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 62 of 83.
“There has been completely disproportionate policing of this pandemic, where people who are oppressed and are standing up against oppression in a safe way are targeted and others are treated with kid gloves. So, there are fundamental questions that need to be answered here. <BR /> <BR />With regard to tackling the pandemic, the real issue going forward will not necessarily be about what happens when people gather outdoors in a safe way, adhering to social distancing and so on and so forth. The key issue will be what happens when people are required to — or, rather, are forced to — go back to work. The worst possible thing would be to force people back to non-essential work while we are still waiting for the vaccine roll-out to be completed. We cannot waste the opportunity that the vaccine presents us with.”
“Not only was that the case with the Black Lives Matter protesters last year but, last week, we saw people — women and men — who met at Writer's Square in Belfast to display their disgust at sexism, misogyny and the brutal killing of Sarah Everard targeted as they gathered, respecting social distancing and wearing masks. Still, many of them were issued with fines, and that is completely unacceptable. When you compare that with the events of the weekend past at Benone beach in Derry, you see that very few people there were wearing masks, and the police effectively took a hands-off approach. In the pictures that I saw, there was just one Land Rover in attendance, with the idea that they would look at the pictures through the week.”
“That would be an appropriate mantra to adopt going forward. Anything less would be a betrayal of all those who have lost their lives. Unfortunately, however, we continue to hear a banging on the table for much quicker lifting of restrictions, and lessons seem not to have been learned. I am also concerned that, while people obviously want children to go back to schools when they are safe, there does not seem to be a plan in place to implement restrictions if the cases in education skyrocket again. <BR /> <BR />Many of the regulations are fairly uncontroversial. People should be able to gather outside in a safe way that maintains social distancing and so on and so forth, but there has been a disproportionate targeting of people in this pandemic, with fines, police actions and powers being used in a way that they should not be.”
“Today being a National Day of Reflection, it is important that we remember all those people who have passed away from this virus. That includes people in my constituency, people across the North, people across Ireland and people across the world; the many millions, sadly, who have passed away from this virus. I think that we would do well to remember the words of Mother Jones, a Cork-born trade unionist, who said, over a hundred years ago:”
“On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister indicated that I was making this personal: I was merely stating the facts. I would like it noted that I was not making it personal. I was merely noting his lack of action on the matter.”
“Minister, the reality is that you are failing women and their healthcare by refusing to act. The legislation implemented at Westminster does not require you to bring it to the Executive. That is a political choice that you have made, and many are opposed to it. Given that you have the power to act but refuse to do so while women's mental health is at risk, with many reporting to be suicidal because they cannot get access to terminations, do you regret not implementing the legislation and making the services available to women here?”
“The fact that schools have been given short notice again shows the continued disrespect of the Education Minister for staff in schools. Given that the regulation changes mean that there is a move from children staying at home and that more people will be working in schools, what consideration has the First Minister given to increasing social isolation support payments? Currently, they are not adequate.”
“I thank the Member for his intervention. I am not going to tell someone on benefits not to take extra money. The point is that vulnerable people are already being impacted on by welfare reform, and the mitigation package does not go far enough. <BR /> <BR />During the debate, we heard discussion from the DUP about supporting low-paid workers. Those are crocodile tears from a party that strongly supported the Tory Government and went into hyperdrive when it came to implementing welfare reform. Sinn Féin asked us to trust it to stop Tory welfare reform and then rolled over and implemented it as well. We simply cannot trust Sinn Féin or take its word on welfare reform issues.”
“<BR /> <BR />Pat Sheehan mentioned Marcus Rashford and said that his party was able to blunt some of the worst impacts of welfare reform. I dispute that, as the most vulnerable in our constituency of West Belfast and beyond have been directly impacted on by the welfare reform that he and his party supported.”
“It will be shocking if Sinn Féin Members do not back me and oppose the amendment, which calls for support for advice centres and workers. Shameful indeed. Many other Members supported the amendment: Mr Durkan, Ms Armstrong — I think, Mr Allen — Miss Woods and, possibly, Mr Easton and his party. <BR /> <BR />Andy Allen referred to the difficulties that his constituents face in navigating the system, such as computer access and other general problems. Unfortunately, my constituents have faced those problems as well. Members thanked advice workers, and, indeed, they should be thanked. However, it reminds me of the approach that some quarters took to NHS workers: thank them and clap for them, but when it comes to paying them it is, "Sorry, we do not have that" or "Sorry, that will come at a later stage".”
“She did that last Monday, I believe, but I ask the Member to forgive me and many others for not simply believing the Minister — there is nothing personal in that — or any Minister just because they say something. We were told that the North was next to get abortion rights two years ago, then we saw opposition to abortion in the House from that very party. I ask the Member from Foyle to tell advice workers who are contacting me and, I am sure, many others in the Chamber with concerns about their jobs and their futures to leave it to the Minister and that she will sort it. I was told to have a healthy scepticism about whatever a Minister says, and I will maintain that today. At the end of the day, if the Minister is going to bring forward funding, she will have no problem backing the amendment.”
“It goes on to reference the £1·5 million reduction. Do not take my word for it, Members; take the words of the Department and Advice NI. <BR /> <BR />The Minister made a point about partition, and I agree with her on that, but we cannot adopt a position that eradicating poverty must wait. One hundred years ago, some people adopted the position that labour must wait, and we cannot, in the centenary of partition, adopt a strategy that is solely about partition. Partition is problematic and should be opposed, but Stormont's role in enabling and increasing poverty has to be addressed and is seemingly the elephant in the room for the Minister and her party. <BR /> <BR />Karen Mullan said that her party will not support the amendment and that the Minister has already committed to the funding.”
“The Advice NI response to the equality impact consultation states:”
“Thank you. <BR /> <BR />Thanks, Members. I will try to respond to as many of the comments as possible, but I will miss some, so apologies for that. The Minister described the amendment as "inaccurate". I ask her how? I will quote from the Department's equality impact assessment. Paragraph 6.19, in reference to the Budget allocation, states:”
“Do I have five minutes, Mr Principal Deputy Speaker, yes?”
“We need a full review of the present mitigations, and, if we are serious about protecting people during the pandemic, we need to create a properly funded support scheme that gives people the ability to self-isolate and does not force them to choose whether to do so or not. The present discretionary support scheme simply does not work. <BR /> <BR />Ultimately, we need to radically change the priorities of the Stormont Government and Executive and begin to put people first, as promised in the New Decade, New Approach agreement. I look forward to today's debate and ask Members to support my amendment.”
“What message does it send out to the people in all our communities who need help that the Executive are going to slash funding for the workers who will help them access benefits so that they can feed their children and keep the heat on? <BR /> <BR />The work of organisations such as the Belfast Citywide Tribunal Service (BCTS), which my constituency office uses, Advice North West (ANW), the South Tyrone Empowerment Programme (STEP) and many others has been absolutely crucial in protecting and helping people through the pandemic. We need to resource our advice providers fully to make sure that everyone who needs help is able to access it, but we need to go much further. We need to close the bedroom tax loophole, close the benefit cap loophole, end the five-week wait for universal credit and get rid of the two-child tax credit limit.”
“The Stormont Government are responsible for the fact that we do not have a fair welfare system. We need to reverse completely the welfare reforms that are causing so much damage to people. Today, it is crucial that the Assembly vote to stop plans for the Communities Minister to slash funding for advice service workers and centres. That is what my amendment seeks to do, and I hope that Members will support it. <BR /> <BR />It makes no sense for the Executive to withdraw funding for advice service workers at a time when tens of thousands more people need help with their benefits, which are hard to navigate. Our advice centres are already completely overwhelmed. Advice workers are exhausted, and news of the threatened cut has left them further demoralised, and they have told me so in the past day.”
“<BR /> <BR />The mitigation measures did not protect the vulnerable and the low-paid enough, otherwise poverty and deprivation levels would have decreased. Instead, the opposite has happened. The growing number of people from the Falls, the Shankill and across Belfast and from the Fountain, the Creggan and across Derry, as well as people from Ballymena, Coleraine, Portadown, Craigavon, Newry — the list goes on — depending on food banks is the evidence of that. <BR /> <BR />The effects of the pandemic recession have meant that many more people need access to welfare support and food banks. The pandemic has worsened all the deprivation and social inequality trends that the DUP and Sinn Féin will probably tell us that they are concerned about today. It is utter nonsense.”
“The DUP's concern today for those trapped in our dysfunctional and punitive welfare system appears to be devout and pious, but the reality is that it was the DUP and Sinn Féin, along with the Alliance Party, that voted to implement destructive Tory welfare reforms that have done so much damage to our communities. <BR /> <BR />In fact, over the past 20 years, all the Stormont Government parties, nationalist and unionist, have played a crucial role in making our welfare support system more punitive and harder to access. The facts are that the introduction of Tory welfare reform has led to a direct increase in poverty across all our communities. It has led directly to increased child poverty. It has led directly to increased family poverty. That is utterly shameful, and that all happened before the pandemic.”
“Instead of standing up to the Tories, the Stormont Government have rolled over and sought to justify their pathetic decisions. Is it not the hypocrisy of all hypocrisies that we are discussing a DUP motion criticising a Sinn Féin Minister for Communities with responsibility for the state of our welfare support system? <BR /> <BR />The motion calls for a "fair and sustainable welfare system" in order to protect:”
“I am glad to have the opportunity today to discuss and shine a spotlight on the state of welfare support. We have been inundated with messages of support from people and organisations from all backgrounds and communities right across the North for our amendment to today's motion, which seeks to restore threatened funding for advice service workers. <BR /> <BR />It is often said that any society should be judged on how it treats its most vulnerable members. The Stormont Government have refused to protect the most vulnerable in society. Instead of championing the needs of the vast majority here from all communities, the present and previous Stormont Governments have put the interests of the Tories, the politically connected and big corporations first.”
“In Britain, 1·9% of abortions are carried out after 20 weeks, whereas, in Canada, the figure is just 0·6%. Why is there such a difference? Mainly because there is no red tape, and doctors and patients can make decisions based on clinical need. I suggest to those who introduced the Bill and those who back it that their interests might be better served with a Canadian approach, which would also treat women with a good deal more respect than we have seen in the Chamber today.”
“It would set about ending privatisation in our care sector and invest in better care for people who need and deserve it. The Bill is about abortion, but abortion at any stage does not threaten people with disabilities, and that needs to be emphasised. <BR /> <BR />We should dispel the assumption that we, especially male MLAs, have any right to tell women what to do with their bodies; that women who terminate certain pregnancies are wrong to do so; and that some women are inherently frivolous or callous when it comes to making decisions about termination and need to be kept in line with the law. In Canada, where abortion is treated like any other healthcare and there are no restrictions or time limits, the proportion of abortions carried out after 20 weeks is considerably lower than it is in Britain.”
“<BR /> <BR />The debate is not about disability in the way that, certainly, Mr Givan hopes to portray it. If it were, it would have focused on the lack of services that terrifies new mothers with disabled children. It would have taken Departments to task over the lack of access to services, such as speech and language therapy or respite for families. It would have prevented the attempts, several years ago, to cut the number of special needs schools in Belfast that people had to fight to resist on the streets. If the Bill were about preventing discrimination against people with disabilities, why would it not scrap or propose to scrap welfare reform and detail a new social security system that values and provides for people properly instead of sending them to food banks, a high proportion of which are used by people with disabilities?”
“Families caring for disabled children or disabled adults were effectively abandoned, as schools, day centres and respite provision closed without there being safe childcare in place. Those whose support workers could not continue to support them had to find their own PPE. Of course, disabled people living in care homes, many of whom are younger than the average resident, had to take their chances with the virus. Many families were pushed to breaking point by 24/7 caring, without any break, for months at a time. Those same families and people with disabilities have been hammered by the introduction of the personal independence payment (PIP) via welfare reform, which the Member's party strongly supported. It is no wonder that many are cynical about the sudden interest in disability rights.”
“There has been an insinuation today that people who support or choose abortion in cases of severe fetal impairment devalue the lives of people with disabilities. I utterly reject that and implore those on the opposite Benches to speak to women's groups as urgently as possible on that issue. <BR /> <BR />I also implore them to look in the mirror. Mr Givan asked what value we would like the Assembly to place on people with disabilities. My answer is this: a hell of a lot more than the discriminatory and degrading treatment that far too many people with disabilities have to endure because of the policies of this and previous Executives. Disabled people and their families were effectively abandoned during the public health crisis. People whose support worker or family member needed to shield themselves were left without an alternative.”
“I ask those supporting the Bill to consider the impact on those women and their families of putting them through that traumatic experience again by stripping them of their right — their right — to termination. <BR /> <BR />Unlike the DUP and the parties supporting the Bill, I trust women and their doctors to decide whether they should continue with a pregnancy. I do not question whether those women inherently devalue people with disabilities because they have had a termination or may want to consider a termination. I do not question their ability to love and care for their other children or future children who may have disabilities simply because they have opted for a termination. In essence, I do not presume that women are simple-minded and callous people.”
“The reality is that, if the changes being proposed are implemented, women will be forced, as others have said, to travel or to have a pregnancy. The fact that pregnancies are common and can be very happy for many families does not detract from the fact that over 303,000 women die in childbirth every year. That is a frightening figure. <BR /> <BR />It is the case that we have a higher rate of genetic conditions than other regions of the UK. For some families, it may not be the first time that they are faced with such a diagnosis. They may have already watched a child die after a very short life or have been forced to carry to term a pregnancy that, they knew, would not survive for long beyond the womb.”
“The irony of the proposal is that, if it were to be implemented, it could lead, as I said, to a possible increase in terminations before the 24-week period as women receive the news that it may be a difficult pregnancy. Rather than having time to consider their options or what is best for them, they could be effectively forced and rushed into a termination that they may not have the option of having after 24 weeks if the diagnosis is severe or fatal, especially as they wait for scans to come through. <BR /> <BR />It is worth repeating that consultants do not decide on a whim what happens in these cases. They have multidisciplinary team meetings and come to a consensus on issues around fatal, very severe and life-threatening issues in regard to later terminations.”
“When late terminations occur, they do so because there is a severe fetal abnormality or the woman's life is at risk, something that does not seem to be part of the consideration of the Member who has brought forward the Bill.”
“From a medical standpoint, it is not always possible to distinguish clearly between a severe fetal impairment and a fatal fetal disability. <BR /> <BR />The Member, when speaking at the Health Committee last week, did not confirm whether he had spoken with a fetal medical consultant. That suggests that he had not. Since the Health Committee meeting last week, I have spoken with a fetal medical consultant who is very concerned and angry that the Bill was brought forward at all. The consultant expressed to me that it is very rare for terminations to happen after 24 weeks and strongly, strongly, strongly refutes the idea that terminations happen on a whim or that women decide to terminate based solely on a cleft palate or club foot diagnosis. That consultant made it clear that that is simply not true and is an inaccuracy.”
“Only women will know what they can manage within their individual set of circumstances. Moreover, we know from doctors that making a diagnosis of a fatal abnormality can be incredibly difficult. I wonder how Mr Givan can be so confident about what exactly constitutes a severe fetal impairment and a fatal fetal impairment, when doctors are very vocal about how difficult that can be. <BR /> <BR />I again refer him and others to Doctors for Choice, which has stated:”
“We know that late diagnoses of severe fetal impairment are also tragic and complex. They are usually given in cases of wanted and loved pregnancies. The women who receive that diagnosis are impacted on in a way which many of us will never be in a position to understand or question. Many of those diagnoses are possible only after 20 weeks. Medical experts tell us that their patients need time to process the information while also dealing with the shock. The Bill would strip them of that time, by rushing them to make a decision about termination before 24 weeks, potentially leading to more abortions, which the Member, I presume, does not want to see happen. <BR /> <BR />I am not a medical expert, so I refer Mr Givan to Doctors for Choice and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, which stated:”
“<BR /> <BR />In a letter sent to all MLAs from Mr Givan on the morning that the Bill was introduced in the Assembly, the word "woman" or "women", or even the words "pregnant person", was not written once. That is important to say, because the Bill's sponsor attempts to separate the Bill from the wider issue of restricting reproductive rights. We have seen a wave of abortion restrictions implemented internationally by various right-wing politicians. Those have varied in specifics, but there is one common factor, and it is present in Mr Givan's Bill: the attempt to control a woman's actions over her body and her pregnancy. <BR /> <BR />In the same letter, Mr Givan acknowledged:”
“I believe in a woman's right to choose, because reproductive coercion is abhorrent and dangerous. I support the Canadian model, whereby abortion is treated as a medical issue rather than as a legal or criminal one. This is a gross effort to play off the needs of women to have proper modern medical care against people with disabilities, many of whom have been very clear that they face greater barriers to abortion access. They would like to see abortion care provided locally for women, themselves included. <BR /> <BR />The UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women issued a joint statement in September 2018 that pointed out that restrictions to abortion access often hit disabled women harder than others. That is worth emphasising.”
“I am relieved that that is beginning to face a serious challenge within the Executive, and, as always, that seems to be down to pressure built outside of these four walls by women who have had to campaign for far too long for basic medical care. I pay tribute to those campaigners, who work tirelessly for little thanks or return from most members of the Executive. Their efforts are noted today, however, and they should go down in history for creating the only progress that we have seen to date. <BR /> <BR />I will now come on to the specifics of the Bill. I will be clear: I oppose the Bill for a number of reasons. I seriously question the justifications made for the Bill, and I will speak about those now. The Bill, as we have already heard, directly contradicts the recommendations of CEDAW.”
“It is an absolute disgrace that abortion services that were legislated for by Westminster are still not in place because the Assembly has failed to commission them. The denial of abortion access by the Minister of Health is not compliant with human rights and should not have been tolerated by the wider Executive for this long. <BR /> <BR />Women have been told to travel during the pandemic, when planes were grounded, the cost of travelling by boat had soared and hotels were shut, not to mention the risk of contracting a deadly virus. Women who could not afford to travel or who were high risk had to access treatment outside of the health system. What a disgrace. The pandemic forced too many into economic peril and risked their health. This issue in particular has exacerbated those conditions for women who deserve better.”
“I thank the Minister for his answer. His assertion that smaller class sizes do not have an impact on education may be disputed. They are important in protecting people from the virus, they can enhance learning, they allow for more one-to-one assistance, and they can be better for those with learning disabilities, sensory issues and so on. I and many others would say that they are better for education overall. Will the Minister commit to looking at international best practice, given that other countries have smaller classes, to see whether we can implement those measures here?”
“I thank the Minister for his statement. My question relates to the fact that there are still issues with smaller companies not getting access to business support grants while bigger companies get grants when they do not need them. There are small businesses in my constituency that, despite meeting the criteria for support during the first round of funding and doing everything that they had to do — applying and appealing multiple times — got no support at a time when MLAs’ offices were given financial support and assistance. Will the Minister commit to ensuring that those businesses, which were eligible but did not get any support, will get it? If he needs it, I am happy to provide him with further detail on that.”
“Disgracefully, we are seeing an attack on that not only at the weekend in London but as the Tories try to ram through legislation that will criminalise protests. The Tories' disgraceful new legislation aims to ban protests that are noisy or disruptive. That is exactly what protests are and should be. They are places where people who are shut out of mainstream society have their say. They are designed to disrupt the normal running of things and to force those in power to rethink their positions and actions. Solidarity with those impacted by this awful murder. Let us redouble our efforts to fight for a world without sexism or misogyny.”
“That should be called out whether it is in London, Belfast or anywhere else. On Saturday, it was outrageous to see people who were standing against the murder of Sarah Everard and against violence against women being targeted in a dangerous and violent way by the Met Police. It is cruelly ironic that women who are not protected or safe when they are alone are then, when they are standing in unison, intimidated and arrested by the people who, they are told, are there to protect them. <BR /> <BR />It is disgraceful to hear the police say that the protests are unsafe when daily life for women is unsafe. Oppressed people, be they women or people who are subjected to or impacted by racism, have a right to organise and protest.”
“I also offer my solidarity and sympathy to all the women who have spoken out in the last week as they have been impacted by this devastating and awful news. We have a problem with male violence towards women in our society. It needs to be stamped out and eradicated. Women should be able to walk, run, cycle or use public transport at any time of day or night without having to fear for their safety or their lives, as, tragically, so many do. <BR /> <BR />The tragedy puts a focus on the need for states and political systems to stop criminalising and targeting women and instead to put the resources into protecting and defending women. There has been a common thread throughout the COVID pandemic that, when people who are oppressed and want to peacefully and safely protest their disgust at injustice, they are met by the repression of police.”
“I thank the Member for bringing the important Matter of the Day to the House. I offer my sympathies to Sarah Everard's family and friends following her tragic killing. It goes without saying that what happened last week was disgusting and should never happen to anybody: not to any woman in any circumstances. The fact that a woman can be attacked and killed while trying to get home reflects the danger that women are in in today's society.”
“I admit that I do not read the 'Financial Times' much, but I can agree with its journalistic credibility without agreeing with the politics in it. The same can be said for the BBC, 'The Irish News' and others. <BR /> <BR />The Minister has outlined his position on not reducing corporation tax, but have his Department or the Executive had the ability since 2015 to increase it? Is that an accurate position for where things are currently?”
“I urge others not to support the Budget today. I recognise that they probably will, but it is important to state that for the record. It does not even deliver on the basic promises made by the Executive in 'New Decade, New Approach'. I do not see this as being likely, but the Executive presiding over this Budget should be ashamed.”
“That is seen as an attack on workers' rights and the rights of those who find themselves looking for help from the Government. As I said last week, welfare advice organisations have been treated disgracefully in this process. <BR /> <BR />This Budget repeats the failures of the past. It demonstrates the Executive's inability to provide important mechanisms of scrutiny and accountability. It fails the community sector, the public sector and the health service. It has utterly failed, once again, to address the growing levels of unemployment, poverty and child poverty, which were rising before the pandemic. The Budget has been criticised by those who recognise the great need in communities, but the Minister and his Executive colleagues have pushed it through anyway.”
“I pay tribute to all the unions, particularly the RCN, that have criticised the pathetic and insulting 1% pay rise that represents a real-terms cut for most, if not all, healthcare workers. The RCN has rightly called that a slap in the face for healthcare workers. If they decide to take action, including a strike, I will support them all the way. <BR /> <BR />We should not ignore the part that the Assembly has played in underpaying healthcare workers, including nurses, and underfunding the local health service. As we come through a pandemic during which we have seen the truly damaging impact of such austerity on staff and resources, it is unthinkable that that is not being addressed. The same, of course, goes for civil servants' pay. <BR /> <BR />The lack of funding for advice centres and services is also deeply concerning.”
“There are varying takes on the current standing of corporation tax devolution. I ask the Finance Minister to come back to that issue in his closing remarks and provide transparency. What is the current standing of the devolution of corporation tax? Will he commit to and fight for an increase in corporation tax in the North? I would appreciate a yes or no answer. <BR /> <BR />I would like to visit some of the most pressing issues in the Budget. The first is pay for healthcare workers, who have so valiantly battled on the front line during the pandemic. They have worked for years without pay parity and have seen their workloads increase due to cuts being made to services.”
“<BR /> <BR />I find it very telling that, once again, as a Budget is being presented that will do nothing to tackle inequality and wealth disparity in our communities, a Sinn Féin Finance Minister and, presumably, his Executive colleagues are to the right of the Tories on corporation tax. An increase in corporation tax could mandate big businesses to pay their way and shoulder more of the burden. However, as the Tories are, according to the 'Financial Times', set to increase corporation tax, the Finance Minister's plan is to kick the can down the road by setting up a fiscal commission to look into Stormont's tax-raising powers. The same article refers to corporation tax powers already being devolved, yet official sources say that devolution of the powers stalled after the collapse of the Assembly.”