Debate contribution: Social Services Vacancies: North Belfast and West Belfast

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
Adjournment
Heading
Social Services Vacancies: North Belfast and West Belfast
Assembly identifier
Official Report component 4582084

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I thank the Member for tabling the debate. The fact that the gap is 81 staff in North Belfast and West Belfast is pretty shocking. One gap is one too many, obviously. The fact that the gap is so large — close to 100 staff — shows that working-class communities in North Belfast and West Belfast are once again being failed, left behind and denied the services that they need to help them navigate the complexities and difficulties of life. I had not seen the answer to the Member's question for written answer beforehand, so I was shocked to hear those figures. Given that social workers are overloaded with work, it probably amounts to hundreds of children and young people who are not getting the services and the support that they should get and to which they are entitled. Again, one young person not getting access to services is one too many, but, if hundreds of young people in North Belfast and West Belfast are not getting access to them, that is really concerning and troubling and something on which we should all be focused. My concern is this: how many young people are falling through the cracks in the system? What is the knock-on effect on those who have been denied services, a social worker and support, with everything that that support entails? The Minister always talks about the importance of mental health: what is the knock-on impact on the mental health of young people, if they are denied services because of the high number of staff vacancies? Young people's development and that kind of stuff will be impacted on as well. I share the Member's concerns about a possible SAI, if one has not happened already. Given that gaping hole in the number of staff working with vulnerable people and given that, as I said, people are falling through the cracks, I am concerned about a potential scandal or SAI emerging down the line. That really should focus minds. As I said earlier, social workers have been out on strike over the past year and longer. I have stood with them in the Whiterock and Shankill areas. To repeat, they are in dispute with the trusts. They demand a recognition payment, a career pathway and a caseload ceiling. All of that is relevant to what we are talking about now. Some people feel that the sector is not appropriate for them, given the pressure that they are under. The Minister also needs to look at the domiciliary care sector and at the fact that so much domiciliary care is privately, not publicly, provided. People should not make money and profit from the provision of care. Finally, we need to tie the Budget into all of this. The Minister's party has raised points and concerns about the Budget not being appropriate. The Budget also does not meet the needs of working-class communities more generally. It exacerbates deprivation, which will lead to more people needing social workers and using the care and support sectors. We therefore need to talk about what the Budget does not do for social work and about the knock-on pressures and problems that it will create for North Belfast and West Belfast in particular.

538 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

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: 0.09 (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 (0.93).
  • No identity-based framing was identified (0.98).
  • 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

Probability that each statement is true of this text (0 = no, 1 = yes). A criterion counts as met at 0.60 or above.
QuestionProbabilityMet?
Identity framing0.07No
Sectarian or communal antagonism0.02No
Cultural grievance politics0.02No
Dog-whistle messaging0.03No
Controversy escalation0.03No
Legitimate policy scrutiny0.93Yes
Overall judgement0.09At or below not-flagging threshold
Context and attribution (stance)
OptionProbability
No identity-based framing (chosen)0.98
Reports or questions it0.00
Criticises or condemns it0.00
Adopts it0.02
Subject area (top five)
SubjectProbability
No identity-related subject0.46
Another identity-related subject0.18
Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits0.14
Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups0.11
Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations0.06

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:13 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.

Challenge this classification