked about the inadequacy of benefits and support for carer's allowance whilst MLA pay is increased, and I also agree with that. Claire Sugden talked about people giving their lives to caring roles and responsibilities. She said that carers do not look for recognition or reward but deserve it, and I concur. She talked about the health and social care system being overstretched. <BR /> <BR />The Minister said a lot. I cannot go through it all, but he said that he supported carers. That is welcome, and Members expressed that support throughout the House.”
“He also referenced a carer in his constituency who provides 24/7 care, 365 days a year. Kate Nicholl spoke about two young carers whom she came across a number of years ago, who were caring for their parent with cancer. The work done by young carers is a Trojan effort that is under-recognised and undervalued. She also mentioned an unpaid carer who had to leave her job. <BR /> <BR />Sinéad McLaughlin said that unpaid carers were the backbone of our society and that the health system, which is already on its knees, would be worse without carers. That is absolutely true. She also mentioned childcare, and I note that, today, a provider announced an increase in the cost of childcare of an extra £8 a day. I have already been messaged by a health worker who is considering leaving her job in the health service because of the cost of childcare.”
“<BR /> <BR />Mark Durkan supported the motion and the amendment and talked about the Herculean efforts made by carers, which, obviously, is the case. He talked about carers facing the poverty level, and he said that the Government need to care for carers. Linda Dillon echoed that point, and it is absolutely true. She talked about the sacrifices that carers make and how caring touches the families of all of us here. It does, and, if it has not yet done so, it will. She also talked about how the welfare system does not support carers, and she hoped that this is the day that we stop failing carers; I hope so as well. <BR /> <BR />Maurice Bradley indicated his support and talked about the sacrifices of carers and how services would collapse without them. I thank him for his support.”
“<BR /> <BR />Colm Gildernew mentioned that carers' work saves the health service large sums of money and resource, and that sentiment was echoed by Robbie Butler. Colm advocated better paid leave arrangements for those who look after their loved ones, and he said that it should be a societal responsibility, not an individual one. <BR /> <BR />Brian Kingston said that carers play a vital role in society, but he pointed out that finance is a limiting factor, and that was echoed in some of what the Minister said. Brian supported the amendment; I assume that he supports the motion, and I am happy for his party to do so if, as it seems, that is the case. Robbie Butler also mentioned support for cross-departmental working. The amendment teased that out, which was important for the debate and for a strategy going forward.”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank Members for their contributions. I am in the unusual position where people are thanking me for bringing a motion to the House. I am happy to do it more regularly if people want me to. It has been an honour for me to fight for carers with the motion. Hopefully, we will have tangible solutions, as Sian said. <BR /> <BR />The motion and the amendment do not resolve all the problems, but all Members who contributed to the debate raised important aspects, including paid carers' leave and the financial difficulties faced by carers, which Sian and other Members mentioned. Sian and Linda Dillon spoke about carers being forced to leave jobs, which is something that I have been hearing about even over the last few days. A huge number of people have been impacted by that.”
“Without your unseen and undervalued work, society could not function; it would absolutely collapse. It is time that your work is recognised, appreciated and valued and that you have the support that you deserve. I hope that Members will support the motion and the amendment.”
“<BR /> <BR />I pay tribute to the organisations that support and advocate for unpaid carers, organisations such as Carers NI, Action for Children, Barnardo's, the Colin Neighbourhood Partnership, Young Lives vs Cancer, the Women's Support Network, Alzheimer's Society NI, Cause, Action Mental Health and many, many more organisations and individuals. <BR /> <BR />Finally, I thank the 222,000 unpaid carers across the North.”
“<BR /> <BR />Rather than an increase in respite placements and day services for those with complex needs, however, we have seen the number of respite beds being cut, cut and cut again. Whilst day opportunities, rather than day centres, may be best for many disabled people, for those with complex needs, specialist day centres are the only way to ensure that they have a social outlet and a place to meet people outside their immediate family. That is something that everybody needs and deserves. Without provision of those essential services, a carer's recognition payment will be just a drop in the ocean of what is really needed.”
“For those caring for adult children, when their child was in school, the school was able to safely care for them during the day, and that gave the parents a much-needed break — a chance to get a few hours' sleep, do the shopping or have a coffee with a friend. However, once a child with complex needs turns 19, the chances are that they will transition from school to being stuck at home, dependent on their parents, usually their mother, for care and company 24/7, 365 days a year. That is unfair and totally unacceptable for the carer but also for the disabled person, who has a right to be part of society and to have a break from their carer just as the carer might need a break from them.”
“The independent review of welfare mitigations concluded that a supplement would effectively target low-income households, women and families with a disabled child and, especially, families with a disabled adult. The cost of implementing a carer's allowance supplement would be around £26 million a year. My message to the Minister and the Executive is to get on with the scheme and implement it. <BR /> <BR />We need to see more than a token of recognition. What is urgently and desperately needed is proper investment in services for carers and people being cared for. For decades, carers have been asking for more respite services and for day services that are appropriate and safe for their loved ones.”
“<BR /> <BR />A carer's allowance supplementary scheme — a recognition payment — was recommended by the independent review of welfare mitigations and the Carer Poverty Commission for the North. That would provide a payment of around £270 every six months, mirroring what is already in place in Scotland. It is critical that that payment is disregarded as income for means-tested benefits so that people are not penalised. A carer's allowance supplement would immediately lift 3,400 carers out of poverty and 2,500 out of deep poverty. For that reason alone, it is worth supporting such a small cost to the centre, to the Government and to the Department.”
“That is really no surprise when we consider that the carer's allowance provides just £81·90p a week, and that is for only those who provide unpaid care for at least 35 hours per week. That means, in reality, that carer's allowance is paid at a rate of £2·34p per hour — £2·34p per hour for a full-time job. Is that what we really think carers are worth? <BR /> <BR />A single penny over the earnings threshold of £151 a week means that a person will lose their entire carer's allowance payment. That is how the Executive treat the people who are propping up our NHS, our economy and our society. That should be a source of shame for every politician and every Executive party that have continually let carers down year on year.”
“<BR /> <BR />As our health and social care system slowly collapses as waiting lists spiral and access to primary and community care is increasingly limited, the state relies on unpaid carers to shoulder the burden. We know and, I think, the state knows that those carers will not walk away from their responsibilities. I would say that the state exploits the bonds that unpaid carers have with their loved ones and pays them a pittance in return. <BR /> <BR />One in four unpaid carers in the North lives in poverty. For those in receipt of carer's allowance, the poverty rate is a shocking 46% — almost one in two. Moreover, 64% of people on carer's allowance struggle to afford electricity and gas, while 60% struggle to afford clothes and shoes. You could not make this stuff up.”
“Universal credit insists that he is well enough to work, but his GP, the clinical expert who knows him best, says otherwise. <BR /> <BR />I want to mention the young carers whom I met today and the many young carers throughout our society who do Trojan work but are often patronised and dismissed and have to jump through hoops and over hurdles just to get basic information and, in some cases, services that they do not always get. <BR /> <BR />We have seen the number of carers providing more than 50 hours of care per week increase dramatically from 56,300 in 2011 to almost 69,000 in 2021. The state depends on those carers, yet, in reality, it does next to nothing to protect their physical and mental health.”
“She has been diagnosed with PTSD and anxiety. Unfortunately, there is a high level of PTSD among many carers; some have said that it is on a par with people who have been involved in fighting wars. Deborah said that she looks at the post every day to see whether there is anything else coming in apart from bills looking for money from her. <BR /> <BR />I also want to mention Brian, who is a constituent of mine but could not be here today. He is a carer for his mum, and his part-time job offered him a lifeline and gave him a sense of independence and purpose outside of his caring role. When he lost that job, his mental health suffered massively. He is now a full-time carer and struggles to cope financially and mentally. His universal credit (UC) overpayment deductions are absolutely crippling him.”
“<BR /> <BR />It is also the case that some carers, especially those who care for an adult child with complex needs or for older people with dementia and whose caring responsibilities are so onerous that employment is completely out of the question, have to provide it 24/7, 365 days and nights of the year. Respite does not exist for those people. Their loved one's complex needs mean that they often provide what is, essentially, nursing care, yet they work far longer hours than any nurse, often just to keep their loved one alive. <BR /> <BR />I also heard from Deborah, a single parent who cares for an adult child with complex mental health needs as well as her mother, who has dementia. Deborah had to give up her full-time job as a nurse in order to care full-time for her family. Caring has left her physically and mentally unwell.”
“Last week and today, I had the privilege of hearing from carers and those who work with carers about their experiences. Some are in the Public Gallery today, and I welcome them. <BR /> <BR />I heard from Barbara, who is the parent of and carer for two children. She had to give up her job when her employer, the Civil Service, refused to allow her to reduce her hours. In the end, Barbara's request for just a two-hour reduction in her working hours was denied. Now, the only form of employment that works for her is self-employment. She struggles to afford heating, petrol for 40-mile round trips to the hospital and shopping for her children's specific dietary requirements. In her words, she feels completely forgotten about and ignored, and that is true for many carers.”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. From the outset, I want to make it clear that the motion's call for a carer's allowance supplement scheme or carer's recognition payment is simply a token of society's appreciation of the work that carers do every day. In addition to a carer's recognition payment, what is needed is wider support for unpaid carers that includes appropriate services and respite care, as well as paid carer's leave. For that reason, I support the Alliance Party amendment, and I thank the Members for tabling it. <BR /> <BR />Unpaid carers are the invisible hand that keeps the economy going. The economic contribution of unpaid carers in the North is £5·8 billion a year. To put that in context, that equates to around 75% of the Department of Health's entire budget. The non-economic value of the work of unpaid carers is even greater.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Bill represents a dangerous move away from what has worked — a public health approach to tackling smoking — towards a prohibitionist approach with untold negative consequences. Whilst I may be in a minority of one, I do not give my consent to it.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Bill is a regrettable move away from treating smoking as a public health challenge towards treating it as a new chapter in the war on drugs. The global war on drugs has totally failed, largely because efforts are focused on a hard-line, law and order approach to reducing the supply of drugs. In the North, attempts to curb the supply of drugs via criminalisation have actually seen paramilitaries thrive and grow, jails filled and families absolutely destroyed. A public health approach would, instead, focus on the demand for a drug such as tobacco — the demands and the pressures of everyday life. A focus on demand, rather than supply, would involve measures such as licensing, taxation, product and advertising regulation and education. That is what has been proven to work. That is a public health approach.”
“I commend those in the PHA, the trusts and the various organisations who advocate a public health approach to this very serious and important issue. <BR /> <BR />The age at which a person can legally smoke was raised from 16 to 18, which saw a 30% reduction in smoking in that age group. Many would suggest that the next logical step in an effective public health approach would be to increase the minimum age from 18 to 21 — there is data that shows that that could work — and to further develop prevention and education programmes. Instead, the Labour Government and now, seemingly, the Assembly are barrelling blindly ahead with a new, untested approach that was originally proposed by the Tories.”
“Exactly. The point that I am making is that, although smoking is regulated, to ban it would force it underground where there will be no regulation whatsoever, as happened with alcohol in America in the 1920s and 1930s. That is the point that I am making. <BR /> <BR />It is worth looking at the data. I do not believe that this has been said in the debate, but I may have just missed it: 50 years ago, 45% of the population smoked; today, around 12% of the population smokes. That is a huge drop. Unusually for the House, the current approach is working, leading to a dramatic fall in smoking. That has been achieved by adopting a public health approach to tobacco, including banning smoking indoors, which has been mentioned, and smoking around children as well as banning advertising and vending machine products.”
“As the Health Committee member — I will give way to him in a second — stated, the Bill does not ban anyone from smoking; it only bans shops from selling cigarettes to an ever-expanding group of people. <BR /> <BR />I will give way to Mr Donnelly.”
“I will make some progress and then, hopefully, will give way. <BR /> <BR />The things that the state was tying to prevent — organised crime and corruption — ended up thriving during the Prohibition era. I am concerned that the same will be the case with vapes and other products when it comes to the people who will be affected by the LCM. The lesson is clear: prohibition does not work. It is a draconian policy that forces the sale of products underground, where there is no regulation whatsoever. <BR /> <BR />There is no doubt that smoking causes serious harm to human health. As we have heard, smoking is the leading cause of preventable death. It is responsible for one in four deaths from cancer.”
“I thank the Member for his intervention. I do not think that it is like for like. The comparison to alcohol is quite apt.”
“The Bill features a few welcome provisions, including those aimed at tackling the unacceptable marketing of vapes and other nicotine products to children. However, the Bill's key proposal of a progressive smoking ban is, essentially, a prohibitionist approach to a public health issue, and that is a recipe for disaster. <BR /> <BR />The most glaring example of the failure of a prohibitionist approach is the ban of alcohol in the US at the start of the 20th century. From the outset, there was no widespread acceptance of that policy. People wanted alcohol for various reasons and found ways to get it. Criminal organisations thrived in the black market. The things that the state was trying to prevent — organised crime and corruption —.”
“Minister, have you given any consideration to whether it would be suitable to use rural halls to help tackle the housing and homelessness crisis across our communities?”
“Some of the issues should be addressed and added to the debate.”
“I have given way and have been quite flexible, so I would rather not, thanks. <BR /> <BR />The real polluters are corporate farmers, dumping sewage and waste into the likes of Lough Neagh and elsewhere. I do not believe that small farmers are to blame. <BR /> <BR />The Minister can speak for himself in response to what the Member for Upper Bann said about his party being anti-farmer. There is an incorrect attempt to pit the interests of small farmers, many of whom are living in poverty, against the interests of big, industrial farmers. That attempt was what some of the protests in the past few weeks here and in Britain were about: you cannot say that big, industrial farmers have the same interests as small farmers when they absolutely do not. <BR /> <BR />I am against the prayer of annulment.”
“I am not a member of the Committee. Enforcement is an element of the SR, and I assume that a lack of an independent EPA is part of that, which, if I am right, the Member's party is also opposed to. I will just repeat the point that I previously made. If you are saying that you are against repeated polluters being fined, essentially, you are saying that you think that most farmers are guilty of pollution.”
“The wider point about Moy Park is that there is still a cosy relationship with it. If it did not correspond with the Committee, that is fair enough. That question was worthy of asking, because there is a consensus that there is a hands-off approach to Moy Park. The industrial derating scheme is one example of many. <BR /> <BR />Members have said that they are against penalties for farmers and, basically, against fining farmers and the Minister's current position. Implicitly, they are essentially saying that all farmers are polluters, which I do not believe that they are. If they do not support the Minister's position but choose to go for the prayer of annulment, they are basically saying that most farmers are polluters and that many of them will be fined. Therefore, they cannot back that position.”
“Yes. Sorry, say that again. Interventions are meant to be short, and neither was short.”
“Thank you for the clarity. There have been a couple of long interventions.”
“I suggest that, at times, they are more interested in protecting industrial farming and corporations, such as Moy Park. They get industrial derating, which is a corporate handout from the Department of Finance through the rates system.”
“Quite often, with regard to climate issues or the environment, I am critical of the Minister and the Executive for not acting swiftly enough or for having the strategy of trying to merge the interests of agri-food businesses with those of environmentalists. Quite often, with that strategy, the latter and the environment will lose out, and that is without mentioning the disastrous Lough Neagh response. Having said that, the fact that MLAs want to reduce fines on polluters is absolutely mind-boggling. I do not understand that. If you litter in the street, you are obviously fined for littering, but going by what they are saying today, some Members want to whitewash, excuse and allow people to get away with pollution. It is bizarre that Members talk about protecting and supporting farmers.”
“I thank the Member. I am not on the Committee, as he knows. Can the Member confirm whether the Committee has had any correspondence from companies such as Moy Park regarding this prayer of annulment or the issue more generally?”
“As someone who has a young family and does not take the full wage, I do not see how you can use that as justification for supporting a pay increase of 28% for MLAs. That does not stand up.”
“I will not be as long as you were. <BR /> <BR />The Member said that a decision has not been made on a pay increase. Will he confirm that, if there is to be a 28% pay increase for MLAs, he and his party will advocate at the Commission for a 28% pay increase for workers in the Building?”
“<BR /> <BR />It is long past time to have a completely different conversation on pay and allowances, one that asks how MLAs can credibly claim to represent their constituents when their salary is £20,000 more than the average wage. Some would accept its being £40,000 more. The next time that we talk about our pay and expenses, I hope that that is the main topic of conversation. I oppose the motion and urge other parties, including the Opposition, to do the same.”
“We cannot, on the one hand, claim that an independent body is objective enough to set MLAs' salaries while, on the other hand, claim that it cannot be trusted to determine their allowances and expenses. That is completely incoherent. <BR /> <BR />The motion goes even further. It states that MLAs should set resettlement and winding-up allowances for former MLAs and that those determinations can be applied retrospectively. It is a scheme that is ripe for exploitation. Other workers do not get to set their own expenses and allowances, never mind those of former workers. Again, I ask this: why should MLAs be treated any differently?”
“It is worth noting that allowances include not just expenses but staff salaries and office rents, yet powers for MLAs to determine their own allowances were granted despite a litany of examples showing that some MLAs cannot be trusted to control the purse strings. A DUP MLA claimed over £4,000 in heating oil in just one year. Mileage expenses of £19,000 were claimed on behalf of a Sinn Féin MLA who did not drive. For 10 years, Sinn Féin MLAs claimed £700,000 of expenses for a research company, Research Services Ireland, that did not exist. Remember that? <BR /> <BR />Westminster and the Welsh Senedd make use of independent boards to set allowances. There are very few legitimate reasons for MLAs to insist on setting their own allowances, especially when parties here have a track record of misusing public money.”
“Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. Interventions are meant to be brief, and the Member's was a bit long. He may have let the cat out of the bag when he said that we are working on the presumption that there will be a pay increase for MLAs. I do not know whether he has more to reveal on the subject. He can speak after me if he wants to. <BR /> <BR />In no other job would a 28% pay increase be considered reasonable or affordable. Why should MLAs be treated differently from any other worker? The Member fails to grasp that point, when he should. <BR /> <BR />The motion reminds us that, in 2020, the Assembly Commission was granted powers to determine Members' allowances.”
“In no other job would a 28% pay increase be considered reasonable or affordable.”
“I say this to those who tabled the motion: do not insult our intelligence; do not insult the intelligence of people looking at this debate. If MLA salaries were increased in line with Scotland and Wales, that would mean a 28% — 28% — pay increase for politicians. That would be a kick in the teeth for every worker who stood on a picket line and fought for pay increases that barely kept pace with inflation. Imagine if teachers got a 28% pay increase, health workers got a 28% pay increase or workers in this Building got a 28% pay increase. Remuneration boards for our public-sector workers are not so generous. <BR /> <BR />Last year, a UK pay review body recommended a 5·5% increase for Health and Social Care workers. It took months of lobbying and the prospect of industrial action for the Health Minister to finally accept that recommendation.”