Debate contribution: Administrative and Financial Provisions Bill: Consideration Stage
Debate contribution by Mr Gerry Carroll on .
- MLA
- Mr Gerry Carroll
- Party at the time
- People Before Profit Alliance
- Date
- 20 April 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Executive Committee Business
- Heading
- Administrative and Financial Provisions Bill: Consideration Stage
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5493945
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I will be brief. I will speak to amendment Nos 2 and 3, which relate to clause 17. I raise my concern and opposition to that aspect of the Bill, as I have consistently done throughout the Committee Stage. As has been discussed, the proposal gives the Department the power to set a fee for issuing or replacing SmartPasses. My concern, as I have stated already, is that charging a fee for a service that should be free is a wrong policy. It is about revenue raising, as we were told at the Finance Committee a few months ago. I am also concerned that it is likely to be passed as the Bill commands the support of the House in the weeks ahead towards the Final Stage. I am concerned that there will be nothing to stop the Department, save for a proposal through the House, from increasing the cost of the SmartPass fee. It is worth noting that the Law Centre has stated that a payment to register for the SmartPass would create a barrier, particularly for people on low incomes, to accessing it. That is bad policy. It is also worth mentioning that the majority of responses to the DFI consultation on paying a fee for a SmartPass opposed any fee being levied. There is a question as to how the Department for Infrastructure and the Department of Finance can stand over that proposal. My concern is that fewer people will apply for the SmartPass, which may be the intended consequence of the clause. A figure of £12 is being bandied about by the Department as the cost of a SmartPass. I am concerned that, when departmental officials last appeared before the Committee, it appeared that no work had been done to determine whether, if the number of people who were applying for a SmartPass were to drop, the SmartPass fee would go up. For talk's sake, let us say that 100,000 people applied for it last year at a cost of £12: if 50,000 people apply for it the year after that, will the cost go up to £24 or more? That has not been worked out by the Department. The Department for Infrastructure officials who presented to the Finance Committee talked about people living longer. For the most part, that is the case, but people in my constituency of West Belfast and elsewhere are dying 10 and 12 years younger than people in the wealthier parts of Belfast and across the North. That needs to be factored into the Department for Infrastructure's policy considerations, because I do not believe that it has been to date.
439 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: 0.06 (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).
- 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 | 0.05 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.03 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.96 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.06 | 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 |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.51 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.23 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.17 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.06 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.03 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:26 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.