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 76 of 83.
“I think that the amendment is important and I support and speak in favour of it. However, it is concerning to see the extent of Bills and legislation coming through the House without the time for proper scrutiny. Members on the Committee have said that and there are still serious questions that have been left unanswered. Only a few weeks ago, we had the situation where we were asked to endorse the Budget Bill when a lot of detail was not there and when a lot of scrutiny was not taking place, never mind details about efficiency savings and cuts. Even today, we are being asked to endorse an LCM, yet the Department of Health is unable to answer fundamental questions despite I, and others on the Committee for Health, twice raising questions about a serious piece of legislation.”
“However, there has been a general approach to say that, "public is bad, private knows better and private will better deliver". I will address that as I continue through my comments.”
“I wish Minister Hargey and Principal Deputy Speaker Stalford well. <BR /> <BR />I support the amendment. There seems to be a pattern in the House that Members who table amendments are castigated for daring to do so. I thank Mr Durkan for tabling the amendment. <BR /> <BR />There is a concern that there has been a concerted strategy to whittle down the Housing Executive. We have heard of attempts to transfer stock. Thankfully, they were defeated through public ballots.”
“It is disappointing that some Members tried to amend the motion, I understand, to reflect those concerns, but the amendment was not selected. If it had been, I probably would have supported the motion. The problem with the motion is that it disregards normal due process for prison officers, regardless of what they might have done or are alleged to have done. <BR /> <BR />It is welcome that the issue should be considered for Civil Service workers more generally, but I cannot help pointing out that, often, when the issue of mental health and absence in the Civil Service is discussed on media outlets, some parties in this Chamber bang on about high levels of absence and sickness and do not really understand the mental health problems that other Civil Service workers face. <BR /> <BR />I will leave my comments there.”
“My concern with the motion is that it could have problematic consequences in granting preferential treatment to prison officers over prisoners. What happens if problems arise in prisons, as they can arise in any institution, with prisoners often being at the receiving end of them and examples of prison officers maybe not acting the best or with appropriate behaviour. I am concerned that that behaviour will not be dealt with appropriately, and the motion allows for that to be the case. <BR /> <BR />I am also concerned about the motion leading to situations where some prison officers are absolved from facing disciplinary proceedings, such as written warnings, if serious issues emerge in prisons, as they often do.”
“Thank you. In fairness to Mr Butler, he raised a number of questions, but I think that the point about whether prison officers face mental health problems stands. Of course. Are they dealing with people who face mental health problems? Of course, but the point remains that there is nothing in the motion that mentions the mental health of prisoners. <BR /> <BR />I think that there was a BBC report a number of years ago that indicated that the figures for mental health problems in prisons was very high. I cannot remember the exact figure off hand, but it was astronomically high. For me, mental health problems in prisons must be dealt with in a way that does not leave the door open to other problems, as other Members have indicated.”
“It would be remiss, Mr Deputy Speaker, to not mention that it is unfortunate that we have a motion on mental health problems in prisons that does not mention the deep and painful mental health crisis faced by prisoners too. I think Ms Linda Dillon might have mentioned it previously, though I missed the start of her comments.”
“Let me say first that I take the mental health crisis in our society extremely seriously. I raise it repeatedly in the Health Committee, which I sit on. It is one of the biggest health crises that faces us, and it needs to be addressed in a systematic and radical way, with an expansion of funding across society and real and proper mental health provision in place. <BR /> <BR />The mental health crisis impacts all elements of society, as Members have said, although the poor are more marginalised in a more disproportionate way. There is no doubt that the stats, which Members referred to, show that prison officers make up the many people who need increased mental health support and services to be in place.”
“The Minister, only hours after the protest, stated that the PSNI response was proportionate. I wonder how the Minister can stand over that, given that, as she has indicated, she was not at any of the demonstrations. Did she speak to any BME groups? Did she even examine the police evidence on the day? My main question is whether —”
“I appreciate that other Members had a bit of leeway.”
“I am deeply concerned about the PSNI's actions at the Black Lives Matter protests in Belfast and Derry on Saturday. People were fined, intimidated and threatened with prosecution for attending a socially distanced and peaceful anti-racism protest. While groups like Amnesty International were speaking out against police actions —.”
“I thank the Minister for his statement. The Minister mentioned mental health. There is a lot of concern about the likely increase in mental health problems after this pandemic, and in people presenting with those problems. That needs to be reflected in spending and the allocation of budgets by the Department. <BR /> <BR />Given the much-welcomed support, praise and clapping for NHS staff, including carers, what assurances can the Minister give that any transformation will not mean the whittling down or privatisation of existing health services? Can he assure us that there will not be a shock-doctrine approach to the NHS?”
“For all those reasons, I oppose this shameful attempt by Sinn Féin and the DUP to restrict reproductive rights, and I will vote against the amendment and the motion. It is important that we trust women to make the decisions that they know are best for them.”
“<BR /> <BR />Finally, there is confusion as to why this agenda is being pushed when the evidence shows that around the world, where abortion restrictions are lifted and it is treated as healthcare rather than a legal issue, the rates of later-term abortions actually fall. In Canada, there are no restrictions and no time limits, and the rate of abortions after 20 weeks is just 0·6%, three times less than the rate in Britain. Medical professionals, royal colleges, the UN, Amnesty and other rights-based organisations overwhelmingly endorse the removal of barriers to accessing abortion as best medical practice.”
“When Westminster intervened to decriminalise abortion, the majority of people here welcomed it. <BR /> <BR />On the other hand, the two largest parties have now banded together to send out a clear message that abortion should be heavily restricted, despite the brutal experiences that that creates for women and pregnant people. There is confusion, too, around the basis for Sinn Féin's amendment, which seems to totally ignore its own policy on women's health and abortion and is wholly out of step with the pro-choice rhetoric that it used during the repeal referendum. Forcing women to travel for abortion is not pro-choice, nor is it humane.”
“It is important that I get a chance to speak, but it is a shame that I do not get the same time as others. <BR /> <BR />Today's debate about abortion has created confusion and outrage, and it is not difficult to see why. On the one hand, the Supreme Court declared that the restrictions on abortion at the heart of the DUP motion and the Sinn Féin amendment are a breach of human rights. The UN Deputy High Commissioner for Human Rights deemed such restrictions as "gender-based violence" and "unconscionable" and said:”
“Ultimately, it does not reflect what is needed to ensure that the state plays a fundamental and crucial role in supporting people. Every economist predicts a massive economic recession — the worst in 300 years — but there are no measures in the Bill to support people at this time. For those reasons, I will not support the Budget Bill.”
“As I have repeatedly emphasised, there have been at least £50 million of cuts to our health trusts in the middle — I emphasise that again — the middle of a global pandemic. I concur with Rachel Woods: it is ironic that the Minister's MLAs supported a motion yesterday on the need for a just economic recovery, something that I support and, unfortunately, did not get a chance to speak on. The Minister's Budget does not do anything of the sort. It continues the old normal. When will there be a break with the old economic and political orthodoxy? Somebody once said, "If not now, when?". <BR /> <BR />For those reasons, I cannot support the Final Stage of the Budget Bill. There are fundamental problems with the details of cuts to the trusts and a lack of detail in other areas.”
“I will not speak at length. I have raised fundamental flaws with the Bill ad nauseam, but there still are problems with scrutiny and a lack of detail. What Mr Frew raised is concerning. We probably would not agree on much, but what he raised is very concerning. I hope that he might consider joining me in voting against the Bill for that reason, but I guess he probably will not. What he raised suggests echoes of RHI. Very recently, we were told that everyone had, supposedly, learnt a lesson, but it appears from what he has suggested or implied that maybe some have not. <BR /> <BR />The problem with the Bill is that it has no economic strategy tied to it that breaks with the past or breaks with the politics of austerity.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. Does she think that it is important that alternative voices be heard in the Assembly and in society — green voices, socialist voices and other voices — in every debate?”
“News stories about these things happening shape people's actions. People feel that it is deeply unfair that somebody who was central to drafting these regulations in Britain can breach them so flagrantly. All those aspects need to be considered. <BR /> <BR />People are very worried and concerned about the furloughing scheme being reduced. People feel that they are being pushed back into work very quickly, and I think that we have to fight against that and to ensure that people are protected financially if they take measures to stay at home to protect their health and ours. <BR /> <BR />I will certainly not oppose the regulation changes, but I have made comments that have to be put on the record.”
“All those things have to shape any actions that the Executive take. All those factors have to be considered in any amendments to the regulations or easing of the lockdown. <BR /> <BR />Members have referred to the breaking of the restrictions. It is very concerning that that is happening, but we have to be careful not to lump all young people in as one homogenous block and blame them en masse for all the breaches. Whilst we are against these breaches — they should not be happening — we also have to say that it is no accident that they are happening at a time that the Government are lifting the restrictions, with some seemingly banging the table for a quicker lifting of those restrictions. It is no surprise either that people are gathering on beaches when a chief adviser can drive up to a castle for a retreat.”
“I would be very concerned about that. It is worth commenting that those workers are, by and large, low paid. They are the people who work over bank holidays, Christmas and other holiday periods, and they are the people who seem to be pushed back into work quicker than others. <BR /> <BR />Generally speaking, I am also concerned that we may be rushing too quickly to ease the tough measures that people have faced. People have faced tough measures, but we are rushing to lift these elements of the lockdown very quickly despite the fact that the R rate is still not low enough; some people say that it could still be close to 1. We are also hearing reports of a potential second wave in the not too distant future, and there is the tragedy that people are, sadly, still passing away from this virus.”
“However, I am concerned about some of the changes to the regulations, in particular those pertaining to garden centres. I have raised that issue at the Health Committee already, and I do so again today. <BR /> <BR />My concerns are multifaceted. First, I do not see how a garden centre could be classed as an essential service at this time. I am concerned that companies that are, by all definitions, not garden centres may be flouting or sidestepping these rules to open their doors and potentially put workers at risk. I am also concerned that while, one week, it is garden centres and ornamental plant nurseries — I have to admit that I do not know what an ornamental plant nursery is — the next week, it could be retail shops. We are hearing more and more calls for, and news and announcements about, retail shops opening very soon.”
“There is obviously much in these amendments to the regulations that will bring some comfort, some support even, in what has been a very tough time for so many in our communities. It is also worth pointing out to people who may not follow the workings and running of Stormont that we are voting on this after the fact; after the changes to the regulations have already been implemented. I share some of the concerns raised by my Health Committee colleague, the Chair of the Executive Office Committee, and others about that. <BR /> <BR />Many of the changes appear uncontroversial. Who could argue against allowing people who are terminally ill to get married in a small ceremony? Hopefully, that will bring some comfort to the people in that situation.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. I think that 90% of his amendment is perfectly fine. Does he share my concern, and that of many trade unionists, that the social partnership approach, in the South of Ireland in particular, has led to increased inequality, particularly in relation to the wealth gap?”
“Whilst myself, and other Members, I am sure, have regular contact with the Housing Executive through raising concerns and challenging it, it is a better provider of public housing in general. <BR /> <BR />It is worth mentioning that, in 2017, the Housing Executive had 1,000 empty properties. Surely, more could be done to help people on the property waiting list by fixing up those properties and allocating them to those who need them. <BR /> <BR />In conclusion, we have heard comments about a new normal in regard to coronavirus, but I do not think that the provisions of the Bill reflect that or reflect the growing appetite of people to see stronger public housing and a stronger role for the Housing Executive in that. So, for those reasons, I will be opposing the Bill's Second Stage.”
“<BR /> <BR />I have mentioned the fundamental problems with the Bill, and, for those reasons, I cannot support it. If the Housing (Amendment) Bill does progress, and it is likely to, through its Second Stage, we will explore all options to amend it and raise concerns about it. As I say, we wish to see social housing provision balanced more fully towards public spending and to the Housing Executive playing a key role in that. We will challenge the idea that the market knows best and that the market should provide housing generally. <BR /> <BR />It is worth mentioning that, as the Member from Foyle said, housing association rents are, on the whole, cheaper than the Housing Executive's. The Housing Executive is more accountable.”
“<BR /> <BR />The policy of funding housing associations while not funding the NIHE to build new public housing has been a failure over the past 25 years. It needs to stop. We should see the Housing Executive as the main provider of housing here and resist all attempts to run it down, privatise it, or reduce its funding. <BR /> <BR />We reject the reprivatisation of housing associations. Therefore I cannot support the Bill as it stands. Housing associations should remain public bodies and, ultimately, be integrated into the Housing Executive, becoming subject to full, comprehensive public accountability for the hundreds of millions of public money that they get every year. If housing associations want to return to the private sector, surely they should not be receiving such vast amounts of public funding.”
“On only two occasions since, in 2001 and 2012-13, has the housing-association sector built more than the 1996 NIHE benchmark. <BR /> <BR />The memorandum attached to the Housing (Amendment) Bill claims that, in 2019-2020, the housing association sector has a target of 1,850 new home starts. That target is simply not credible, as the new start level actually achieved in the previous year was just 980. The sector has never achieved such a level of new starts, the highest being 1,440 in 2011-12. The memorandum also states that the Department has allocated the housing association sector £146 million for new homes in 2019-2020. However, just imagine what the Housing Executive could do with £146 million of extra funding, especially if it were actually allowed to build houses.”
“<BR /> <BR />When we talk about the transfer of land, we need maximum accountability: the Bill proposes to do the exact opposite. The proposers of the Bill justify it — some Members have already justified it — on the basis that housing associations, when they are private bodies, can borrow funds that do not count towards overall public borrowing. That means, in theory, that the social housing grant given to housing associations to build new homes should be leveraged to build more houses than if the Northern Ireland Housing Executive alone was left to build houses. <BR /> <BR />The reality is very different. Since 1995-96, the Housing Executive has been banned from borrowing and building homes. In that year, the Housing Executive built 1,360 homes; the housing associations built only 1,040.”
“That could bring about an increase in the ability of housing associations to dispose of more land while merely informing the Department along the way. That means, of course, that there would be even less accountability and oversight. <BR /> <BR />Land equals wealth, so we need to have a system in place in which the sale or transfer of land is tightly monitored, scrutinised and focused on. We know the power and wealth that developers have; we cannot see a situation in which that increases. Aspects of the Bill could lead to that. It is worth remembering that, not too long ago, we witnessed and discussed the National Asset Management Agency (NAMA) transfer and the scandal associated with it: the £1·2 billion transfer of property — the biggest public transfer in the history of the state.”
“For example, clauses 1 and 6 change the Department's power to give consent for the disposal of land or merging of housing associations to a requirement for a housing association just to:”
“The Bill seeks to reverse the 2016 decision of the ONS to loosen controls, deregulate and devolve right-to-buy powers to individual housing associations, as others have said. The proposals that are contained in the Bill follow a similar pattern to those of other jurisdictions in Britain, which all faced the same reclassification issue and have already returned housing associations to the private sector. People Before Profit opposes the main thrust of the Bill because it seeks to privatise and deregulate housing associations while, at the same time, maintaining and possibly increasing the public funding that they receive. <BR /> <BR />Clauses 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 all restrict the Department's powers.”
“People have been bravely standing up to and defying the brutal, militarised police state of the United States. On behalf of all socialists, all progressives and all radicals in Ireland, I extend solidarity and support to all the people out on the streets demonstrating against the racist, murdering machine in the United States. In the 1960s, the black civil rights struggle directly inspired the struggle for change here, and people here are still inspired by the ongoing fight for equality, dignity, rights and justice for black and minority communities in the United States. One world: one struggle. Black lives matter.”
“It is a cruel irony, is it not, and a true reflection of life in the United States today that a black man can be murdered after being accused of forging documents, while wealthy whites, through tax evasion and other schemes, forge their way to billionaire and trillionaire status, exploiting the labour of black people along the way? <BR /> <BR />Today, we express our sorrow and anger at the murder of George Floyd, but unfortunately that has been a common theme in recent years, and we also have to remember Eric Garner, Michael Brown and all those killed in cold blood. Unfortunately and tragically, there are too many names to mention them today. <BR /> <BR />Since the brutal killing of George Floyd, we have witnessed protests across the United States.”
“First, I express my sympathy to the family of George Floyd on the death of their loved one. The footage of a police officer putting his knee on the neck of George Floyd, suffocating and killing him while he shouted, "I can't breathe", shines a brutal light onto the reality of racism and police violence in the United States today. That racism, unfortunately, has been emboldened by the words and actions of Donald Trump, who gave the green light to continue shooting people down in cold blood in America, after this brutal killing. Trump, of course, is a man who has done nothing about the continual violence of white supremacists and racist organisations whilst giving them a nod and a wink along the way.”
“I thank the Minister for giving way. Why did the Executive spend at least £417,000 in preparing for a tax reduction? I think that was revealed in an answer to a question from Mr Aiken a few years ago, including the development of new IT systems? I welcome it if he has changed his position, but surely that was a cornerstone policy of the Executive for many years?”
“No, I will not; I am finishing my comments. Previously, the Executive united to get money to lay off thousands of Civil Service workers, a regrettable and wrong move. Will the Minister and the Executive declare their support for an emergency tax on the wealthy and corporations? If not, why not?”
“There is no evidence for the point that the Member has made. The evidence and research that has been done on cutting corporation tax shows that it would give a gift to wealthy individuals and result in at least £200 million being cut from the block grant. The Member's position seems to be fewer trains and more tax cuts. That should be opposed by everybody. <BR /> <BR />Ms Caoimhe Archibald referred to a windfall tax on corporations. I absolutely support that. Does the Minister? Karen Mullan emphasised the need for us not to return to austerity as the default position. I agree with her on that. Does the Minister? Previously the Executive united —.”
“If so, has he raised it directly with his Executive colleagues or the British Treasury during his few months in office? <BR /> <BR />I also want to respond to some of the points that have been made. Mr Buckley referred to the "Take, take, take" approach, which, if I am referring to his comments correctly, he said, was advocated by me. On corporation tax, I suggest that he has not got the memo that reducing corporation tax is no longer in vogue and, indeed, that trickle-down economics does not work and cannot be implemented, especially in this period.”
“I will give way in a second. Indeed, in a sense, that policy defined the economic strategy of previous Governments here for a decade. It is hypocritical, to say the least, for a government party to spend years talking about the need for tax cuts for big businesses and then attack a sole MLA for raising the issue of the need to tax the rich during a crisis such as this. <BR /> <BR />During the coming decade, especially in the deep recession that we now face, we need an urgent reversal of that kind of politics that includes raising taxes on the wealthy, raising corporation taxes and an emergency wealth tax to ensure that those with broad shoulders carry the burden of the COVID-19 crisis. Will the Finance Minister support such a move, at least in principle?”
“Let me repeat that, like everyone, I am, of course, aware that taxation powers, such as corporation tax, are not currently under the control of the Executive. The point I made was that, for a nearly a ten-year period, Sinn Féin and the DUP made lobbying for those powers, in order to cut taxes for big businesses, their cornerstone economic policy. Indeed —.”
“Much worse, if you read the finer detail of the projections, is that health spending, going forward, is to be predicated on £50 million savings from health trusts — more austerity, in other words. As I said earlier, it is shocking that, during a health pandemic, the Executive are contemplating further austerity across health trusts. I think that I have raised that specific concern in the Chamber about five times and have had no direct response. The Minister may accuse me of repetition: I stand guilty as charged. I will raise it again until I get an adequate response from the Minister or somebody else. <BR /> <BR />That aside, I want to, at least partially, respond to the Minister's comments about taxation. Frankly, I think that the Minister purposefully caricatured the question in an effort at deflection.”
“I know that the Executive may not like scrutiny, but this really takes the biscuit. <BR /> <BR />Suffice it to say that I will vote against the Budget for the reasons that I outlined earlier. Precisely when we need a break with the failed politics of the past, this Budget, even at a glance, looks like a continuation of neoliberalism and — dare I say it — austerity politics. Major departments will be unable to meet costs, and Minister Murphy's attempts to present many figures as increases in spending are largely spin. The Health Department was already chronically underfunded entering the crisis, as people have said. Any increase in spending runs far short of departmental requirements and simply reflects rising inflation and a population that is living longer.”
“I spoke at length earlier on a similar and connected issue, so I will try not to repeat myself, Mr Principal Deputy Speaker, but it is becoming farcical with regard to the processes of scrutiny and accountability here. I share in some of the comments made by Rachel Woods. In the space of a couple of hours, we have gone from the First Stage to the Second Stage of the Budget Bill. It is only while I am here listening and taking part in the debates that I have been sent the most recent Budget documents. At a cursory glance — I emphasise that — there is little or no serious detail about the breakdown of departmental spending. We then find out that opposition parties, only a handful of whom are outside the five-party Executive, must submit amendments by tomorrow.”
“I pay tribute to all the victims of historical institutional abuse. Many of them are in my constituency and they have campaigned for truth and justice and have fought for many years, facing obstacles along the way. <BR /> <BR />Victims are obviously concerned that their privacy and confidentiality have been compromised by this data breach. What assurances will the First Minister and the Executive give that steps have been taken to ensure that something like that never happens again?”
“Obviously we welcome new moneys and increased spending, but the point is that this Budget does not go far enough to tackle the needs across our society. As a member of the opposition, as a socialist and as someone who has witnessed the very real impact of cuts and callous austerity Budgets on people in my community and across this island, I will continue to oppose what looks set to be another austerity Budget, both in its financial projections and its form. I will continue to use my role to hold the Executive to account.”
“Where is the ambition to do better after this crisis? Where is the leadership? Sinn Féin and the DUP spent the guts of 10 years, as I said, begging Westminster to let them cut corporation tax for the wealthy, but not a peep about raising taxes for those who can afford to pay more so that we can provide a better future for our communities. <BR /> <BR />Finally, I take this opportunity to reiterate my deep concerns about the lack of scrutiny throughout this budgetary process and, indeed, this Vote on Account. I will not labour the point; I only want to say that, in this scenario with a five-party Executive, I do not think it is healthy for all MLAs to endorse the Executive's actions. I will continue to challenge the Executive.”
“It means the continued underfunding of mental health provision at a time when mental health support should be at least doubled to meet the demand that is out there. It means a transport system like Translink continues to be threatened with going to the wall. It means millions for new roads, which will damage our environment through the use of cars, such as £75 million for the A5, and nothing to seriously tackle air pollution or invest properly in public transport. <BR />Behind the tables and figures of these accounts and the buzzwords contained in the Minister's Budget document, this is the reality of the situation. <BR /> <BR />The economic model that favours a for-profit system is having a crippling effect on our society. In my constituency, the use of food banks has soared, and unemployment and welfare reform are killing people.”