Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): Hello, Gerry.

Mr Carroll: Hi, Chair.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): Apologies, the last session ran on slightly —

Mr Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit): No problem. Thanks for having me.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): — but we are keen to hear your evidence. I will give you 10 minutes, but you do not have to take up that whole 10 minutes. Then we will come to questions. I am keen to give all members an opportunity to ask questions. It is over to you.

Mr Carroll: Thanks, Chair. Thanks to the Committee for the invitation and for allowing me to be here. I am here as a People Before Profit (PBP) MLA for West Belfast. I hope that Committee members have had a chance to look at the written submission that we sent in last week.

The terms of reference for the Committee's review are to examine institutional reforms that can:

I will make a general point. When we ask whether this place is functioning, we should ask whether the person who has been waiting for years for a hip replacement gets it, whether the family in temporary accommodation has any chance of getting a permanent home and whether a worker here has the same rights as a worker doing the same job in the South or in Britain. On the basis of that test, the institutions have not been functioning for a long time, and that is to put it mildly. The reforms that my party and I suggest are about removing the mechanisms that stop the Assembly acting.

On the subject of designations, when I took my seat, I, like others, was required to declare myself to be a unionist, a nationalist or an "other". I find that offensive, because my politics are socialist. Other people are liberal or unionist or nationalist. I should not be castigated and derided as an "other". That is offensive and needs to change. In practice, that means that, on any question that is decided by cross-community vote, such as the Budget, exclusionary motions, motions on the Justice Minister, my votes — those of my party and the people we represent across the North — are, effectively, worth less than the votes of unionist or nationalist parties and Members who choose or who have that label. I ask Committee members to consider how that can be defended in 2026.

The number of Members who do not designate as unionist or nationalist has grown at every election. It has gone up by, I think, 10% since 1998. The increase was evidenced by the growth of the Alliance Party at the most recent election. The census tells us clearly that society looks fundamentally different from it did in 1998 in an array of ways but especially in that unionism/nationalism binary, yet the system continues to instruct every one of us to effectively say, on the day, which camp or tribe we are in. There is no such requirement in Scotland or Wales. Nobody has seriously argued that the absence of designation in Edinburgh or Cardiff has produced discrimination or instability; it is unique to us. It is a relic. A lot of people would agree with that. My first proposal is pretty straightforward: one MLA should have one vote, and we should abolish communal designations and let every Member's vote count the same.

Committee members are aware that the Ministers, Elections and Petitions of Concern Act 2022 narrowed the use of the petition of concern. Those changes were necessary, and I do not dismiss them. Ultimately, however, they just narrowed a veto that should not exist at all. A mechanism in section 42 of the 1998 Act allows a minority of Members to block legislation that commands majority support in the Chamber. That cannot be stood over any longer. The record of how the petition of concern was used before the reforms is mostly one of blocking social progress, including the blocking of marriage equality, rather than of protecting a community from discrimination or harm. The petition of concern should be abolished outright. If Members are concerned about protection for minorities, that protection belongs in enforceable equality and human rights legislation to be adjudicated on by courts, rather than in using a procedural veto.

The Assembly has been down for years at a time at different stages. Each of the two largest parties has brought it down, and, each time, the people I represent went for years without decisions being taken on health, housing and education. To be clear, Chair, our party is not saying that parties should never leave government. There are things worth leaving government over. If a party were to walk out because Irish language rights or workers' rights were being blocked or trampled on or because a Minister was refusing to properly fund the health service, I would defend their right to leave government, and, in many cases, my party would argue for it. The right to withdraw from a Government who cannot be defended is a democratic right that we should protect. The problem is not parties walking out but that, under a mandatory coalition, when one party walks out, everything falls. Voluntary coalition should be considered as an answer to that.

An Executive should be formed by parties that can agree a Programme for Government between them and command a majority in the Chamber, as happens in most parliaments in Europe and across the world. In such a case, if a party leaves, the Executive will carry on, so long as they still hold a majority. If they do not hold a majority, the Assembly forms another Executive or the matter goes back to the electorate. I know that some Members will raise the objection that, historically, mandatory coalition existed so that one community could not be locked out — it was created for that reason — but protection from exclusion belongs, as I said, in enforceable equality and human rights law and in the judgement of voters, not in the guarantee of ministerial power. Whatever the intention, the current arrangement clearly has not delivered inclusion.

The Speaker should be elected by a simple majority, as is the case in other devolved legislatures. The current requirement for cross-community support through either parallel consent or a weighted majority effectively hands the largest parties a lock on the Speaker's Chair.

I make the next point, on the allocation of Assembly time, from the experience of a smaller party. The situation has improved somewhat in the current mandate, but speaking time, private Members' Bills (PMBs) slots and Committee business are effectively a carve-up between the two big parties at present. My private Member's Bill, which was to cut rents and ban no-fault evictions, was shelved. That happened in no small part because Executive parties flooded the system with their Bills — many of which I support — instead of bringing them through the Executive. I have been an MLA for 10 years and have had one Bill debated on the Floor of the Assembly. That is disgraceful. I would guess that other smaller parties and independent Members would say something similar. It is not just that it is an inconvenience to me personally; in the case of my housing Bill, it is about a constituency of over 100,000 people not being heard. We want a transparent and fair allocation of time and resources that acknowledges the position of smaller parties and independents that do not have big party machinery behind them.

On conflicts of interest, Members who have a financial interest in a sector should declare that and recuse themselves from votes on matters relating to it. Landlords voting on housing legislation is an obvious example and is rife throughout the Building. That should come with a right of recall if constituents are unhappy with Members not declaring that or being in breach of the rule. Public confidence in the institutions is part of their stability, and, to put it mildly, it is not high.

Much of participatory democracy discussion in Ireland generally, maybe more so in the South, has focused on citizens' assemblies, whereby a randomly selected group deliberates on issues and produces recommendations, and the Government do what they want to with those recommendations. We need to look at a more participatory form of democracy, with more substance behind it. We need to look at having permanent structures and funding structures in communities and workplaces, giving people a say on how budgets are allocated and real power over local services — a direct say for workers and trade unions. We should really think outside the box and have a radical form of democracy. That may sound abstract, Chair, but we saw, when we faced a third summer of racist violence on our streets, that the response that actually protected people came from the communities themselves, not the Executive or Stormont. That capacity for grassroots democracy in organised communities already exists, and institutions should support and resource it.

I will conclude on the subject of powers. I recognise that that sits at the edge of the Committee review's terms of reference, but "functioning" is also about whether an institution has the tools and the finance to act. Devolution has too few economic levers; fewer than Scotland. An Assembly with no meaningful power to raise revenue from wealth and corporations is an Assembly that is permanently managing Westminster's cuts. Our submission also sets out our position on all-island health service provision and the delivery of language rights.

Our party would support measures — modest measures and more radical and transformative measures — that open up these institutions, but we are not solely interested in the smoother, more efficient administration of the same failures. Reform is just a means; the end goal should be a society where people are housed, are paid properly and have access to high-quality healthcare and education. That is the standard by which people should judge the Assembly.

I am happy to take questions, Chair. Thank you.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): Thank you. I encourage questions and answers being kept as succinct as possible so that we have fairness and everybody can get to their question.

I will pick up on what you said towards the end of your presentation on an all-island health service and full delivery of language rights. Should reform be weaponised just to advance what I and others believe are and what could be construed to be constitutional and party political gains and a wish list?

Mr Carroll: The way in which the Assembly functions has been used to block progressive rights. Your party and other parties have used the petition of concern to block rights when it has come to votes on whether Ministers should be in or out of office, regardless of whether the public or the Assembly have confidence in them.

I challenge the use of the word "weaponised": if that word is being used with regard to my call for on all-island health service and language rights, I would push the accusation and charge back to your party and other parties. The Assembly is in need of reform: that is why you are discussing reform and parties are coming out in support of it. I do not agree with the use of the word "weaponised".

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): It could be construed as that, because you are outlining what you want to see as the end goal of reform rather than how you want to achieve it.

I will move on. You want to end community designations, introduce simple majority and scrap the petition of concern: since when has People Before Profit's policy been majority rule?

Mr Carroll: Majority votes, yes. Things should be decided by a majority in the House. Obviously, unionism has decreased in size. Part of the problem is that unionism has gone down a path of trying to pretend that it is some sort of oppressed minority: it is not. Unionism is not in need of the protections that were considered or discussed for some of the nationalist community because of the discrimination against it since the foundation of the state. Majority votes should be in place. Things should be decided by a simple majority rather than one party being allowed to block progress because it does not like it.

Ms Ní Chuilín: Thanks to Gerry and Rebekah. I want to go back to private Members' Bills and your desire for reform in that area. You said that it was a lot better now than it has been. To be clear, what do you want us to accept? Do you think that d'Hondt should not be used when MLAs want to introduce PMBs? What other form of selection do you suggest?

Mr Carroll: I do not know whether the Committee has looked at it in detail, but the current system is not working, Carál. I have spoken about the lack of Bills that I have had, and it is not just me but other independents and smaller parties. There is a ballot system in the Dáil, for example, where names are taken out of a hat or a box and allocations are made on that basis, like happens with Assembly questions. That should be considered.

We are open to any policy that recognises that, on many occasions, it is harder for smaller parties to speak. The speaking system has changed a lot. Members will know what it was like for me and colleagues in previous mandates. As MLAs will know, if you intend to speak in a debate, you often meet organisations and prepare notes, which takes a lot of time. We were doing that, but we were being timed out towards the end of the debates and did not get to speak. The situation is better in this mandate, but, in previous mandates, it was down to the discretion of whomever was in the Speaker's Chair. Obviously, that did not work.

I turn to PMBs. Bigger parties, such as yours, have a bigger mandate than mine. We are not naive to that. Your party and other parties in the Executive have an avenue by which to bring legislation through the Executive, and there have been all the problems there with blockages. We do not have the same mechanism, so we need to look at reforming the PMB system and having a ballot system or something like that.

Ms Ní Chuilín: So you are not ignoring the fact that the d'Hondt system is a reflection of a democratic process. Do you want something in between?

Mr Carroll: Just to clarify, I think that the Dáil has two systems.

Ms Ní Chuilín: It has.

Mr Carroll: There is the ballot system and a system based on size. Perhaps that could be explored. I have not looked at the detail, but the Committee might be able to look at how that works in practice. Such a system might be more reflective. Bigger parties —.

Ms Ní Chuilín: It is the same as with questions here: it is done by random selection. However, the rest of the Dáil's stuff is done by d'Hondt, which is the same as the process here, albeit that it looks different.

Gerry, the other issue that I want to talk to you about is the all-Ireland approach to health. Your party is fairly silent on Irish unity. Is it just the health system that you want unified? What other aspects —?

Mr Carroll: How can you say that we are silent on all-Ireland unity, Carál?

Ms Ní Chuilín: It is not mentioned here.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): I have to be fair: we are looking at reform, rather than party political —.

Ms Ní Chuilín: Absolutely, but just —.

Mr Carroll: I am happy to talk about both.

Ms Ní Chuilín: You have just picked out health as an example.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): To be fair, we do not have time to get into party political debates.

Mr Carroll: Just quickly: James Connolly's socialist party wants a border poll. I do not know how that can be misconstrued. The submission does not contain our whole manifesto. If the Chair will let me go through the manifesto — the bits that I can remember — I will.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): I am happy to move on.

Mr Carroll: OK.

Ms Ní Chuilín: Other people were able to come in and cite manifestos. I was only asking, Gerry; I was not trying to be clever. You know me well enough. I would be interested to know what other aspects of an all-island approach, particularly around reform, you think would have a better outcome for citizens and reflect the democratic process. That is all I was asking.

If a motion were put forward today to reform how a Speaker is elected on the return of the next mandate, with that being by a majority, would you support it?

Mr Carroll: I have not seen such a motion. If a Speaker were to be elected by a majority, would I support that?

Ms Ní Chuilín: Yes.

Mr Carroll: Probably.

Ms Ní Chuilín: Fair enough.

Mr O'Toole: We should all learn from the Principal Deputy Speaker and have short questions and answers. I have a couple of questions, Gerry. Thank you for your submission.

I agree with you on designation: it feels outdated now, given how society is changing. I understand that, obviously, it is frustrating for PBP and the Alliance Party. Fixing it quickly is a challenge. Do you acknowledge that there is a historical reason why designation exists? Going back to what happened in this Building between the 1920s and 1970s, not just nationalists but anyone who was non-unionist — including antecedents of my party, the Republican Labour Party and Northern Ireland Labour — were completely excluded from power. Part of the reason why we have designation is to ensure that one group does not completely railroad its interests over everybody else's. There is a historical reason why designation exists.

Mr Carroll: I referenced that. Some nationalists took positions in Stormont in 1971 or whenever it was, but, for the most part, there was discrimination and people were excluded. There was an argument to be made at a time, but we are at a completely different stage now.

Mr O'Toole: I do not think that any nationalists held governmental office.

I, like you and Sinn Féin, want a new Ireland, but do you acknowledge that we are still a society of different aspirations and identities and that we have to find some way of acknowledging that and reassuring people that their rights will not be overrun? That includes the Irish language community, who were denied rights. We still need some level of protection in our system, and that makes us a wee bit different from Scotland and Wales.

Mr Carroll: The way in which the system operates is not the same. This society is obviously different, but the Executive have been found to be in breach of their responsibilities as regards their support and intentions for Irish language rights, so the current system clearly is not working. There should be rights for minorities — languages and oppressed groups — but sometimes it spills over into being a blanket mechanism that lets unionism and other parties keep what they have. That is not defendable.

Mr O'Toole: My final question relates to opposition but is not directly about the official Opposition. You mentioned the Dáil: one thing that is different between the Dáil and here is that, in the Dáil, they can form technical groups that are often made up of people from totally different backgrounds. I can safely say that you do not agree with the TUV on very much, but there might be ways in which you could form a technical group with the TUV in order to advance. Have you thought about that?

Mr Carroll: I thought about it briefly a few years ago but, to be perfectly honest, not recently in detail. I cannot recall whether the current arrangement allows for technical groups to be formed here; I do not think so.

Ms Ní Chuilín: There are the Whips — the Business Committee — and that is it, really.

Mr Carroll: I do not think that that provision exists here. The idea is

with problems for everybody. If people who are polar opposites are forced to form groups —.

Mr O'Toole: No one would accuse you of agreeing with Jim Allister or Timothy Gaston or vice versa — they are not here — but having those technical groups would at least address some of the questions that you have raised about access.

Mr Carroll: Yes, possibly, but there are obvious problems with it.

Mrs Guy: Gerry, thank you for what you said about designations: I completely relate. If we had Green Party MLAs, they would feel the same way. What is your assessment of why people want to retain designations in 2026? I asked the SDLP leader whether there was ever an acceptable time for one MLA's vote to count for less than that of another. Matthew indicated that there is a desire to move on that perhaps, but I did not get an answer that was just a no.

Mr Carroll: It just suits the bigger parties — Sinn Féin and the DUP — to have that system. I presume that the SDLP wants to be the biggest party in nationalism again.

Mr O'Toole: It might be a while before that happens.

Mr Carroll: It might be a while, but who knows? Obviously, those parties want to maintain that position, because it gives them power and strength. People can be opposed to the DUP using the petition of concern, but it bolsters the main big block when it is used, so it suits their interests to keep it in place.

Mrs Guy: You talked about participatory democracy: that has come up at the Committee, and it has been refreshing to have those conversations. We have talked about citizens' assemblies as a mechanism: you are looking for a more permanent structure. Would you, though, see a citizens' assembly model as at least progress on participatory democracy and embrace that?

Mr Carroll: Yes. Maybe I was a bit too blunt about it. That would be a move in the right direction, but it is not fully where we want to get to. It is limited. A citizens' assemblies model means speaking to people outside this Building, and it is always positive to include them in conversations, but it is limited. We suggest having a committee and looking at wider forms of democracy in workplaces and universities, where people are really included in the conversation and not just in a tokenistic way.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): Thank you, Gerry. Thanks for your time.

Mr Carroll: Thanks, Chair.