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 79 of 83.
“I share the concerns of Amnesty International about the legislation. It states that the powers that are being granted to public health officials, constables and immigration officers are:”
“Neither spending five weeks on a universal credit waiting list nor receiving basic statutory pay is good enough. Rent freezes, mortgage freezes, a ban on evictions and freezing of utility bills are the real emergency powers that should be enacted. Instead of taking these steps, the Executive are quickly moving to emergency powers to simply force people indoors. <BR /> <BR />We in People Before Profit will happily back the progressive proposals in the Bill — for example, to recruit to the health service — but this legislation does not include real measures that would protect workers, the self-employed and the vulnerable, and this has been a problem all along. Indeed, much of this legislation seems to be aimed primarily at coercing people instead of providing the financial provisions to allow people to stay at home.”
“It simply boggles the mind. <BR /> <BR />Can the Minister tell me why the Executive have not moved to requisition private healthcare facilities and equipment into public use to resolve the shortages in the health service? As I am sure Members will know, a company outside Belfast is charging £120 for a testing kit and another in the South sells ventilators internationally, but we have shortages across this island. Where is the effort to take over production of personal protective equipment to make sure that our health service is properly protected? Profit should not trump public health at any time, but especially not at this time. <BR /> <BR />Finally, where are the wide-ranging financial measures to protect those who have lost their jobs or will be unable to support themselves because of this virus?”
“It is worth remembering that the Executive refused to close schools, despite the fact that all around us schools and workplaces were closing their doors in the interests of public health. They were miles ahead in taking action. It is also worth remembering that the Minister of Education snarled at me this day last week when I suggested that schools should be closed down. It has taken two weeks of public outrage, international criticism and pressure from NHS staff to get us to a more serious shutdown, and, still, not enough measures are in place to protect the vulnerable from COVID-19. <BR /> <BR />Can the Health Minister tell us why we are still refusing to test people in their hundreds and thousands? Drive-through testing centres are being set up in the South, but someone with two or more symptoms here cannot get a test.”
“I want to begin by sending my thoughts to everybody who has been forced to self-isolate, especially those people who do not have family or friends to call. My thoughts are with them at this time, and I extend my condolences to the families of those who have tragically lost their life as a result of this deadly and dangerous virus. <BR /> <BR />I am incredibly frustrated that, once again, the Executive have had to wait for Boris Johnson to act when international advice was to take action. Two weeks ago, the World Health Organization criticised Boris Johnson's do-nothing, herd-immunity approach. When Europe was dubbed the epicentre of the pandemic, Boris Johnson did not want to act, so the Executive did not.”
“Testing was referenced already. There is a perception in society that much more needs to be done to make testing more readily available to everybody and to roll it out much quicker and much more rapidly, especially to NHS workers, some of whom are off work because they are showing symptoms but might not have COVID-19. Have there been any discussions in the Executive about the requisition of private healthcare facilities to ensure that everything possible is being done to enable us to test quickly and that public health is coming before private profit?”
“As Members have said, we are in unprecedented and worrying and dangerous times. Will the Minister give some detail of the rationale to suspend non-jury inquests into deaths? Obviously, it is a very sensitive issue, but does it relate to complications and issues with the bodies or to social distancing in courts? If it is the latter, has any work been done to find alternative arrangements for juries?”
“There is a long way to go before we have measures in place to stop the serious misdealings that we saw in the RHI. Even then, I will not be in the least convinced that those running this place are interested in taking those measures on board. Where there are measures that attempt to make positive changes to the working of the Assembly, we will back them to ensure the fairest possible system for those who elect us to represent them, but, when a system is as fundamentally flawed as this, I am not convinced that any sticking plaster or tightening around the edges will go far enough to root out the rot at the heart of this place. I am happy to support the Bill's Second Stage.”
“I was unsurprised to learn that Conor Murphy made it so that Ministers can select whomever they want as their spad regardless of merit and without any prescribed process to ensure transparency, but I am left with no less of a bad taste in my mouth. 'New Decade, New Approach'? I do not think so.”
“I have so little faith in the two big parties of these institutions to lead the charge in ridding this place of backroom dealings and stitch-ups that I was unsurprised to learn that our new Finance Minister, in his first days in the role, had removed some of the measures that would ensure transparency around the hiring of a spad.”
“Ministers were supposed to oversee the activities of spads and civil servants and have a basic understanding of what was going on in their Departments, but they did not. There can be no doubt that if some of the measures in this legislation had been brought in before RHI, the scandal might have proceeded very differently. <BR /> <BR />We are told, or are led to believe, that all is to change; openness and transparency are now key and that sustainability has been written into the new deal. I, for one, am sceptical. I smell a rat.”
“This debate is particularly pertinent and important, given that we talked earlier today about the latest scandal to bring this place to its knees: the RHI scandal. In that, the roles of spads and their Ministers were heavily criticised and their actions deemed incompetent. <BR /> <BR />It is ludicrous, for example, that, during the whole RHI scandal, Arlene Foster was deemed accountable for the actions of her spads but not responsible. For too long, this place has been run behind closed doors by those who have no elected mandate, who do not have to state their agenda on the record, and who will not face the consequences of their actions, scandal after scandal, from Red Sky to RHI and many in between. <BR /> <BR />That is by no means to let Ministers off the hook.”
“I welcome the Minister's support for a stimulus package. She referenced an economic and financial crisis. Does she recognise that workers and vulnerable people were penalised in the last financial crisis? Does she agree that no workers, private or public, should be financially worse off? Does she support the measures that were introduced in Italy such as mortgage and rent suspensions?”
“Does the Minister not realise that some schools are already closed and that his Department is acting too slowly to deal with the crisis? The advice from across the globe is that early intervention works, and it needs to happen here as well.”
“<BR /> <BR />You should do the right thing, First Minister: hang your head and resign. Over the coming weeks, many will lose their income due to the coronavirus. What measures have the Executive put in place to protect them? Nowhere near enough to cover the costs of rent or bills. Those who, we were told, would not, any circumstances, be returned to office because of their role in RHI will feel no impact whatever. Lots of people, First Minister, have no faith in you in your current position, given what you were directly involved in. I join them today and call for you to step aside. You are in no position to lead through the public health crisis that the coronavirus presents to us. Step aside, and let someone else do the job.”
“<BR /> <BR />RHI was operating without a whimper whilst people were sent to food banks because welfare reform was leaving them with nothing to put on the table. That is what the scandal was about: the double standards and hypocrisy at the heart of the Executive. There appears to be no criminal charges or jail time for Arlene Foster, despite raking up a bill of £600 million to £700 million of public money. Others face jail time for not paying TV licences or for rent or debt difficulties. If a public sector worker were found to be wasting a fraction of the money involved in this, they would lose their job. No doubt, the DUP would be banging the table, calling for tougher sentencing, yet Arlene Foster remains. It seems that their tough stance on law, order and wrongdoing does not apply to their party leader.”
“Whatever the intent of Patrick Coghlin, essentially, the conclusions and recommendations of the report whitewash the role of the Stormont elite in signing off on and lobbying to retain the scheme, which, by any standard, was an abuse of power and a colossal waste of public money at a time when many people were suffering. The report points to a multiplicity of errors and omissions as if they were random mistakes and not a clear pattern from day one that illustrated the abuse of power, patronage and the courting of big businesses by the DUP. What is certain is that the scheme was designed to financially benefit people who did not need it, and that has been the problem with Stormont for far too long. Policies have been designed and decisions made to benefit the most well off.”
“Surely, that was one of the most expensive fortnights on this hill. Let us not forget that the current Finance Minister and the previous Finance Minister both publicly claimed credit for keeping the scheme open at massive cost to the taxpayer. Arlene Foster and her party, of course, were not the only ones responsible, as the inquiry exposed. Sinn Féin MLAs played their role in promoting and keeping the scheme open long after the damaging impact was known. <BR /> <BR />That brings me to the report itself. In my view, it wrongly rejects what Sam McBride deems "a culture of corruption" at Stormont.”
“How often were healthcare workers told that pay parity could not be implemented because of funding limits? All the while, a few were encouraged to burn public money. RHI clearly illustrated the favoured approach that some in the Chamber offer to the likes of Moy Park, a hugely profitable company. One official even had the gall to admit about Moy Park that smaller firms were "not getting the same chance" — clear as day. Indeed, after getting a tip-off that the scheme was to close, private companies started to stockpile RHI boilers because the scheme was such a financial gold mine. Some shipped boilers in from Austria because they had vanished locally, and there were new applications aplenty. <BR /> <BR />The decision to keep the scheme open for a further two weeks saw a total of £91 million spent.”
“Three years ago, most people were unfamiliar with the details of the RHI scheme, but we quickly realised that it was synonymous with cronyism. It was a slush fund whereby elements of the business community were invited to burn taxpayers' money for profit. It is disappointing that, after three years and some £14 million spent, the report seems to have pulled its punches when it comes to laying the blame on the politicians in the Chamber and on Arlene Foster in particular. This is deeper than how the First Minister or her spads operated: the whole debacle exposes the cavalier attitude towards public spending that governs this place, as well as the close relationships with big businesses and corporations. <BR /> <BR />How many times have working people been told to tighten their belt?”
“I will not, because there is plenty of time. <BR /> <BR />People will, rightly, be furious, especially when, not two months ago, half of the Chamber was tweeting that they would be donating their surplus to charity. What they may not have realised is that many will take the extra pay increase year after year. <BR /> <BR />As I said before, the MLA salary is double the average wage for workers here. People Before Profit believes that elected representatives should be on the average workers' wage and that approving this pay rise increases the financial cushion that MLAs have over the rest of the public. For that reason, I will not be supporting this budget, and I call on those who have said they would reject the pay bump to do the same.”
“Yet here, today, we are being asked to agree a £1,000 pay increase for MLAs — a pay bump that People Before Profit rejected from the outset, and that every other party eventually agreed should not be accepted, when the media came knocking with public outrage. Imagine that: no emergency fund for workers on zero-hours contracts or small business owners, but approval to give MLAs an extra £1,000.”
“Many people are faced with a situation in which they will have to self-isolate to stop the spread of the dangerous coronavirus. They are doing so to ensure that the virus does not affect or immunocompromise friends and family and that our elderly loved ones are not impacted or killed by this virus, as has been the case in other countries. <BR /> <BR />Over the weekend, many workers contacted me. They are unsure of how they are going to fare with being isolated for weeks, or longer. They are asking me to clarify whether they will be able to pay their mortgage and have a job at the end of all this.”
“I urge those Executive members responsible for childcare to reach out and work closely with groups such as the Women's Resource and Development Agency and Employers For Childcare, which are leading the Childcare for All campaign.”
“It would also tackle gender employment inequality and wider societal issues by removing the double burden on women and ensuring that the state take on a responsibility that it has shirked for far too long, which is to provide care for those who need it, at the earliest, the latest and the more difficult points of their life. <BR /> <BR />I support the motion today to implement 30 hours of childcare, but it is too restrictive. It will not alleviate the wider societal issues around childcare. For us, it is very much an intermediary step towards the establishment of a national childcare agency to provide childcare for all who need it.”
“It means giving childcare workers a living wage, proper terms and conditions, and access to training. It means provision not being restricted to a very limited child age range. <BR /> <BR />We need to see flexible childcare that suits the needs of workers on all kinds of contracts. It needs to be moved into the public sphere so that it can work hand in hand with our Education Department and gender strategies. The benefits of that kind of universal childcare system — free at the point of access — would not just be economic benefits, allowing many more parents to get upskilled and into the workforce, or educational benefits for children.”
“We hear a lot in the Chamber about the need for a skilled workforce, and we should recognise that childcare costs actively keep parents out of education. Ultimately, we in People Before Profit want to see a national childcare agency that provides free childcare to parents who need it so that they can fully participate in society. As has been highlighted by the Childcare for All campaign, childcare should be child-centred and meet the needs of not just parents but childcare workers and providers. That means the provision of free childcare that is of a high quality and that meets educational and development needs in a safe, nurturing environment. It must guarantee that no child experiences poverty as a result of their parents' inability to access the workforce or cover the high costs of childcare.”
“For that reason, we support the immediate provision of 30 hours of free childcare, as the motion calls for, but we recognise, as others do, that that does not go far enough. The provision of free childcare only when a child reaches the age of three and for only 38 weeks is restrictive at best. It does not address the impact on parents of children aged two and under, which, as we know, is when the motherhood gap begins. With some of the highest childcare costs in the world and very restrictive paternity leave, it is women who are often forced to stay at home here. <BR /> <BR />Childcare should be offered not only in circumstances in which parents want to stay in work but in circumstances in which they want to return to education or training.”
“It is worth highlighting the fact that 91% of single parents with dependent children are mothers. Although women make up much more of the workforce than ever before, childcare remains a barrier for far too many. It is primarily women who work as childcare providers, as we have heard. <BR /> <BR />The theme is not isolated to childcare. Unpaid domestic work is carried out predominantly by women to the benefit of the state, which does not have to pay for it, whether that is caring for children, sick relatives or the elderly. It is very important that we treat the issue as not simply an educational or economic one but a gendered one. That means ensuring that we do not add to the systemic barriers that keep mothers out of work, education or training.”
“I am glad to have the opportunity to speak about such an important issue. The issues associated with childcare, from lack of access to cost, present a huge barrier in society for parents, predominantly women and particularly those in poverty or those who come from a minority background.”
“The Minister will probably be aware of tax evasion and avoidance to the tune of at least tens of billions of pounds every year. Does he agree that closing the loophole and tackling tax evasion and avoidance would, potentially, allow more money to be invested in our public services?”
“I thank the Minister for his answer. His party has championed tax harmonisation across the island for a number of years now. Given that he has abandoned plans to reduce corporation tax in the North, does he now support an increase in corporation tax in the South in order to harmonise the rate North and South?”
“Our young people are under massive pressure to study, work hard and go through exam after exam. It has a massive impact on their mental health. Surely, we can move towards a different kind of education system, one that does not see education simply through the prism of how many A or A* grades young people get but supports their nurturing and development. <BR /> <BR />I encourage Members to support my amendment.”
“Sorry, I will continue. It is deeply troubling that people are educated separately on the basis of their religion. There was discussion about the Irish language sector during the debate. The point has to be made that Irish language education is important in our society. It contributes a lot and has an important role to play. My constituency is the fastest growing urban Gaeltacht. Those schools should be supported and, if they so wish, expanded. Irish-medium education is not the bogeyman or the reason why our schools are underfunded, not to mention the wealth of research that backs up the benefits of dual or multilingual education. <BR /> <BR />I support Rachel Woods's comments about the need to move away from an education system based on academic selection and exams generally.”
“I will not, sorry. I only have a few minutes. Sorry, who was that? Ms Mullan?”
“I thank the Minister for his intervention. That may be the case, but there is no disputing the fact that efficiency has been used for 10 years to reduce budgets and the money that goes to education. That is something that he made a passing reference to. <BR /> <BR />There was some discussion about the future design and make-up of our education system, particularly integrated education. We in People Before Profit support and welcome an integrated education system. Ultimately, it should be secular.”
“For me and our party, that is worrying, and, to many outside this Building, it is code for a reduction in services, cutbacks and closures and no increase in funding. Again, the reason I tabled the amendment was to challenge those points. <BR /> <BR />The Minister recognised the lack of spending and the decrease in spending per head of population. He gave a figure of several hundred million pounds as the real-term reduction in education funding over the last few years.”
“It would send out a strong message if we could do that today. For that reason, I appeal to Members to accept amendment No 2 in my name and not amendment No 1. A clear message should go out that we recognise the important work done by our teachers and education workers. Their contribution to society is invaluable. In recognising that, we should support a fair pay resolution for them. <BR /> <BR />The main reason that I tabled my amendment was to remove the part of the motion that mentioned "efficiency". The Minister referred to people having different definitions of efficiency, but some of the comments made by Members reaffirmed my suspicions, fears and worries and my reason for tabling the amendment. We heard talk of the need to take tough and hard decisions and reduce wastage.”
“It was a pretty wide-ranging debate on our education system, and lots of important points and issues were raised. I will try to refer to as many of them as I can in respect to my amendment. <BR /> <BR />There seemed to be some unanimity in recognising the important work done by our teachers and education staff. I welcome that and am sure that many teachers, education workers, their unions and so forth will also welcome that. I suppose that many of them will also ask why it has taken so long to resolve their pay disputes — so many years now. I very much doubt that many teachers or education workers pay close attention to the detail of amendments in Stormont, but would it not send a strong message to them if an amendment was accepted that stated that we support them in resolving their pay dispute?”
“While no one would disagree with the idea of more-efficient spending, we want to make sure that it is not code for cuts. I want to ensure that, if the Assembly agrees the motion today about running our schools efficiently, inclusively and with higher standards, it is because we are investing in the sector properly and where it is needed, rather than making harmful and dangerous cuts. To that end, I have tabled an amendment that argues for an expansion of public funding to support the delivery costs identified by the review and to address pay disputes in teaching unions and other education sectors.”
“Too often, the strategy for dealing with educational underfunding by the Assembly has very much been inside the austerity, neo-liberal framework of economics. Too often, discussions about solving the problem in our education system push for a reduction in schools or services. Indeed, as has been mentioned, one recent consultation on our special needs schools proposed that the majority of them should be closed through a process of amalgamation. That was a shocking proposal that was met by mass opposition from parents, pupils, activists and trade unionists. I was proud to play a leading role in that campaign and to show how it shone a light on how the language of efficiency can often be used to push through cuts and closures to schools. <BR /> <BR />The term "efficiency costs" immediately rings alarm bells with me.”
“Unless that is tackled, we will jump from one crisis to the next, not least with the outstanding issues of pay for teachers and other education workers. In that sense, while I welcome the motion, I have provided an amendment that I hope the proposers of the motion will accept. <BR /> <BR />At a government level, it is very clear that if we are to have any hope of creating efficiency in the sector, we have to see an injection of funding into our education system. I am not the only one saying such a thing. For example, I note that the NI Affairs Committee at Westminster pressed for an injection of funding to tackle the underspend in our education system, and I agree with that. I hope that other parties will agree to make that a key priority going forward. That is why I have tabled an amendment.”
“Integrated education represents one of the best ways that we can move beyond the communalism that we should leave in the past. It is unacceptable that schools and teachers are relying on donations for everything from basic stationery to toilet paper. It is also unacceptable that we have situations in which special needs schools have to self-fundraise to cover the cost of essential equipment for pupil support. <BR /> <BR />The situation in which our education system has been chronically underfunded and does not meet the required needs has existed for far too long. For example, while pupil numbers have risen across the board by some 2·5% since 2011, spending per head has decreased. In addition, budgets have been slashed year-on-year.”
“<BR /> <BR />Clearly, the sector is under massive pressure, whether because of larger class sizes, fewer classroom assistants, children unable to get statemented or teachers telling us that they simply cannot take on any more. The impact is felt by students and staff alike. There can be no doubt that cuts and budget restrictions have played a fundamental role in those issues. <BR /> <BR />I hope that we can all agree that it is unacceptable that children are going without the special assistance that they require. It is unacceptable that dedicated teachers have been forced to take industrial action for the pay rises that their colleagues across the water have received. It is also unacceptable — although I expect that not everybody in the House will agree — that young people are being educated separately, based on their religion.”
“I welcome the debate and thank the Members for tabling it. I also thank the Member who spoke previously for her support of amendment No 2. <BR /> <BR />The future of our education system seems to be on everyone's lips at the minute, and for good reason. It is clear that changes could be made to ensure that we are providing the best education service possible, not only for our young people and their educational needs but to ensure that our teachers can enjoy a decent quality of life, being paid properly for the invaluable work that they do and not being relied on to fill gaps caused by budget cuts or dealing with unmanageable workloads.”
“I thank the Minister for his statement. Does he have any plans to ensure that hand sanitisers are installed in all public buildings and spaces to prevent person-to-person transmission? Will he look specifically at public buildings that are more likely to contain people with immunodeficiency disorders, such as personal independence payment assessment centres, including Capita buildings?”
“That partners and parents who are not married cannot receive the payment has been legally proven to be incompatible with human rights. How, then, can the Minister expect us to support this system? To vote for this, as far as I can see, would be to endorse Tory austerity, approve human rights violations through the Chamber and send out a message to the recently bereaved that we do not think that they should get the financial support that they deserve. <BR /> <BR />I call on Members to vote against the motion, and I call on the Minister for Communities to bring forward urgent legislation that will introduce our own bereavement payment scheme to ensure that no parent or partner is left without support and to reintroduce those aspects of the previous system that were brutally cut out by the Tories.”
“The Childhood Bereavement Network estimates that 91% of widowed parents will be supported for a shorter period and claims that the latest DWP figures show that 75% of bereaved families will be worse off in cash terms under the new scheme. Worse still, because the new bereavement support payment will not rise in line with inflation, the support will lose value over time as the cost of a funeral or the cost of bringing up a child increases. <BR /> <BR />As the cost of living rises, we should be looking at how we can provide additional support to vulnerable people, not how to make savings at their expense. That is not even to mention the High Court case, as mentioned previously, which challenged the blatant disregard for human rights that this payment system upholds.”
“<BR /> <BR />Just a few weeks ago, as I sat in a Unite community branch educational session, I heard about the devastating impact that these changes have already had on people. Last week and today, I spoke to benefits advisers. They told me that the system is a disgrace and that it should be scrapped and replaced by something that provides for people in their time of need. It is astounding to me, then, that the Minister for Communities would ask us to introduce a blatant tool of Tory austerity. <BR /> <BR />This new system leaves some recipients, including widowed parents, up to £12,000 worse off, and bereaved parents will lose out on financial support in the long term. Widowed parents with young children are hardest hit.”
“I am very concerned that the motion, if successful, will introduce Tory austerity through the back door. The bereavement support system that we are voting on today was designed by the Tory-led Department for Work and Pensions, and its motive was clear. A Department statement championed the fact that it could save up to £40 million a year. Let us consider for a moment a system designed to take money from vulnerable, grieving families to make savings for the Government. That is exactly the kind of logic behind the brutal welfare reform system that the Assembly voted for on the Tories' behalf. It is exactly the kind of rotten Tory austerity that we have heard decried in the Chamber over the past few weeks.”