Debate contribution: Public Finances
Debate contribution by Mr Gerry Carroll on .
- MLA
- Mr Gerry Carroll
- Party at the time
- People Before Profit Alliance
- Date
- 6 February 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Public Finances
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4256055
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I support the motion and the amendment. There are certainly some points raised in the motion and the letter that we welcome, such as the issue of public-sector pay awards. I repeat that workers here have been underpaid for more than a decade. There has been divergence between pay for workers here compared with workers in Britain, but I note that there was no Assembly collapse from the DUP for those workers. For too long, workers have been asked to stomach unacceptable wages. They did the correct thing by taking strike action in unprecedented numbers on 17 January. Some 170,000 public-sector workers downed tools and took strike action. They were right to do so, and they put significant pressure on the DUP to get back to work and on the British Government, who control the purse strings.
Our message to those workers is this: if the new Executive, amidst all the sparkle and the pomp, do not award workers satisfactory pay, you must strike again, and you will have widespread support across the board if you do. No longer can it be acceptable that we have substandard pay while workers knock their pan in. No longer is it acceptable for services to be run on a shoestring budget and for people not to know whether they will have a service from one year to the next.
There is a lot missing from that letter, which does not ease the fear that exists in our communities. We know that, a few months ago, the Secretary of State launched an attack wish list on people and communities here that he passed to Departments to consult on. It included water charges, prescription charges, higher university fees, abolishing free travel for people over 60 and more. New Ministers and the Executive must make their intent clear on those issues. I hope that they make the correct decision, but their track record on policy positions does not leave room for a lot of hope. People must be ready to take it to the Executive if they proceed with those cruel and anti-working-class policies. When it comes to an overspend, which is mentioned in our amendment, I will remind people that the Executive had no problem overspending when it came to providing money to private healthcare providers, and there was no problem breaking the bank for the renewable heat incentive — hundreds of millions of pounds of public money up in smoke. We know that parties here have previously angled to cut corporation tax, which would take hundreds of millions of pounds out of the economy and public services. In addition, there is not one shred of evidence that that would bring a single job here. It was concerning to hear Mr Aiken's endorsement of that proposal. The plan is Thatcherism on steroids: cut the profits of bulging, profitable corporations while throwing hundreds of millions of pounds down the drain — economic and political madness. We further reject the idea that there is a begging bowl when we demand what people here need from the Tories. The money from London that was pulled out of here needs to be returned immediately. Executive parties must decide whether they will stand up to the Tories or simply do their dirty work. The amendment that I submitted, which, unfortunately, was not selected, would have committed the Assembly to rejecting harsh austerity measures, such as water charges, and to protecting working-class people, who are already struggling to make ends meet. It further called on Stormont to work to a managed overspend, if necessary, in order to deliver public services and to give public-sector workers a proper pay rise. Those who continually repeat the lie that the money does not exist need to be challenged and called out. We know that the Tories gave corporations £11 billion in tax cuts in their autumn statement, yet the well-being of people in the North was worth only £3·3 billion. Stormont can, and should, overspend if necessary and challenge the Tories to sort out the deficit. If Stormont will not stand up for communities, ordinary people need to be ready to challenge it. The Executive should be looking over their shoulders at striking public-sector workers and others before doing the Tories' bidding. Further figures show that Danske Bank's profits went up by 80% in the North last year. Profits have risen, but so, too, have people's mortgages. There is no relief for struggling people, while corporate profits boom. It gets worse for ordinary folk. The North's biggest businesses saw their sales soar by almost 17% in the past year, despite a cost-of-living crisis. 'Ulster Business' magazine's list of the top 100 companies showed that revenues grew by over £30·7 billion. There is a lot of money around the North. Let us get it and put it in the pockets of the people who need it.
811 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not flagged”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.08 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.92).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.97).
- The overall probability was at or below the not-flagging threshold.
This is an AI-generated assessment of the text, made against published criteria. It is not a finding of fact about the MLA or their intentions. The Assembly record itself is the fact.
Jev’s structured answers
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.09 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.06 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.14 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.04 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.92 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.08 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.97 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.03 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.76 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.14 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.04 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.03 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.02 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 09:35 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.
Disagree with this assessment?
Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.