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 74 of 83.
“The RHI scheme was world-famous for all the wrong reasons. What Minister here wants to face a similar situation in the future? If they can justify it, what do they have to hide from scrutiny that is worth this attack on oversight measures? <BR /> <BR />Ministers' decisions should not be questioned only behind closed doors or by those who walk the corridors of Stormont. A public hearing, public scrutiny and those who vote MLAs to the Chamber should not be held in such contempt. In the past few months that we have sat in this seemingly reformed Assembly, only a handful of times have the Executive parties openly voted against one another, so who can really have confidence in a behind-closed-doors approach to decision-making from those same parties?”
“<BR /> <BR />An issue in my constituency that I cannot help but think about is Casement Park and those who must be rubbing their hands together at the prospect of pushing ahead with that project, more or less unchanged, despite serious safety concerns raised by residents, because they will have, in effect, fewer loopholes to jump through and less reason to hear the valid concerns of residents in the area. <BR /> <BR />It is, of course, the case that occasionally a Minister could choose to apply the same level of scrutiny for what are deemed to be controversial cases. Given the record of this and previous Executives, who can truly say that they would trust them to do so? <BR /> <BR />Despite the various platitudes about learning the lessons from RHI, the Bill does the complete opposite and draws the incorrect conclusions.”
“The Bill seeks to remove the limited oversight measures that we have. <BR /> <BR />A massive decision was taken about an incinerator, one that would have an impact on communities and the environment, without the Assembly or a Minister in place and without the necessary oversight. A Court of Appeal rightly upheld the court's verdict that that flouts basic scrutiny. What is the Executive's reaction? It is to take what most people would see as the sensible response to prevent permanent secretaries being allowed to make similar decisions in future but use it as a vehicle to remove the same scrutiny measures from Ministers so that they can ram home similar decisions whenever they want, without facing the scrutiny and questioning of the Executive Committee. I feel that sense of disgust again here today.”
“<BR /> <BR />I think that it is reasonable to consider, at this time, the ways in which this Executive and previous Executives, made up from the same big parties, have flouted transparency and accountability, in order that we know exactly the well-trodden path that the Bill walks. The RHI scheme cost us over £550 million, and, years on, we find ourselves asking, "Where is the accountability? Where are the emergency oversight measures that would guarantee that it would never happen again?". The Bill would do the exact opposite. <BR /> <BR />Decisions and statements made in the middle of a global health pandemic, at best, misled the public on PPE, an issue of unmatched importance for thousands of front-line staff. Where are the new beefed-up oversight measures to guarantee that that will not happen again?”
“It is not an overstatement to say that the majority of the public questions already the level of transparency, scrutiny and oversight in the Assembly. When I first spoke about the Bill, I outlined my disgust at the cavalier way in which the Executive circumvent basic tests of scrutiny and accountability around decision-making that most reasonable people should expect from political leaders. I add to that my disappointment at how Ministers brush off the concerns that I raise about the lack of accountability, presuming that they are unlikely to face any consequences. If the Bill were passed, it would undoubtedly further dilute the levels of transparency and accountability that are already low.”
“I thank the Minister for giving way. I agree with him that motions are important, but that actions are essential. <BR /> <BR />He may or may not be aware, that there is an application on the Minister for the Economy's desk to allow for the extraction of petroleum across the North. Would he agree with me that rejecting that application would put those actions into words?”
“That is exactly the method that was used to target the Black Lives Matter protesters, who are feeling a sense of injustice. We are told that these last-minute changes are coincidences, but they seem to happen very regularly. <BR /> <BR />There cannot be one rule for politicians and those in power and another rule for BAME protesters. The fines and threats against Black Lives Matter protesters must be dropped immediately. It is time for the deputy First Minister, and all Executive Ministers, to support this call. It is greatly disappointing that my amendment, which would have refocused the motion to that end, was not selected for debate, because the truth is that the entire Executive owe an apology to the BAME community for its disgraceful treatment in recent weeks.”
“No, thanks. <BR /> <BR />At least eight families were treated differently from those who attended the cremation at Roselawn last week. Clearly, and understandably, that compounded their grief. It should never have happened, and it was right for Belfast City Council to apologise. An apology from the deputy First Minister for that would, I believe, go some way to easing the hurt that those families are feeling. However, I also suggest that an apology to Black Lives Matter protesters is needed, not just from the deputy First Minister but from the whole Executive. <BR /> <BR />It is not surprising to me that this hurt comes off the back of a last-minute regulation change that was hastily and, in my view, undemocratically, pushed through Stormont to change the number of attendees allowed at funerals at the eleventh hour.”
“These are the same parties that have made the argument, time and time again, in the Chamber for kick-starting the economy, without even the semblance of a real test-and-trace system, in their quest to restore the primacy of profits and the market, regardless of the cost to life. The same parties that implemented without question regulations giving the state the apparatus and ability to police ordinary people and workers but not bosses or Ministers. The same parties that hypocritically whitewashed the RHI racket. <BR /> <BR />I want to be very clear: People Before Profit will not play any role in this farce — this hypocrisy — and I believe that that is what our voters expect of us. However, I will say that, clearly, at least eight families —.”
“<BR /> <BR />Nonetheless, I avoided jumping on board the chorus of condemnation from the DUP and others as they called on Michelle O'Neill to resign over the funeral attendance last week. In fact, I was dismayed that the parties that refused to call for cautions and fines for Black Lives Matter protesters to be dropped were the same parties that did not bat an eyelid when it came to powerful companies like Bombardier risking workers' health and breaking social-distancing rules by forcing staff back to work before it was safe. They are the same parties that would not do what was necessary when workers were speaking out about unsafe conditions in Moy Park or when care home bosses were telling staff to work without PPE.”
“As it turned out, those protests, which her party criticised, were safe and did not spread the virus and certainly did not harm anyone, nor did they contribute to an increase in transmission. However, the main point is this: does the deputy First Minister assume that one rule exists for her and another for Black Lives Matter protesters? The hypocrisy is shocking. <BR /> <BR />From the beginning of the crisis, People Before Profit has insisted that social distancing requires social organising, and any efforts to organise gatherings must be made with the utmost aim of ensuring safety. We urged everyone to follow that approach, even in emotive and difficult circumstances, such as funerals. It is unfortunate that that was not the approach of Michelle O'Neill, as selfies that were released last week proved.”
“We should remember that the Storey family is grieving and we should be considerate of that. <BR /> <BR />Yesterday, we learned that the deputy First Minister, Michelle O'Neill, has not so much as been contacted by the PSNI. Yet, on the other hand, Black Lives Matter protesters have been fined, cautioned and are being aggressively pursued for prosecution for taking part in socially distanced gatherings on 6 June, and some have had a number of calls and police interviews. This contrast sums up the hypocrisy of the state here, its abuse of power and its discriminatory implementation of the coronavirus regulations. <BR /> <BR />Just weeks ago, when challenging Black Lives Matter protesters, Michelle O'Neill stated:”
“Obviously, social distancing is difficult for them to do, so, when we make plans for moving forward, we need to bear in mind those people. People who are blind or partially sighted have been shouted at on the street because they are not abiding by social-distancing measures. We need to bear that in mind. <BR /> <BR />We have to remember that many family carers face burnout. We need to act accordingly to support them. Many people have clapped for the NHS in the last few weeks. As we face economic ruin and recession, what better way to pre-empt that than by starting to employ and recruit more carers? That would, obviously, provide jobs, but it would also provide extra hours, as needed, to carers throughout the crisis and afterwards.”
“I can only imagine how difficult and tough it has been for them to provide care for the people they love on a consistent, 24/7 basis, often without any respite at all. We have to recognise the role played by such people. They were integral in providing care when services were withdrawn. Family carers stepped in 16 weeks ago to provide support and care, and they have done essential work throughout that period. <BR /> <BR />We also have to recognise that people with disabilities have generally been overlooked by society when decisions were being made. One group in particular that is often overlooked is people who are blind or have visual impairment, and there are an estimated 55,600 of them in our society today.”
“The unpaid carers whom we are talking and thinking about today were often the ones who stepped in. Families Involved NI mentioned that, in a week of 168 hours, the state provides only 30 hours of support. That is far too low. We have also heard that more than 310,000 people provide unpaid care. That is a staggeringly massive figure that needs to be tackled. People need support. <BR /> <BR />The mantra of "No return to normal" has echoed loud and clear throughout the pandemic. We cannot return to a situation where the state fails to provide enough hours to families of people with care needs. We have heard in our correspondence about carers in their 70s and 80s who have had to provide round-the-clock care.”
“The truth is that unpaid carers took up the mantle. Family members stepped in and stepped up to provide care when it was required. We should recognise that fact and the fact that, as we have heard, it is mostly women who carry out that work. They deserve not only praise and thanks but some sort of financial assistance or payment in recognition of that. There is a call for a family carers grant, which is something that, in my view, should be welcomed broadly by the House. <BR /> <BR />Family carers must be given the discretion to use individual budgets immediately for managing family members' support needs in a way that gives flexibility, choice and control. While it is, no doubt, the case that care workers employed by the trusts or whomever work hard and provide essential support, there was a gap in care before the crisis.”
“I thank the Members for tabling the motion. I am happy to have signed it and supported it. I thank all the carers in my constituency and across the North who have been working extra hard throughout the pandemic. I thank the organisations — a lot of them — that contacted me and other Members ahead of the debate. <BR /> <BR />The necessity to implement lockdown exposed how reliant we are on care workers, those who work in a broad range of environments to support people with disabilities and care needs and those who provide care in general, including family members. It was obviously not just that trust services were withdrawn; a broad range of community settings and services were no longer open due to lockdown. The current arrangement highlights the need for respite care, as we have heard, for the families of loved ones with care needs.”
“I don't know about that. <BR /> <BR />Just to conclude, this move, this proposed Bill, smacks of Boris Johnson's "Build, build, build" approach, and surely, if we have learned nothing else, we have learned that we should not follow Boris Johnson and the Tories on anything.”
“I will not. I am bringing my remarks to a close.”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I would say that significant leeway was shown to Members from across the Chamber, significant leeway. <BR /> <BR />Just to conclude that point, the clear lesson of the Casement saga is the need for maximum scrutiny, accountability and consultation. That is relevant to that decision and to the Arc21 incinerator. <BR /> <BR />The point that I make is that the Bill has serious implications for scrutiny and accountability on a range of projects. For that reason, my party cannot consent to it today, and it would set a dangerous precedent —.”
“Instead, the Executive are trying to circumvent that decision somewhat by passing a Bill through accelerated passage that will, in reality, restrict the process to projects that are outside the Programme for Government. <BR /> <BR />I would suggest that a project being listed as part of the Programme for Government is not enough to overcome the test for Committee scrutiny. Take the issue of Casement Park in my constituency, for example. If you were to look up the word "cock-up" in a dictionary, you would likely find a picture of Casement Park beside it. I suggest that those at fault are primarily the upper echelons of the GAA and various Stormont Departments for their cavalier attitude to the project, for their refusal to properly engage with residents to secure a safe and suitably-sized stadium —.”
“No, I will not. You had enough time — almost an hour, I think. <BR /> <BR />What if we do not have a sympathetic Minister? Would we seriously want to bypass Committee Stage on such a project? Absolutely not. <BR /> <BR />The outcome of the court case stated broadly that projects of significant and regional nature and high costs would need to be referred to an Assembly Committee before decisions are taken by a Minister because of the way that they overlap Departments and other work remits, as has been referred to. I am no legal expert, but I suggest that a legal decision such as this, made, as it was, after a successful judicial review by a progressive, pro-climate campaign, should at least be given weight and listened to by the Executive.”
“The function of the Bill is to reduce scrutiny and accountability by limiting the number of large, regional and costly projects that must receive proper oversight by the Executive Committee. It is ironic, too, that it is in direct response to the important court case that was won by campaigners against the Arc21 incinerator. <BR /> <BR />Let me be clear about this: People Before Profit oppose the incinerator. We have done so every step of the way at council level and in Stormont. We also commend the No Arc21 campaign for its campaigning over many years. I hope that we now have a Minister who is sympathetic to their campaign, and I appeal to her and her Department to reject the project as a means of standing up for our environment. What if we do not —?”
“Barely a week goes by in the Chamber when I am not shocked by the cavalier way in which the Executive circumvent basic tests of scrutiny and accountability around governance and decision-making that most reasonable citizens would expect from political leaders, whether it is on the Budget Bill a few weeks ago, which was a laughing stock in terms of scrutiny and oversight, legislation carried over from Westminster or a variety of Bills on housing, private tenancy or other matters. You do not have to be cynical to conclude that the Executive are using or attempting to use the crisis to ram through a range of measures that suit a decision-making process that favours the bigger parties. The Executive Committee (Functions) Bill is, I am afraid, this week's example.”
“<BR /> <BR />We know that vulnerable people were failed at the start of the pandemic with inspections not taking place in any real sense in care homes. If the Executive failed elderly and vulnerable people, where is the confidence that the actions of people in bars and restaurants who may be healthy and may not have underlying health conditions will be inspected? The public and those who work in hospitality need clear answers to those questions, and I would like the junior Minister to provide them.”
“It is an issue of the utmost severity. <BR /> <BR />I have a few questions for the junior Minister to answer. Can the Minister indicate how the Executive plan to oversee and inspect the reopening of bars and restaurants? Bars may function well — by most accounts, it appears to be the case that they did at the weekend in Belfast, at least — but, as the days go on and when profit and motive come into it and more alcohol starts to flow, are people seriously confident that social distancing will be adhered to? Will an inspection plan be in place? Do the Executive plan to just sit and hope and wait and see and respond if the R rate rises? We need some clarity and clear answers on those fundamental and important questions.”
“Seemingly, I cannot force a Division in the House today, as I am in a minority, but, for Hansard, at least, I repeat my view that I do not support the opening of bars and other outlets so soon and with such haste. In that regard, I pay tribute to all those who have raised health and safety concerns, in particular Unite's hospitality branch, which has raised concern after concern about the opening of the hospitality sector's bars and restaurants. I encourage anybody working in those sectors to join Unite and other trade unions to protect themselves and their colleagues at this time. We all know about the potential for a second wave and the possibility of clusters in workplaces. If those do arise and we have a situation like the one that has emerged in Leicester, the Executive will have some serious questions to answer in that regard.”
“People have gone for months without doing that and without seeing their loved ones, and, as Members have said, their mental health has been impacted. Therefore, I have no real issue with amendment (No. 7). However, with such decisions, there is a clear issue of autonomy; that is, people can take it upon themselves to visit family members having weighed up the potential risks and taken the guidance into account. People have a choice about whether to do that, but workers who are being forced back into work do not have that free choice; they cannot make the same choice. It is deeply concerning that, with the furlough scheme still in existence, workers are being forced to return to work in such large numbers, particularly in the hospitality industry. I made my concerns about that clear at the Health Committee.”
“Systems based on addiction to growth and the accumulation of wealth in the hands of a tiny elite are a health risk to many and need to be dismantled if we are to avoid economic ruin, climate disaster and many other problems. Economic competition seems to drive the bulk of the decisions on the coronavirus response. Once a decision is made in the South, it appears that scrambling goes on to make a similar decision in the North. There is a clear attempt to get the last of the consumer spend of the summer with the changes to these and other regulations. We have to prioritise: health concerns should come before all else. <BR /> <BR />I will be crystal clear: I have no issue with people visiting family safely.”
“Without workers, there is no economy to speak of. The pandemic has shown that chief executives and corporate bosses are nothing without the skills and labour of people who are often paid very little. Those people, who are often not well paid, should not be forced back to work en masse when there are still concerns over their safety and the virus more generally. <BR /> <BR />It is worth saying that, by many accounts, we were already heading towards a recession before the crisis, although, admittedly, one not as deep as the one that, we are told, will come. Recession is not inevitable though. It is due to capitalist economics, and we need to move away from society being run in that way.”
“<BR /> <BR />The truth is that the Executive and the Tories moved too slowly to enact the lockdown in March because they prioritised economic concerns and profit rates over health concerns. Now, we see the situation in reverse, as the Executive move to lift lockdown hastily to appease similar economic interests. I am concerned that the Executive have moved to lift restrictions such as those outlined in amendment (No. 8) not because we are reaching near-elimination of the virus on this island but because they are, seemingly, being leaned on and lobbied by business interests above all else. We often hear about the economy and the need to protect the economy in the debate, but we have to remember that the economy does not exist on abstract notions or theories but on the actual activity and labour of working people.”
“It is concerning that we are again being asked to amend the coronavirus regulations without any clear focused or detailed scientific rationale or medical evidence for doing so. It is something that I have repeatedly raised in the Health Committee, and I do so again today with concern. The Health Minister stated at the Health Committee that the virus had not gone away; indeed it has not. I, alongside many others, are worried that the Executive are moving too fast to lift the restrictions. We hear repeated pleas from scientists about the measures being implemented far too quickly, and we need to listen to those concerns. If there is medical evidence or a scientific basis for the actions, surely it would be provided to the public and to the House.”
“I will leave my comments there. I am happy to support the motion and the amendment.”
“He should do the right thing and apologise for his comments towards them. We have to pay tribute to our teachers and teaching staff for working throughout this pandemic, and working to educate our young people throughout the year, and also for taking action to close schools, when the Minister would not act and he dithered. It was teachers who —.”
“<BR /> <BR />Trade unions, who represent workers in bars, clubs and restaurants, who have been loud and clear about their inability to socially distance in the workplace, will no doubt wonder, as I do, why there is no motion calling for protection for them in the workplace, based on scientific and medical advice, as there is in tonight's motion. Staff in care homes will raise similar issues. <BR /> <BR />I support the motion and the amendment, and will take any opportunity to support teachers, parents and pupils, but other workers have been left without adequate protection and that needs to be addressed. <BR /> <BR />Robbie Butler said that teachers are used and abused, and that has very much been the case. Disgracefully, we have seen MPs attack teachers and their unions. Some of them are still waiting on an apology from Mr Wilson.”
“<BR /> <BR />While I support the motion, the fears that the Members who proposed the motion outlined about schools reopening, are the exact same fears that workers in hospitality and other sectors will face by the end of this week. They may be forced into work, essentially, or lose their jobs, as the case may be, and nothing is mentioned or done about that. Obviously, the regulations passed today cement that in legislation. <BR /> <BR />There has to be a serious level of consistency in approaching this crisis. Earlier, the junior Minister referred to there being no linear approach. I think he is right, and he is being kind. The approach that the Executive have taken throughout the crisis has been very worrying and disastrous in cases.”
“<BR /> <BR />All along, throughout the pandemic, we have consistently called for the Executive to make decisions about reopening, and lifting elements of the lockdown, on the basis of scientific and medical advice, consistent with the likes of the World Health Organization and other bodies, as the motion urges. However, as Members know, that has not always been the case. We know the devastation caused and the failure to protect the vulnerable, particularly in care homes. As a member of the Health Committee, for two weeks in a row, I have asked for the scientific advice pertaining to implementation of amendments to the Coronavirus Regulations, and I am still waiting on it. It is frustrating that we are not getting that information, and we should, very quickly.”
“I will happily speak on most things and I am sure that people here, and the public, are delighted to hear me on every issue, so thank you very much. <BR /> <BR />In all seriousness, the fears outlined in this motion and the amendment are true for teachers, parents and indeed for pupils. I am more than happy to support the motion and the amendment. I thank the Members for bringing them. <BR /> <BR />Like others, I have been contacted by parents and teachers, and we continue to stand with them, ensuring their safety and the safety of pupils of all ages is maintained and protected.”
“Thank you, Mr Aiken. Feel free to step aside in any debate that I am not going to be called.”
“I put on record my opposition to the Bill and firmly state my concerns with it. I think that housing associations should remain as public bodies and, ultimately, be reintegrated into the Housing Executive.”
“Mr Temporary Speaker, this may be one of the rare times that I am short. Members and you may be delighted to hear that. I will not speak at length. I have raised issues several times in debates during the various stages of the Bill. <BR /> <BR />I will quickly repeat my concerns and put them on record for the Final Stage. If passed, the Bill will restrict the powers of the Department in relation to the disposal of land and the merging of housing associations. The Bill will loosen controls, allow for deregulation and, in effect and despite comments to the contrary, will reprivatise housing associations. Going by previous debates, it is unlikely that any other Members or parties will support me on this, but I think that it is important that I and other smaller parties put on record their opposition to measures that they are opposed to.”
“The broader point is that attempts to address those policy gaps have been stalled by subsequent Executives for over a decade. There is clearly an institutional problem here, right at the heart of Government: from the top of the Executive right down to the PSNI on the streets and their response to the protests. Instead of tackling the problems of institutional racism, the Assembly is potentially adding to them by rubber-stamping legislation that was used to unfairly target BAME and anti-racist protesters. No other group in society has had those penalties imposed on them despite organising public gatherings. I appeal to all parties and call on MLAs to reject the amendment (No. 5) regulations and stand in solidarity with those who were unfairly penalised during the socially distanced Black Lives Matter protests. Black lives matter.”
“<BR /> <BR />We live in a society with a clear race problem, a deeply disturbing level of racist incidents and appalling treatment of refugees and asylum seekers. At times, we have had more incidents of racism than sectarianism, yet 86·5% of racially motivated hate crimes go unsolved. What a startling figure. That is 50% less than any other hate crime. A 13·5% success rate is a failure that has put the lives of many people at risk. <BR /> <BR />Some 79% of asylum seekers recently reported that they are unable to afford enough food. Some 71% of asylum seekers who are parents here reported being unable to afford school uniforms for their children. Those are just some of the figures that highlight the problems that we face in society.”
“<BR /> <BR />Today, I am asking everybody who is uncomfortable with last-minute, seemingly contrived acts of discrimination against anti-racists and the BAME community to oppose the amendment (No. 5) regulations. To those who say that they must pass because there are elements in them that are good and that do not relate to the policing of the protests, I say do not use that pathetic excuse. It was entirely within the gift of the Executive to not table the regulations today and to bring only the elements that do not relate to the policing of protests, just as swiftly as they were able to force the regulations through in the first place. If they can do it at 5:30 pm on a Friday, they can sure as hell bring an amended form of the regulations for ratification on a different day.”
“As has been recognised by human rights organisations, such as Amnesty International and the Committee on the Administration of Justice, the treatment of BAME and other protesters was disproportionate. That Stormont handed down those powers without a democratic vote at the final hour on Friday 5 June makes the situation all the more insidious. Who can say that that does not seem targeted? It seemed entirely contrived to police BAME protests the very next day. Imagine the gall that it must take for some in the Chamber to claim that it was just a coincidence. We see you and those protesters see you and your comments. Every anti-racist in the North sees through that attempt to whitewash the issue.”
“If those same workers decided to engage in safe, socially distanced, anti-racist protests, they will have the book thrown at them. It is frankly disgusting. In my view, parties should not support the regulations today, especially those MLAs and parties who claim to be opponents of state repression, but will likely endorse this dangerous farce.”
“One has to ask this: if the Black Lives Matter protesters had been holding their placards and chanting outside IKEA or Tesco or were in swimsuits on a crowded beach, might they have met with an entirely different fate? That, incredibly, seems to be the case. How can anyone here sit comfortably with that? <BR /> <BR />Life, according to Stormont, as we are being asked to approve it today, is one where shops, bars, hairdressers and more should open in order to facilitate the Executive's rush to kick-start the economy even if workers in those fields do not feel safe, rather than taking steps to consider an entirely different economic model that is not entirely predicated on profits.”
“Not a single fine was handed out on that occasion, despite the fact that, clearly, there was no attempt to implement social distancing. I challenge the Minister to tell me in his response how he can comfortably claim that that is not discriminatory policing. I challenge the Justice Minister to take action on that disparity in a manner that she has, thus far, refused to do. If she is able to intervene to comment on the fines for Black Lives Matter protests, there is no good reason why she cannot highlight that blatantly inconsistent approach and work to make sure that it does not happen again while she holds the Justice Ministry. It should be pointed out that other gatherings that were not of a political nature were also allowed to proceed unchallenged, shop queues being the most widely covered.”
“Anyone who listened to press statements and interviews by Arlene Foster, Michelle O'Neill and Naomi Long in the run-up to the Black Lives Matter protest could see that political cover was being given to police actions. The Justice Minister's comments, almost immediately after the protests, that police actions were proportionate were particularly disgraceful. They were out of touch with reality and were a dangerous intervention in support of the police actions, which are now being widely described as discriminatory. <BR /> <BR />One week later, it should be remembered, another crowd gathered in response to the Black Lives Matter movement, including elements of the far right who have threatened the presence of black people, minorities and refugees on our streets.”
“Those in the hospitality sector in particular, as we have heard, have been very clear that they do not believe that there is a means for them to socially distance in their workplace. What is the response of the Executive? Closed ears, the creation of a recovery panel without one trade unionist on it and a Boris Johnson-esque approach that puts profit over the health of our communities. <BR /> <BR />When it comes to the kinds of gatherings that do not make a profit and are entirely socially distanced, as was the case with the Black Lives Matter protesters on 6 June who gathered in solidarity, fed up with systemic racism, the Executive take exactly the opposite approach by doling out special police powers to facilitate repression and discrimination and giving the PSNI political cover to carry out that repression.”