Debate contribution: Children’s Social Care Services
Debate contribution by Mr Gerry Carroll on .
- MLA
- Mr Gerry Carroll
- Party at the time
- People Before Profit Alliance
- Date
- 8 October 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Committee Business
- Heading
- Children’s Social Care Services
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4581624
Read the official Assembly record
Text
The Chair of the Health Committee mentioned that services for children and young people are overwhelmed. A more accurate description, as it was described to me in recent days, is that the services are in complete meltdown. Obviously, staff are working as hard as they can, but they are effectively trying to move water in a bucket full of holes. It is worth saying that there are many holes and problems in the current system and that has an impact on children, looked-after children and young people in particular. If we cannot ensure that those people receive the support and protection that they so rightly deserve, what chance does everyone else have across our society? It is also worth mentioning in the debate that it is pertinent that social workers have been and are still in dispute with several health trusts across the North. Let us just think about that for a second. The people whose job it is to support and protect looked-after children have had to take strike action and other industrial action because of the state of the sector and the lack of support for those who work in it and for young people. The workers and their unions have three main demands: a recognition payment for the work that they do; a career pathway for people in the sector; and an effective caseload ceiling, so that people are not covering a ridiculous number of cases.
I urge the Health Minister and his Department, along with the Executive, to cede to and implement those demands, otherwise the Minister, his Department and the Executive will oversee the further decline of those essential services.
How many more unallocated cases are too many — 100, 200, 300, 1,000? Are those numbers acceptable to the Minister or any Member in the House? We are talking about young people without a social worker. Who is measuring the impact on that young person? Those are valid and pertinent questions. To make an obvious point, there is no social work without social workers, so it is time that their conditions were sorted out. It is my understanding that talks between the trusts and the unions have broken down because of the attitude and approach of upper management. If that is indeed the case, a new attitude and a new approach towards social workers and their unions is needed. The Treasury economics of obsessing about financial prudence needs to go completely out the window, especially when we are talking about supporting young people and protecting them from harm. That is what we are talking about: supporting young people and protecting them from harm. It is also about giving people who have had a difficult and challenging start in life another chance and a better shot. There should not be an attempt — it has been alluded to in the debate — to, through further processes, sneak privatisation or payment in through the back door or the front door, as the 'Power to People' report attempts to. I have to mention, as has already been referred to, that there are no specialist facilities for children with severe disabilities and no respite services. Not only is that cruel, unfair and difficult for families and young people, but it is penny wise and pound foolish. Again, who is measuring the impact on families, young people and carers? It would be unwise not to mention the fact that a pre-determining factor in whether someone is likely to need care or come into the care system is economic class. Those who cannot afford the essentials of life, who are ground down by exorbitant costs effected by a system that historically has huge levels of wealth but so much misery and difficulty, are more likely to be affected and impacted on by the care system. If we are not looking at that simultaneously, we are missing the bigger picture in this debate.
651 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: 0.04 (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 (0.96).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- Subject area: Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits.
- 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 | 0.04 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.03 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.04 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.96 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.04 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 1.00 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.84 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.09 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.03 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.03 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:12 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.