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 68 of 83.
“<BR /> <BR />Children are asked to show their working-out when they do their homework and their maths, but it appeared to have been OK for Ministers and spads not to take records of meetings about the serious business that they were undertaking. Part of the reason for such disparity is that the legal system generally is stacked against ordinary and working-class people. We support the clauses and amendments that force political elites in the Chamber to document and, therefore, justify their actions.”
“She is held up by some as a successful stateswoman instead of as somebody whose Ministry presided over the looting, effectively, of public funds. <BR /> <BR />As was mentioned, the First Minister famously used Post-its to go back and forth with her spad, Andrew Crawford, who was extremely close to Moy Park and the main co-culprit at the heart of the RHI scandal. Crawford served seven years as Arlene Foster's spad at DETI and could not recall ever seeing a formal note of a meeting — not ever. It is unbelievable and unacceptable. It is also unacceptable to think that some in the Chamber suggest that we do not need legislation to change that kind of arrangement.”
“In July 2018, a 59-year-old mother of four, Anne Smith, from my constituency of West Belfast, was sentenced to six days in prison for failure to pay a TV licence. It shone a spotlight on the obscene disparity in the state's punitive approach towards people like Anne Smith, who struggle to get by, and the casual impunity that is extended towards those responsible for misappropriating up to £800 million in public funds through RHI. To date, not one individual among those in government or in the private sector who gloated about "filling their boots" in the RHI scandal has spent one hour in jail, nor are we likely to see that. Arlene Foster, who presided over the scandal as the Enterprise, Trade and Investment Minister in charge of RHI, walks free in the confidence that she will likely never face jail time.”
“Amendment Nos 14 and 21 relate further to that and mandate Ministers to report to Committees in more detail about their work efforts. Clause 8 requires ministerial and special adviser meetings with non-departmental personnel to be attended by a civil servant and a note taken. That, again, would help in scrutinising the actions of the Stormont elite. <BR /> <BR />Those moves will, hopefully, help to militate against instances involving the misappropriation of public funds, which we have seen too often in this place, and prevent the massive disparity of treatment between working-class people and self-appointed political elites in Stormont. <BR /> <BR />I will quickly give one example that accurately draws out the hypocrisy. It is worth mentioning in the light of clause 9 and amendment No 20.”
“Clear evidence indicated a close relationship between Ministers, spads and elements of the big agribusiness sector, with huge companies such as Moy Park lobbying their way towards unfair and indefensible handouts of public money to further line their pockets, including, as others have suggested, undocumented trips to Brazil and relationships that led to hundreds of millions of pounds of public money being wasted, without minutes of meetings even being taken and no paper trail or accountability. Scandalous stuff indeed. <BR /> <BR />Clause 6 requires a Civil Service note to be kept of all ministerial meetings. Clause 7 requires all ministerial and special adviser meetings outside their respective Departments to be logged in future.”
“Shocking and sickening as that was, it did not even get to the heart of the matter. <BR /> <BR />At least part of the reason that they got away with so much during RHI was the lack of basic checks and balances in place for Ministers and their officials. That allowed them, essentially, to do what they wanted. Stormont Ministers and their advisers are continually held to a different standard from others.”
“I rise to support much of what is being proposed in clauses 6, 7 and 12, which, undoubtedly, will strengthen the process of scrutiny and accountability and will help to rein in the flagrantly undemocratic nature of government operations here. Obviously, there are a few technical amendments too, but I will keep my comments to the main legislative changes that are being proposed. <BR /> <BR />The RHI scandal exposed the shocking practice at the heart of the functioning of government in this Building. One thing that was obvious was the complete lack of democratic accountability among politicians and their untouchable spads, who, at times, seemed to regard public funds as play money to be handed out among friends and relatives.”
“<BR /> <BR />In the normal budgetary and in-year monitoring round process that occurs, my experience in the Health Committee is that it is extremely difficult to find out the rationale for and the detail on why some bids are made or not made. Even political anoraks would find it difficult to explain or understand that process. Surely, any transparency around the process can only be a good thing. Any attempt to increase the information that Committee members get, to further open up or to make the budgetary process more transparent and to explain why Ministers make certain decisions can only be a good and welcome thing. It is for those reasons that I will support the amendments.”
“I have lost count of the number of times that I or other members at the Health Committee have asked reasonable questions, which are not outlandish and are not in the public domain, but have not received an answer or even an, "I will get back to you". The fact that this amendment places a responsibility on Ministers and Departments when a Committee may reasonably require information in order to discharge its functions is right and proper. I hope that it will go some way to increasing the scrutiny function of Committees in the Assembly more generally and will increase the information that Committees, including the Health Committee that I sit on, can get access to.”
“Are we really saying that Ministers are untouchable and that, as the current unamended and unchanged legislation does, Ministers are beyond any real investigation? Effectively, that will be the de facto situation unless changes are implemented to this legislation. Whilst the current state of affairs is obscene, it is in line with the general approach of Stormont in which Ministers are rarely held to account for their actions in any meaningful sense. A Minister resigning for wrongdoing is a rare thing in the House. <BR /> <BR />Amendment Nos 21 and 23 introduce two new clauses. Amendment No 21 would bring an important change to the way in which this Building and its Committees function.”
“The first two amendments in this section — amendment Nos 10 and 12 — are technical, but amendment No 12 is an important addition to the role and remit of the Commissioner for Standards. Other Members have talked about that. As it stands, the commissioner can investigate any MLA who is suspected of breaching the code of conduct or other wrongdoings. It is quite remarkable that the person designated to investigate complaints and breaches, effectively, has a blanket ban on Ministers being investigated. It is right and proper that there is a process, albeit that it is often a slow and laborious one; nonetheless, a process exists for MLAs to be investigated for breaches, potential breaches, misconduct and so on. Why is the same level of accountability and scrutiny not in place for Ministers?”
“Parties that claim to support openness and transparency and claim that they work for their community but cannot bring themselves to slow the pace of the gravy train that they stand to benefit from are acting in their own interests, not the interests of the public. Those parties are not acting with the fervour that scandal after scandal on this hill commands. I suggest that this place needs root-and-branch reform, root-and-branch restructuring and a wholesale break from the shambolic governance of the past. This Bill, in its entirety, does not deliver that, but parts of it certainly help in that endeavour.”
“My party is not content to support that clause in its entirety because of clause 1(6). The simple reason is that my party would not have supported Mr Allister's Bill in 2013, as it disproportionately impacted on ex-prisoners. Therefore, my party cannot support any attempt to enhance or beef up that legislation. To be clear, my party will support amendment Nos 2, 3 and 4, but will oppose clause 1 in its entirety. My party does this in the hope that if it is defeated and clause 1 stands, the Bill will, at least, address the serious issues in the process of appointing spads and discipline them more rigorously. <BR /> <BR />Finally, what happens in the Chamber today and tonight should be closely watched.”
“It is patently clear that someone paid from the public purse to advise a Minister should be hired with some degree of record-keeping and regulation. The need for this is redoubled by the fact that the current Minister of Finance saw fit to change the code for appointments to remove such measures. What does the Minister of Finance have to hide when he is hiring spads that stops him from supporting basic record-keeping for that process? The legislation does not prevent him from picking the right person for the job, the person who works best with him or the person who meets the criteria outlined in a job spec. I cannot fathom why Ministers are uncomfortable with, or opposed to, explaining their choices to the public, who will be forking out for the well-paid role. <BR /> <BR />Unfortunately, amendment Nos 2, 3 and 4 apply to clause 1.”
“Many will find it humorously ironic that Sinn Féin would endorse or use something called a "royal prerogative" to appoint someone to effectively act as a spin doctor, who was charged with enhancing the profile and image of the Executive. In other words, they sell to the public the benefits of a cosy Sinn Féin/DUP friendship. I do not find that in the least bit humorous; I find it utterly unsurprising. I also find the fact that they used the power of the monarchy to appoint a PR doctor from public funds, without a shred of oversight or transparency, utterly unsurprising. The First and deputy First Minister must not be allowed to engage in such underhandedness in the future. <BR /> <BR />My party is also inclined to support amendment Nos 2, 3 and 4.”
“I find it unsettling that spads are afforded any powers or given privileges far above those afforded to other civil servants and far above what any unelected individual should expect to hold. <BR /> <BR />It is also clear that, for far too long, the big parties have, with impunity, ridden on a gravy train, at public expense and often at the cost of the public purse. For that reason, I welcome the bulk of what is before us, in particular, those clauses and amendments that seek to curtail such behaviour. For example, I support the reduction in the number of spads by removing them from junior Ministers' offices, as outlined in amendment No 7. I also endorse clause 3.”
“I support many parts of this Bill, including the clauses and amendments in group 1, which I now address. <BR /> <BR />The damning accounts given in the RHI inquiry, Sam McBride's 'Burned', and countless column inches should be reason enough to accept that these changes should be made via legislation. We simply cannot trust Ministers in this Executive to hold to account themselves or their spads via codes that they can tinker with, and have tinkered with, quite freely. <BR /> <BR />It is clear to me, listening to Mr Allister's opening remarks, that he and I would probably disagree about the remit of spads. If I had my way, we would not have unelected officials, with significant power, swanning around Departments in the unaccountable manner exposed by scandals such as RHI.”
“It will not. It is likely to create more problems in the short and long term. The Executive have the opportunity to now implement plans to ensure that everything is done to avoid a deeper mental health crisis in our communities after the pandemic is over. Therefore, we now need to ensure that people do not wait for months for treatment from counsellors, therapists and so on. <BR /> <BR />Finally, while we absolutely need to have a robust and improved test, trace and isolate system, it will be pretty ineffective, in the grand scheme of things, if the Executive jump in and out of restrictions based on the fluctuation of the R number, or by putting their finger to the wind. Even a world-class test and trace system, which is what we should have, is pretty useless if the Executive repeat the same mistakes of the past, time and time again.”
“Shame on all of those parties and Ministers who are willing to threaten — and maybe still want to — the health of so many in our communities by adopting a laissez-faire approach to this virus. Many of them feign concern about low-paid workers while doing nothing to help and to protect them, except to implement a strategy of further impoverishing them and throwing them to the COVID wolves. <BR /> <BR />The motion also talks about the negative impacts of lockdown on mental health, and there is no doubt that this has been a very tough and difficult period for people's mental health, illness and issues. However, we should also avoid believing that simply opening up the doors of the economy again, forcing people back into unsafe or dangerous working conditions before a safe vaccine is rolled out, will do wonders for people's mental health.”
“While health workers have gone above and beyond, putting the lives and safety of all of us and the community first, the Executive have committed themselves to a dangerous strategy of living with COVID, which, by definition — if it has a definition — means repeatedly going in and out of lockdown without committing to eliminating the virus. The result is, sadly, that we have one of the highest infection and death rates per population across the world. <BR /> <BR />The motion tonight talks about individual responsibility, and I suppose that that is important in a general sense. However, I hope that the same applies to Ministers, especially when many of them blatantly ignore the glaring and stark medical advice right in front of them.”
“They have worked through the pandemic; they still have to pay their bills, they have no sick pay if they are forced to isolate, and they have a bursary that effectively amounts to being paid £1 an hour for the work that they do. Who here would work for £1 an hour? Who else out there would work for £1 an hour? It is totally unfair, and that issue needs to be addressed to support student nurses and student midwives. <BR /> <BR />When you compare the role of student nurses and healthcare workers, generally, to the actions of the Executive, then it really is like comparing night and day.”
“We need to respect our nurses and medical staff by not only paying them the money that they were promised and are owed, but, in recognition of the essential work that they have done, the Health Minister and the Executive need to urgently begin work to ensure that they are given a significant and worthwhile pay increase, as is in line with their unions' demands. This would not only begin to acknowledge the work that these workers have done in the last year, through a pandemic that none of them signed up for or expected, but it would go some way to encourage these workers to stay here after this pandemic rather than go somewhere else where they are paid a higher wage. <BR /> <BR />I think that it is also important to mention student nurses, as has briefly been mentioned by some, and to recognise their role during the pandemic.”
“I have spoken to many over the last few weeks, and they have told me that they not only feel exhausted but underappreciated and underpaid. Many of them are disgusted, to be frank, at the fact that they were promised by the Health and Finance Ministers that they would not lose out on pay for taking strike action earlier this year to stand up for safe staffing levels, yet they are still waiting as the issue is ping-ponged by Ministers across the Executive. <BR /> <BR />ICU nurses are predominantly on a band-5 pay grade despite the fact that a lot of them are doing the work of a band-6 or a higher-banded worker.”
“As the motion sets out, it is important to recognise the essential work that is being done by our healthcare workers in the middle of a dangerous and deadly pandemic. Without the sacrifice, skills and gritty determination of these healthcare workers — many of whom were forced to live away from their families for weeks on end — what kind of an unthinkable situation would we be in? <BR /> <BR />It would be remiss of me not to mention that today is the first ever Royal College of Nursing (RCN) nursing support workers' day. On this day, I thank all of those RCN workers and healthcare workers for their roles and work over the last year. It is worth noting how many of these workers now feel as a result of working through this pandemic, working hard and sacrificing so much for the health and well-being of us all.”
“I was dealing with the case of a constituent who sadly passed away. My constituent was waiting for a long time on a PIP appeal and a PIP decision and got the award after having passed away. Minister, are you or your Department aware of how many people have tragically passed away from COVID whilst waiting on a PIP appeal or a PIP decision?”
“Can the Minister seriously stand over that statement, knowing full well that, as an island, we saw the virus spread across other parts of the world and that his Executive were warned by health experts that reopening the economy too soon would risk a second surge? Is the Minister seriously saying, "Sure, we didn't know what would happen. It's not our fault. Nothing to see here. Move on"? Does the Minister think that that is acceptable?”
“The Minister's statement indicated that mass testing will not be a magic bullet in the crisis as long as community transmission rises. I suppose that is true, but it is important to have a system of mass testing. Does the Minister therefore agree that, until now, the Executive have utterly failed to implement adequate testing and an adequate track-and-trace system when our R rate decreased? Have any lessons been learned as we peer into a two-week circuit breaker?”
“Additionally, I lend my support to and speak in favour of the other amendments in group 3 as well supporting amendment Nos 21 and 22, as I said at the start.”
“I thank the Member for her intervention, and I certainly do not want to misrepresent her position. It is, unfortunately, an issue that is prevalent in communities, but communities have been trying to deal with this, and this Chamber and other Chambers have failed to introduce the right and appropriate legislation to provide the appropriate funding, training and resources to tackle it. <BR /> <BR />The Bill can only be a first step, because it is far from being all-encompassing. I will support the Bill in the full knowledge that more needs to be done, by the House in particular, to support all victims and protect them from domestic abuse. We will need to push hard for those changes in the future.”
“I thank the Minister for her intervention. What she has said may be true, but, with respect, she, as Justice Minister, should be supporting the amendment for mandated annual training, but, from her comments, she does not. <BR />Finally, I urge the Minister to answer another call from women's groups and establish a commissioner for domestic abuse victims. That person could scrutinise the outworkings of the Bill to ensure that it lives up to its aim, highlight potential pitfalls in its operation and ensure that there is a properly funded strategy for women and girls that seeks to address the issues that have been swept under the carpet for decades and that urgently need to be addressed.”
“I endorse amendment No 22, tabled by Rachel Woods, which mandates the Department to provide resources for such training. There is an onus on the Department to ensure that that training takes place, and it is right that the Department would commit to fund it to ensure that it happens. This place has a poor record in providing for the victims of domestic abuse, and this would be a small step in the right direction. <BR /> <BR />I challenge those who would vote against resources being allocated to training in this area to listen to the voices of people who have had desperate experiences. Listen to such women's groups as Women's Aid, which has issued a plea today for us to ensure that the legislation is appropriately funded to do what it sets out to do.”
“Victims of domestic abuse and violence have the right to treatment that does not retraumatise them or make them uncomfortable as they seek justice. The many societal roots of domestic abuse and gender presumptions are linked to the oppression of women. That must be dug up and done away with, but that will not happen at the hands of the Assembly, and it will not happen when the Bill is passed. However, it is in our power, today, to ensure that the bodies responsible for dealing with the victims of domestic abuse are trained to do so properly, as that would improve the experience of victims and should be a priority in the Bill. I agree with the robust terms laid out in amendment No 21 that such training should be annual and mandated.”
“It has been long but important and essential debate. I rise to speak in favour of amendment Nos 21 and 22. It is clear beyond doubt that there have been failures in the handling of domestic abuse cases in the criminal justice system. Those failures in the criminal justice institutions have ended not only in a lack of prosecutions where domestic violence has taken place and in a lack of faith in the system to deal with domestic abuse generally, but they have caused unknown trauma for victims who have decided to speak up and report their abuse, only to be met with ill treatment, outdated presumptions, gender prejudices and emotionally damaging questions in courtrooms, to name but a few issues. <BR /> <BR />It is imperative that we recognise the issue and act to prevent it as far as possible.”
“I thank the Minister for her statement. The £2·1 million divided out equally amongst 14,800 people amounts to around £150 each. I assume that some people got less and others got more. Is the Minister aware of the average payment that people received? How many people received £500 or more?”
“I thank the Member for giving way. I want to put on record my support for her party's motion. Does she agree with me that, whilst the Executive parties might have been at each other's throats last week over other issues, they seem to have each other's backs tonight on this issue?”
“They did not sign up for the current situation. What is the Minister's assessment of nursing capacity in ICUs? We owe nurses a huge debt of gratitude, but do we have enough of them?”
“Minister, I spoke recently to ICU nursing staff, who are doing incredible work but feel overworked, undervalued and underpaid. Some of those workers have increased stress levels, which you alluded to. Some have left the NHS because —.”
“Does the Minister seriously believe that the potential COVID vaccination that is being touted by the media as being available here in December will be available, or was that just a line inserted into an Executive press release last week to save face during the mother of all Stormont shambles?”
“I do not really know where to start with this statement. It is embarrassingly lacking. There is little content, little direction, and an attempt to paint a united picture of the period ahead when we are likely to see in the near future a repeat of last week's charade. <BR /> <BR />Can the deputy First Minister please give a concrete answer as to whether she backs the political decision of living with this virus rather than putting a zero-COVID, strategy in place, which could have results as successful as those in New Zealand and would put our health first?”
“I thank the Minister for her answer. The Minister may or may not be aware that article 31 of the Wildlife and Natural Environment Act (Northern Ireland) 2011 makes it an offence to permit the carrying out of an operation which damages any feature of an area of special scientific interest — obviously, the whole of Lough Neagh is one — stating that anyone who does so shall be guilty of a criminal offence. Given that the removal of natural habitats by sand dredging creates unquestionable damage and the fact that sand dredging is still unlawful, is the Minister not clearly committing a criminal act under that legislation by permitting further extraction that damages an area of special scientific interest?”
“In relation to environmental protection, can I ask whether Ministers discussed measures to keep fossil fuels in the ground? My party colleague, Bríd Smith TD, brought a proposal to take such measures in the South, but it was guillotined by a previous Government. Was there any discussion about legislation or policies and proposals to ensure that fossil fuels are kept in the ground?”
“Indeed, I have enough experience of having radical ideas about the redistribution of wealth being met with sneering and arrogant disdain from several sides of the Chamber and, sometimes, even laughs from across the way. We have had plenty of them today. However, it is not my job to present politics that is acceptable to Establishment politicians; it is quite the opposite. I know that the Budget is likely to be passed, and there will probably be no Division in the Chamber. However, I want to put on record my opposition to it for the reasons that I have outlined.”
“"With the contempt that it deserves", he says. I am well aware of that, given yesterday's comments and optics, with his side of the House having a meltdown with the talk of basic socialist policies. I think that he is still hurting from Trump's defeat in America”
“How else can parties claim to stand on the side of people in working-class communities who will always feel the sharp edge of their budgets and never seem to benefit from the scandal-laden schemes, of which there are too many to name, that have come from this Building? <BR /> <BR />I am very well aware that this kind of speech will be received, particularly by Mr Stalford —.”
“I thank the Member for his intervention. I am advocating that the wealthy pay more, but I believe that the Member probably disagrees with that, given his comments yesterday.”
“<BR /> <BR />They should scrap welfare reform; they should raise the rates on the wealthiest; they should shout and scream about raising corporation tax and not be shy about it; and they should radically shake up the priorities of this —.”
“However, it is particularly exasperating when they stand over this Budget today; when they stand over the approach of this Executive to the COVID-19 pandemic; when they harp on about Bengoa being the solution to our health service underfunding shambles; when they allowed health workers to strike in the cold and still refused to pay them the lost pay that they had promised would be paid; when they continue to stand over the decision to do the Tories' bidding by introducing and defending welfare reform, the mitigations to which have cost more than it would have done to avoid introducing them in the first place, and when there are so many cracks that people are struggling to pay the bedroom tax that we were told was never coming to the North.”
“The big parties in this House set the mould, built up the institutions and ran them, in large part, as a gravy train. <BR /> <BR />It was never good enough that parties like Sinn Féin played good cop against the will of the big, bad DUP or the wolves across the water.”
“<BR /> <BR />I am not alone in that; progressive economists and activists have raised the idea too. Not only are those Governments not implementing a wealth tax, but, just today, I asked the First Minister whether a COVID-19 wealth tax was discussed at the recent British-Irish Council meeting. She told me that it was not even on the agenda. If we needed another reminder that we are not all in this together and that Governments continue to work with those with the deepest pockets, a vivid example of it is right there. <BR /> <BR />Finally, I find it galling that some in this Government are going above and beyond to present an image of themselves as mould-breakers, as shakers of institutions, and as champions of social security claimants and those in public housing.”
“I remind the Member that no evidence exists that reducing corporation tax would bring a single additional job into the North. However, if he can supply me with such evidence, I will happily share it online. However, I know that it does not exist; it is fantasy economics. <BR /> <BR />We do not even need to push Westminster for further powers to make the wealthiest pay. People Before Profit has, for years, pushed the idea of lifting the rates cap, so that those with the broadest shoulders carry the heaviest burden. It is worth noting that billionaires have increased their collective wealth by an estimated £25 billion to £30 billion solely during the pandemic. I have been calling on Governments, North and South and across these islands, to consider a wealth tax to bail out ordinary people.”