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 71 of 83.
“On top of the massive COVID costs, people are concerned about surgeries being postponed or cancelled, which is, largely, down to the fact that our heath service is overstretched. The Estimates make no attempt to fill the void and recruit the extra healthcare staff or obtain the hospital facilities that we need urgently to ensure that we can fight the virus and continue to provide vital services to people who need them. <BR /> <BR />Nor will the Estimates make a serious dent in the mental health crisis in our communities. The Government in the South — by no means a radical Government — have increased mental health spending by £50 million. Where is the sustained and significant increase to tackle the mental health problems in our society that, we know, will increase after the pandemic?”
“A serious financial package for hospitality workers and those who are set to lose out because of the latest restrictions is also lacking. If those workers had not been rushed back into workplaces before the furlough scheme had even ended or the virus was properly contained, they would not face another period out of work, this time with less support from the state. COVID payments from the Assembly have overwhelmingly favoured the business community over workers. Despite having raised that repeatedly and brought it to the attention of many Ministers, I see no attempt to rectify that imbalance. <BR /> <BR />The Estimates reflect the Department of Health's request for an increase in funding, which, in some ways, is unsurprising, but I am not convinced that it is enough to meet the challenges that we face.”
“The increases, which reflect money committed to the COVID crisis, do not appear to be enough. <BR /> <BR />I will look at some of the figures in the Estimates. The increases for the Department for Communities will, no doubt, be welcomed by the Minister but are nowhere near enough to overhaul our benefits system so that people are not falling through the cracks. The benefit cap needs to be lifted at least until the economic crisis is over. The bedroom tax needs to be written off for everyone, including those who are paying through the tooth every month. Those changes are necessary only because the Executive endorsed welfare reform in the first place. Anyone with their ear to the ground in working-class communities will know that the changes are necessary to support people at this time.”
“It speaks volumes about the value that the Executive place on transparency. Such a lack of scrutiny is unacceptable at any time but is especially so during a pandemic. I ask whether it has been totally lost on the Minister that years of austerity, signed off in Stormont Budgets, have led to health service cuts and attacks on public-sector pay that have fundamentally undermined our ability to grapple with the crisis. <BR /> <BR />Our ability to come through the pandemic is dependent in large part on the financial decisions of the House. The need for accountability, to make sure that we get those decisions right, is paramount. It is unacceptable that that has been shirked once again by the Minister and the Executive. From the Estimates, from where I sit, it looks as though the Executive may repeat some of the mistakes of the past.”
“Not for the first time, I will highlight in the Chamber the absurdity of the Executive making huge financial decisions with little or no mechanism for accountability or scrutiny. It has got to the stage at which the Executive do not even pretend to follow the normal democratic functions of oversight that we are supposed to expect from legislative chambers and Parliaments. The Estimates commit large amounts of public expenditure and form an integral part of the Budget process, yet it is only today that we get access to information on a Bill that will be debated tomorrow. In that sense, MLAs who are not in the Executive have only a matter of hours to look at the incredibly important detail of the Budget. Frankly, it is virtually impossible to have any influence over the direction of public funds.”
“I thank the Minister for his answer. It is worrying that he has not received any proposals. I know that this is hypothetical, but if he were to receive a proposal from the Health Minister, would he look favourably on it and be minded to support the roll-out of such a scheme in order to tackle the pandemic?”
“I want to categorically say that what happened last night was an absolute shambles. People are scratching their heads asking what is going on up in this Building. Does the First Minister agree with me that a much better approach to tackling the virus would be to adopt a zero-COVID strategy with the necessary financial assistance for the vulnerable, rather than having an endless cycle of circuit breaker and surge, which would undoubtedly cause greater harm to people's health and livelihoods in the long run, especially of low-paid workers?”
“I will bring my comments to a close. I support the motion.”
“We need to have a wide-ranging and imaginative campaign to create green jobs as part of a just transition, and that is even more essential given that hundreds of thousands of people will lose their jobs because of COVID and the recession. Rather than let those —”
“It is worth saying that thousands of responses, or objections, were submitted to this application by members of my community and people from other Members' communities and beyond, yet we have not heard a decision from the Department. It is worth emphasising to the Minister that, whilst we have been waiting over a year for a response to it, nothing less than binning this application would be agreeable to my constituents and, I am sure, to many others. <BR /> <BR />It is very concerning. In general terms, there is a mistaken view that granting licences of various kinds may bring jobs or some economic benefit to beleaguered communities. Licences may be granted to multinational corporations and mass polluters.”
“Why not stop it happening now? We were told that lessons were learned from the renewable heat incentive (RHI) scheme. To me, that does not seem to be the case: this smacks of a transition from cash for ash to cash for gas. Those issues need to be addressed. As when RHI whistle-blowers were dismissed and their concerns brushed under the carpet, there are massive questions for the Minister in this case. She may not have this information, but it is important that she responds today or as quickly as possible. These concerns are of huge public interest. <BR /> <BR />The problems do not seem to end there. Affecting my constituency and others, there is an application — PLA1/16 — for potential drilling and extraction in an area that extends from Lough Neagh right across to west Belfast and covers multiple council areas in the North.”
“Even after the validation, the Isle of Man authorities refused to reveal who that company's beneficial owners were. Still, a licence to explore was granted. The Department tried to check with the Isle of Man authorities who the beneficial owners were only after the application had been validated, thereby breaking the 1987 and 2010 regulations. That is very concerning. It is a bit like a bank giving a mortgage to somebody without looking at their bank statements. That would not happen, so why should it happen on a much bigger and more dangerous scale? Why should corporations be allowed to act with such impunity and with so little scrutiny of their decisions and transactions? <BR /> <BR />If this licence proceeds, there could be another expensive inquiry into a flawed and potentially dangerous system that is detrimental to the environment.”
“Not only is that a contradiction of what the House said and how it voted, but it represents a slap in the face for all those who walked out of their school or workplace as part of the climate strikes and for all the community campaigners, who, as mentioned by others, have been fighting to protect the environment. It is very worrying therefore that the Department could be, if it is not already, embarking on a path that could lead to the validation of further licence applications. <BR /> <BR />It appears that the Department has validated an application from a company that has worrying financial irregularities. As I understand it, an application from a $2 company in the Isle of Man for a licence to explore in Fermanagh was validated.”
“Repeatedly, in the House, we hear from Members and Ministers that we should not be working in silos and that there should be a joined-up approach to tackling a range of issues. However, I firmly believe that either the Department did not get the memo; or it did and wants to ignore it. On the one hand, we have an overwhelming desire for action in our communities to tackle the climate issues, an approach that the House endorsed; on the other hand, the Minister or Department, or both, has gone off in the opposite direction and is implementing or allowing to exist policies that could damage the environment.”
“Mr Principal Deputy Speaker, thank you for pointing out the time shortage. I also thank Dr Aiken for being generous with his time. I signed the motion, so, had I not been called to speak, it would have been absurd and raised all sorts of questions about how the House operates. I thank you, Mr Principal Deputy Speaker, and Dr Aiken for mentioning that. Ms Sugden is also looking to get in but has not been called, so there are issues there as well. <BR /> <BR />Several months ago, the House declared a climate emergency, which was an important step on the path to, hopefully, tackling the existential climate and biodiversity issues that threaten life itself on the planet. Of course, as with many things, just because something has been debated and voted for does not automatically make it a reality.”
“I thank the Minister for her answer. However, I want to say categorically that Mick Mulvaney is no friend to the vast majority of people here, North and South. He describes himself as a "right-wing nutjob". As Trump's chief of staff, he pushed for slashing healthcare and opposed anti-poverty programmes and disability benefits, not to mention defending, time and time again, Trump's deplorable racism. <BR /> <BR />At any point, did the special envoy discuss his newly created vulture fund, Exegis Capital, with any of the Ministers?”
“I thank the Member for giving way. Is the Member content that the reason given is that the two-year limit exists for purely electoral purposes? Is he content and happy with the answer that we received in the Committee?”
“It potentially limits the amount of time for democracy, accountability and scrutiny, and, for those reasons, I cannot give it my support. <BR /> <BR />It could also copper-fasten the rules of the big parties. If a current Executive party wanted to leave the Executive, it might do so because, internally, it has decided that that is the best mechanism for it and its constituents, but the time and resources that it could get as the official Opposition would be limited. If a period of two years and a month had passed, there would be pressure on parties not to pull out of the Executive because there would be limited opposition time and resources available to it. For those reasons and many more, I cannot support this change to Standing Orders.”
“As the Chair alluded to, I raised that point in Committee. I asked why the two-year limit was set, and we had correspondence from the Minister of State, Robin Walker, stating that the two-year limit should be in place to avoid parties using being in opposition purely for electoral purposes. Presumably, he thinks that parties should not be able to leave the Executive and join the Opposition beyond a two-year period because he has determined that that may be being done for electoral purposes. Surely that should not be his determination to make but that of this House. It should be the Committee and probably the Executive parties, to some extent, that determine that. It does not seem to be a sound argument. It seems to have been plucked from the air.”
“Three weeks ago, the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE) apparently advised the British Government of the need to restrict workplaces, but they did not act. Yesterday, eventually, limited if not enough action was taken by the Tory Government. Today, we are still waiting on the Executive to make announcements. We are hearing that there may be announcements today, but there may not be. I am not on the Executive, so I do not know. That exposes the need for maximum scrutiny and maximum opposition, where necessary. We have one of the highest infection rates in the world, and it is deeply worrying that this amendment to Standing Orders will essentially restrict the role of a potential opposition even further. That point has to be emphasised.”
“Obviously, as we have heard, opposition does not exist and has not for many years. As I raised at the Committee, there is limited time for parties that are not in the Executive to have their say, to have speaking time and to scrutinise the Executive. The pandemic crisis that we are in has exposed the need for maximum scrutiny, transparency and opposition, where necessary. It seems to me from media reports in the last day, at least, that the Executive are in a dysfunctional stage.”
“Finally, it is essential that we reclaim and keep to a basic principle that art should be for people's benefit and enjoyment and not be about maximising profit, be that locally or internationally.”
“Such programmes are important and essential in developing and nurturing talent, but, by their design, they are limited in being able to take in only a certain number of people and places. I think that there is a general concern that there may be an approach that focuses solely or primarily on developing big showcase programmes. Those are obviously welcome and enjoyable for people, but, as has been referred to, freelance actors and others working in the creative industries generally may be forgotten about or cast aside. What assurances can the Minister give us with the order that it will not be the case that just the big organisations and the big projects will be supported?”
“I think that excitement was the feeling that most of my constituents had yesterday when Mr Adrian Dunbar and his colleagues were filming in west Belfast, and that sort of captured the excitement that the film and creative industries can give the people at any time but especially in the middle of a health pandemic. Obviously, the Minister will be aware of the group of hundreds of independent actors and artists who gathered, I think, last Friday through the We Make Events NI group in a socially distanced way. It is important that we hear the voices of those who work in the sector. <BR /> <BR />As Members have said, NI Screen is an important project, and it supports important programmes such as the Irish Language Broadcast Fund (ILBF).”
“Sick pay is paltry for many hospitality workers, and it is likely that many will be financially forced to make decisions that may not be best for their health and the health of the community. What extra provision does the First Minister or the Executive have to develop a COVID sick-pay scheme for low-paid hospitality workers?”
“If adopted and were the Justice Minister to adhere to it, the motion would run horse and cart through those important principles. <BR /> <BR />I am concerned generally that, when we have debates in the House about crime and criminal activity, the approach, primarily, seems to be to automatically push for harsher penalties and to ignore or curtail the benefits and possibilities of rehabilitation. That is a general point. I think that my time is up, so I will leave my comments there.”
“Undoubtedly, there are a lot of painful cases in relation to the issues that we are talking about today. We have heard many families speak bravely in the last number of weeks. However, to impose a law that denies parole for a subset of people, regardless of context or extenuating circumstances, is not the appropriate solution. It is easy to envisage how a law of that kind could have undesirable consequences. <BR /> <BR />It is not for us to determine — I am certainly not in a position to do so — whether any individual is ready for parole, but it is the Assembly's job, when laying down a law that will be used to determine parole, to guarantee that there is room for extenuating circumstances and context. At its foundation, law relating to the justice system should be rooted in rehabilitation.”
“That was backed by Marie McCourt, who to this day does not know the location of her daughter Helen's body and has lived with that pain for many, many years. I am aware that — other Members mentioned it — parole officers already take that information into account. The amendment suggests that the Minister consider legislating for that when stakeholders have been engaged. We will support the amendment for those reasons. <BR /> <BR />We cannot, however, support the motion in its original form. The imposition of a sentence without the option of parole has been questioned in multiple courts internationally as being incompatible with human rights. A blanket ban on parole such as this potentially removes any semblance, in specific cases, of context or any attempt at rehabilitation.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I will begin by expressing my deepest sympathies to the families who are living without the knowledge of the location of their loved ones' bodies, such as the families of Lisa Dorrian and Charlotte Murray. Those people are stripped of the ability to bury their dead and must face unimaginable anguish from knowing that there is a person who holds that information but will not offer it up. That places a block on their ability to come to terms with the untimely passing of their loved one, and it is right that we acknowledge their reality today, as all Members who have spoken have. <BR /> <BR />Helen's law, which the motion refers to, would legally compel parole officers to consider the withholding of a victim's location when making a judgement about a prisoner's release.”
“For all the talk of needing to implement a racial equality strategy, the truth is that the Executive have presided over the shocking treatment of refugees and asylum seekers for many years. <BR /> <BR />I say this: open the borders now. Céad míle fáilte to refugees, asylum seekers and immigrants. I reject the Tories' approach to immigration. The Assembly should step up to defend migrants and refugees in a way that offers a positive and equal future for all.”
“In addition, clarification is needed on how the changes of rules will apply to Irish citizens in Britain. <BR /> <BR />We should have no truck with this Tory Bill. Every method of resisting it should be utilised, including rejecting the use of a legislative consent motion. The parties in this Chamber should unite to obstruct the Tories' plans as much as they can. I note that the Scottish Parliament has until now refused to implement an LCM on these provisions. I suggest that the Executive could also follow that path and, instead, as others said, introduce their own Bill that addresses social security payments for immigrants. That should include a rapid expansion of social security payments for all in need. It is still unclear to me why the Executive could not have done that.”
“I respectfully disagree with that argument and believe that it is a mistaken approach to take, as it represents endorsing dangerous legislation. I urge Members to look closely at the recent report from the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, which states that there is no secure protection for those who will have a settled status prior to the closing date of the scheme in June 2021 and:”
“The Bill may have partially addressed the long-standing question over the Irish community living in Britain, but it jeopardises the lives of thousands and thousands of other migrants living in and entering Britain in the period ahead. <BR /> <BR />We oppose the Bill because it represents a dark day for immigrants and refugees who are in search of a better life. The Bill is being pushed through Westminster. The LCM relates to the provisions being devolved to here. I recognise that some in the Chamber — the Minister may have indicated this already — who oppose the Tories' Immigration Bill have, in effect, made an argument for passing the LCM, in that it may allow the Assembly to make the most of a bad situation that is being forced upon us and to influence social security payments.”
“<BR /> <BR />The main thrust of the Bill, however, is to ensure that legislation for free movement across the EU will be repealed and, afterwards, EEA citizens and their families who come to Britain will be subject to immigration laws and require permission to enter and remain. The Tories have set out their stall, as others indicated, towards a future immigration points-based system, which, in my opinion, will be inherently racist. For example, one piece of government-commissioned advice states that only the "brightest and best" talent from around the world will be allowed entry. That is Tory speak for shutting the doors on people who are fleeing war, poverty and climate destruction, all of which were a great responsibility from British imperialism.”
“<BR /> <BR />To be frank, I am no big fan of the EU as an institution. On the matter of immigration, it has a terrible record in some regards, as thousands of dead migrants in the Mediterranean Sea illustrate in a tragic and painful way. That said, although the EU has a shocking record in the treatment of refugees outside its borders, the freedom of movement between EU states is one principle that should be robustly defended. As a socialist, I am opposed to borders and divisions generally, whether they are erected across states or inside people's heads, and I support the freedom of movement of people across the world, not just in Ireland or Europe but everywhere. If the rich man can move freely across the globe, so too should the poor and marginalised be able to avail themselves of such a right.”
“People Before Profit unequivocally opposes the Tories' Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill. More widely, we oppose Boris Johnson and the Tories' nefarious plans for restricting freedom of movement into Britain and the North of Ireland. <BR /> <BR />British immigration policy has always been based on exploitation and structural racism, and it is deeply worrying that the Tories wish to repeal laws in way that inevitably harks back to even more racist immigration policies from the 1970s or perhaps worse and aims to implement a points-based system that mirrors the racist practices of many other countries across the world. In particular, we oppose clause 1, which ends freedom of movement from EU countries, replaces it with nothing and opens the door to an even more restrictive immigration system.”
“How will the Minister's office ensure that the voices of victims, who feel let down and excluded so far, will be heard throughout and at the end of the process?”
“I thank the Minister for his statement. Most of this money will obviously be welcome, but it will not address some of the longer-term issues re the lack of funding for our services. The Minister will be aware that Rishi Sunak has indicated his preference for corporation tax to increase by 5%. Does the Minister have any views on that? Would you like it to increase by 5% or more? If so, how much extra money would that bring in for public services here?”
“I take it that he was rushed in some of his comments today, but, on neither occasion, was I given the evidence to ascertain why it spreads in homes but not in workplaces. <BR /> <BR />I give my sympathies to the families. Hopefully a tragedy such as this will not happen again.”
“They talk about "reckless individuals", referring constantly to "house parties", but I think that the reality is that the same reticence to shut down workplaces in the first place fuelled moves to reopen them prematurely and in an unsafe way, which increased the spread of the virus, and possibly threatened more deaths. That was while creating a context in which many people began to draw the conclusion that if you could go to work, why not socialise with friends etc. <BR /> <BR />Just last week, I asked the First Minister to divulge the medical evidence that shows that although COVID can spread in a home where there are six people, it does not spread in a workplace where there are hundreds of people. I asked the Health Minister the same question today.”
“We should not, as others have said, disregard those people, such as health workers and their respective unions, because health workers have been failed throughout the crisis, from the denial of PPE to the more general rundown of services throughout the pandemic. <BR /> <BR />As Mr McNulty said, they may have raised concerns prior to this, I do not know, but I think that it is important, if they did, that that is listened to and addressed. I say this because, as I articulated earlier today, there are elements in the House who are going to great lengths to blame ordinary people for the spread of the virus.”
“However, it is a deeply worrying situation when highly vulnerable patients who are free of COVID are admitted to a hospital where they then come into contact with the virus, to be met with the most tragic of fates in some circumstances. Like our care homes, these hospitals should have had the maximum protection from the virus at the very start, but, unfortunately, much like our care homes, some of these hospitals, including the staff and patients in them, have been failed at various stages throughout the crisis, and over the years as well. <BR /> <BR />We have to ascertain why what happened happened. Obviously, apart from the SAI review, there needs to be a full inquiry into these events, and that should be directly informed by the families, who should get the answers that they deserve.”
“Thanks to Mr O'Dowd for bringing this important discussion to the Floor of the House. I think that it is important that even MLAs outside of the area give their thoughts on the issue. I begin by offering my condolences, sympathy, solidarity and support to the families who have lost loved ones due to the recent outbreak at Craigavon Area Hospital. My thoughts are obviously with all those who are battling for their lives and their health. This is obviously a highly sensitive issue and, because of that, I think that it is important to choose words carefully. <BR /> <BR />Of course, I do not claim to know the full details of what has happened in Craigavon Area Hospital or, indeed, in Daisy Hill Hospital.”
“Considering that the Tory Government recently told workers to get back to work only to U-turn on that in the last few hours, does the Minister share any frustration at the zigzagging and U-turning going on at Westminster? Given that the Executive have followed their approach on a number of occasions, is the Minister concerned that some quarters of the Executive at least may be following the Westminster line too closely with little independent thinking?”
“I thank the Minister for his answer. I hope he agrees that homeworking, although forced upon us because of the pandemic, is, potentially, hugely beneficial in dealing with transport and associated air pollution problems, which kill too many people in my constituency, and in other constituencies, every year, especially when it comes to those who are able to work from home and prefer to do so. Will the Minister, with his Executive colleagues, commit to exploring the benefits of allowing people to work from home in the long term if they so wish?”
“Sometimes we get people who can answer questions; sometimes we get people who do not answer them or are unable to. If the Minister can address that concern and assure us that somebody will be there to address the changes to the regulations in the future, that would be helpful.”
“This is not about the narrow confines of individual rights versus society; it is about class politics. Therefore, I appeal to people to respect workers and to wear a mask. <BR /> <BR />Finally, Stormont and Westminster have so far failed to deal with this crisis, but working-class solidarity and struggle with people coming together can help us to get through it and to build a better world after it. <BR /> <BR />My final, final point is this: I will echo the points that were made about the notification that we received last week that Department of Health officials may not be able to attend future briefings of the Health Committee. That is a disgrace. Whenever I ask questions — other Members can speak for themselves — about some of the SRs and some of the changes, I think that there is often detail that we do not get. We need more info.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, should people be made to wear a mask in any and every circumstance? Of course not; however, I firmly believe that wearing a mask is an act of solidarity with my fellow human beings and that workers have a right to work as free as they can from the dangers of being affected by others. That includes bus drivers and retail workers. Buses, trains, shops and hospitals are all someone's workplace. People may have a right not to wear a mask in an abstract ontological and theoretical sense, as well as if they have underlying medical conditions, but they do not have a right to enter workplaces without one and put workers' health at risk. You can smoke to your heart's content, but you do not have the right to smoke in a confined workplace and possibly damage the health of others with second-hand smoke.”
“People like Sammy Wilson are a disgrace, and they are playing with fire and risking lives.”
“The question of masks is crucial, because, while DUP Members in the Chamber attack students for having parties, we have the likes of Sammy Wilson, a man who holds a PhD in political ignorance, dismissing our medical doctors and undermining the most basic health advice on masks.”