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 67 of 83.
“That is utterly unacceptable in my opinion, especially as the current membership of the Minister's Economic Advisory Group already has too large a focus on big business. <BR /> <BR />I do not criticise the lack of trade union voices for the sake of it. I do so because I recognise the deep class divide that exists in our society. Unlike some MLAs, and maybe some Ministers, I do not believe that big corporate employers and their workers have common interests; quite the opposite. I suggest that the labour movement and the working-class interest generally is better placed to inform our economic recovery. For example, we cannot address the economy without addressing the past 10 years of austerity and its continued existence in the form of public-sector pay cuts. This report states, for example:”
“The report came off the back of engagement in the macroeconomic outlook micro-inquiry, which does not roll off the tongue. It drew on a range of business stakeholders, including employers across all major sectors — retail, hospitality and tourism — the Chamber of Commerce and the CBI, among others. I do not deny that those groups have things to say or that they should have a voice, but it strikes me as glaring that the trade union movement was not engaged with in the same way. No unions are referenced officially in the appendix or in the meat of the proposals, and that is very concerning. This comes from an Executive whose members, many of them, spent months clapping for workers. It smacks of an approach that continues to pay lip service to the very workers who have kept people and society alive.”
“That said, considering the detail in the report and the way in which it is being presented as a benchmark policy by the Committee for the Economy, some 10 months into the pandemic, it is fairly disappointing how low the Executive have set their sights and how the same neoliberal framework as was geared towards a bargain basement economy before the crisis is being presented as a solution, effectively, to get us out of it.”
“I am conscious of the limited time so I will try to be as concise as I can. There is no doubt that we can agree with elements of this report. I will talk about the positive environmental moves, such as plans to retrofit homes as part of recognising the serious climate emergency that we face. Much of the report is aspirational and without concrete detail. For that reason, we will inevitably have to wait for the proposals in order to scrutinise them properly.”
“I therefore categorically place on record my, and my party's, opposition to the ill-thought-out amendment to increase fines for those not wearing a face mask when the Executive have not gone over and beyond to ensure that people are supported, every step of the way, to ensure that they have access to a mask.”
“Where is the research and evidence to back up increasing fines? <BR /> <BR />Where is the assessment of how the proposal would affect people on low wages and benefits? That speaks to Mr Buckley's point about an impact assessment. Has people's compliance with wearing a mask increased? I predict that I will probably not be able to divide the House on the Question, as has been the case with other issues, due to the way in which Stormont is structured and the fact that it does not allow smaller parties to register their opposition by way of a vote against measures.”
“My fear is that the way in which these issues have been proceeded with over the past few months means that people will be fined, and there will be an increase in fines. <BR /> <BR />Can we rule out a scenario in which a mother who is rushing out of the house to do her Christmas shopping and, in the rush to get the kids ready and out the door, forgets her mask, or masks, is hit not only with a fine but, under this proposal, an increased fine of up to £100 or £200? That is important stuff. How can we rule that out when this amendment is being put forward? If that is not bad enough, last week, the Health Committee was told, when this amendment was being presented, that the rate of non-compliance had not increased markedly or shot up. So, where is the rationale? Hopefully, the Minister can come back on this.”
“I thank the Member for his intervention. I agree. The wide availability of reusable masks, which can be expensive — I will come on to that in a second — has not been provided for. This is worth hammering home. I am happy to be corrected, if the Minister can do so, but the Executive are pushing forward with the strategy of increasing fines if someone forgets their mask, does not have access to one, cannot afford a new pack or does not have access to a pack of disposable masks, rather than implementing measures to ensure that they have every opportunity to get a mask, as Mr Sheehan suggests. I am happy to be corrected, but I do not know where in the regulations it specifies that there will be exemptions in specific cases.”
“Thank you, but, as I understand it, there is no detail spelling that out in the regulations.”
“Essentially, it blames individuals when it is clear that the public have gone over and beyond to stop the spread of the virus against misinformation and bad examples from those at the top of society. Stronger fines are not the answer; the answer is a better public campaign and better public reps. While I am on the topic — it might fall outside the Minister's remit — I ask the Justice Minister if she knows whether Sammy Wilson has been fined yet. His efforts were blatant and purposeful, but I have not heard anything about him being fined or punished yet. <BR /> <BR />The amendments could result in people who have simply forgotten their mask being fined. Such hypocrisy will not be lost on the vast majority of people.”
“<BR /> <BR />If someone genuinely forgets to bring a mask on public transport or when entering a shop, where is the support provided to them? They will be fined if this amendment to the regulation goes ahead, and the fine will increase and they will have to pay even more. That is not to mention — it is connected to the issue — the nefarious and dangerous role that is being played by MPs who are linked to the Executive, such as Sammy Wilson, who repeatedly and openly breached the regulations and defied any sense of sympathy with people who have lost loved ones from COVID. <BR /> <BR />That is where we get to the heart of the problem with the face masks regulation.”
“I thank the Member for his intervention. I do not know what "improper use" of face masks is; perhaps he can define it. As I said, the Education Minister categorically rubbished the idea that pupils should wear face masks on public transport. I will come on to the point about impact assessments in a moment. <BR /> <BR />In addition to what the Education Minister said, it was before the Executive, seemingly punted by the Tories, made it compulsory to wear face masks in shopping environments. I and others, including health experts, had been calling for actions to be implemented on that for weeks at the very start of the pandemic, and still the Executive have not rolled out a programme of mass availability of free, reusable masks, despite the fact that I have been going on about it for months, as have other Members today and in the Committee.”
“Just a few months ago, the Education Minister, for example, rubbished the idea of pupils wearing face masks on buses but recently accepted that call.”
“To my knowledge — I am happy to be corrected — there has not been an aggressive mass recruitment campaign across the councils to increase the number of staff who can deal with those issues. I would be grateful if the Minister could provide some detail on how she or her Department believe that councils are equipped to deal with inspections and notices, and possible breaches as well, in workplaces. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 4 to the face coverings regulations includes increases in the level of fines for people who do not wear masks. It should go without saying that the wearing of face masks is a vital and essential part of the process to stop the spread of the virus. However, we have to say that that message has been stymied by the approach of some of the Executive parties and, occasionally, their party members.”
“Given the concerns that have been raised about the latest amendments and the Christmas break, when will we discuss those new regulations? Will it be in the middle of January, when they will have been in operation for almost a month and the effects will, likely, already have been felt, including, potentially, another spike in cases? That would be absurd beyond belief. <BR /> <BR />The amendment (No. 14) regulations provide councils with powers to ensure that premises have improvement notices and allow for an enforcement officer from the council to take action where appropriate. My concern — I raised it in Committee — is about whether councils will have enough staff who are able to carry out that role and function. That seems to me to be a mammoth task, and it is likely that breaches will happen across the board.”
“Before I speak on the amendments, I reiterate a point that I have continually made: it is astounding that we have not had a chance to discuss the ramifications of the latest amendments that will come into effect later this week, which will see a further opening up of the economy and society once again. It is absurd that we are not discussing regulations as they come in. As has been referred to, medical experts, such as Gabriel Scally, have already warned about a new wave of cases, off the back of those changes, but it seems as though the Executive do not think that their medical advice merits serious discussion in advance of the decision coming into effect. Instead, as has been said, we are discussing amendments that were laid almost a month ago. Once again, true to form, there is delayed scrutiny and accountability at Stormont.”
“Does the Member agree that we need legislation to ensure that the Youth Assembly is a permanent feature and is not dependent on or subject to Assembly time or budgets? He talked about the advisory group and co-design panel. Does he agree that we need to ensure that young people set the agenda and the methodology via some form of youth steering panel to include those young people from the NI Youth Assembly who have lobbied to participate?”
“I thank the Member for his detailed reply. I will probably forward some Assembly questions on the information that he supplied.”
“Sure. We should invest in education rather than rely on punitive measures to encourage participation in a vaccine programme. Finally, as I said, my party does not think that corporations should be able to profiteer from the misery that people have been afflicted with this year.”
“It is disgraceful that the profits of major corporations could soar as a result of COVID vaccinations. <BR /> <BR />Connected to that, we need to invest in education on the scientific and health merits of utilising a vaccine, as others have said. A lot of confusion about the science is swirling around and being promoted by former US President Donald Trump — assuming that he is going to walk out of office — neo-Nazis and the far right, and other deplorable conspiracy theorists.”
“Secondly, the distribution programme for a vaccine should not be done in a way that creates disparities. It should be done on an all-Ireland basis, with healthcare workers, the vulnerable and the elderly being first in the line. We cannot have a situation where people are being vaccinated in Derry but not Donegal or vice versa. We need to make sure that the vaccine is safe, and therefore, the patent should be made available for scientific scrutiny. The vaccination science should be transparent, and that is crucial to build public confidence in any vaccine programme and to keep people safe. It is worth mentioning that Jonas Salk who created the polio vaccine said:”
“The need for an all-Ireland integrated health strategy has been made all the more evident this week as the guidelines in the North and South go in different directions, and that is a continued recipe for disaster.”
“While we certainly welcome the potentially extremely positive news, my party thinks that several points need to be raised. We are unlikely to be able to vaccinate our way out of the pandemic, at least not this year. Therefore, there will be a continuing need to pursue a strategy to protect people. We have joined others in calling for an all-Ireland zero COVID strategy against the policies coming from Westminster, the Dáil and, indeed, Stormont.”
“When the pandemic finally ends, a new era of equality must begin in which our health service and all our public services are fully protected and funded; care home residents, their families and workers are kept safe and paid properly; poverty pay and zero-hours contract are ended; students are not treated as disposable; people of colour and migrant communities are treated with the respect that they deserve; and bosses and politicians are no longer allowed to shamelessly profit and make rules and laws, often to suit themselves. <BR /> <BR />We still face the immediate danger of a life-taking virus, which has been compounded many times over by the catastrophic response of the Governments on these islands, including the Executive.”
“<BR /> <BR />The pandemic has revealed the impact of decades of neglect and attacks by government on our health service, but it has also made clear why our health service and all other public services are vital and so essential. The private sector cannot deal with a crisis on this scale, because it is geared towards profits primarily and not the health and well-being of society. The private care homes debacle has demonstrated why privatisation has failed residents, workers and families. The era of Stormont looking after the likes of Moy Park bosses while crushing the health service into the ground must end.”
“<BR /> <BR />The health and safety of the low-paid essential workers who kept society moving during the pandemic were treated as an afterthought by those who were most concerned with how the likes of Randox and other big corporations could profit during the pandemic. The vulnerable and the low-paid have suffered most through botched government health and financial relief policies, while the politically connected rule with one law for them and another for the rest of us. Workers and small businesses have fallen through the cracks time and again, while government contracts worth billions have been dished out to a corrupt, politically connected golden circle. Shameless profiteering has been ramped up by unscrupulous people in power during the pandemic.”
“We certainly welcome the news that a COVID-19 vaccine may now become available. We have shared in the suffering and tragedy of the pandemic with people around the world over many months — almost a year. It has been a stark reminder of our common humanity, because, as people have said, the pandemic pays no heed to borders or nationality. It has impacted on all of society, but, as others pointed out, not and never equally. Healthcare workers risked their lives on front lines to save people's lives and sometimes paid tragically with their lives, whilst billionaires, some of whom are stuck on private islands, saw their wealth increase exorbitantly during the pandemic.”
“I offer my sincere sympathies to the staff of Debenhams and the Arcadia Group who have lost jobs and to the others who may do so in the near future. Our workers have been treated like dirt. It really says everything about the obscene system that we live under that a man who owns a yacht worth £100 million can play God with the lives of thousands of workers. <BR /> <BR />Does the Minister agree that those workers' pensions should not be touched or impacted in any way by these announcements? What measures will her Department take to ensure that those workers are financially protected or given the opportunity to get support to access employment, where appropriate, in the future?”
“— have pulled out of the programme and that the Minister has a duty to uphold justice, will she commit to pressing the PSNI to withdraw from the programme for reasons based on the daily denial of justice for Palestinian people?”
“Sunday was International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People — a day on which millions of people across the world engaged in activities to condemn the Israel state and its occupation, aggression and racist laws. Given that other state police forces —”
“It is important for the Minister to comment on the matter since she has declared that PSNI actions were proportionate in cases such as the Black Lives Matter protest. Amnesty International has cited the Israel National Police:”
“I thank the Minister for her reply. It is important, for her benefit, to emphasise that the Glider service, particularly in my constituency, is regularly full to the brim of people trying to get home from school or work. In those circumstances, I question whether it is possible to socially distance. Will the Minister commit to ensuring that extra buses will be placed on routes in my constituency, including buses that have more space and capacity than the Glider, to avoid a situation where students, workers and everybody are forced into potentially hazardous situations?”
“Just as they tried to stop justice for the Bloody Sunday victims, they are trying to stop justice for Pat and his family. Just as they failed then, they will fail again. We must show our solidarity with the Finucane family, their campaign and the campaigns of all victims of violence and state violence. It is in our interests to stand with them for as long as their fight continues. <BR /> <BR />In the past 24 hours, some have asked, "But what about other victims?". Indeed, but it is not as though shutting the door on the killing of a human rights solicitor and denying proper answers about what happened will do anything for any other victim of the state, state agents or paramilitaries. It is a real shame that some in the House are willing to defend the horrible record of the British Government in that regard, but it is hardly surprising.”
“Today, the British Government continue to try to cover up their crimes in Ireland and in the North, perhaps because the same Establishment continues to collude in murder in other parts of the world. For over 30 years, British Governments have dragged their feet and tried to cover up the collusion at the heart of this case, but this is the ultimate insult to Pat Finucane's family and other victims of collusion. I will add that former Prime Minister David Cameron effectively confirmed that collusion took place in this case. <BR /> <BR />We need more than polite words from the Irish Government. I call directly on the Taoiseach, Micheál Martin, to take a stand against this outrageous decision, because the refusal by Johnson and the Tories to hold a public inquiry should not be accepted.”
“The decision not to grant a public inquiry into the killing of Pat Finucane is a shameful and despicable one. The Finucane family have already waited for far too long for truth. Yesterday's decision will only prolong their struggle and pain. The evidence regarding the murder of Pat Finucane points to state murder and an appalling level of collusion at the very heart of the British Establishment. This calculated move to block an inquiry begs the question: how far are they willing to go to cover up that collusion and state murder, carried out with impunity? <BR /> <BR />We should not, however, be surprised by that callous move. The British Empire was one where the sun never set and the blood never dried.”
“For example, we have been told that there are no human rights concerns, which, on the face of it, is good to hear and, no doubt, is reassuring, but how can we be sure of that when no wide-ranging consultation took place, even with our health sector? What input did the trade union movement have and what input should it have in any moves like this? <BR /> <BR />For all those reasons, as a democrat and a socialist, I cannot give carte blanche consent to this LCM. Given the way this place is structured, I cannot block it. Having listened to the debate, I doubt that it is even within our gift, but I implore the Executive and the Minister to begin to move away from this insufficient and reckless form of governance in regard to LCMs and legislation generally.”
“To me, that smacks of a scenario where public health and safety could be sacrificed for private profit and wealth — something that we all should be deeply worried about, considering the experience of the pandemic. <BR /> <BR />I have further concerns. I am concerned that in reality this Bill, while moving away from the former approach, actually puts significant power in the hands of Government Ministers and the Tory Secretary of State — for example, the power to adjust regulations unilaterally and without further scrutiny or control of decision-making is further strengthened in the hands of Ministers and not of this Chamber. <BR /> <BR />There has also been a real lack of consultation on the Bill regarding the clauses that we are being asked to carry over.”
“The BMA report went on to argue that the attractiveness principle of the Bill could create scenarios:”
“I appreciate that the Minister may be able to respond to some of the issues in his closing remarks. <BR /> <BR />I note two comments from the BMA on the substantive Bill that went through in Britain. These comments indicated how the changes presented here might lead to questionable regulatory practices, including:”
“As we heard at the Health Committee, clause 4 could provide the possibility of medical cannabis trials and other things that activists such as Charlotte Caldwell have long been campaigning for. We have to approach that with some level of caution, and I am certainly cautious about that. When I hear talk of red tape and bureaucracy being stripped back, to me it sounds like code for potentially placing the public at risk through a lack of clinical trials for medicines more generally. I raised a number of concerns about that at the Health Committee. The main one was about getting a detailed list setting out the limits of devolved authority and what matters will remain in London. The Committee was advised that it was a complicated field and that a comprehensive list cannot yet be provided, but that officials are working through the issues.”
“<BR /> <BR />Having listened and engaged with discussions on this legislation at the Health Committee, I still have serious questions and echo some of the concerns raised by my colleague Ms Flynn about the issues with mesh and other potential patients in the future. There is a clear need to provide a regulatory framework to ensure that processes are in place after Brexit. However, a big question mark remains over whether this legislation provides that framework. I do not claim to be an expert in medicine or medical devices, but the manufacture, marketing and supply of medicines is a serious matter and demands real attention. <BR /> <BR />For example, clinical trials are detailed in clause 4 of the Bill.”
“The Minister informed the Committee that the Tories themselves had put a rush on the legislation through Westminster and that therefore there was no time, in effect, for the Assembly to scrutinise it in a similar time frame. From that, seemingly, the bigger parties agreed to support the LCM. I do appreciate that the Health Minister and his Department are under humongous levels of pressure and scrutiny but, to be frank, I am uncomfortable at best with the Assembly being beholden to pressure from the Tories to ram through legislation relating to the post-Brexit period, particularly when I cannot see the need for much of what is contained in the original Bill to be rushed through anywhere.”
“Is the Assembly but a puppet Assembly on many of the major questions of the day? What does it mean for accountability if this legislation is rubber-stamped today before serious questions are answered? Who is responsible if the results are bad for the public? Will the Executive use the choice line, "It wasn't us, it was the Tories", as they did when they similarly rubber-stamped welfare reform legislation several years ago? Would that not be totally negligent? <BR /> <BR />When this LCM first came to the Health Committee, it was rushed, as many Members have said. The Committee thought there was not enough opportunity and time for scrutiny, in part because of the pressures of the COVID crisis, and decided that it was not in a position to support the motion.”
“It is worse, of course, that it is happening in the middle of a health pandemic and as we face a potentially calamitous Tory Brexit that, on a weekly basis, the Assembly acts on many occasions as nothing more than a rubber stamp for that Tory Brexit legislation. Some of the Executive parties seem unfazed by that, despite the clear lack of concern around scrutiny aspects.”
“For some months now, the lack of scrutiny and oversight of legislation and regulations moving through the Assembly has been a massive cause of concern for me and other Members who are not part of the Executive. That is nothing new, of course. A lack of scrutiny and accountability has been synonymous with this place and was highlighted in the last term by a financial and political scandal of massive proportions. Over recent months, the scale on which important changes have been moved through the Assembly without the basic checks and balances is utterly unacceptable and could have serious ramifications down the line.”
“We cannot back clause 11 in its original form because it does not create room for, for example, whistle-blowing or releasing information in the public interest, nor can we ignore the related human rights concerns that were raised by the Human Rights Commission. For that reason, amendment No 20 is worthy of support. We will support it because it qualifies the matter by stating that Ministers and spads cannot release information to third parties that results in financial or similar gain. It also qualifies it to take account of defending matters that are in the public interest. I leave my comments there.”
“I can imagine situations, albeit they are way outside scandals like RHI, where Ministers should be in a position to disclose information; for example, when there is a public duty to disclose information that could be harmful to people in this city or beyond. I am not for a closed house on releasing information. Clearly, though, there should be repercussions for Ministers or spads who are in the business of leaking financial documents for the benefit of their business-owning wealthy friends. One should not shy away from acknowledging that that has happened. <BR /> <BR />We are, therefore, glad to see amendment No 20.”
“Clause 12 would establish a process whereby the First Minister and deputy First Minister would report every two years on the functioning of government and initiate improvements. As a Member who sits on the opposition Benches, I would particularly welcome that. We have long criticised the lack of information and the way that information is relayed by the Executive in a limited sense to us, other smaller parties, independents and so forth. That would be a welcome change from our perspective. <BR /> <BR />Finally, I want to say something briefly about clause 11, which makes it a specific criminal offence for a Minister or special adviser, not the working class, to communicate confidential government information to a third party. I had an issue with how that was originally worded because it was broad-sweeping and unqualified.”
“It is remarkable stuff indeed. I do not know how that punishes the working class at all; it is obviously designed to target spads and Ministers. <BR /> <BR />Like I say, if it is good enough for working-class people to be hauled in front of courts over TV licences, it is good enough for Stormont Ministers for potentially facilitating much bigger crimes.”
“Yes. I find it remarkable that, despite all the stuff being outlined by me and others about the scale of RHI, Mr O'Dowd and his colleagues cannot support changes to document the actions of spads and Ministers.”