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 51 of 83.
“It saw one gut-wrenching case end up on the front pages of the newspapers when housemates were able to report one woman's abortion because they found the results of it. That is the logical conclusion of treating abortion as a legal or criminal case rather than as healthcare. <BR /> <BR />In Canada, abortion is not on the law books; it is a healthcare issue. I am sure that MLAs will be interested to know that the rates of later-term abortion are lower in Canada than in Britain, where abortion is restricted as a legal issue. While, in Britain, 1·9% of abortions occur after 20 weeks, in Canada, it is just 0·6%. <BR />Here we come to the crux of the issue. If passed, the Bill will not stop abortions from happening.”
“I will, in a second. <BR /> <BR />To be blunt, on this matter, I put my faith in doctors over MLAs. <BR /> <BR />I would welcome any Sinn Féin MLA telling the House what is appropriate about forcing a woman to have a delivery against her will in cases of severe fetal abnormality. How is it appropriate to export that tragedy? I am sure that I am not the only person who wants to know what right any MLA has to tell a woman when it is or is not appropriate to have a termination, never mind to make that decision for her. That is reproductive coercion by the state. <BR /> <BR />I would welcome any MLA telling me the appropriate punishment for breaking this law. The previous law sent cops into offices and the homes of women and pro-choice activists to raid them for pills. It saw young women dragged into courts.”
“I would welcome Mr Stalford or Ms Sheerin intervening this afternoon to tell the Chamber and me how they can be so confident about what exactly constitutes a severe fetal impairment compared with a fatal fetal impairment, when doctors are vocal about how difficult that can be. In evidence to the Health Committee, Doctors for Choice told us clearly that, from a medical standpoint, it is not always possible to distinguish clearly between a severe fetal impairment and a fatal fetal impairment.”
“It is spinning in circles and tying itself in knots to justify a position that is utterly out of step with human rights. That position is that they do not support women who need abortions in cases of severe fetal abnormalities. To quote their MLA Emma Sheerin:”
“<BR /> <BR />The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women found that women in the North were subjected to "grave and systemic" violations of their rights because they were compelled to travel or carry pregnancies to full term. CEDAW highlighted cases of severe fetal abnormality in particular. The Bill, if passed, would guarantee that those grave and systemic violations of rights continue. <BR /> <BR />It is a damning indictment of the conservatism at the root of the major unionist and nationalist parties here that none can concretely defend women against attacks like this. The most damaging end of that conservatism obviously comes from the DUP, and a member of that party is sponsoring the Bill. However, it also leaves the biggest nationalist party, Sinn Féin, utterly paralysed to do anything about it.”
“That is blatant hypocrisy: demanding the right to choose when it suits, but not for those who need abortions. <BR /> <BR />I do not use the word "need" lightly. The Bill goes after some of the most tragic cases, where terminations are needed because a severe fetal anomaly has been discovered. From medical evidence, we know that those discoveries are often made late in pregnancies and can be devastating. Women often need time to deal with the news and to make a decision about what is best for them and their family. The law that came from Westminster that decriminalised abortion allows time for that. Based on best medical practice and human rights advice, it recognises that that time is essential.”
“I oppose clause 1, which would ensure that we continue to export grief by sending women who are experiencing severe fetal anomalies onto boats to get basic healthcare off our shores. <BR /> <BR />I have made no secret of the fact that I am a pro-choice MLA. My party, People Before Profit, is a pro-choice party, and, when elected, we committed to defending the rights of those who need a termination to make that choice for themselves. It is frankly galling that MLAs in the Chamber have joined so-called anti-vax protests in recent weeks and have taken to the airwaves to talk about civil liberties and coercion in relation to the vaccine, while, at the same time, they have given their full support to the Bill, which would coerce women to carry pregnancies to full term against their will or force them to travel to get abortions.”
“In the absence of any of that, the vaccine passport scheme, in my view, is a shameless attempt to shift blame from the Executive's door to the public, who did so much during the first waves of the virus and, on the whole, have done their bit to protect others.”
“For example, they have concerns around how BME community members may be further marginalised by that policy. <BR /> <BR />Finally, I make a fresh appeal to the Executive: do not embark on a strategy of "business as usual" and ask people to live with the virus while using those without vaccines as a scapegoat for the spread of the virus, especially as cases of the omicron variant rise. Instead, the Executive should do their job based on the best medical advice; protect communities and workers by financially facilitating working from home, introducing ventilation measures and getting back to the basics of distancing and mask wearing; do better in educating and encouraging those who have fears of vaccines rather than coercing them; and mandate venues to provide lateral flow tests on-site.”
“The Committee on the Administration of Justice (CAJ) has, rightly, raised concerns about how the scheme is exclusionary for those who do not have a home address, any form of ID or access to a smartphone. One measure to alleviate that would be to guarantee that every person has access to a lateral flow test on-site, but the Executive will not enforce that. I urge the Minister to come back and explain why that is the case. <BR /> <BR />Other members and I have asked at two successive Health Committee meetings why the vaccine certification policy was not fully equality screened, and I am yet to hear an adequate answer. I ask the Minister to address that concern, because it is a valid concern that is held by human rights groups and anti-racist organisations.”
“<BR /> <BR />I will be very clear. Those who stood outside this Building and in town centres across the North, likening COVID passports to Nazi measures, are not only totally inaccurate, but their actions are deeply offensive. While we do not believe that top-down, state-enforced, mandatory COVID passports in the absence of social distancing are a valid solution, we think that everyone who can get vaccinated should do so. We believe that everyone should test before entering venues and should not enter if they have COVID symptoms. Those are the basics of acting in solidarity to protect everyone, especially workers and those most at risk. <BR /> <BR />I do not understand why the Executive will not mandate businesses to provide lateral flow tests on-site on that basis, rather than making it optional.”
“Again, we have seen that done more successfully in other parts of the world and have not learned the lessons here. <BR /> <BR />As a socialist opposition in the Chamber and, indeed, Dáil Éireann, People Before Profit has been consistent in challenging the reckless approach of the Governments in the North and South. We have not gone along with their Tory tailing strategy, and we will not give cover to that hypocrisy today, nor will we give an inch to anyone in the DUP — arguably the most culpable party in the Executive's reckless approach in ignoring medical advice over the past two years — whose vaccine and mask scepticism has no place in the Chamber, and some of whom are opportunistically appealing to the right-wing element of certain anti-vax sentiments with their smoke and mirrors, petition of concern stunts and other activities.”
“<BR /> <BR />We have already heard establishment politicians blaming people without vaccines for the spread of the virus, while pushing through the relaxation of social distancing without so much as a debate in the House. Those same politicians cannot even muster the will, as the virus spreads for the umpteenth time, to facilitate people to continue to work from home, to put the basic financial supports in place to help with that, to put basic ventilation measures in schools and essential workplaces or to maintain a track-and-trace system that is worth its salt. Those measures will suppress the virus and keep vulnerable people safe, and it can be done in a way that does not push small businesses to the edge or sink the economy.”
“People Before Profit has called, North and South, for this island to follow that model, where vaccine coercion has not been sought as a singular keystone or main strategy; virus suppression has. We have been proven correct in wanting to follow such global examples, given their successes compared with the disastrous record of the Executive and the Irish Government. <BR /> <BR />One has to ask why any Government would seek to mandate vaccine passports, while, at the same time, stripping back regulations and protections, pushing people into shops and removing financial support for workers to stay at home. If the Executive were honest, they would recognise their failures during the pandemic and not want to push the responsibility onto ordinary people.”
“Not least because vaccine uptake has already been very successful and only a minority of people have not been jabbed yet infection numbers are still high, but also because of the new variant that is already here, we need to maintain a focus on basic measures. The World Health Organization has been explicit about this. Vaccination is key but needs to be accompanied by a swathe of other measures. <BR /> <BR />If anyone needs a window into our future, look to where the path of vaccine coercion has been followed — in Scotland, the South of Ireland and a litany of countries across Europe — only to be met with discontent and further COVID surges. A different approach has been taken, for example, in New Zealand.”
“This is a cynical attempt to shift the responsibility for limiting the spread of the virus from the Executive to ordinary people, and that is a strategy straight out of the Tory playbook. <BR /> <BR />I am doubly jabbed and, after last night's announcement, I will be urgently scheduling my booster. I have encouraged everyone who can to do the same since the beginning of the vaccine roll-out. However, I firmly believe that any strategy which is aimed at vaccine uptake alone while utterly abandoning the principles of social distancing, mask-wearing, ventilation and tracking and tracing is doomed to fail.”
“Once again, I rise in the Chamber deeply frustrated by the approach of the Executive. This has been a running theme from the very beginning of the pandemic, and I am sure that some are sick of hearing it, but time and time again, as failures of this Executive are exposed, the principled opposition in the Chamber has proven correct. Not only have vaccine passports already been implemented, so this debate and vote are effectively undemocratic and pointless in practice, but, in a totally farcical move, the Executive introduced the passports days after relaxing social-distancing and mask-wearing measures in the very venues where passports are being mandated. It is truly bonkers, if you ask me.”
“— Sinn Féin, the SDLP and Alliance need to vote against it. No petroleum licensing —”
“<BR /> <BR />Fermanagh and Omagh District Council passed a motion last week that called for a public inquiry in regard to the findings of the University of Exeter report, the industry's influence on the Department for the Economy, especially in regard to policy formation, and issues around governance and the maintenance of the Department's strategy to promote gas. I fully support the council's call in the motion that was passed. My understanding is that the serious environmental concerns and opposition to petroleum licensing have not been given their place in the report and, probably, its recommendations. The Economy Minister should not bring a policy that green-lights petroleum licensing as communities rise up and say no to that practice. However, if it is brought to the Executive —”
“<BR /> <BR />The University of Exeter report of March this year raised serious concerns regarding the governance in the Department for the Economy specifically and the heavy influence from those in the fossil fuel industry, with the suggestion that the Department facilitates those organisations and refuses to suspend its policy to promote gas while it reviews policy on licensing for exploration for the extraction of gas. That is hardly a neutral position from which to start in the first place. There are already serious concerns that not all the recommendations made in the University of Exeter report may have been implemented and that there is adverse and inappropriate influence from industry on the petroleum licensing policy options being brought to the Executive.”
“At the launch of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, the UN Secretary-General said that there should be no new exploration for fossil fuels and no more subsidies for fossil fuel companies and that we should move to renewables as a matter of urgency. Activists have expressed to me their concern and belief that there is a revolving door policy of people working on strategy and policies for Departments then moving into the polluting and extractive industry.”
“The Assembly has repeatedly passed motions and Bills calling for urgent action to stave off climate chaos, but, here, we have an attempt to sneak in through the back door policies to which people have made their opposition repeatedly clear at a time when people are preoccupied with other things and cases of the new COVID variant are rapidly increasing. The cynic in me believes that the paper is being brought forward precisely at this time for those reasons. <BR /> <BR />I will say this categorically: if we are to prevent climate change from occurring, as a bare minimum, we need to keep fossil fuels in the ground, and the Department should not proceed to grant approval for any petroleum licences under whatever guise they are presented.”
“At the weekend, I stood with environmental activists from the Youth Climate Association, Extinction Rebellion, Friends of the Earth and trade unions to raise opposition to the granting of petroleum licences here. Despite all the talk recently from Executive Ministers about the climate and the destruction caused by increased emissions, primarily through the use of fossil fuels, the Executive have failed to act to ban petroleum licensing. <BR /> <BR />As I understand it, the Economy Minister intends to bring through a policy options paper for Executive approval that will not specifically recommend the banning of fossil fuels but that, essentially, will OK the granting of licences. That is, obviously, very worrying in and of itself.”
“I just want to let the Minister get the chance to get a drink of water so she can finish her contribution. Does she agree with that?”
“We will continue to campaign for alleviations, mitigations and, ultimately, the repeal of the welfare reforms, as they are euphemistically called, and a social security system that provides proper protections and dignity for people who rely on it. I also pay tribute to organisations, such as Marie Curie and others, that have pressed for the long-awaited change.”
“People Before Profit would go much further than these measures if we were in the Minister's seat. We would extend it beyond 12 months and close more of the loopholes that have seen people pay a bedroom tax that they were promised would not affect them or have to deal with private for-profit companies like Capita. <BR /> <BR />We should be in no doubt that, although the change today will have a massive impact on people, the suffering of hundreds of thousands of people in the welfare system will continue. It was a mistake to do the Tories' bidding six years ago, and people are suffering as a result.”
“It is unconscionable that it has taken six years to make the change. It should pain all of us to think of how many people have suffered unnecessarily during the six long years since the Assembly endorsed the disgraceful Tory welfare reforms. I cannot believe that it has taken this long to deliver the changes, which should never have been needed in the first place. The introduction of PIP, universal credit and the rest of the welfare reforms have devastated sick and disabled people, particularly those in working-class communities like mine. <BR /> <BR />I am glad that those with a year or less to live will no longer be forced to battle with the system or experience the distress that all of us have witnessed first-hand; instead, they can put that time to better use with loved ones.”
“I support the Bill. The law that mandated terminally ill patients to deal with the bureaucracy of the welfare system, fill out extensive paperwork and attend disability assessments despite having months to live was an injustice. The mind boggles that some of those people were wrongly denied financial support and had to undergo an appeals process to get the help that they needed. It forced people in the advanced stages of debilitating conditions to spend their final weeks and months fighting for financial support and, shamefully, some of them died before they received their first payment.”
“I thank the Minister for his answer. I do not know if that is exactly the case. Given that there is widespread concern about the environmental impact of petroleum licences on local habitats and people who work on the land, does the Minister accept that we need to keep all fossil fuel reserves in the ground if we are to have a chance of stopping climate change, and does he support a ban to prevent the progression of any future petroleum licences?”
“I beg to introduce the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Amendment) Bill [NIA 49/17-22], which is a Bill to amend the law relating to trade union and labour relations; and for connected purposes.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. Is she as concerned as I was yesterday and today that, despite these serious and traumatic experiences, there is an overwhelming focus on finance and cost and not enough focus, except from herself and some other Members, on people who are still in work, lacking support, and the impact on them and their families of not progressing legislation such as this? Are she and the Committee concerned about that direction of travel being pursued by the Minister?”
“I look forward to doing that, and, if I can play a role in helping one person who has faced losing a child or another relative, it will have been a worthwhile endeavour indeed. <BR /> <BR />In conclusion, I am very concerned that in yesterday's discussion on domestic abuse leave and today's debate on parental bereavement leave, there has been a focus on cost. Frankly, that is obscene. We should not be counting pennies and pounds when we are talking about dealing with extremely difficult and traumatic experiences for people. The focus should be on supporting those who need help, support and time off; not on prioritising financial concerns. I hope that the Minister takes that into account in his response to the debate today.”
“That would ensure that so many more people are given the time, space and financial security that they need to begin grieving away from work. <BR /> <BR />I am glad to say that my party and its councillors in Belfast City Council and Derry and Strabane District Council have proposed motions to those respective councils based on the coalition's call to action in the hope of securing two weeks' bereavement pay for all workers affected by the bereavement of a close relative. I hope that those councils lead the way on that issue and that others follow, because, crucially, we must listen to the voices of those impacted by bereavement — parents, workers and their trade union representatives — in the hope that those voices are heard and are allowed to strengthen the legislation, if it needs to be strengthened.”
“It is frightening to think that, in the context of a parent's worst hour of need, some parents are not supported properly and have financial and employment concerns heaped on top of their grieving process. The legislation can help to correct that wrong and, therefore, is clearly welcome. <BR /> <BR />As welcome as the legislation is, I also wish to raise the contact that I have had with the Coalition for Bereaved Workers, a campaign that has support from the trade union movement as well as a number of charities. The coalition has stated how the Parental Bereavement (Leave and Pay) Bill is a crucial first step, but, once it becomes law, we need to go further still and grant the same protections to everyone who is bereaved of a close relative or partner.”
“The Bill will bring things here into line with legislation across the water, where such provision already exists. <BR /> <BR />As I said, it is an indictment on our society that the Assembly is only doing this now and that we are playing catch-up with Britain. Up until now, employed parents who have found themselves dealing with bereavement have been left to deal with it alone with their employers, without any legislative support in place for paid time off work. No doubt, there are many employers who treat the issue with compassion and humanity and have their own provision in place when the situation arises, but, as we heard, there are also employers who do not have decent provisions in place and do not meet the situations with the humanity and compassion that is needed.”
“I hope that that amendment passes instead of amendment No 4, which I do not support, because I do not feel that it is necessary to consult on the issue over a two-year period, and nor do I want to see a situation in which the Chamber picks and chooses which people experiencing miscarriages are or are not worthy of support. <BR /> <BR />Obviously, it is a very difficult subject and one that must be approached with the utmost sensitivity and respect. No parent should ever have to grieve for a child, but it is an awful reality for some parents, and there is a duty on decision makers and leaders to provide as much support as possible for those who have to face that traumatic, life-changing experience. For that reason alone, the legislative move to provide for parental bereavement pay is welcome.”
“One area that has been highlighted is the lack of legal support and protection for workers who face bereavement amidst the health crisis, during which far too many people had to bury loved ones. My heart goes out to every single parent in the world who has had to cope with losing a child. <BR /> <BR />I support the Bill. I also support amendment No 1 and all the consequential amendments that follow the move to include those who have experienced miscarriages. I support the inclusion of stillbirths, although that is not in the amendments today. It is entirely appropriate to include miscarriages in the legislation, and I welcome the fact that debate at Committee level has brought that about. I will support amendment No 1.”
“I thank Kellie Armstrong for her powerful testimony again. The aim of the Bill ought to receive the support of every MLA in the Chamber. I add my voice to those welcoming the Bill. It has been a long time coming, and — dare I say? — it is quite a shocking indictment of our society and its employment practices that, in 2021, we are only now debating concrete legislative support to provide bereavement pay and leave to workers who are parents and have had to face the greatest of all fears: losing a child. <BR /> <BR />During the pandemic, everyone across our society has grown to value the role of our front-line workers. The COVID pandemic has brought a new onus to recognise the role that workers play in our society, but it has also put a spotlight on things like low pay and the lack of support and legal protections for those workers.”
“I thank the Minister for giving way. Does he recognise that other people would be concerned that "cost to the employer" is used? We do not use that language when it comes to people taking time off for medical appointments, so why should we use it when it comes to dealing with people taking time off for domestic abuse?”
“The increasingly precarious and low-paid nature of work, particularly for women, means that taking time off to deal with an issue arising from domestic abuse can be incredibly difficult or impossible for many. As with cases where a worker may require a termination, has suffered a miscarriage or has had to take on additional caring duties, those scenarios, including domestic violence, overwhelmingly impact on women workers, yet we have a dearth of legislative protection and support for those workers. <BR /> <BR />I hope that we can get the legislation passed as soon as possible without much interference. I support it and hope that everybody will do so today.”
“Outside the Building, the real bulk of the work to raise awareness, secure services and provide support and refuges for women in domestic abuse situations has been done by women's groups, activists and volunteers — groups like Women's Aid, who say that they have supported 530 women in refuges since 2020, or the Women's Resource and Development Agency (WRDA), Alliance for Choice in Belfast and Derry, the Belfast Feminist Network and more. Without their work, I fear that the situation would be far worse. They are to be thanked not only for that important work but for the information that they collect and produce, which is key to exposing the scale of the problem. <BR /> <BR />The Bill is timely, and the changes that it will make are important. The Bill is right to situate the issue as a worker's issue.”
“I cannot help thinking that she is right. The headline this weekend that put us on the map as the most dangerous place for women in Europe was simultaneously gut-wrenching and not wholly surprising. From everyday sexism and misogyny to anti-choice legislation and a terrible record in the justice system of dealing with rape and sexual assault and with headlines such as that, we are all too aware of the situation that is facing and failing women and girls here. <BR /> <BR />While the Bill is, obviously, not gender-specific, it is clear that the gendered impact of domestic violence is a key factor in the reason why it has not been prioritised or properly addressed.”
“I welcome the introduction of the Bill and thank the Bill sponsor for bringing it. Like many in the Chamber, I have been harrowed by the number of women who have been murdered since the beginning of the pandemic as a result of domestic violence. That shows that it is not only an issue in our society but one that has worsened in recent years. I also welcome the recent confirmation from the Justice Minister that she will introduce legislation in this arena next year. However, it is also a fair charge that the Assembly and the Executive have done far from enough to tackle the issue over the years. Indeed, as Suzanne Breen wrote in 'Sunday Life' over the weekend, we have:”
“It is disappointing that the Minister could not say that he supports workers' taking action. Workers are calling for the Education Minister to intervene to fund the pay disparity that the education welfare officers face. They are calling for the Economy Minister to intervene to pressure universities into making sure that workers are not paid low wages. Will the First Minister intervene to make sure that both those Ministers act to resolve the workers' issues?”
“Minister, given the new variant and some of the measures that you have mentioned, what discussion has taken place between you, the Finance Minister and other Ministers about financial protection? If we are to support people to isolate and work from home, there needs to be greater financial protection for them, especially given the increasing costs of fuel, food and everything else. What discussion has there been about finance?”
“They are angry that, despite repeated lobbying and agitation, the Education Authority and the Department have not intervened. <BR /> <BR />Today, I am calling on the Education Minister to intervene as a matter of urgency to meet the demands of those workers. Just imagine where we would be in a situation such as COVID without those workers. Now is the time to pay them what they are owed. Those workers are also impacted on by the universal credit uplift being scrapped, fuel price increases this winter and the general increase in the cost of living. Workers should not be placed in situations where they are grossly underpaid for the work that they do. <BR /> <BR />Education welfare officers, and University and College Union workers, have shown what to do when faced with belligerent employers. Solidarity to them.”
“They are livid that the employer and the Minister have failed to intervene and allocate that money. Whilst that money is, obviously, quite a lot for those workers, in the grand scheme of things, in the Executive's Budget, it is a drop in the ocean. We are talking about 130 workers who provide essential work to vulnerable and at-risk young people. Their work is being undervalued and they are being underpaid. <BR /> <BR />The strike is about not only recognising and resolving pay disparity but recruitment and retention. Many workers are looking at the trusts as employers, and their pay rates, and deciding that it is better for them and their families if they switch jobs. Workers and unions are livid that the employer has failed to settle on this issue.”
“<BR /> <BR />There is a discrepancy of £5,000 per year in what education welfare officers are paid by the Education Authority and social workers are paid by health and social care trusts. That is not to say, of course, that social workers are rolling in it. Far from it. However, it is to recognise that there is a historical discrepancy in pay, and a significant one at that, and it should not be allowed to continue. Such a disparity in pay levels is, frankly, obscene, and it would not be allowed to exist in most other sectors or spheres, so why should it be allowed to exist here? <BR /> <BR />The strike is not about pitting workers against each other but about paying people what they are worth for the work that they do. This morning, I spoke to workers on the picket lines.”
“I want to raise the case of the strike by NIPSA members who work as education welfare officers across the North, and who, today, are beginning their first day on strike as part of a two-week campaign. I offer them my solidarity and send my best wishes to them in their fight whilst they brave picket lines in the cold. <BR /> <BR />The dispute is about ensuring that workers are paid properly for the jobs that they do. Education welfare officers provide an essential service to some of the most vulnerable, marginalised and, frankly, forgotten-about young people in our communities. In many ways, they are social workers but with a different title. However, they are paid significantly less than their social work counterparts.”
“<BR /> <BR />I am disappointed that there has not been a more reassuring attempt to ensure an as-efficient-as-possible trial process for victims while not unpicking the right of defendants to a fair process.”