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 4 of 83.
“I also hope that we see it soon and that working-class communities are not strung along further by the Minister.”
“That is the same sector that has recently been decimated by cuts resulting from the introduction of the local growth fund. The Minister says that he wants the anti-poverty strategy to support people into work, but he and his Executive colleagues refused to step in with the necessary funding when Westminster cut off access to employability support for some 11,000 people here. <BR /> <BR />I hope that the Minister's revised strategy will be a dramatic departure from the current draft, which is totally unacceptable and unsuitable.”
“on the ground — Committee members have spoken to that — and does not properly define the role of community planning partnerships. The Committee heard about:”
“That is probably the Committee being polite. As the Committee's report states:”
“I commend the Committee for its important work on the report. The North has waited at least 20 years for an anti-poverty strategy, but all that we have had so far is a vague, unambitious document with no clear targets, no concrete measures and no overarching commitment to eradicating poverty. That is a slap in the face to the working-class communities who have been ground down by poverty and deprivation under the Executive's watch. During the two decades of waiting, poverty has skyrocketed, so much so that, in my constituency of West Belfast, one in three children lives in poverty and, in the past five years, the number of pensioners living in poverty has almost doubled. Those are completely disgraceful and shocking statistics. <BR /> <BR />The Committee's report paints a stark picture. I will quote from it:”
“I agree with some of the comments that the Member opposite made about AI and about digitalisation more generally. There is a lot of concern about AI being rapidly rolled out without the associated risks and the costs that are taken up by large companies being fully taken into account. <BR /> <BR />We need more detail about the family support hubs. Will there be new staff, or will current staff be repurposed? Where will the staff be located? What services will the family support hubs provide?”
“I take the junior Minister's point about wanting to protect people and not hurt or traumatise them unduly. For clarification, will the amendment apply just to institutions and people from institutions who release information or breach an order, or will it apply to any victims and survivors? What happens in a case in which, in certain specific circumstances, information is released in the public interest? In such circumstances, it would seem unfair to criminalise people. Has that been considered? May I get a response in writing if you are not able to answer that question now?”
“I am looking for clarity on amendment No 41 as well.”
“There are far too many individuals to mention, but I sincerely appreciate their time and their trust. If there are gaps in the next stage or if there is tidying up to do, both from the victims and survivors end and from a legislative point of view, I am not precious about that, and I am happy to work with people on it.”
“I thank the Member. I would say no, because we have a Further Consideration Stage and we can add to the amendment and clarify it through that. The Member can obviously table his own amendment if he wants. <BR /> <BR />Earlier today, the junior Minister indicated her support for the nomination process to be worked out through the regulation scheme. The basic provision should be in the Bill, and protections can be added if there are concerns from other Members. Given the scale of what was done to those women and children, a number of whom have already died without a penny of justice, it is the least that the House can do. <BR /> <BR />I pay tribute to all victims and survivors of institutional abuse and say a heartfelt "Thank you" to everyone who has been in touch to suggest amendments, express their concern and share their experiences.”
“That is a fair question. I do not have that type of form in front of me, to be honest, but the principle of that sounds fair enough. It is not my intention to mislead anybody, but that is what I hope that it is, just to allay those concerns. Again, I have not seen those forms, but we would support that in a general sense. I am happy to work on that.”
“People should have the right to decide who benefits while they are still alive. The detail of the nomination process can and should be worked out through regulation. The junior Minister indicated her support for that, and I welcome that.”
“More troubling is the declaration that survivors are asked to sign stating that they are personally responsible for the accuracy of the information provided, with the threat of a fraud investigation if anything is wrong. That is deeply concerning, to put it mildly. The state and the institutions hold the records. They hold the information. Asking women who were imprisoned, coerced and stripped of their own history to personally guarantee accuracy is not trauma-informed by anybody's definition. It is, frankly, offensive and, by many people's estimation, can probably be regarded as victim-blaming and gaslighting as well. <BR /> <BR />Alongside my other amendments, I will also move amendment No 42, which will allow an applicant to nominate any person to receive a payment where no eligible relative exists.”
“Like other Members, I will not speak for long on this group. I want to reflect some practical concerns about the application form as it is drafted, including concerns raised by my constituent Claire, who has gone through it in some detail. <BR /> <BR />The form requires a power of attorney or a controllership order for anyone who is acting on an applicant's behalf. Those are legal documents that, obviously, require legal fees to be paid. What most people need is a simply appointed nominee. That is a straightforward, free arrangement that, as I understand it, is already available through the Department for Communities. The form needs to reflect that. That needs to be addressed.”
“I think that it is amendment Nos 44 to 46.”
“On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I think that we may have missed a few amendments in that grouping.”
“I appreciate that. I was gracious with my time as well, but I thank the Minister. Will she answer the question? Is it the Executive Office's opinion that it would likely be a small group of women to whom the standardised payment would extend?”
“I take the Minister back to amendment No 30. Does she agree with me and other Members that the number of people who are both adoptees and birth mothers is likely to be small? In addition, aside from citing international examples of where that is not in legislation, will she explain why the amendment should not be supported?”
“People should not be excluded from the legislation. I urge Members to vote for my amendments.”
“From my reading of things, it therefore does not make sense to vote against the inclusion of three other homes. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 46 seeks to include birth mothers as eligible relatives of the deceased so that they, too, can receive a posthumous payment. A mother who lost her child to forced adoption, and who may have spent the rest of her life searching, grieving and never recovering, should not be excluded from recognition of that loss. <BR /> <BR />I will quote from a communication that we received from another victim and survivor from the forum on amendment Nos 45 and 46. Hopefully, it covers some of the issues that Members have raised. It states:”
“The Bill is about abuse and neglect, primarily of women, but if a child is taken from a mother without her consent, that will inflict huge emotional abuse and harm on both the mother and the child. We have Nazareth House in Donegal as well, which operated as a transit and destination point for children who were moved between jurisdictions. Those children were effectively trafficked across the border, with no oversight, to which others have referred. It should be on the list. Coleshill Children's Home near Enniskillen is another glaring omission. <BR /> <BR />I am no expert. I am but one MLA, and I am not on the Committee for the Executive Office, but, from my communication with victims and survivors, I know that there are too many institutions absent from schedule 2.”
“<BR /> <BR />There was some talk about unintended consequences from amendment Nos 45 and 46, but there could be unintended consequences from any legislation. Any legislation can be challenged in a court for not being wide-ranging, proper or approved of by the people on whom it impacts. I make that general point. Unintended consequences can apply to legislation as drafted or as amended. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 45 seeks to add St Joseph's Children's Home on the Ravenhill Road, Coneywarren Children's Home in Omagh and Nazareth House in Portadown to the list of eligible institutions. The junior Minister talked about the amendment being outside the scope of the Bill. I would challenge that.”
“That is fair enough. If I understand your question correctly, perhaps "persons" need to be added to it. I was referring to amendment No 30, but I am happy to move on. If "persons" need to be added to it, I can do that. Apologies, I have lost my train of thought. <BR /> <BR />The group of people included under amendment No 30 is, in a general sense, small, and the costs would be minimal, but their experiences are distinct, and they deserve to be recognised on their own terms. Hopefully, that can be agreed on. There was a danger that the other junior Minister, when proposing the group 2 amendments, was trying to tie me up in bureaucratic knots. Not to be too disrespectful, but, frankly, that is how it seemed to me. A small group of people are being missed out, and I think that they should be included in the scheme, as do most people.”
“It provides for more than one payment for individuals who were both adoptees and birth mothers. Those are people who were admitted to institutions twice; once as children who were taken from their own mothers, and then again as pregnant women. My understanding is that, as other Members have said, they are a very small group of people. The additional cost is minimal, although cost, frankly, should not come into the debate. Their experiences —.”
“We have had a cost-of-living and inflation crisis since then. I know that the Committee heard from different groups and different figures. However, £20,000 was certainly mentioned. The £12,000 that the Member for Foyle is proposing is certainly better than £10,000. Frankly, I do not think that it is enough, but, going by the mood of the room, there seems to be consensus in the House on that figure. As, I believe, people said during the Committee's deliberations, people's lives are worth more than a whiplash claim. In a general sense, how come the cost is counted only when it comes to redress? The financial and emotional cost is rarely counted when it comes to the victims. <BR /> <BR />Questions were raised about amendment No 30, which is fair enough.”
“He is right. I do not get the Minister's argument about tiers. This is about recognising abuse, especially when it happened to one person in different settings and scenarios. That is the point of the amendment in my name. When fundamental amendments on the issue were blocked without a vote, that only deepened suspicion amongst survivors about their campaign for justice. I note Members' comments that those survivors are owed an explanation. <BR /> <BR />I will go through my amendments. Amendment No 32 increases the standardised payment from £10,000 to £20,000. Amendment No 33 increases the posthumous payment for eligible relatives from £2,000 to £5,000. Obviously, the original £10,000 was the same amount that was proposed under the HIA scheme back in 2017, almost a decade years ago.”
“He suffered his entire life with depression and identity crisis as a result of his closed adoption. He was born in Marianvale, sent alone as a newborn to Nazareth House in Fahan and adopted back to the North just months later. He died never knowing the full circumstances of his birth. Under the draft legislation, his life and suffering do not count for anything. While his adopted sister, whose birth mother died in 2014, is rightly included — these are members of the same family going through the same institutions and impacted by the same trauma — the cut-off date undermines equality for them. <BR /> <BR />Mark, who, I believe, is in Gallery, having travelled from Donegal to watch the debate, described the truth recovery process as:”
“It is worth putting that on the record, and it is the reality of what we are debating today. Justice for victims, survivors and families, in a general sense, cannot be dictated by budgets and balance sheets. I am concerned to hear talk of compromise already. When I hear that, alarm bells ring in my head. We talk about money in the Chamber in a general sense. We talk about whether the state considers certain lives to be worthy of acknowledgement and, in many cases, redress and payment. That is a moral and political question, not a financial one. The posthumous cut-off date of September 2011 is a disgrace. <BR /> <BR />Like many Members here, I was contacted by Maria, an adopted adult, whose birth mother was placed in Marianvale. Maria's brother died by suicide in 2002.”
“As I said before, I do not sit on the Committee, but, like others, my party took direction from victims and survivors through various meetings and correspondence. I thank them for that, and I acknowledge, as I did earlier, the people in the Public Gallery. <BR /> <BR />I will begin with the words of Lisa, a constituent of mine. She contacted other Members ahead of the debate. She is a daughter whose mother will be excluded because of the September 2011 cut-off date. She wrote:”
“I appreciate the Member's giving way. I am not on the Committee, as she knows, but I believe that the Committee received some evidence or correspondence from groups or individuals to say that they prefer the higher figure of £15,000 or £20,000. Twelve thousand pounds is better than £10,000, but we should aim for those higher figures. Is that true? Did the Member receive those briefings?”
“I appreciate the Member's giving way. Does she agree that it is less about creating a hierarchy and more about recognising that, if abuse happened on more than one occasion, people should be allowed some form of redress and equality in recognition of that?”
“I appreciate the junior Minister's giving way. I am not sure that that is the case, but, given the fact that the amendment is in line with how the Bill is written, is it not also the case that the legislation itself could very much have unintended consequences?”
“We were told by the Bill Office when we were drafting the amendments that we had to use the term "mother", rather than "birth mother", because it was in line with legislation as written already. I just want to provide that clarity to the Minister and the House.”
“Thank you, Minister. To paraphrase, you said at the start that the legislation should be victim-focused, and we all agree on that. Do you recognise that the Victims and Survivors Consultation Forum supports the time for a judicial review to be extended to at least 28 days, if not beyond that?”
“I appreciate that, Minister. The unit at St Teresa's only runs to Key Stage 1, and the parents want to extend it until primary 7, as with others. <BR /> <BR />It would be remiss of me not mention the wonderful Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists event that was held in the Chamber earlier with the wonderful May McFettridge. Some good jokes were told, and — I am looking at the MLAs in the Building — there were some awful ones as well. Will the Minister look into the issue that I raised? Will she pay tribute to every speech and language therapist who works in our schools and do all that she can to protect those courses, if they are indeed under threat?”
“Obviously, survivors cannot afford to wait years, nor should they wait years, for findings to be released in a single block at the end of a lengthy and traumatic process. Modular interim reporting, particularly where findings relate to specific institutions, gives survivors and families a right to know without delay. Publication in the public interest should be at the chairperson's discretion, and I hope and trust that it will be. That is right, and I urge Members to support it. <BR /> <BR />I commend my amendments to the House.”
“I appreciate that. Some of it is interpretation, and, if it needs to be strengthened or added to, I am not precious about it. I am precious about organisations that are not coming forward with information being held to account. My interest is in that being done in the best way possible. I am not precious in that regard, but obviously I am precious about the principle. I am happy to work with the junior Minister, the Executive Office and the Committee if an extra amendment is needed. I am not sure whether it is. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 16 allows the chairperson to order the publication of a report under section 18 at any time if it is considered to be in the public interest.”
“In one second, yes. We know that some records are held in the Republic and in religious archives, where religious institutions have shown little appetite for transparency. The inquiry is to do justice to the full truth and cannot be hamstrung at the border. Abuse and the transfer of people did not stop at the border. <BR /> <BR />I give way to the Member on my right — sorry, the Minister.”
“I thank one of the five Members for North Belfast for that. That was my reading of it. Again, I am not claiming to know everything. I am not that arrogant. If there is strengthening to be done at Further Consideration Stage, I will be happy to consider that, and I am sure that the House will. Obviously, there are also GDPR protections more generally. <BR /> <BR />We know that the transfer of women and babies between jurisdictions was a defining feature of the system, as Members have said.”
“I agree with the Member. Was the Member for North Belfast looking to come in?”
“In one second, yes. It mentions the body or public authority from whom it was sought. It does not mention the person who requested it — the victim and survivor information. Again, if the Member is content with the general aim of the amendment, vote for it. If he wants to discuss what is normally called a tidying-up amendment or a strengthening amendment, I will be happy to look at it. <BR /> <BR />Was it the Chair who asked for an intervention?”
“I thank the Member for that. That is not my reading of the amendment at all, but, again, if that is his reading, I am happy to seek an amendment at Further Consideration Stage.”
“I thank the Committee Chair. I am not on the Committee, but I have the right, as has every other MLA, to try to amend the Bill. I appreciate that clarity. If the amendment passes and could then be added to at Further Consideration Stage, I would certainly be open to working with the Member, or anybody, on that. <BR /> <BR />As I said, the general aim of the amendments is to strengthen the inquiry's ability to seek cooperation across borders and to expose and report non-cooperation where that occurs. The Member for North Belfast raised some concerns about that. Obviously, it is up to the House to vote for, which, hopefully, it will, or against the amendment, but, if it passes and there are gaps in it, it could be tightened up at Further Consideration Stage.”
“It is quite clear what they are. The phrase "reasonable steps" is used in most pieces of legislation. There is precedent for what that means.”
“If that work is already happening, that is, obviously, welcome, but putting it in the Bill would strengthen it.”
“It was clear from the evidence that the Committee received that 14 days is completely inadequate. Survivors are dealing with complex trauma and may be accessing support, taking time to process decisions or information, or awaiting legal advice. How many times in this Building have we heard about the pressures on the judiciary and the judicial system? I do not think that a fortnight is sufficient in anybody's estimation. Trauma-informed flexibility is a necessity. I urge Members to support the longer extension in amendment No 21. I believe that the Victims and Survivors Forum supports it. Some people are calling for an even greater time limit, but I think that 28 days is sufficient. <BR /> <BR />Amendment Nos 12, 13 and 14 speak to cross-jurisdictional evidence and cooperation with authorities outside the North.”
“I agree. I thank the Member for that. My point was that, although those individuals and everybody facilitating the inquiry should be protected, concerns have been raised about a broader culture of immunity, especially for institutions and the people who caused harm in the first place. <BR /> <BR />I thank Members for their supportive comments about my amendments. The intention of my amendments is to strengthen the inquiry and make it better by extending its purpose and usefulness. As Members have said, amendment No 21 seeks to increase the time limit for judicial review from 14 days to 28 days. I think that the Committee amendment seeks to change that to 21 days. Obviously, that is an improvement, but, frankly, the longer the time limit, the better.”
“OK. I thank the Member for that. Assurances need to be provided. I will check those commitments in the report. <BR /> <BR />Clause 25 provides immunity from civil action for inquiry panel members, legal advisers, advisory panel members, assessors and staff. I understand some of the rationale behind that. I think that the evidence to the Committee broadly supported protecting inquiry staff, but there are concerns about the accountability of other participants, particularly representative organisations and the institutions.”
“Sure. I will just finish my point — that protections are not exploited in order to withhold evidence that survivors have every right to see. I give way to the Member.”
“I have concerns about the potential for public interest immunity (PII) to be used and misused. Historically, PII claims have been used by powerful institutions and state bodies in order to suppress uncomfortable truths. Given the nature of the inquiry and the track record of some of the organisations involved, we need to be careful and watchful, for want of stronger words —”