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 48 of 83.
“It is a sad reality of this place that a pathetic game being played up here is the only reason, seemingly, why some parties would back a rent reduction and freeze. People who are feeling the cost-of-living squeeze, especially private renters, are not the plaything of parties up here. They are real people with real lives and families, and they have been ignored for far too long. <BR /> <BR />After the amendment in my name was passed, private renters contacted me to say that they felt a sense of relief and that, for once, consideration had been given to their concerns and financial reality, which, for too long, had been ignored, despite the occasional platitude being offered. In that context, the Minister's amendments to gut out any reality of a rent reduction and freeze are pretty shocking.”
“During the Consideration Stage debate, I spoke about the difficulty faced by private renters, the tough times that they face and the fact that landlords are allowed to fix prices in an unregulated way, however they see fit. I tabled an amendment to reduce and freeze rents, and, after listening to the startling comments of other parties, I was happy to see it being passed by the House. <BR /> <BR />Since then, there has been some scrambling to try to explain what happened, what went on and why. I will give you my two cents' worth: faced with doing nothing to protect and support private renters who are finding it really difficult at the moment, Executive parties could not be seen to vote against an amendment like that. Then there is the account offered by Sam McBride about the DUP allegedly taking part in a game of bluff.”
“I thank the Member. Yes, I met NIC-ICTU four times, I think. Some suggestions from the president and members of that organisation made it into the final draft of the Bill. I met NIC-ICTU and consulted it robustly. <BR /> <BR />I ask Members to support the Bill. I thank them for their comments.”
“I do not agree. I believe that solidarity secondary action should be legalised. It is a disgrace that, while we live in a so-called democratic society, withdrawing your labour power is illegal in certain circumstances. I do not see how the Minister can stand over that. <BR /> <BR />On his second point about notice periods, we heard from trade unions and workers about how the current system actually inhibits and puts pressure on workers to not take strike action in that seven-day period. Countless examples were shared with us. I am happy to share them with the Minister. I will give way briefly.”
“The only reason that the Bill has been introduced is because the Department, the Minister and previous Ministers have failed to do anything meaningful to make it easier for workers to get organised. I note the exception of the Parental Bereavement (Leave and Pay) Bill.”
“It is not rubbish. You can consult with the CBI if you want to; we did not, and we have no interest in doing so. The CBI can publish its response to or view on the Bill if it wants to do so, but we did not seek its view. <BR /> <BR />The Minister talked about imbalance, but fails to recognise the imbalance that already exists against workers, which prohibits them taking action and makes it harder for them to organise. He referenced some of the restrictions in Scotland and England. I do not want a race to the bottom; I want the best trade union laws and rights in place for workers here, and in those places as well. <BR /> <BR />I will try to respond to some of the comments.”
“I am happy to share the results with you. We met business organisations to discuss the Bill, but, frankly, we did not meet with the CBI. The problem in the House, and in your Department in particular, has been an over-reliance on operating in the interests of big private businesses over the interests of workers.”
“The consultation received more responses than the average number of responses that your Department receives to its consultations. On average, your Department receives 321 responses to its consultations. The consultation on the Bill, which was conducted by a single MLA, received over 800 responses. My maths is not great, but, by my calculation, that means that my consultation received more than double the number of responses received by the average consultation conducted by your Department and by previous Ministers in your the Department.”
“It is, but, to repeat myself, my party first proposed the legislation in 2016. Since then, there has been a collapse of the Assembly and delays that were not down to us with a pandemic and other situations. There should be emergency provision to ensure that the legislation passes before the mandate comes to an end. That is urgent: it is a priority that this Bill sees the full light of day. <BR /> <BR />The matter of the consultation was raised by Mr Dickson and the Minister. There was a consultation on the Bill, which was wide-ranging, with approximately 800 responses. That was done through a survey that I conducted online, which was publicly available. Minister, you could have responded: I do not think you did, but you might have.”
“<BR /> <BR />Mr Dickson talked about some of his experience as a lifelong trade union member. If I heard him correctly, he organised in the Ulster Polytechnic, which is currently the Ulster University's Jordanstown campus. I should have declared an interest at the start of the debate. I joined Unite when I was at the Jordanstown campus — that was after the university changed its name — and I have been a trade union member since my late teens. I should have declared that interest at the start, although I doubt that anybody will accuse me of being biased towards unions. <BR /> <BR />Mr Dickson talked about being engaged in the longest industrial dispute. I do not know whether it was the longest dispute ever or the longest at the time but fair play to him for that. He also talked about it being late in the mandate.”
“From memory, 1977 was the time of the highest standard of living for workers, with high wages and so on and so forth. <BR /> <BR />Mr Weir also attacked the idea of a political strike, but he had nothing to say about his First Minister, who has taken a form of political strike by pulling out of office. It is OK for him, but not for anybody else. <BR /> <BR />I thank Mr O'Toole for giving his party's endorsement to the Bill passing to the next stage. As I said to Jemma, I encourage him and his colleagues in the SDLP to get involved in future stages of this Bill, at which they will have the opportunity to strengthen and, as he suggested, amend it. He reiterated his support for workers and trade unionists, commending the UCU in particular and expressing solidarity with them for taking strike action.”
“All it will do is bring the process into the 21st century, which is what he claimed he wants to see, with more modern methods of balloting that will save time and energy and increase participation. <BR /> <BR />He talked about bringing this piece of legislation to the Assembly being a moot move, but I think that it is very important to do so because the House has not had a say or a vote on the laws that have dictated what trade unions do for 20-plus years. There was an obsession with the 1970s in the Member's contribution. After the attack that Thatcher launched on trade unions in 1979, there was an automatic decline in the standard of living. The high participation in, and scale of, the trade union movement before that led to an increased standard of living.”
“I predicted that there would be some scaremongering responses from Members on the Benches opposite. I am not surprised by that, but it is remarkable to hear the Member talking about bringing us back to the 1970s when he wants to bring us back to the 16th century. It beggars belief that he would raise that sentiment. <BR /> <BR />My party and I absolutely and unashamedly want to remove some of the more recent changes to trade union legislation that sought to attack workers' rights and trade union power. To pick up on Mr Weir's point about balloting, there is nothing in the Bill that strips away secret balloting. That is a misreading on his part. Workers will be able to vote in the workplace in private, which is something that was endorsed by everyone we met.”
“despite that extensive consultation and real, tangible, input from most of the trade union movement, although it is possible that a small part of it may not have been able to respond to the consultation. <BR /> <BR />I hope that the point that Jemma made about the Bill being improved at Committee Stage will happen. Obviously, I am open to amending it. As I have said, it is not the finished article, and it has evolved from 2016. I have been quite open about that. However, I hope that we can have the strongest Bill possible to enhance and protect workers' rights, which is its aim. I look forward to engaging with Jemma and her colleagues further on the Bill. <BR /> <BR />Peter Weir said that the Bill would take us back in time and that we should instead look forward.”
“<BR /> <BR />The overwhelming feedback from that consultation was that those unions considered that the Bill will help them to recruit workers on a big scale. Those workers will see the worth of being in a union, and we will get trade unions into hundreds of small, predominantly private-sector workplaces. Again, that will be a huge boost to trade union membership and will give them access to workplaces. Those are not just my words but the words and sentiments of the unions that we worked with on the Bill. <BR /> <BR />To be frank, it has not been conveyed to me that the Bill is:”
“with regard to unions. If I heard her correctly, she talked about unions getting access to the workplace. Obviously, I invite her to look again at the details of the Bill, and I am happy to meet her or her party colleagues again. The Bill will increase the ability of hundreds of thousands of workers in the private sector to engage in collective bargaining, which they cannot do at the minute. <BR /> <BR />We got more than 800 responses to the consultation that we conducted, and we received input from many trade unions that helped shape the Bill, including NIC-ICTU, Unite, the Public and Commercial Services Union, GMB, Derry Trades Council, Belfast Trades Council, NIPSA, the UCU, Aegis and the bakers' union. I apologise to the one or two unions whose names I have forgotten.”
“I thank the Members who contributed and the Minister for his response and the discussion. I will try to run through the contributions and respond to them as best I can. <BR /> <BR />Jemma Dolan started on behalf of Sinn Féin, and she rightly highlighted the role of workers and the need for collective bargaining, as well as the need to raise wages during a cost-of-living crisis. I wholeheartedly agree. I welcome that she met me several weeks ago, and I thank her for it. I also thank her party for supporting the Bill. However, I must respond to her comments about the Bill:”
“If we take the opportunity, it will represent a groundbreaking and historic move for workers and their trade unions, which represent people from all backgrounds, creeds and communities and bring them together to challenge unfit conditions and low pay. Tonight, we can empower trade unions and equip workers with the tools to challenge conditions that actively add to poverty and destitution. I urge all parties to support the Bill. <BR /> <BR />Finally, I want to say a few quick thanks to all the staff members who helped me to bring the Bill to this stage. Thanks to Aoibhinn, formerly of the Bill Office, James, Phil and Frank and to my party team of Fiona Ferguson, Matt Collins and Shaun Harkin. I am sure that I have forgotten a few names; apologies if I have. <BR /> <BR />I urge Members to support the Bill.”
“I thank the Member. Most of the trade unions that we spoke to and engaged with during the consultation process felt that there was no rationale or need for providing a sample ballot paper. The Member spoke about wider issues with the clause, which, obviously, are relevant as well. However, it was made clear to us that there was no rationale or need to have the requirement to provide a sample ballot paper in legislation. If unions decide to show an employer a ballot paper, that is up to them, but they felt that a requirement in law was unnecessary. <BR /> <BR />What is before the Assembly is the opportunity to uproot laws that were implemented with the intention of undermining the trade union movement.”
“I hope that that will kick-start a renewed conversation in communities and workplaces about the merits of joining a union and expand the size of our trade union movement.”
“That would be of huge benefit to workers in hospitality, where 89% of businesses have fewer than 21 workers. <BR /> <BR />The change would also dramatically bolster the ranks of trade unions and be a step change from the decline in membership of many unions for decades. The clause will also expand the range of issues that can be negotiated by unions and employers. At the moment, trade unions are limited to negotiating with employers on matters limited to pay, hours and holidays, resulting in many issues that arise for workers being off limits for trade unions. The clause would lift those limitations, allowing unionised workers to be represented on all issues relating to pay and terms and conditions, as well as the obvious result for workers battling unfair conditions.”
“Currently, workplaces, for some arbitrary reason, need to have over 21 workers before those workers can mandate recognition of a trade union by their employer to enable them to avail themselves of collective bargaining rights. Across the North, 93% of workplaces have fewer than 21 employees, meaning that they have no power to force an unwilling employer to the negotiation table. Workers who are in a trade union in a workplace with fewer than 21 employees are effectively second-rate union members and are prevented from having the rights of workers in bigger workplaces. The Bill will reduce the mandatory minimum number of employees from 21 to five. That change has the potential to see hundreds of thousands of predominantly private-sector workers join a trade union and fight for better conditions in the workplace.”
“That leaves too many workers unprotected and subject to the whim of interpretation of what are or are not "reasonable steps". The blunt truth is that no workers should be dismissed or threatened with action for taking part in industrial action. More than 4,000 workers here have brought unfair dismissal claims against their employers in the past five years. There is an unfortunate precedent of workers being dismissed too easily, and that needs to end. The clause will assist with that. <BR /> <BR />Clause 5 relates to collective bargaining and would be a significant improvement for hundreds of thousands of workers. Consultees overwhelmingly appreciated the provision.”
“As the law stands, if you are dismissed for taking part in a strike or other industrial action that is called officially and is otherwise lawful, the dismissal will be unfair, if it takes place less than 12 weeks after the person started to take part in the action. Depending on circumstances, it may be unfair if it takes place later. However, here comes the rub, as included in Members' packs on the Bill:”
“Clause 4 relates to giving workers who engage in official industrial action greater protection in the workplace. To be honest, I was unaware and shocked that this legislation and practice existed. I was glad to try to change it when trade unionists raised the issue with me during the consultation phase of the Bill. Workers dismissed unfairly because of participation in industrial action have the right to challenge their dismissal. However, that right is time-limited. The clause will make the dismissal of workers for whom engaging in industrial action was the primary reason for dismissal automatically unfair.”
“I will make progress and give way in a second. <BR /> <BR />During the last two years, we also had examples of workers voting online to accept offers made by employers, which worked well, by all accounts. If it is OK to have online balloting to accept pay offers, why not have online voting to reject pay offers and thus take industrial action? As the TUC states:”
“<BR /> <BR />In the 21st century, particularly during the pandemic, much legislative and political activity was forced online. There is no excuse for forbidding unions from balloting by email, app or even in person with protections in place. Technology exists to ensure that ballots can be protected, whilst making the balloting process much more convenient and cost-effective. Sir Ken Knight, a former head of the fire service in England, conducted an independent review of online balloting for industrial action. He agreed and recommended that a pilot scheme be introduced for online balloting for trade unions engaged in industrial action. In that review, people testified that the postal ballot system can be subject to abuse. <BR /> <BR />During the last two years —”
“That will have one of the greatest impacts for unions in organising for industrial action and was overwhelmingly endorsed by the trade union movement. Currently, trade unions must ballot for strike action in internal elections via a postal vote. That not only costs a substantial amount of money — hundreds of thousands of pounds for some unions — but, according to the Trades Union Congress (TUC), is responsible for diminished participation in balloting. People move house, ballots can be lost or undelivered, and it is more time-consuming to respond. Giving unions the option of online workplace balloting will be likely to increase voter turnout and member participation: a clear benefit for all and a boost for the democratic process in trade unions.”
“<BR /> <BR />We heard from unions that a week is a long time in industrial relation and employers can and have used that period to pressure, intimidate and bully workers not to take action, despite their democratic decision to do just that. The Bill proposes to reduce the notice period from seven days to two days and remove barriers to striking while the iron is hot. However, trade unions may choose to provide more than two days' notice if that would aid negotiations with the employer to find resolution before strike action is taken. Where that is not seen to be possible, workers should not be forced to wait. <BR /> <BR />Clause 3 relates to the conduct of a ballot. The clause extends the arenas in which voting in a ballot can take place and seeks to bring balloting into the 21st century.”
“The rationale for that clause is, again, to make it easier, less onerous and financially penalising for unions to act and to keep them out of the courts when nefarious action threatens to upend strike action. <BR /> <BR />When formulating the Bill, we heard in discussions with trade unions about how costly it was to ensure that meticulous records are maintained. Moreover, the ability to render strike action illegal because of an overlooked employee address change is unreasonable, and the Assembly needs to address that, as it represents an untenable barrier to successful strike action. The reduction of the ballot notice period from seven days to two days will remove another needless barrier to action. Those measures are designed to hinder industrial action, which is an inherently political move against workers.”
“<BR /> <BR />In 1982, miners in Britain went on a solidarity strike in support of nurses' pay claims and used their industrial muscle to support under-pressure hospital staff. Train drivers refused to cross picket lines to avoid moving coal during the 1984-85 miners' strike. Shortly after that, all solidarity action was made illegal. That is the historical context underpinning the attack on workers, and, for that reason alone, Members should do away with it. <BR /> <BR />The second clause relates to the notice of ballot for employers and would simplify the information that trade unions must supply to employers about which workers are taking action and reduce the notice period for industrial action from seven days to two days.”
“The ban prevents workers in the same workplace and building from taking action in support of one another if they are employed by different bodies. We can see that in this Building, where some workers are employed by the Commission and some are employed by the Civil Service. In my engagement with the NIPSA branch that represents workers in the Building, they told me about Civil Service workers taking strike action, but their Assembly Commission colleagues who wanted to strike in solidarity with them and not to cross the picket line were prevented from doing so by the current laws. In the Chamber, thanks are often heaped on Assembly staff — rightly so for the work that they do — but Members should listen to what they say, particularly on this issue.”
“Again, in my view, that is where politicians need to put their money where their mouths are and stand with workers in these struggles. It is not enough to turn up to picket lines for photos. We need to make tangible changes to benefit those fighting back.”
“I have no doubt that it may evoke cries of anarchy from some in the House, but the fact of the matter is that no Government or employer has anything to fear from strike action, never mind solidarity action, if they treat their workers with basic respect and pay them what they deserve. This is about rectifying an imbalance in workplaces that was purposefully skewed away from workers and unions. <BR /> <BR />We have also seen the power of solidarity in recent months as a mini strike wave hit the North, which inspired solidarity from one picket to the next. Those workers should be able to decide to withhold their labour in solidarity with each other. The result will undoubtedly bolster the outcome of industrial action for pay and benefits.”
“<BR /> <BR />The first clause of the Bill seeks to repeal article 102 of the 1995 Order. It would legalise secondary, or what is usually referred to as solidarity, strike action. It would unpick one of the cornerstones of Thatcher's assault on trade unions and allow trade unions to strike in solidarity with others engaged in industrial action. In most other countries across the world, there is no law prohibiting workers from striking in support of another group of workers, yet such a ban, which was never endorsed politically or by the trade unions here, remains on our books. If workers in countries like Belgium and Denmark can do it, what justification is there for so severely limiting the agency of workers here?”
“This Bill will be a mammoth first step in that endeavour and one that I hope will be followed by more Bills that will reverse the trend of decades of attacks on trade unions that have rolled back on much-needed rights. This decade should really be one in which workers' rights are protected and strengthened after 40 years of outright assault. <BR /> <BR />To focus now on the specifics of the Bill, I reiterate that it will only scratch the surface, but I believe that the five main changes that this Bill, commonly known as the trade union freedom Bill, will deliver will go to the heart of many of the problems facing workers in trade unions and those who cannot join a trade union today. The Bill seeks to amend the Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 and the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Northern Ireland) Order 1995.”
“<BR /> <BR />This is not an easy process, because of laws that were never voted for locally and never endorsed by our trade union movement and which set out to dismantle the power of the trade union movement across the water following a historic strike by miners and nurses. It is not easy for trade unions to recruit workers to fight for better conditions or to engage in industrial action for themselves or in solidarity with other workers, but that is exactly what we need in this period: emboldened trade unions and workers equipped with the tools to fight for better pay and conditions. <BR /> <BR />There is an onus on the Assembly to hear the appeal of workers and to overhaul legislation that has been shamefully left largely untouched for over 20 years.”
“Water charges were challenged on our streets by trade unions, and that is the reason why we are not paying twice for an essential resource. On recent successful strike actions, we have seen workers from different workplaces standing in solidarity with each other in a powerful bolster to the dedication found on pickets. Indeed, we have seen a recent spate of industrial action because of the rise in unfit conditions. Healthcare staff are considering additional industrial action, three years on since nurses stood on freezing pickets asking for basic pay parity. The Hovis workers had to fight for the same parity, and now University and College Union (UCU) workers are fighting for their pensions. Educational welfare officers in NIPSA are out for fair pay as well.”
“In my view, politicians should not stand in their way; rather, the Assembly should actively seek to make that process easier, as is the aim of this Bill. History has proved that the most effective way to beat back attacks on workers and working-class communities is through collective action. Indeed, that is why Margaret Thatcher was so keen to go after workers and trade union rights, seeking to destroy the enemy at home, as she referred to them. <BR /> <BR />We live in a divided society, which will come as no surprise to those who have been responsible for sharpening division and whipping up sectarian tensions. Collective action across the divide is the greatest way to combat such division. We can look to the trade union movement here to see how workers come together and win.”
“While there are acute issues that point to long-term neglect in the north-west, the trend is the same in communities right across the North. The cost of living is rising and wages are not matching it. Add to that the shameless attacks on welfare that leave even those who are in full-time work relying on benefits to pay for food, and we have a picture of rising poverty and destitution, which is felt most sharply by those who are at the bottom of society. <BR /> <BR />Many of the promises that were made in New Decade, New Approach (NDNA), such as commitments to better workers' rights, have not been implemented two years on. They are obviously unlikely to be passed in this mandate at this stage. It is clear that workers will have to lead the fight themselves for better pay and conditions.”
“Imagine how much worse our pandemic experience would have been without the healthcare staff, food workers, street cleaners, bin workers, lorry drivers, shop workers stacking shelves, and many more. Such is the society that we live in that many of those workers face crippling conditions at work, pay cuts as their workloads increase, pension cuts and precarious low-paid contracts, which leave them scraping to put food on the table or heat their home. <BR /> <BR />At the same time, according to the results of a survey by the Derry Trades Union Council, 35% — more than one third — of workers in the area do not earn more than the minimum wage; 67% receive only statutory sick pay, and 73% struggle with bills. Of those workers, some 45% are on part-time or zero-hours contracts, face harassment at work and do not have trade union representation.”
“Recognising that the root of much current trade union legislation is anti-worker, in a context where workers face increasingly offensive pay offers and conditions and a cost-of-living crisis, the Bill will redress the imbalance in workplaces, re-empowering workers and the trade union movement to fight back for better. Given the period that we are in, it is not an understatement to say that the changes in the Bill would be groundbreaking for workers and trade unions, or that it is imperative for politicians to put their money where their mouth is and back the workers whom they applauded and praised for carrying us through the pandemic. <BR /> <BR />It has been proven beyond doubt that workers make the world go round.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am privileged to open the debate tonight on the principles of this trade union freedom Bill on behalf of the many trade unions and workers who have helped to shape it and have supported it over the past number of years. I want to begin by thanking the trade union movement, which has supported and shaped it, and those who joined us on the steps of Parliament Buildings today to issue a clear call to MLAs to get behind the Bill. I also want to thank Eamonn McCann, a former colleague on this side of the House and tireless socialist activist and trade unionist, who originally proposed the Bill in 2016. I am proud to have taken up the mantle since then to see it through. <BR /> <BR />The Bill's aim is simple.”
“In the last number of days, there has obviously been discussion about sanctions —”
“We need to call out the aggressive role of NATO and its members and those states that are willing to pour fuel on the fire, which will, no doubt, increase the casualties and cause untold devastation. We need to see de-escalation, demilitarisation and an end to the chest-beating drive to war.”
“What has been largely lacking in conversations about events in and around Ukraine, and eastern Europe generally, is the aggressive and expansionist role of NATO in Europe and elsewhere across the world. Far from being an innocent party that defends democracy, NATO is the armed wing of western imperialism. Its expansion has been a key factor in heightening tensions, now leading to an all-out war. NATO is a military alliance that is dominated by the US. After the fall of the Berlin Wall, repeated promises were made to Russia that NATO would not expand eastwards, but the US is obviously terrified about its declining economic role and wants to use its military prowess to gain extra leverage for its corporations. <BR /> <BR />We need to call out the aggressive role of —”
“<BR /> <BR />For some time now, the UK Government have disgracefully operated a hostile environment policy towards refugees and those fleeing war and occupation. They must urgently end that brutal policy for Ukrainians but also for Syrians, Yemenis, Palestinians and everyone who is fleeing the brutal boot of aerial bombardment. The Tory Government cannot be selective in who they let in or view as worthy refugees. Everybody who needs and wants to be here should be welcomed. <BR /> <BR />We should not be one-sided in condemning militarism, occupation and aggression. We should be condemning them in whatever guise and wherever they appear. In the region around Russia and Ukraine, Vladimir Putin is not the only nasty force engaged in militarism, civilian killings and occupation.”
“The actions of Vladimir Putin — his bombardment and invasion of Ukraine, and the consideration of nuclear weapons — have to be resolutely condemned and opposed. I send my solidarity of the people of Ukraine who have fallen victim to this act of war and aggression, which has caused revulsion across the world. I pay tribute to the bravery of anti-war protesters across the world who are taking a stand to say no to war again, particularly the brave protesters in Russia who are facing jail time and brutal repression for taking a courageous stand against their own Government's descent into war. This not only gives hope to the heart but paves the way for an alternative path. Russians and Ukrainians can all come together in a peaceful way that does not promote war over dialogue and discussion.”
“No, thanks. You will have plenty of time to speak if you want. <BR /> <BR />It is even worse. Just before the debate started, I was messaged by somebody who works in a care home, and they told me that a lot of the care home workers they work with have still not received the £500 payment that they were promised. As in the previous debate, I may be in a minority of one, but I state my strong opposition to this, and if I can, for that sole reason, I will endeavour to vote against the Commission's budget.”
“I will focus on one aspect of the Commission's budget, which is the fact that there is an £500 increase in MLA salaries at a time when the Executive are supporting what are, effectively, pay cuts for workers who earn significantly less than all MLAs. That is not only unfair but totally hypocritical, and it should not be proposed. It is even worse. Just before —”