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 75 of 83.
“Given that the R number, at least last week, was still close to 1 and we have little of a test and trace system to speak of, that could risk the health and safety of workers and see them taken off furlough and put back to work before we can be absolutely sure that it is safe. <BR /> <BR />At the same time, the Executive ask us to pass the amendment (No. 5) regulations, which were used by the PSNI to fine and threaten BAME protesters for taking a safe stand against racism. You do not need a fine-tooth comb to find the glaring hypocrisy there. Indeed, despite warnings from various medical experts, virologists, workers and trade unions about rushing to reopen the economy — we have heard some already — the Executive seem intent on ploughing ahead.”
“The issue should be treated with the utmost severity by all in the Chamber because, if the regulations are ratified here today, it will send a crystal-clear message that the Assembly supports discriminatory punishment for anti-racist protesters. I want to lay out in no uncertain terms why that is the case. <BR /> <BR />We are being asked to support two amendments to the regulations — the amendment (No. 5) regulations and the amendment (No. 6) regulations. The amendment (No. 6) regulations, as we have heard, allow for the lifting of restrictions on workplaces such as non-essential retail outlets, allowing people to gather in their hundreds in queues at IKEA and other shops.”
“It is good to see you back, Mr Principal Deputy Speaker, and I wish you good health in the time ahead. <BR /> <BR />It is a damning indictment of the political establishment and, indeed, the PSNI's approach that, throughout the crisis — a health pandemic in which workers' safety has been risked by large employers and some of the most vulnerable have, essentially, been left to fend for themselves in care homes where conditions should, at the very least, be the subject of a public inquiry — the only section of our society that has been specifically targeted with a large number of fines, cautions and threats of prosecution seems to have been Black Lives Matter protesters who were taking part in safe, socially distanced events.”
“I thank the Minister for his reply, even if it was short. In a previous debate, his party colleague Mr O'Dowd referenced the need to tackle low pay, which I agree with. Given that Civil Service workers have been working hard throughout the pandemic, and for many years a lot of them have been forced to take up an extra job, will the Minister commit to paying Civil Service workers an above-inflation offer, to help deal with the extra costs and pressures of everyday life, especially those associated with COVID-19?”
“I do not see how the proposal, coming from the bigger parties, will address the possibility of that happening again. I oppose the motion, and I support the amendment.”
“It is worth remembering that we are looking into an economic abyss, with many people unfortunately losing their jobs, and we will have a situation where it is one rule for MLAs setting their own expenses and allowances while people lose their jobs and go onto the dole queue. <BR /> <BR />We still do not know the clear political rationale for the proposal. Presumably, there have been discussions about the current level of expenses at the Assembly Commission. Can anyone clarify whether that has been the case? If so, have Members indicated their willingness to increase that or to reduce it? Otherwise, what is the point in changing the set-up? The Assembly needs to avoid another situation in which Stormont operates a slush fund for political parties.”
“The last survey showed that at least 15 MLAs employ family members in different roles relating to constituency work and research activities. Can we honestly say that there will be no conflicts of interest in MLAs setting the allowances and wages of, if not their own, then their party colleagues' relatives? How can we accurately and truly declare this to be an independent, transparent or fair system? Again, I am sure most workers, such as the health workers who had to go on strike recently for fair pay, would love to have family members setting their wages, conditions, allowances and so on. <BR /> <BR />To emphasise, I believe that all workers deserve a fair wage. I am open to a fair system that treats office staff and other staff who work in the political sphere in a fair and equal way, but the proposed system does not do that.”
“Not here, not with this proposal. I am not sure whether the proposal that we are discussing was agreed as part of New Decade, New Approach, but we can safely say that it certainly does not represent a transparent or best-practice arrangement. Many people will be left scratching their heads at that assertion. It falls well short of best practice to have a situation, it seems, where MLAs can decide constituency expenses for themselves and their fellow MLAs. Many would take the view that that does not appear to be an open system and that it could be exploited in favour of MLAs. <BR /> <BR />It is worth mentioning that many workers would welcome the opportunity to set their own expenses in relation to office costs and support staff but, of course, cannot. Why should there be a different arrangement for MLAs?”
“The same did not happen to MLAs or party reps. <BR /> <BR />The motion says that "alternative provision should be made" but does not state clearly what that is or should be, and we are left to believe that it will simply be the Assembly Commission itself deciding. Again, are we to have blind faith that a fair and transparent system will be set up if we just take the word of the bigger parties on the issue? Where is the accountability with the proposed alternative system? 'New Decade, New Approach' states:”
“It is worth remembering the consternation that the MPs' expenses scandal and the local version caused across communities here a few years ago. People were outraged in the middle of economic austerity, when they were told that they had to tighten their belts, that MLAs — some of them, at least — were involved in unsavoury financial practice, to put it nicely. Never again should we tolerate a system in which people can funnel extremely large sums of public money into research companies that did not do any research, if they even existed in any real sense at all, or questionable heating bills, claiming multiple times for offices and much, much more, as we have heard. I hazard a guess that, if somebody on benefits were accused of that kind of activity, they would probably be in jail now or facing a small claims court case.”
“<BR /> <BR />This young man had clearly touched the hearts of many people, and that was evidenced by the many heartfelt tributes that were paid to him online. It was also evidenced by the many people who came out to search for young Noah, with hundreds of people from all backgrounds and communities, right across Belfast and the North more generally. That spirit and community solidarity will be important for people to attempt to try to come to terms with this tragic event and grieve. We offer our sympathies. Thank you.”
“I offer my condolences and sympathy to the family, friends and those who knew Noah Donohoe. What happened to the young man was truly tragic and heartbreaking. I extend my condolences on behalf of People Before Profit to everybody who knew him and were related to him. <BR /> <BR />It is hard to imagine the heartache that the community is feeling after this tragic news. That is over last week, today and over the next few weeks, and we offer our sympathy and thoughts to them. Sadly, it seems to be too often that the Community Rescue Service has to carry out actions like this, particularly in north Belfast and that part of our city, but we want to thank them, as others have, for their work and efforts.”
“I will bring my remarks to a close and I want to pay tribute to all those people in my constituency and across the North who have worked very hard to highlight mental health concerns and to help people throughout this period.”
“How the Executive approach any new economic strategy needs to change rapidly, not only if we want to protect people's jobs, but to protect their mental health. Stormont needs to embark on an emergency jobs protection and creation programme that intervenes in the economy to —.”
“<BR /> <BR />Too often, when we talk about mental health, we talk about it in isolated terms and with very little reference to the environment that people live in, which hugely shapes their mental health. All predictions are that, if we continue along the usual economic path, we will be staring into an economic abyss with the worst recession in 300 years. <BR /> <BR />Historically, we know that suicide rates skyrocket in times of economic instability. In the 1929 stock market crash, suicide rates increased 50% in a year. There is a direct correlation between unemployment, deprivation, recession and, unfortunately, suicide. We want to see mental health not just as an isolated issue, as Members have said, but as something that is multifaceted and, ultimately, connected to economics and politics.”
“<BR /> <BR />Last week, the Health Committee heard from the RCN about the fact that we have at least 2,000 nursing vacancies across our health service. Not only does that create extra pressure and potentially exacerbate mental health problems for those nurses who are working harder than ever, but it does not address the fact that we need to increase our support and investment in the health service generally if we are going to seriously tackle the mental health problems in our community. We urgently need to see an increase in counsellors, psychiatric nurses, those working in addiction services and many more workers if we are to support people in need and the increased demand that we are likely to see at the end of this crisis.”
“The people front and centre of supporting people with COVID-19 have seen an increase in their stress levels as a result of the work that they are doing. <BR /> <BR />It is important to recognise that the community came out and clapped for our NHS workers and thanked them for the crucial role that they played throughout the crisis. I am sure that most people here did that as well. It is still a disgrace that those workers have not been paid their strike pay — money that they lost out on because they had to go on strike because their work was not appreciated year after year by this House and Westminster. It is urgent that we press the Executive to cough up and pay those workers what they are owed. For my part, you cannot give vague messages of support to healthcare workers whilst not supporting them when push comes to shove.”
“Thank you. I thank the Member for his question. I agree that the Minister has taken measures, but I do not think that they are wide-ranging enough, to be frank, and it is not just him; it is previous Ministers and the Executive as a whole. We have to be honest about that. <BR /> <BR />In our budget briefing in the Health Committee, we were told that there will be £72 million savings across the health service, or cuts as they are most commonly known, despite being told that we must learn the mantra of COVID-19 or learn the lessons from it. I do not believe that that lesson has been learned in terms of protecting public services. <BR /> <BR />On top of that, we have seen a 50% increase in significant stress for those people working with people who have had COVID-19.”
“Unfortunately, I do not see wide-ranging or enough actions from the Department or the Minister to reflect that severity or the reality of that increase that people will face after lockdown ends. If we are to really support people with mental health problems with more than just nice, well-meaning words, we need serious increased investment in those services.”
“As has been mentioned already, people in the North suffer from higher levels of depression, anxiety and PTSD compared with people in the South or in Britain. Mental health problems are 25% higher here compared directly with England, but we spend less per head on mental health services than those places. As Action Mental Health stated, there is an actual 26% underspend overall in mental health services generally. So, we had a massive underspend in mental health services before the coronavirus crisis. <BR /> <BR />The Department's own language is that the mental health impact is likely to be severe, and GPs have warned of a tsunami of mental health illness after coronavirus.”
“Thank you for calling me early. Sometimes, Members from smaller parties are not called to speak in debates, so I am glad that you did that. I thank the Members who tabled the motion and the amendments. <BR /> <BR />During a debate a few weeks ago, the Health Minister made the point that Stormont had failed to support the NHS properly for years. It is the view of many, including me, that Stormont has failed to properly invest in and support people with mental health issues. Over many years, it has failed to invest adequately in mental health services.”
“You have plenty time to speak if you want. <BR /> <BR />I do not believe that any form of additional or strengthened stop-and-search powers could be justified in the current context, especially as the report suggests, which I want to put on the record, that no perceived threat exists. It is my duty in this discussion to state my concern about how stop-and-search powers have been used in this city in the past. I urge the Minister to consider that and to work to ensure that such a situation does not arise in the future.”
“I will not give way. I am finishing my comments. <BR /> <BR />Considering the problematic history of stop-and-search as used —”
“Therefore, the legislation suggests a potential strengthening of police powers without any real evidence that it is needed. I would like the Minister to address and expand upon that point. <BR /> <BR />Any strengthening of police powers always runs the risk of intensifying the existing problems of policing. For example, I note that the same report, while vague, states that its intention is to introduce powers of stop-and-search. As an MLA for West Belfast, where stop-and-search powers have been used and abused in the past, I believe that they constitute a harmful and unnecessary impingement on the rights of people, including children and minors.”
“<BR /> <BR />No one doubts the problems that do come with drug use, and its damaging impact on society generally and in prisons in particular. A very different approach is needed: an approach that prioritises tackling poverty and the conditions that breed small-scale criminality and drug use and places rehabilitation programmes ahead of strengthening the police and security operations. That may be a conversation for another day. <BR /> <BR />The Department recognises that drones flying over prisons has not really been an issue in the North. The Department's report for the Justice Committee states:”
“There has been little opportunity to scrutinise the LCM or the legislation in the Chamber, especially for opposition MLAs. <BR /> <BR />In the main, the legislation relates to bestowing extra powers to allow the security services to use air traffic control to combat drug use, particularly by restricting the flying of drones over prisons. Even if the LCM is implemented, it is highly unlikely that it will thwart or combat drug use in society, and, by extension, in prisons. The US has been fighting a so-called war on drugs for many years, with much vigour, through strengthening police powers and increasingly criminalising drug use. It is, clearly, not winning that war. Quite the opposite, in fact: it is losing it. That tells us a lot about how we challenge many of the problems that come with drug use.”
“A few weeks ago in this House, I raised concern that the teacher and union bashing that we witnessed in England would make its way here. It seems that the Minister's party colleagues have taken up that mantle of teacher and union bashing, and they are working very hard on it seemingly. Will the Minister take the opportunity today to disassociate himself from his colleagues' comments and praise and thank our education staff for working hard throughout the coronavirus crisis and for raising serious health and safety concerns?”
“I thank the Member for asking the question for urgent oral answer. Minister, does the resignation of the entire board of the RQIA, which oversees the handling of care homes, represent a damning indictment of your and previous Ministers' approaches to the handling of care homes?”
“Teachers probably would not miss Sammy Wilson, given his recent comments, but that is for another day. <BR /> <BR />The International Energy Agency (IEA) has stated that we have six months to change course in order to avoid a climate catastrophe. The next three years, whether action is taken or not taken, will shape the next 30 years. I want to ask the Minister about a just transition. We are likely to see highly skilled workers in Bombardier and Thompson Aero Seating losing their jobs. What steps will his Department take to ensure that workers are not thrown under the bus because of COVID-19 or the economic crisis that is likely to come and to ensure that their skills and efforts can be utilised to protect the environment so that we have a just transition?”
“Like other Members, I cannot give my consent to the LCM. I will not block it, but I implore the other two Ministers who are in the House, and Ministers across the Executive, to ensure that Departments provide as much detail as possible for any further debates on legislation. It is essential, going forward. Thank you.”
“It not good enough, however, for Members of a legislature to be told, "We don't have the detail to hand on the issues". That is simply not good enough for good practice, for democracy or for Members to cast their vote in a clear, accurate way. <BR /> <BR />I am also concerned that the memorandum that we received from the Department stated that there was no consultation on the LCM. Of equal concern is the fact that we are told that there are no human rights concerns arising from the legislation. That may well be the case, but how do we know, if we did not consult the people who are involved in human rights work and human rights activism and those who could be — I emphasise "could be" — directly impacted on by the LCM?”
“As the Chair said, the Health Committee was asked to make a decision on the LCM and did not, for a number of reasons, the main one being that Committee members — four of them, at least — decided that they had not enough detail on various questions that had been raised. That is serious stuff indeed. For my part, I raised a number of concerns, but the main one was about having a detailed list setting out the limits of devolved authority and what matters would remain in London. The Committee received a report back from the Department. It was advised that this was a complicated field and that a comprehensive list could not yet be provided but that officials were working through the issues. No doubt, the officials are working hard. The Minister is working hard, whatever disagreements I have with him.”
“As we heard on the Health Committee, that clause could provide the possibility of medicinal cannabis trials and other things that activists and campaigners such as Charlotte Caldwell and many others have been campaigning for. We have to approach that with some level of caution, however, and I am certainly cautious. When I hear talk of red tape and bureaucracy, it sounds to me like code for the stripping back of measures that need to be in place to protect the public in clinical trials and in medicine more generally. <BR /> <BR />I am also concerned, as other Members have indicated, that we are being asked to rubber-stamp an LCM and endorse it without having the full detail to hand, the full detail of what we are voting on and any detailed consequences, intended or unintended.”
“Earlier today, I raised concerns about how Bills and other legislation had been repeatedly brought to the House without maximum time for scrutiny or adequate time to answer Members' concerns about issues before the House. Today is a vivid illustration of that precise point. Mr Nesbitt will be glad to hear that this is not just about the Minister here today — or the Ministers — but about a general trend that has been happening throughout the coronavirus crisis. <BR /> <BR />What we are dealing with today is serious and important stuff. I do not claim to be an expert in medicine or medical devices either, but the manufacturing, marketing and supply of medicines seems to be serious stuff to me. Clinical trials are detailed in clause 4.”
“I thank the Minister for giving way. Is the Minister not concerned that one group of people gathering in a socially-distant way is being threatened with prosecution and fined, and another group of people who seemingly are not socially distancing, namely outside Belfast City Hall, are not treated in the same way? Does that not concern the Minister?”
“All MLAs should reject it and raise concern about how it was a discriminatory attack on the BAME community that was gathering in a responsible, socially distanced way. Until then, I want to know, if the junior Minister can tell me, the rationale for not introducing enforcement powers for the amendment that we are discussing today. Why wait until Friday 5 June before it was introduced? I suspect that a truthful answer to that question may speak volumes about the disgraceful treatment that the BAME community has witnessed in the last few weeks.”
“The first and, in my view, less believable is that it was just a coincidence that these enforcement powers were unlawful, because the protest did not constitute an emergency. The second and, I suggest, more likely explanation is that these powers were explicitly introduced to tackle the Black Lives Matter protests. If true, this represents the real possibility of discrimination against our BAME community. No powers of enforcement were attached to this amendment for potential breaches relating to outdoor cinemas. Indeed, no powers of enforcement existed to tackle IKEA queues, workplace gatherings or any other manner of gatherings and social events. <BR /> <BR />In conclusion, when it comes to the vote in the Chamber on amendment No 5, I think that we should vote against it.”
“Both relate to outdoor gatherings, but the enforcement powers to allow police to fine or prosecute people did not exist. Then, suddenly, on 5 June, we witnessed the last-minute amendment No. 5, which granted enforcement powers in order to restrict the protests in Belfast and Derry. That begs the question of why the Department did not consider it necessary "by reason of urgency" to include police enforcement powers at the time of amendment No. 4, which was passed on 21 May. No such provision was included in the amendment being discussed today, but it was rushed through, just weeks later, on the eve of anti-racist protests and events. <BR /> <BR />As the Committee on the Administration of Justice and Amnesty International have pointed out, there seem to be two possible explanations.”
“I thank the Member for her intervention, but I refer her to the comments of Amnesty International and the CAJ on this. I will come on to those in a second. They back up the fact that it was on 5 June, the day before the protests, that the enforcement powers were brought in. <BR /> <BR />Some of this may seem technical, but it is worth going into detail because it is, in fact, highly political. As you may know, Mr Deputy Speaker, the Executive, under section 25Q of the Public Health Act — emergency procedure — have the legal authority to bypass Assembly approval, if it is "by reason of urgency". I question having such powers at any time, but my point is that both recent amendments to the health regulations, amendment Nos. 4 and 5, rely on this process.”
“Indeed, when the amendment that we are discussing today went through, there were, despite what junior Minister Kearney says, no powers of enforcement. It was only afterwards, and less than 24 hours prior to the Black Lives Matter protests —.”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I have to raise serious concerns about the process here. These concerns, you will be glad to hear, relate directly to the amendment No. 4 regulations under discussion this afternoon. Despite having widespread and, indeed, draconian emergency powers throughout this crisis, the Executive and the Justice Minister have so far not exercised these powers against the employers who risk workers' lives or the care home owners who put people in danger. Instead, they have exercised them primarily against the BAME protesters who recently took part in a responsible and socially distanced event. <BR /> <BR />This directly relates to the amendment No. 4 regulations because it relates to outdoor gatherings. For months, we were told that there were no police enforcement powers attached to outdoor gatherings.”
“This Bill does the complete opposite of that. It should not be up to the ONS to determine our housing policy. This House should determine its own housing policy and what is best for the public at large and our constituents. <BR /> <BR />There is no evidence that this Bill, if passed, will tackle the housing crisis. There is no evidence that the housing association new start targets will be met. They have been failed year on year. The best way to deliver social housing is through enhancing, protecting and allowing the Housing Executive to borrow and build.”
“We need to strengthen that generally but especially today with this amendment. <BR /> <BR />I am concerned that we are hearing that there may be measures brought in the future. If they are good, we will look at them and support them if they are what is needed, but for how long have parties needed to strengthen, enhance and protect the Housing Executive? There has been a failure by Executive after Executive. <BR /> <BR />Throughout this debate today and previous stages of the Bill, nothing has been said about the additional positive benefits of public scrutiny in respect of stock conditions, maintenance repairs, rent controls, maintenance fees and such issues. That is very concerning indeed. <BR /> <BR />To conclude, public accountability is a good thing. We should seek to enhance and protect it.”
“Surely, that is a good thing. Obviously, with the reclassification of the housing associations, it will have the opposite effect, potentially raising big human rights concerns. So, at the very least, that should be a warning sign for people. We know the long history of privatisation, with rents being increased, service delivery worsening and the increased possibility of eviction. I do not normally quote PwC, but, in 2011, it stated that the Housing Executive was one of the success stories of the past 40 years and:”
“<BR /> <BR />The housing rights organisation said in relation to the first change, I think it was in 2016, around housing associations gaining public status that:”
“I have a very serious concern about the lack of scrutiny of what is at the heart of the Bill. <BR /> <BR />Clause 7, as has been said, abolishes the right-to-buy scheme for housing associations, but the amendment extends that to the Housing Executive and I support that. <BR /> <BR />I think that the fundamental ideology that public is bad and private is good, is at the heart of this and that needs to be challenged. We need to avoid buying into the free market claptrap which says that they know better and they know best. We saw people, quite rightly, clapping for the NHS throughout the coronavirus crisis, and there is a renewed desire to see public services delivered by public bodies and institutions and not housing associations being privatised.”
“Therefore, I think that we need to have a conversation that recognises that we need to defend the Housing Executive as a public institution and looks at how we can extend and enhance the right to successions so that homes can be kept in families for a bit longer than they currently are, especially with regard to housing associations. <BR /> <BR />As I said previously, we oppose the main tenets of the Bill because it seeks to privatise and deregulate housing associations, whilst at the same time maintaining, if not possibly increasing, the public money that they receive. Clauses 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 restrict the powers of the Department around the disposal of land, the merging of housing associations and with the housing associations merely having to notify the Department of their actions.”
“I think that there is a thought process, perhaps, that this is a good time to push through bad legislation and I believe the main tenets of this Bill are bad. It is worth remembering that the reclassification was initially proposed by the Tories and Sajid Javid. At the very least we should be suspicious of this in terms of the merits and the reasons for the proposals. I am concerned that we are following another reckless Tory path by endorsing this Bill. <BR /> <BR />As I am people will know, whether they are for or against it, the right-to-buy scheme was designed by Thatcher and it is disappointing that people have bought into it. From my experience of speaking to people about right to buy or successions, they want to see that the house kept as a family home.”
“I think that there are some fundamental concerns about the nature of the Bill. <BR /> <BR />As Miss Woods said, the Department consulted in 2018 about the proposed changes, but there were only 30 responses. This is a big piece of legislation and a big Bill with big changes. Only 30 responses does not indicate a wide and deep consultation process in which a large number of people were engaged. There has been an element of a shock-doctrine approach throughout the crisis by rushing through changes and legislation in the hope that scrutiny will come at some magical date in the future, but that point is likely to never materialise. <BR /> <BR />People are correctly focusing on the coronavirus crisis and tackling it.”
“<BR /> <BR />Today, in the middle of a health pandemic, we have a scenario in which we are rushing through legislation that will have big ramifications for housing and public services generally across our society. There is nothing wrong with doing things quickly, provided that they are done correctly with information gathered and evidence heard. We have heard from multiple people, today and previously, that that has not been done and that the full extent of it has not been completed. Many people will be asking why the urgency, especially as there is no evidence that the passing of this Bill, with the reprivatisation of housing associations, will lead to the tackling of our housing crisis or lead to the figures that the housing associations have indicated that they may build. That is important to emphasise.”