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 73 of 83.
“<BR /> <BR />This motion on flags, of course, stems from agreements that were signed up to by Sinn Féin and the DUP in the New Decade, New Approach agreement and, in a small way, sums up a major problem with the agreement; namely, how it doubles down on the two traditions — a schema — where communal forces are elevated in politics and certain sectarian practices are given cover by the law. For example, this agreement on flag flying came alongside a proposal to create a commissioner, whose tasks will include”
“Clearly, we have more pressing matters to discuss today than the flying of flags, so I will not speak for long on the issue. I put on record my opposition to the extra days, contained in the motion. I believe that we, as a society, need to get away from the flying of communal flags. As a socialist, I do not support the expansion of flying flags to honour, and to glorify, any monarchy, never mind the British monarchy, in the role of British imperialism in Ireland, which, for the record, was not good for any working-class communities in the North.”
“I will. My party backs the call for a public inquiry to ask what happened and why it happened for so long. We commend those who have campaigned to highlight this issue and fight for justice.”
“I ask the Minister directly: have any senior Belfast Trust staff, boards of directors or chief executives been suspended, sacked or are there any ongoing plans or investigations about that matter? <BR /> <BR />This is a very serious scandal, as everybody has said today, and some would argue that it is more serious than RHI and should be treated as such. Over the last few days, we have heard that the Chief Medical Officer was visiting bars at the weekend, in his own time, to ensure that COVID restrictions were being maintained. Many would ponder why the Chief Medical Officer, and other senior health staff, did not make spot-check visits to care settings to, potentially, flag up these issues.”
“The RQIA held five serious concern meetings about Muckamore with the Belfast Trust between 2014 and 2016. How, then, was it possible for alleged large-scale abuse to take place in 2017? It appears to me, from this course of events, that either no action was taken or, at best, limited action was taken to prevent abuse from, potentially, recurring. I ask the Minister or someone who can answer this question, what happened in that two-year period? <BR /> <BR />Seanín Graham, from 'The Irish News', reported that it has cost millions to staff Muckamore because so many staff have been suspended pending an investigation. That is quite shocking and worrying.”
“The recent Muckamore review into leadership and governance in the Belfast Trust seems to portray the CCTV operation as a complete fiasco. I cannot describe it as anything but a fiasco. It appears that nobody knew for over a year that the CCTV cameras were even turned on. If people do not know if the cameras are turned on in hospitals and care settings, are they really fit to play a leading role in delivering health and care services? Those are serious questions that need to be answered.”
“One of the most alarming aspects of the investigation at Muckamore is that the Belfast Trust decided, in 2015, two years before the alleged abuse, to install CCTV cameras, because, in 2015, the number of adult safeguarding investigations was far too high. Installing CCTV was considered a way to protect vulnerable adults. If the reports were true then, it appears that abuse soared after CCTV was installed. I have to ask the question: how was that possible?”
“Whilst we must resolutely support those who are battling for answers and for justice, we have to ensure that another Muckamore never happens. However, can we really rule that out if our health service is understaffed and under-resourced? I sincerely hope that it does not happen again, so I want to ensure that every action is taken now to ensure that it does not. I am concerned, like the Chair of the Health Committee earlier, about the over-reliance on agency staff in the care sector and in our health service generally, as people are unable to develop relationships with patients. <BR /> <BR />Of course, this issue should not be about workers versus patients, but about patients and their families up against an unfair system or a system that did not take their concerns seriously.”
“I thank the Members who moved the motion and the amendment. Quite rightly, we have spent a lot of time in the Chamber discussing COVID-19 and its impact on our communities. However, we cannot lose sight of all the other issues that face those who need and who rely upon our health service. Quite rightly, during the COVID-19 period, we talked about the need to protect those who are vulnerable in our society. I believe that we should apply the same principle to the patients in Muckamore, to those who are involved in the Independent Neurology Inquiry, and to all those who are seeking redress for mistreatment or alleged miscarriages of justice. <BR /> <BR />If the health service does not work for the most vulnerable and for the unwell, can we really say that it works properly at all?”
“Thanks for the answers so far. Following on from Mr Storey's question, does the Member agree that the buildings and resources of the state that was established in 1921 were exclusionary and discriminatory as they were based on gerrymandering and sectarian discrimination and were supported by state violence and that those facts mean that any look back at that history ought not to be a whitewash of those events — it should certainly not be a celebration of them — but should instead be an honest and balanced history of the period of partition?”
“Given that the PIP application and appeals process was already traumatic for people and the fact that the Department is still contacting appellants to say that they can have appeals over the phone or by videoconferencing, which is very unsuitable for many people, has the Department considered extending the time frame for people being moved off DLA or appealing PIPs, so that they are not under any more undue stress at the time of a health pandemic?”
“— are forced to pay. There is plenty of money in Britain and Ireland to make that happen.”
“There is a fundamental, historical problem of underinvestment by British Governments in public spend and public services here but also in working-class communities in Wales, England and Scotland. <BR /> <BR />Always when there is a discussion about lack of funding, the need for investment and the need to protect people, I am struck by how we often refer to what I would call unfair and outdated proposals, normally water charges, prescription charges and higher fees. We need to have a different focus, which is the need to maintain public services and make those who have more wealth pay for them and not put extra burdens on the working-class and poor communities. We need to see a corporate wealth tax to ensure that those with the most —”
“They implemented the scheme because they knew that they needed the state to step in, in order for the system to survive, otherwise they risked great instability. Short-term protection for some workers for the long-term protection of profits was the real reason for their actions. <BR /> <BR />In any debate about the economy in this Chamber, we always have pleas against whipping the begging bowl to London. We have to reject that caricature of reality. It is not London's money; it is taxpayers' money created by the labour of workers here, and we need more of it, not less. The reality, as Oxfam said in 2014, is that £4 billion worth of cuts have been delivered in the North, and that figure is likely to be higher now. That is the highest since World War II.”
“Any idea that we have bypassed the pandemic or come through it is not only inaccurate but dangerous thinking. The Executive should bear that in mind, especially as they move to lift more restrictions. <BR /> <BR />The furlough scheme should absolutely be extended. As we heard, if the German Government can extend a furlough until the end of 2021, and the French Government until 2022, why can workers here not have similar protection? It is likely that there will be no vaccine until next year at the earliest. Workers firmly need security and protection, and must not be forced to choose between risking their health or risking their jobs — and, by extension, their futures. <BR /> <BR />The furlough scheme was not implemented out of the goodness of the Tories' hearts. I believe that the Tories do not have good hearts.”
“<BR /> <BR />Not to mention, of course, the completely disproportionate experience between those who have worked extremely hard, putting themselves at risk at meat plants and other food production outlets, and the likes of Larry Goodman and others, the beef barons, who have been left untouched by this crisis. Bosses who have private wealth of hundreds of millions of pounds and assets totalling hundreds of billions sit on fortunes while food production workers have been placed at risk throughout this whole crisis, underpaid and disrespected, and too many, tragically, have paid with their life. <BR /> <BR />COVID-19 remains a dangerous reality in our communities — we heard about that today — in workplaces and schools. We have witnessed a rapid increase in cases in the past few weeks, and, tragically, deaths.”
“To paraphrase the radical thinker Karl Marx, even a child knows that a society that stops working is a society that struggles to survive. <BR /> <BR />The cost of this crisis is now being unfairly forced onto working people. Whilst people in the hospitality sector lost their jobs, the wealthy continued to do well during this crisis. People such as Richard Branson, a billionaire, who sits on his private island championing his own bailout, whilst aviation workers are unsure about how long their jobs may exist. Then there are the Debenhams workers who were laid off, undermined and disrespected whilst the company remains profitable and wealthy.”
“The COVID crisis has vividly illustrated across the world that workers not only make society function, they — not the billionaires, stockbrokers, bankers or venture capitalists — create the wealth in society. It is worth observing that fundamental reality because, for too long, political representatives in the Chamber and in the Westminster Parliament across the water have propagated policies that attack working-class people. For too long, our economic system has existed based on exploiting the labour power of workers, and concentrating wealth in the hands of the few. <BR /> <BR />Our hospitality and retail workers, cleaners, porters, office and construction workers, public-sector and health workers and everyone else create the wealth and prosperity in our society.”
“Thanks, Minister, for your answers so far. I want to pass on my sympathy to everybody in Craigavon who has contracted the virus and to the families of those who have passed away. <BR /> <BR />Given the cases in Craigavon and the fact that we heard yesterday or this morning that our figure per head of population is twice that in England, is the Minister confident that the Executive are on the right path to eliminate this virus?”
“Considering the weight and size of opposition to this application from communities and most parties in the Chamber, and the detrimental impact that it will have on the environment, does the Minister agree with me that this project should not proceed?”
“— and the motion does not even acknowledge that.”
“<BR /> <BR />I find it galling that those emergency workers referred to in the motion, including firefighters, search and rescue workers and front-line healthcare staff, have found themselves standing on picket lines begging the Executive to pay them fairly — and, in the case of search and rescue, which carries out some of the most essential and worthwhile roles imaginable, it is not funded properly and has to rely on volunteers, donors and the goodwill of many people. <BR /> <BR />The way that the Executive have treated those workers has been appalling for over a decade —”
“Not only were the media and wider public misled by the police, who lied and claimed that Mr Duggan had opened fire on them, but even after that was deemed false, the murder of Mark Duggan was judged to be lawful. No mandatory minimum sentences, no consideration of a whole-life sentence. Those who took aim and took the life of Mark Duggan were, effectively, given a free pass. <BR /> <BR />Obviously, there are countless other examples, including those that happened locally, of the police and other state forces acting with impunity and without a sentence of that kind. This motion, if it were to become policy, would serve to enhance that disparity.”
“<BR /> <BR />This is not a proposal that seeks to end reoffending or change behaviour in order to protect those emergency workers whom it references. The evidence shows that the approach proposed in the motion does not work. The motion is simply an attempt to pander to those who view offenders as simply incapable of change. <BR /> <BR />I want to speak to the hypocrisy that I see with the approach often taken in the motion. There is already massive disparity and treatment in the punishment meted out by state forces and those who are not state forces. That is summed up well by the tragic murder of Mark Duggan at the hands of British police in Tottenham in 2011. Unsurprisingly, Mark's murder has been on many minds since the murder of George Floyd by US police, and many other innocent black people have been tragically killed.”
“The concept of proportionality has been recognised by the European Court of Human Rights as constituting an essential part of human dignity, and grossly disproportionate sentences can be found to breach article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. <BR /> <BR />The detrimental impact of mandatory minimum sentences on first-time offenders is also well-documented and can be clearly linked to instances of reoffending. Most relevant of all, there is little evidence that tougher sentences deter potential offenders from committing the specified serious offences. It is also worth acknowledging that this approach would row back on a series of reforms that sought to remove political interference in the courts and lessen the long-term detriment faced by those serving mandatory minimum sentences.”
“When Donald Trump, whom, I know, has fans across the Chamber, first sought election, he won support from the right for advocating mandatory minimum sentences for people who tried to cross the US-Mexico border. It is the preferred approach by those on the right who view the issue of criminality as an individual problem rather than a societal problem, and who rely on retribution rather than seeking out the root causes of crime in society. That approach has been criticised and opposed the world over because it completely overhauls the principles of proportionality and rehabilitation. <BR /> <BR />The motion references the South of Ireland as having desirable mandatory minimum sentences. I refer Members to the Irish Council for Civil Liberties who, as far back as 1996, opposed such sentences. It said:”
“I rise to speak against the motion, for a multitude of reasons that I will try to outline, but I begin by being clear that the policy and approach set out in the motion is straight out of the right-wing playbook. The motion references the fact that Boris Johnson's Tory Government are considering a similar move, but it is also the preferred approach by Hungary's Viktor Orbán, who was elected to power by pandering to a right-wing base with promises that he would introduce mandatory minimum and whole-life sentences. Bolsonaro has long advocated for harsher punishments in Brazil's penal system, and, last year, spoke of plans to introduce whole-life sentences, which are advocated in the motion.”
“Indeed, Minister: do the right thing and step aside.”
“It is time for a new chapter in our education system that recognises the problems and mistakes of the past, seeks to invest properly in its future and that of all our young people and gives primacy to the needs and experience of those who are rooted in the education system. I ask other MLAs to join me in kick-starting that new chapter today by calling on the person responsible for the disastrous handling of this crisis during the COVID-19 pandemic to have the good grace to step aside. Unfortunately, I have not been allowed to debate that today, but I make the same call and hope that others will join me in calling for the Minister's resignation today. It is not just me saying it: I want the House to know that a school principal has been in touch and has said the following about the Minister:”
“I, too, am unconvinced that the arrogance that was displayed during the crisis befits an Education Minister. The unwillingness to listen to or consult properly those in the system who best understand the needs of pupils is inappropriate for the person responsible for making decisions about their future. <BR /> <BR />I tried to table an amendment today calling on the Minister to resign after what, I believe, was a series of disastrous decisions during this crisis, most of which were a result of blindly following the path of Boris Johnson's Government rather than creating a response that was based on the needs of people here. This most recent disastrous decision should be the final nail in the ministerial coffin.”
“<BR /> <BR />That level of arrogance has been thematic in the approach to schools during the crisis. Initially, the Assembly refused to shut schools down to protect communities, forcing principals and teachers to act. Then, it totally disregarded the planning and experience that were put into designing the phased return in the new school term to minimise the spread of the virus by commanding the full opening of schools with little consultation. Now, this latest example has undermined the intensive work put in by teachers to guarantee to the best of their ability that their pupils would get the grades that they deserved by deeming their efforts to have no credibility. It is no wonder that there is a lack of trust in the intentions or ability of the Minister among the many teachers who have spoken out publicly.”
“I am sure that many of the people who are rooted in our education system recognise that the COVID crisis has had an incredibly challenging impact on the sector and that navigating the crisis was never going to be easy. I am sure that many of those people, including the pupils, would have understood if the response to the situation had been a humbled Minister who recognised the gravity of the error that was made and moved swiftly to rectify it. They did not deserve a doubled-down response, but that is exactly what they got. I was appalled, as, I know, parents, pupils and teachers were, to hear the Minister say that, if teachers' predictions were used alone without standardisation, the results would have no credibility. What disdain for our teachers and teaching staff.”
“<BR /> <BR />As has been alluded to already, this situation has exposed many deeper problems in our education system, whether it is the division of children on the basis of academic ability or the state's expectation that children in impoverished areas should underperform compared with their counterparts in more affluent areas. Those issues and others, such as the outdated division of pupils on the basis of their religion, remain. However, I am encouraged that those in the education system are up for the fight for a better system with proper investment, even if those in charge of the system are not.”
“Mr Speaker, I welcome you back and wish you good health in the period ahead. <BR /> <BR />I thank the Members for bringing the motion to the House. Many have acknowledged the recent U-turn on A level and GCSE results as a good decision. We in People Before Profit recognise it for what it is: a forced decision. Of course, a "Well done" is in order for forcing the U-turn but not for the Minister. I say, "Well done" to the pupils who gathered in protest, not just here but across the water. I say, "Well done" to the parents and teachers who used every platform available to them to rebuke the disastrous situation that we saw last week and to stand up for young people and their futures and to organisations such as the National Union of Students - Union of Students in Ireland (NUS-USI), the Secondary Students' Union and many others.”
“I appreciate that we disagree on that point, but I would like to ask the Minister whether he has any concerns that health decisions could be taken down the line that are not considered significant or controversial, but which could be, and that such decisions may not be discussed at the Executive Committee and that his party would not have the chance to disagree with those decisions, vote against them or challenge them. I am not privy to the inner workings of the Executive, but it is a concern that has been flagged with me.”
“Environmental campaigners are often ignored and dismissed as well, and the Bill compounds that problem and does nothing to address it. <BR /> <BR />What I am hearing from some in this debate is make building decisions, build things, and if there are concerns, so be it, or, best case scenario, we will deal with them after. That is not good enough for making decisions around planning or anything else. Somebody once said, "Never waste a good crisis". It seems that Stormont has not wasted the opportunity to use a health pandemic to remove an important aspect of scrutiny when it comes to big decisions. For those reasons, I oppose the Bill.”
“There are serious concerns, and the fact that people are raising so many the day before Final Stage should be a warning sign to MLAs. <BR /> <BR />We heard from Pat Sheehan about the economy needing to get going. In abstract, that sounds correct, and, in abstract, there is no problem with it, but you cannot rip out an important aspect of accountability when decisions are made by Ministers. We have to emphasise the fact that there are fundamental problems with planning, and some have been referred to already. <BR /> <BR />The main problem with planning is that people are excluded from the process time and time again. Objections are often ignored or not addressed properly, and the Bill does nothing to deal with those issues. Residents are often ignored. Casement Park residents for one.”
“I thank the Member for his intervention. They did. I do not claim to be an expert on the convention, to be frank, but it was raised with me, and the question needs to be asked: are we in breach of that convention if we pass the Bill? Many people raised that concern, and it needs to be directly answered by the junior Minister. <BR /> <BR />I refer back to my point before the intervention. The fact that so many people contacted MLAs the day before the Final Stage of the Bill, indicates to me that most of the public did not understand the content or the ramifications of the Bill. Even some MLAs have stated honestly that they did not understand the full ramifications of the Bill, and fair play to them for being honest.”
“First, so many people are raising serious concerns with their MLAs about the environment, and the skipping over of an element of the scrutiny process has also raised concerns about the Bill. Secondly, that so many people have contacted me before the Final Stage of a Bill is no accident. To me, that indicates that the public —.”
“I am not going to repeat the many concerns that I have raised repeatedly about the Bill. However, at Final Stage, it has to be stated that it is very concerning that not only is the Bill being proposed but it was debated at breakneck speed and is likely to be passed. The junior Minister stated, or certainly indicated, that controversial planning decisions will still be heard at the Executive Committee, and, much like my colleague Miss Rachel Woods, I do not believe that this question has been answered: who determines what is controversial and therefore properly discussed by the Executive? <BR /> <BR />Since yesterday, I and many other Members, I assume, received a lot of emails from groups and individuals — some have been referred to already — who have concerns about this Bill. It is notable for two reasons.”
“I am sure that the Member shares the concerns that I and others have that the planning process often excludes people and ignores their voices.”
“I did not think that I would be called so quickly, but I am glad to be called. I would like to ask the Minister about strike pay for healthcare workers. The Health Committee is being led to believe that, sometimes, the issue is with the Finance Minister; sometimes, it is with the Health Minister. What is the Health Minister's assessment of where it is? Does he still believe that healthcare workers should be given the strike pay that they lost out on earlier this year?”
“It is welcome news that there have been no deaths in the last two weeks. However, as the Minister indicated, the virus is still with us and still very dangerous. What is his and his officials' assessment of the safety of all pupils returning to school without wearing masks, particularly teenagers and older pupils? I understand that the position of the Minister, if not the Executive, is that people should wear masks in shopping centres. It appears that the Education Minister might be going on a solo run that could put pupils at risk. What is his assessment of masks for pupils and staff in schools?”
“If people have to wear masks on a bus, why not in schools?”
“I thank the Minister for his statement. The truth is that working-class pupils have been failed for far too long: Protestants, Catholics and neither. What correlation does the Minister believe exists between poverty, deprivation and educational underachievement? What measures does he support to tackle that? How does the Minister believe that those underachievers will be safe when returning to school if he does not believe that they should be wearing a mask in school in the middle of a health pandemic?”
“There are therefore many concerns, not just raised by me and others in the Chamber but by groups outside. I will leave my comments there.”
“Many would probably agree with that. <BR /> <BR />It also states:”
“Who could truly argue against that? In fact, I argue that we should go further. I will therefore not support the Bill. Although I recognise the efforts of Mr Beattie to amend aspects of it and to address some of the concerns raised, I am not convinced that the amendments before us go far enough to address fundamentally those concerns, so, unfortunately, I cannot support them today. <BR /> <BR />In conclusion, because the accelerated passage approach was taken and because the Bill has been rammed through very quickly, it is important to read into the record some concerns raised by others. Mr Bullick has been mentioned in detail, but some groups have raised concerns about this, including Cooperate Against Mining in Omagh (CAMIO). It has said:”
“Any Ministers worth their salt would recognise the public's distrust because of the history of this place and be more than happy to face the necessary scrutiny measures in order to quell it. This Bill does the opposite, at breakneck and accelerated speed, and through the use of accelerated passage. It speaks volumes about what we can expect in the outworkings of the Bill. Where was the accelerated action to ensure that our healthcare workers were paid the strike pay that they lost out on earlier this year? They have been promised that it is coming, but I am afraid that they are still waiting for it after months. <BR /> <BR />In summary, the Belfast Agreement states that the Executive Committee should, for significant and controversial decisions, provide:”
“Despite the well-trodden charade for the cameras on either side of the communal divide in the Chamber, this is one of many issues on which both of the big parties have each other's backs. This is not an issue, as it is being presented by some in the media, that divides the main nationalist and unionist blocs. They are both seemingly here to vote for it today, and it is not difficult to see how they could both benefit from the legislation in the future. <BR /> <BR />We in People Before Profit do not care about the political ideology or communal identity of the Minister involved. All Ministers should be subject to maximum scrutiny and accountability, but this Bill seeks to do the exact opposite. Let me be frank: we can never rule out an "I'll scratch your back if you scratch my back" approach to decision-making in this place.”