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 57 of 83.
“Our system may have more protections — I am sure that the Minister will elaborate — but that example from across the water shows the unfairness at the heart of that kind of deduction system. <BR /> <BR />I am aware that the Committee supports the change, so I do not expect to be able to oppose or block it in any real sense with a Division. However, there are far better ways to help people who are on low incomes and are being punished by welfare reform who face fines and are at the sharp end of the justice system — maybe more so than other people from wealthier backgrounds — than by removing what financial autonomy they are afforded through social security. Those issues have to be put on the record as well.”
“Although its powers do not allow it to pursue them, it has not pressed the point, despite the fact that there is a massive disparity in what is lost from those who do not pay fines and those who do not pay large sums of tax, such as the people about whom we are talking today. <BR /> <BR />I understand that there is an argument that the measures could prevent benefit claimants from defaulting or even ending up in prison over their failure to pay. However, I fear that the method ultimately shifts away autonomy over personal finances. The DWP, which was referred to earlier, recently ended up in hot water in the courts for making those kinds of deductions and leaving people with too little money for food or fuel.”
“It seems to be that some are making the briefest of brief comments. Mine will be slightly shorter than Mr Blair's, but longer than Ms Dillon and Mr O'Toole's. I have a few comments. I have concerns about the difference in the way that social security claimants are and can be treated compared with others who rack up fines or break the law in other areas of society. For example, the Assembly would not dream of accessing in the same way the income of business owners to make deductions to pay off fines, yet it is seemingly OK to do so to those who need income from the state and need welfare to get by. The Assembly has not argued for the pursuing of tax dodgers in the same way.”
“It is important to underscore that and to recognise and remember that — after the legislation is given Royal Assent and the changes come through, we will, no doubt, come back to those issues again — unfortunately, the decision was taken not to provide protection for workers in the Bill. I am, however, happy to support the rest of it.”
“I will make a few brief comments. There are a lot of welcome changes in the Bill, including but not limited to the change that means that small breweries will be able to challenge the monopoly that the big drinks companies hold. Most Members welcomed that during discussions on the legislation. <BR /> <BR />I want to emphasise that the Bill has missed an opportunity — I tried to amend the Bill, and I referenced this a number of times throughout the debates — to extend support and protection for workers in hospitality. Without them, there is no hospitality to speak of. There is nobody to pull the pumps, serve the punters or wait on tables. Without the workers, there is no hospitality to promote to tourists or whomever else. <BR /> <BR />On the exclusion of workers' rights from the Bill, the Unite hospitality branch, just last week, said:”
“On that point, does the Member agree that we need to tackle issues such as alienation, poverty and deprivation? Obviously, it is not exclusively people with alcohol problems who suffer from those, but they are major causes of people becoming addicted to alcohol, so it is not just about opening hours.”
“Minister, we cannot pretend that the issues around Capita emerged only over the last week. Those issues have been raised for many, many years. It seems that the Executive have an approach of rewarding horrendous behaviour, especially towards Capita. <BR /> <BR />Given Capita's repeated failures and its systemic maladministration when working with disabled and vulnerable people, how confident is the Minister in Capita's delivering this contract in a fair way? Respectfully, I say that there is no conflation of these issues. This is the same organisation that we are talking about.”
“I suggest that that is a short-term and misguided strategy and that looking at those who have financially blossomed during COVID would be a better strategy. Where does the Minister see the money to fund this coming from?”
“I thank the Minister for his statement. Minister, you referenced heartbreaking cases of people under eight years of age needing specialist treatment for eating disorders. Recently, the mother of a young person was in contact with me about her child being severely distressed and forced to wait months to get access to private services because the NHS and trusts are so overwhelmed. Unfortunately, that seems to be commonplace. <BR /> <BR />My question for the Minister is around funding. The statement states that £1·2 billion of funding is needed — I suggest that the figure is probably greater than that — to tackle the pandemic's mental health crisis over so many years. Where does the Minister envisage that money coming from? There has been some suggestion around waiting lists that we take money from services here to fund waiting lists here.”
“<BR /> <BR />The only way in which to deal with the issues of housing waiting lists, damp and mould is to fund and protect the Housing Executive as a public body.”
“The only way in which to tackle the problem is to keep the Housing Executive as a publicly run and funded body, and I urge against the plan of the previous, interim Minister to redesignate landlords, or any part of the Housing Executive, as mutuals. Such a redesignation, if proceeded with, would take housing out of public and departmental control. The example of Capita should serve as a warning to everybody about the deep problems caused by taking services outside of public control. <BR /> <BR />Finally, there is the issue of a just transition and green jobs. Faced with economic ruin, we should use the already existing skills of people to protect and insulate homes and to reskill the many more people who would be able and willing to do those jobs.”
“<BR /> <BR />A harsh reality for people on whom bad air quality has an impact outside the home and who live in deprived areas is that they are more likely to be impacted on by bad air quality in the home, with issues such as damp and mould being more prevalent in such homes and communities. Although some can afford not to live in crowded and bad housing conditions, not everyone has that luxury. During COVID, some people could self-isolate in reasonable comfort, if they had space and a big garden, but those living in an apartment or in a built-up area could not. <BR /> <BR />I support the motion and its aims. Ironically, the recently passed Budget did not have the resources in it to tackle this massive problem, but it passed anyway.”
“<BR /> <BR />Too many mothers of children who have been in and out of hospital owing to chest and breathing difficulties are dismissed when they raise concerns about damp and mould. I have heard too many of those heartbreaking stories over the years. <BR /> <BR />With all the focus over the past year on COVID affecting organs and causing respiratory issues, it is right and proper that the House should discuss the impact of damp and mould on homes, and on the tenants living in them, and, crucially, what can be done to eradicate that blight from our communities. We are talking about conditions in homes in which you would not even put dogs or cats.”
“Four should be OK, hopefully, Mr Principal Deputy Speaker. <BR /> <BR />I thank the Members who brought the motion to the House. I also thank Joseph Carter from the British Lung Foundation, who sent through very important and useful information ahead of the debate. <BR /> <BR />Too many people are faced with inappropriate housing conditions, and they include a large number of people in my constituency. They live in housing that has bad damp and other issues of disrepair. As other Members have said, such problems are not limited to Housing Executive properties, while landlords too often dismiss issues of damp as being able to be resolved by tenants simply opening their windows. Those are shocking comments. Even when windows are open day and night, the damp persists. That is something that I have experienced myself when renting privately.”
“I thank the Minister for giving way. He has been consistent in his replies about internal Executive matters being discussed. How concerned is he about the potential for a further rise in cases of the delta variant, especially with that decision that he may or may not have supported being made in the Executive? How concerned is he about the summer and the weeks and months ahead?”
“Reports suggest that there was a warning from the Chief Medical Officer that ignoring or lifting the requirement to self-isolate would lead to a rapid increase in cases. According to media reports, the Executive voted against or ignored that. A bit of clarity on that from the Minister would be welcome, especially given the fact that 50% of cases are now connected to the delta variant. I know that that is not directly connected to this SR, but a bit of clarity would be useful.”
“I was not intending to speak, but, since the Minister expressed concern about having to move this amendment, I could not resist the temptation to continue briefly in that vein. I will be brief, Mr Deputy Speaker. I want to ask this question of the Minister today because I may not get another chance to do so before recess. Can he shed any light on the decision taken at the Executive, as media reports suggest, to go against the medical evidence presented on the need for people travelling within the common travel area (CTA) to self-isolate? There are massive questions to be answered. The Committee has put some of those to the Minister, but it might be after the summer when we get answers.”
“I thank the Minister for his answer. I welcome his comment that it should not be used as a tactic, but it should not be used at all. A survey from the GMB union found that 76% of people surveyed were opposed to the action and would support legislation to ban it. Unions such as Unite the Union — the Minister might be a former member of it — and many others are calling for legislation to address that disgraceful practice, which treats workers like dirt. Legislation is progressing through Westminster at the minute. Does the Minister agree that it would be wholly unacceptable if there was a divergence on the matter, and, if legislation to outlaw it is passed in Great Britain, will he move swiftly to introduce similar legislation here?”
“I thank the Minister for his statement, and I wish Philip McGuigan well. Hopefully, he is on his bike again soon. <BR /> <BR />Minister, was the decision on appointing a representative from the formula industry to the Safefood advisory committee discussed at this meeting? I have raised that with you in questions for written answer. Given that you and your Department are committed to the promotion of breastfeeding, what message does that decision send out? Did you have any input into that decision, and was it discussed in any detail or any concerns raised about it at the meeting?”
“I would like a bit more detail, please, on the elective care money for waiting lists. Will the Minister give a breakdown of where that money will be spent and the proportion that will be spent on private or independent providers? If not, when will he and we receive that information?”
“That is from the ombudsman herself. In any sane, fair and rational system, you would think that that company would at least have its knuckles rapped and its contract cancelled. What is the response from the Department for Communities and the Sinn Féin Minister? It is, disgracefully, to continue the company's contract for another two years. <BR /> <BR />Then we have the awarding of a contract for victims' pensions to the same organisation. Who can say with any sincerity that they trust that company to treat people with any empathy and care, considering how Capita has repeatedly functioned in the past? I certainly do not. We were told about a new normal, but given the report, its findings and the future outworkings of the contracts, there will be no new normal for people on PIP or for people with disabilities.”
“That was in the detail of the Stormont House Agreement, the legacy of which we still live with today. <BR /> <BR />The report found that, repeatedly, Capita did not contact doctors or other health professionals in the majority of cases. Who better to know about people's health or disabilities than their doctor or medical practitioners? It also found that applicants with Parkinson's disease received zero points for daily living and mobility and that, disgracefully, GP evidence that had been given was not taken into consideration. The report also found:”
“It is not that they did not know the scale of the problems with not only Capita, but welfare reform itself. They were warned before they implemented it, but they proceeded regardless. We were told that the vulnerable would be protected. That is a laughable claim when you read the details of the report from last week. It is a system of conscious cruelty that says that it is OK to slash welfare services and put people through a degrading and rigorous ordeal, all for a cosy deal to cut corporation tax for the wealthy.”
“Thanks to the Speaker for accepting the Matter of the Day. Last week's report from the ombudsman was damning about the welfare system and, chiefly, the personal independence payment, which is an issue that people have highlighted for many years. The report underscored what many people have thought, experienced and said for some time now: Capita is unfit for that work. Time and time again, Capita has proven that it is either unable or unwilling to deal with highly sensitive circumstances and with people who have disabilities and vulnerabilities. The question is how was it able to do that in the first place? The answer is two words: welfare reform. <BR /> <BR />The parties in this House that implemented welfare reform are responsible for this scandal. In the main, the DUP and Sinn Féin.”
“I appreciate the Minister's remarks. Can that be brought forward as an SR or in a different piece of legislation? The Minister says that it cannot be incorporated into the Bill: is that correct?”
“I think that I missed this, as I was on my way down the stairs, so I ask whether she intends to remove the clause through an amendment at the next stage. <BR /> <BR />Finally, similar to Ms Armstrong, my understanding is that there is no legislation that allows for hybrid meetings to take place. That may explain why clause 2, even though it is badly drafted, was inserted in the first instance. I want to get some clarity on hybrid meetings. Was clause 2 included to facilitated hybrid meetings? If that is the case, does the Minister intend to table amendments or to introduce other legislation to allow for hybrid meetings to take place?”
“Even though the Minister gave a welcome commitment to remove the clause, I will underscore some of the concerns and ask some questions about it. It is one thing to legislate to allow councils to continue to have remote meetings, but I see no good reason that we should grant the Department or the Minister the power to decide such things as the timing and frequency of council and committee meetings; the place at which meetings must be held; who may be allowed to attend; who can speak and vote in meetings; public admission; and the documents to be accessed. Those powers should lie firmly with councils. The proposals run the risk of allowing the abuse of the democratic process in local government, which is a serious concern. I welcome the Minister's comments that she will remove the clause.”
“There is clearly an urgent need for legislation on local government in the area that has been outlined. The current situation, whereby councils are operating through a system of delegated authority, with council management and chief executives effectively rubber-stamping decisions made by elected reps, is a dangerous one and sets a bad precedent during a time of crisis and emergency. No one doubts the difficult problems of the past year of the pandemic that have arisen for Governments, Administrations and councils, but it is ridiculous and unacceptable that it has got to this stage and that only now are we seeing legislation on the matter. <BR /> <BR />That said, my party and I have serious concerns about clause 2.”
“The Budget does not reflect the pain and suffering that people have gone through in the past year, and, for that reason, I will vote against it. The solution to that is to organise our communities to protest, to put pressure on the Executive for their failed policies.”
“Even in the belly of the beast of capitalism in the US, there has been, if not a break, certainly a sidestep in how government is operated. Joe Biden, who is by no means a socialist or a radical, is investing $2 trillion in infrastructure, in the US economy and in people's pockets, whereas this Executive continue to adopt policies of neoliberalism, attacking public services and implementing pay cuts whilst passing them off as increases — a classic, textbook Tory policy. <BR /> <BR />In looking back over 100 years, the only time when people's conditions improved was through mass demonstrations, strikes and protests such as the 1919 general strike, the 1932 outdoor relief riots and recent water charges campaigns.”
“<BR /> <BR />We heard from the Health Minister last week or the week before about a road map for tackling waiting lists, and the reality is that the resources required to tackle waiting lists are not detailed in the Budget. As some Members have said, there is fuel and support for continuing the two-tier health model. That is the approach of the Department and, seemingly, the Minister. There is no plugging of the gap of the 7,000 nurses that we are short, as people know. There is no extra money set aside for nurses' pay beyond what is expected or what will be announced by the pay review body, so we are effectively subject to its decision. What an insult to people who worked through hell and high water to protect and save lives during COVID. <BR /> <BR />Of course, the truth is that things did not and do not have to be this way.”
“as usual. <BR /> <BR />The Minister has stated repeatedly, maybe at every stage of the Budget Bill, that, in reality, this is a standstill Budget. In real terms, in translation, that means a deterioration of conditions, pay and finance for people who are not connected to Stormont and are not wealthy as it is. A harsh reality during COVID has been that those who do not have as much as it is have found it difficult to weather the storm of the pandemic. Meanwhile, organisations that likely have large resources, such as sports organisations with well-financed bank accounts, get bailed out or profiteer from the pandemic while other people are failed. That is scandalous and a real, horrible legacy of COVID in this place. The Budget does not address those issues; it just exacerbates them.”
“In some ways, it is ironic that, on the 100th anniversary of the Northern Ireland Parliament's first sitting, when there was a Government and an Assembly that attacked working-class people's conditions whilst proclaiming to uphold an all-class alliance, today, 100 years on, a multiparty Executive containing people designated as unionists, nationalists or others support and push through another Budget that does nothing to enhance pay, conditions or the experience of working-class and deprived communities beyond”
“<BR /> <BR />I will support all the amendments apart from amendment No 12, but workers' rights still have to be addressed in the Bill.”
“I ask the Minister this: how can the undue inconvenience of residents be within the scope of the Bill but the undue inconvenience of the workers who have to work those hours is not within its scope? Surely if we can afford residents the room for inconvenience, we can do the same for bar workers. I remind the Minister that we are talking about bar workers who are regularly assaulted as they travel home late from work, and female staff who report sexual abuse and fear of travelling home when public transport is not running. Is that not just as important — some might say it is more so — than residents suffering the unfortunate inconvenience of bars being open later? To be frank, I find it to be a blatant attempt to exclude workers' rights from the legislation. It is the latest attempt to do so by the Executive.”
“I argue that that does not stack up, because the Bill takes into account the undue inconvenience that licensing changes could have on local residents, and that:”
“Instead, a more responsible route would be legislation that does not disproportionately target one section of society, particularly when that section of society is the hardest hit by most of the cuts and debilitating policies that come from the Executive already. <BR /> <BR />I also put on record my disappointment that, once again, the Minister has failed to include protections for bar workers, who will be detrimentally and directly impacted by the new laws. I submitted two amendments backed by Unite the Union that would have given those workers a pay premium and a safe journey home, but, unfortunately, they were not selected for debate. I asked the Minister to do that, but she said that it was outside the scope of the Bill, which is focused on licensing.”
“It will be no surprise that I oppose amendment No 12, which relates to the minimum unit pricing of alcohol. At the previous stage, I spoke about the anti-working class sentiment behind such laws. Not only are they rendered ineffective for those who can afford to circumvent them but they impact disproportionately on working-class people. Frankly, I am disappointed with many Members, particularly those from the Minister's party, who are happy to go along with that kind of legislation, which exclusively targets low earners, the unemployed and those who get a pittance from our welfare system. Those with alcoholism, who were rightly factored into COVID regulations, will be hardest hit of all. I cannot go along with such legislation. I am disappointed that the Assembly will do so.”
“Pension credit has increased with the SR, but many thousands of people who are entitled to pension credit are still not getting it. That is 30,000 families, or a third of all people who are entitled to the benefit. There is a meagre increase for pensioners. In reality, it does not go far enough. <BR /> <BR />Every time that we have conversations about benefits, we hear that there is no magic money tree, yet billionaires have made over £100 billion extra during the pandemic and government contracts were given to friends of the Tories. There is plenty of money there, if the will is there to collect it. We need to dispense with comments about magic money trees and so on.”
“<BR /> <BR />That is not to mention the fact that people here are still waiting on the mitigation package to be agreed by the Executive. That is a really shameful state of affairs. Parties in the Chamber told us that the bedroom tax would not be in operation in the North, even when the legislation had already been written and implemented, and the protective measures that people need are now not in place, despite being promised. I pay tribute to the Cliff Edge Coalition and other groups that are highlighting that really scandalous state of affairs. As it stands, over 1,000 families are being failed by gaps in the legislation on the bedroom tax and the two-child cap on benefits that sees families lose out on hundreds of pounds a month. People live in anxiety and fear.”
“If that does become the rate, the increases, such as they are presented, will not even match the increased cost of living, of food and of other amenities. The retail price index has already increased by 2·15% over the last period, and RPI is traditionally and historically a more accurate reflection of the cost of people's shopping and living etc. It is expected to rise further. At best, those figures are therefore at a standstill, but they will probably represent a decrease in real terms in what people take home compared with what they have to pay out in increased costs and so on. On top of that, there is the expected or likely £20 cut in universal credit to come in the winter. The truth is that people on benefits are being failed once again by policies designed at Westminster and rubber-stamped at Stormont.”
“I will be brief but perhaps not as brief as Mr Durkan. I am sure that most people would not begrudge people on benefits, pensioners and those requiring assistance from the state a few extra quid in their pockets: certainly not me or my party. We have to ask today — not at some mythical point in the future but today — whether the increases go far enough to see people through the uncertainty and hard times that they have experienced over the past year or so and that they will likely continue to experience into the future. On that point, the SRs have failed to meet the criteria. <BR /> <BR />At best, the SRs increase benefits by 2·5%, but we are seeing reports already that inflation, and certainly CPI, will likely hit 4%.”
“On behalf of my party, I offer my sincere condolences to Gordon's friends, family and colleagues on the very sad news of his passing. I did not come across Gordon directly on Committees or in the Chamber, but he was always courteous and polite when I passed him in the corridor, even if we did not agree or our politics did not meet. I offer my sympathies to everybody who knew Gordon and who was close to him, because this is obviously a very sad day for them.”
“They have persisted despite being ignored and opposed. It is clear to us that the only way to bring about real, progressive change is through more and relentless people-power campaigns. <BR /> <BR />I want to stress that we should never trust the Tories with rights. Recent history shows that. The responsibility still lies with Stormont, and those who breathe a sigh of relief that the buck has been passed should not be allowed to get comfortable until those rights are finally over the line.”
“They are the same institutions that saw Black Lives Matter activists targeted, that have utterly failed to deliver on commitments to workers in NDNA and that have witnessed a spike in poverty and deprivation levels right across our communities by unleashing welfare reforms, maintaining bottom wages and paying more heed to paramilitary demands than demands from trade unions. The only time this Executive have ever deviated from this miserable record is when workers or people-power campaigns have put it up to them. That is how health workers got their pay rise. That is how women forced the issue of abortion onto the agenda, front and centre, when no big party stood by them. That is how Irish language campaigners have shaken up the cosy politics on the hill once again.”
“The only reason that they are willing to step in is the same reason that parties in the Executive are willing to accept their intervention: it is because activists continue to campaign and demand that those who support them stand their ground. Once again, this campaign has defined the fault lines of this Executive, and the buck has had to be passed to the Tories to keep these institutions afloat at all costs. It is also because the Tories are facing their own crises on multiple fronts. <BR /> <BR />Let us not forget that these are the same institutions that presided over a disastrous COVID policy, with lives tragically lost.”
“Time after time, from equal marriage to abortion and now the Irish language, the DUP has played a disgraceful role in blocking, delaying and rolling back on people's rights. When Gaeilgeoirí or women, for that matter, have to rely on the rotten Tories to give them basic rights, it speaks volumes about the level of dysfunction and dead-end politics that leaves the Stormont institutions utterly incapable of delivering any kind of progressive or real change. Frankly, I do not trust the Tories; most people do not. I do not think that they give a damn about Irish language rights, Irish language speakers or anybody here.”
“The motion goes some way towards that, and I am happy to support it.”
“Yes, I agree with the Member about Tory austerity. Unfortunately, that passed through the Executive as well, but, yes, that is where it originated. We can have both. We can have a health service, which needs to be funded to the tune of hundreds of millions or, probably, billions of pounds, and we can have Irish language legislation, rights and facilities. <BR /> <BR />I will end with a quote from the UN special rapporteur on minority issues, Fernand de Varennes. I hope that I pronounced his name correctly. He stated:”
“I find it ironic that a party that was central to gutting our public services and voting through another Budget that starved the health service of much-needed funding is talking about resources being thin or not being there. That is quite ironic indeed. It still does not support the call for a COVID wealth tax. Its new party leader has been silent on that matter.”