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 58 of 83.
“Carál has got it there. I hope that Hansard can pick that up. <BR /> <BR />I hope that, if passed, the motion can be part of tackling the monolinguistic approach that dominates in this place. This is probably the only political Chamber, or one of the only, that is, for the most part, dominated by one language. More than 90% of the time, English is spoken. Although some people may not want to see the day, I hope that, by passing the motion, the change to Standing Orders can result in more Irish being spoken in the Chamber. That is something that would be widely accepted amongst society.”
“Perhaps Patsy knows what a smellfungus is in Gaelic.”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Níl a fhios agam cad é sin as Gaeilge. I do not know what that is as Gaeilge, but I am sure that somebody can provide that translation.”
“To be honest, it does not bode well for any sign of Irish language legislation coming to the House if the party opposite — the DUP — is trying to block translation services. People are hardly demanding the earth with those. In my view and that of others, this is about promotion and visibility of a growing language. It is growing in my community, and that is a wonderful and important thing, with Gaelscoileanna bursting at the seams. It is ironic that the Deputy Chair talked about not cherry-picking from NDNA, which his party signed up to, but then proceeded to cherry-pick.”
“I am happy to speak in support of the motion. The least that the House can do is to allow for more visibility and support for those who want to speak and live their life through the medium of Irish. I will hopefully avail myself of the services in a while after I brush up on my limited Irish. <BR /> <BR />There has seemed to be no issue during the debate, and certainly not on the Committee, with Ulster Scots. The opposition appears to be to Irish. It is ironic that, for many years, some waxed about the need to equate Ulster Scots with the Irish language, yet one of their reasons not to support the motion today is because there is limited support in the House for speaking Ulster Scots. It is a bizarre and ironic reason for opposing it.”
“The Member's point about the visibility of the language is very important. Does she agree that removing obstacles would, hopefully, encourage more people to speak the language and address Mr Buchanan's point about not enough Members speaking it in the Chamber?”
“— but the very many vulnerable people in our society. I am happy to support the motion.”
“Some in the Chamber scoff and laugh at socialist solutions to society's ills: to them I say that this kind of crisis is exactly why I do not have any truck with the current system, which fails not only carers —”
“Carers are not the only ones who face the consequences; those who are being cared for do as well. <BR /> <BR />There is a crisis of care in the North. Like waiting lists, it is growing. I have no problem in saying that it is undoubtedly the case that the issue is allowed to fester because it overwhelmingly affects female and vulnerable people. That is not a small group of people. Census 2011 found that some 12% of people were providing some sort of unpaid care in society. <BR /> <BR />Today, Carers NI estimates that there are 320,000 adult carers in the North and over 30,000 young carers. That is 350,000 people doing work that is often difficult and physical, with long-term impacts, for little or no income, while the for-profit care system grows.”
“With the changes to welfare, it is likely that some of those carers will miss out on support for themselves. It cannot be said strongly enough that the state takes advantage of people who very often have to provide unpaid care because of a lack of options. As I said, the state saves billions off the backs of carers every year. <BR /> <BR />What is offered in return is a disgrace and falls far below the basic standards that should be expected of our society, which generates such wealth. Instead of ending privatisation in our care sector, providing socialised solutions and proper wages for those who work in care, with a living income for those who are currently unpaid and unionising the entire sector, we rely on individualised, privatised solutions to care.”
“According to Carers NI, carer's allowance is £62·10 per week for the people who can actually claim it. People find that, in reality, it is a pittance. They feel that they should get something equal to the minimum wage, and I certainly support them in that. For those who cannot claim it because of the strict eligibility criteria, there is little on offer at all. Where are the plans to increase the carer's allowance? Carers NI is calling for a £20 increase. That will not come close to the billions saved by the state every year, but it is not even on the table, as far as I am aware. <BR /> <BR />So many of our unpaid carers have a long-term health issue or face disability themselves. A total of 20,500 residents with severe long-term health issues or disabilities provided some level of care, ranging from one to 50 hours per week.”
“Unpaid carers face financial strain from having to take up low- or zero-hours contracts, from being unable to jump the pay scale because of their commitments and, for those who cannot work, from receiving a pittance in carer's allowance. Carers report having to cut back on essentials such as food and heating and falling into arrears with housing and utility bills, while others borrow money on credit cards, take out loans or borrow from friends or family. One quarter of carers report that they have been or are currently in debt as a result of their caring role, according to the Carers UK survey. <BR /> <BR />That is what faces those who save the state billions of pounds with their unpaid work, which, like any other labour, is deserving of proper income and conditions.”
“<BR /> <BR />I missed the start of the debate, so apologies if other Members have already said that, according to Carers NI, unpaid carers saved us £19 million every day of the pandemic, which amounted to £5 billion at the end of last year; that total is undoubtedly higher now. That enormous contribution to society left around three quarters of carers who were surveyed exhausted and worn out as a result, as another Member said. <BR /> <BR />That contribution is made by unpaid carers, the overwhelming majority of them female, every year. We should absolutely appreciate how much more difficult that was during the pandemic, but unpaid care in the North is rarely a walk in the park in so-called normal times.”
“The pandemic shone a light on the importance of their role, as it did on the importance of low-paid and often unappreciated workers across society. It is right that we deliver the carers' recognition grant and show support for the work that they did in difficult circumstances, when supports were stripped away, relief was difficult to come by and respite was impossible for some to find. I am sure that carers would greatly appreciate whatever support the grant can provide, but, to be frank, I do not think that it goes far enough, and, much as I support the motion, nor do the measures in it.”
“The first thing that it is important to recognise is that the unacceptable conditions were experienced by unpaid carers for a long time, long before the pandemic.”
“I thank the Minister for giving way. I appreciate that clarity. It is a new and moving situation. Is it true, therefore, that if, for talk's sake, there is no Health Minister in place for the next period, nobody can amend the regulations? What is the update on that?”
“I am sure that other people will be wondering that. The Minister does not know. I appreciate his honesty. As much as I may challenge the Health Minister and disagree with him on some issues, I am very concerned that an unelected person could be making those decisions, or, worse, Boris Johnson.”
“As far as I know, there were no health and safety visits whilst they were inside, despite issues being raised about the spread of COVID. Once they gathered outdoors, however, the police targeted them. They approached them and were aggressive. Fines were threatened, if not issued. That is a really disgraceful approach to have taken, even though they were spread out, outdoors, wearing masks and so on. I wanted to illustrate the situation that they faced. <BR /> <BR />Finally, I want to ask the Minister this: if there is no Health Minister in place, who makes the changes to coronavirus regulations? He may not know. I submitted such a question for written answer to his Department today, so perhaps he will get back to me. Is it the permanent secretary or the British Government? Who makes the decisions?”
“Rather, it illustrates how inaccurate that slogan of being "all in it together" really is. Throughout the COVID crisis, when people stood up against the status quo — we have heard about the Black Lives Matter protests — they faced the full might of the law and fines, when others, including some MPs, did not. The Hovis strike fitted in with that. I visited the strike many times. It was an important and brave strike, and fair play to the workers for taking a stand. <BR /> <BR />The ironic thing is that those workers were inside during the whole pandemic, as front-line, essential workers providing bread, pancakes and so on. As far as I know, there were no police visits whilst they were working inside, where they were at risk of the virus spreading.”
“I will be brief. I welcome the changes, obviously. I will speak about the amendment concerning industrial action. The fact that the issue of industrial action is being addressed only now — over a year into the pandemic — shows how little that issue and other labour and workers' rights issues are taken seriously by the House. Those are issues that ultimately unite people. Only yesterday, the Parental Bereavement (Leave and Pay) Bill got its Second Stage, and we have a rake of issues agreed and demanded in the New Decade, New Approach (NDNA) agreement and elsewhere, but that Bill is the only legislation enhancing or protecting workers' rights that will be progressed in this mandate. That is a real shame. <BR /> <BR />The targeting of the people who were on the Hovis strike is not just an oversight or omission.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. He will note that the Public Prosecution Service (PPS) has dropped plans for prosecutions related to the protest. Does he agree that the Executive and the Minister need to do all that they can to ensure that those fines are dropped and that people are reimbursed for the disgraceful fines that were issued that day?”
“I thank the Minister for his statement. These are shocking figures. The two-tier health service to which the Minister refers is appalling. I am concerned that a proportion of the £700 million that he is asking for may go towards funding the two-tier system and keeping it going. We have to challenge and refute the idea that our only two options are to rationalise or to cut the budgets of other Departments. What consideration has he or his new party leader given to pressing for a COVID wealth tax to fund the NHS and our public services? That is not a crazy left-wing idea; the IMF is backing it. Will he commit to raising that in the Executive as a way to fund our NHS, tackle waiting lists and fund the rest of our public services?”
“That is a serious charge. How much was this an isolated case, or how much of it happens in the Minister's Department or across other Departments or happened in the previous Department? We spend at least £1 million a day on PPPs and PFIs, so I would be seriously concerned if a lot of that money or some of it was being wasted on unsound practices, to put it lightly.”
“The Minister said that we needed to learn from the judgement. That is obviously true. I cannot help but agree with Mr Nesbitt that the ethos of RHI ran across Departments and the Executive. The Court of Appeal ruled that the Department engaged in:”
“<BR /> <BR />I welcome the legislation. It is important, but I am concerned that it is likely to be the only legislation pertaining to workers' rights coming forward in this mandate. That is what the previous Minister for the Economy stated, and I assume that the current Minister will follow suit. It is hugely disappointing, and I agree with Mr O'Dowd's statement: this place has not always stood up for workers' rights. I am concerned that no more legislation is coming forward to protect workers' rights, either through New Decade, New Approach or from other places. I urge the Minister to proceed with those as well as the Bill.”
“I certainly do not claim to have all the answers, but I pose questions for the Minister and the Chamber to consider, and, no doubt, those questions will be discussed throughout the legislative process. I will listen attentively to the consultations and help to scrutinise the Bill going forward. I will follow it as it goes through Committee Stage, examine the evidence that is provided and, most importantly, listen to the voices of those impacted by bereavement — parents, workers and their trade union representatives — in the hope that those voices are heard strongly and are allowed to strengthen the legislation if it needs to be strengthened. I look forward to doing that, because, if I can play a role in helping just one parent who has been faced with losing a child, it would be an absolutely worthwhile endeavour.”
“As it stands, the Bill suggests that employees will need to have worked in their posts for 26 weeks in order to avail themselves of the support. I am concerned that that might exclude parents who have taken up new jobs just before they have had to face their bereavement struggle. It might impact only a small number of people, but denying the support to even one person could be deeply problematic as well as traumatic. <BR /> <BR />Issues about the timing of the Bill were raised. As the Bill remains in its early stages, I do not want to make any absolute, definitive statements on the issues today, but I raise them as points for the Minister to consider. As I said, they are sensitive issues.”
“How absolutely cruel. <BR /> <BR />The legislation can help to correct that wrong and, therefore, is clearly welcome. The Bill is in its early stages, and, in my opinion, there remains an open question as to whether it goes far enough to provide the support that we need to see. For example, the Bill provides for a minimum of two weeks' paid leave for parents who have lost a child. In industries where exploitative and precarious employment prevails, the minimum, unfortunately, often becomes the norm, even if workers need more support. Is two weeks long enough? It does not seem to be. Another question is whether the Assembly should improve on the legislation across the water, given the experience of that legislation. <BR /> <BR />Members mentioned day one rights.”
“Until now, employed parents who have found themselves dealing with bereavement have been left to deal with it alone, effectively, apart from their family, and their employers have been left without any legislative support in place for paid time off work. <BR /> <BR />No doubt, as other Members said, there are many employers who treat this issue with compassion and humanity and who have their provisions in place for when the situation arises, but, obviously, as we heard, there are employers who do not have decent provisions in place and who do not meet those situations with the humanity and compassion that is needed. In the context of what is undoubtedly people's worst hour of need, it is frightening to think that some parents are not only not supported properly but have financial and employment concerns heaped on their grieving process.”
“You hope that no parent will ever have to grieve for a child, but it is an awful reality for some parents. There is a duty on decision-makers and political leaders to provide as much support as possible for those who have to face that traumatic and life-changing experience. For that reason alone, the legislative move to provide parental bereavement pay is welcome, and the Bill will bring things here in line with legislation across the water, as people have said, where such provision already exists. As I said, it is quite an indictment of our society that the Assembly is only doing it now and playing catch-up with Britain.”
“The broad aims of the Bill ought to receive the support of every MLA in the Chamber, and I suppose that they have. I add my voice to those who welcome the Bill. It has been a long time coming, and, dare I say, it is quite a shocking indictment of our society, of this place and of employment practices that only now, in 2021, are we debating concrete, legislative support to provide bereavement pay to parents who have had to face the greatest of all fears, that of losing a child. My heart goes out to every parent in the world who has had to cope with losing a child, to people here and, especially, to Ms Armstrong for sharing her experience. <BR /> <BR />This is a very difficult subject, which must be approached with the utmost sensitivity and respect.”
“I wish the Minister well. I look forward to disagreeing with him just as much as I disagreed with his predecessor, if not more. <BR /> <BR />With this news, my thoughts are with the workers. The situation requires us to have a transport system that does not rely on maximising private profit or shareholders' interests. I know that the Minister is only in post, but what are his views on moving away from that model of travel towards one that does not throw workers under the bus nor threaten the planet with increasing carbon emissions?”
“I thank the Minister for his answers. Much has been made recently of regulatory divergence and borders in the Irish Sea, but there have been no problems or cries of betrayal from the Benches opposite about exporting women who need abortions to England and Wales. Almost 400 travelled during the pandemic for healthcare. That is a disgraceful figure. Will the Minister provide details of his attempts to get Executive sign-off for abortion services since he took up post? You, Minister, are not dangerous, but it is dangerous to force women to travel during a pandemic for healthcare.”
“I appreciate that I might be in a minority of one again, but I put on record my opposition to it, because of who is targeted by it and because it does not do anything to deal with the underlying causes that drive people to hazardous drinking.”
“There is nothing to address the underlying causes that drive people to drink, regardless of what price it is and whether it goes up, down or stays the same. <BR /> <BR />Not only does it make little sense to implement a policy that will have little or no impact on those who earn enough or who are higher earners, but it is discriminatory to introduce a policy that would hit poorer households hardest, especially without strong evidence — I certainly did not hear it this evening — that poorer households engage in more hazardous drinking, particularly when the Assembly has just passed an austerity Budget, although it is described as a "standstill Budget". For those reasons, I will oppose and vote against amendment No 44.”
“I was expecting others to be called before me. <BR /> <BR />I want to address only one amendment in the group. I will support the others but oppose amendment No 44 around minimum unit pricing, and here are my reasons why. In practice, the demand for minimum unit pricing levels of alcohol serves only to prevent those who cannot afford I buying as much alcohol as they may decide they want or need. To follow that logic, it essentially says that only poor or working-class people will be priced out of alcohol. In 2021, the assumption by the Committee or by Members that only working-class people engage in binge drinking or drink at unhealthy levels will sound terribly classist and offensive when spelt out.”
“However, it is entirely hypocritical to attract tourists with a promise of unique produce whilst prohibiting the producers from selling their beers unless through a third-party vendor. Breweries and microbreweries should be able to avail themselves of taprooms, if they wish, so that they, too, can reap the benefits of what they sow and people can enjoy their produce at its source. <BR /> <BR />I thank everybody for raising this issue and the many people who contacted me about it. Like I said, I have been brief, but I wanted to speak in support of all the amendments and clauses in group 2.”
“Do not attack west Belfast, Mr Catney. <BR /> <BR />I will keep this contribution brief, because I support all the amendments and clauses in this group. I want only to put on record my party's support for those who continue to challenge the monopolies in this sector; those who have fought to give small local producers a look-in, while a lobby of mostly big businesses tries to shut them out for fear — misconception, maybe — that they would eat into their profits. <BR /> <BR />The Assembly and Executive put a lot of stock in tourism. In doing so, they boast about the production of local craft beers and ales. I think that some of the locally produced bottles are fantastic and outstanding.”
“I was not trying to make light of the Member's comments, but obviously there is a wider issue about drunk people in pubs. That is my experience, but back to the matter at hand.”
“Mr Catney said that he has not been in a pub with any drunk people, I think. He must have been in some quare establishments over the years. That was an interesting comment.”
“I understand that I may not be able to win Divisions on those points, but they are very important and have to be stated in this discussion. <BR /> <BR />In closing, I recommend that the Minister and all the MLAs who will support those provisions take a look at Unite Hospitality's fair hospitality charter and endorse it.”
“In fact, it is incredibly regrettable that we are unable to give them approval in their current form. Under different circumstances, I might be able to support many of those measures, but, without the protections for workers, I simply cannot fully endorse them. <BR /> <BR />It is an abdication of responsibility that, from my reading of it, the Minister has not addressed workers' rights in the Bill at all, which will have the greatest impact on workers themselves. I hope that she will now work to bring supplementary legislation to the House that would put those conditions in place for staff who were thrown under a bus during the pandemic. They have been allowed to work for measly pay for too long, and they deserve much better.”
“At the previous stage, I asked the Minister — I apologise, it might have been the stand-in Minister — to justify the extension of drinking hours or to provide evidence that it works, but I have yet to see good reasoning that does not go directly against what the workers and their representatives are asking for, based on their personal and very difficult experiences. <BR /> <BR />I may well be in a minority, as has been the case on that issue, but I am not content to endorse clauses or amendments that would force workers to work extended hours without also extending their rights and conditions, which would make it safer and beneficial for them to do so. To be clear, it is not a foregone conclusion that workers and their unions or I would criticise extended hours under those circumstances.”
“Employers at a local level in Scotland must assist with travel-home pay. Why not here? Moreover, workers and Unite have been clear that their job can become increasingly difficult and more dangerous during drinking-up time, when they are more likely to be subjected to abuse and violence. It is particularly prevalent and dangerous for female members of staff, who carry far too many tales of harassment, abuse and sexual harassment during that period. Again, that was made clear in the consultation submission and at Committee Stage, in a presentation by Unite, yet the Bill extends drinking-up time.”
“There has been no attempt to ensure that staff's travel-home costs are covered not by the staff but by the employer. Public transport does not run into the wee hours, as we might see tonight and this morning. Workers have to fork out extra for private taxi fares to get home or walk home at a time when it is unsafe to do so. Workers are assaulted on a weekly basis while walking home from bars in Belfast, unfortunately. <BR /> <BR />These concerns were brought to the Minister and the Committee. Looking at the amendments today, however, it would appear that the voices of these workers, or certainly their representatives, have not been heard at all — or not listened to, depending on how you view it. The demand from Unite for assistance with travel-home and premium pay are not outlandish.”
“In some cases, workers' conditions would suffer were these changes to pass in their current form. The amendments seek to extend opening hours without reflecting on or addressing the impact that working unsociable hours would have on hospitality workers, who are underpaid as it is. These workers are employed in one of the most precarious industries, as the COVID pandemic has cruelly illustrated. In that regard, I want to echo the concerns of trade unions in that sector, namely Unite Hospitality, as Miss Woods referred to already. <BR /> <BR />As far as I can see, there has been no attempt by the Minister in most of, if not all, the amendments to extend drinking hours to ensure that a premium is paid to those who will have to work more unsociable hours as a result of this legislation.”
“We are moving more quickly than I anticipated, but that is a good thing, I suppose. I declare an interest as a member of Casement Social Club. Whether that is relevant at this or a later stage, l do not know. It is just to put it on the record. <BR /> <BR />Many have welcomed the changes in the Bill, and, for the vast majority of clauses and amendments, I will join them. It is abundantly clear how much of our licensing law is outdated. In the case of breweries, in particular, it is completely unfair, as Members have said. I look forward to the Assembly taking a step in the right direction on those fronts because it is clearly long overdue. <BR /> <BR />Unfortunately, there are amendments and clauses that I am not content to support because I do not believe that the interests of workers have been factored in whatsoever.”
“For my part and my party's part, we have been consistent opponents of austerity and meagre Budgets, which this Budget is. This Budget (No. 2) Bill absolutely fails people here. People who have sacrificed and lost so much over the last year need to see a fundamental shift in the normal order of things and a break from the status quo. Unfortunately, this Bill does not do that. That is one of the main reasons why I will vote against it. I certainly oppose it.”
“As we have said and as I have said, people are forced to wait on waiting lists, but they are also forced to wait for the Executive to eliminate poverty in our communities. It is a totally unacceptable state of affairs. People are dying seven years younger in areas of this city because they live in deprived areas compared to wealthier and more affluent areas. The Chair of the Health Committee talked about the massive levels of health inequalities as well. With the two-child limit on welfare and the benefit cap still in place, those issues will not be addressed by this Budget. <BR /> <BR />I cannot speak for others who may have made sound and good criticisms of the Budget (No. 2) Bill but then go on to endorse and vote for it.”
“My message to all those workers and unions is to keep going and keep pushing. Let us build a long hot summer of union and worker mobilisation against this state of affairs and of workers — Catholic, Protestant, neither and all our migrant brothers and sisters — standing together, united against the pay misery that people are faced with and that this Budget does not do anything meaningful to change. <BR /> <BR />Yesterday, I referred to the reductions or the gaps in the funding for the Department for Communities. Again, I received no explanation as to why they have been made, despite our rising levels of poverty. Around 400,000 people live in poverty. There is absolutely no evidence presented in the Budget documents that those issues will be tackled in any strong or serious way.”