Clare Bailey
South Belfast · Green Party · Northern Ireland
“It is a great relief to finally be able to move my Abortion Services (Safe Access Zones) Bill at Final Stage. When I was first elected, I pledged to the people of South Belfast that I would work hard on equality issues, for human rights-compliant legislation and, particularly, for women. Today is the last sitting day of the mandate.”
“Yet, despite "Stay at home" messaging and regulations to prevent public gatherings, the concerted campaign of harassment and intimidation against women and staff continued unabated, and all authorities — the Health Department, the Department of Justice, the PSNI — claimed that they could do nothing to stop it.”
“The efficacy of the Bill is achieved without being unnecessarily heavy-handed or putting significant additional pressures on any criminal justice system. I hope that we can move on from those debates. <BR /> <BR />This is absolutely a landmark moment for the Assembly. I have seen many Bills passed today that I am incredibly proud of.”
“I thank the Member for that. It is worth noting that, comparatively, this Bill takes a light touch in respect of offences being committed, because the punishment for breaching safe access zones around the world, in almost all cases where they are operational, can result in imprisonment and wildly higher fines than what is being proposed i…”
“I am also aware that the Minister, who, Mr Butler, is your party colleague, has also confirmed that he will produce a policy paper setting out how his Department intends to implement the requirements for safe access zones, including guidance to operators of health and social care premises.”
“None of that is what I have experienced with abortion services. <BR /> <BR />I went out to consultation on the Bill in 2017, just as the Executive was collapsing yet again, and the three-year hiatus meant that I could not progress the Bill any further.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,016 lines we hold for Clare Bailey, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 17 of 21.
“Beef and sheep farmers, like those in the fishing industry, have been affected by the falls and fluctuations in market demand for their product due to the pandemic. However, unlike fishermen, beef and sheep farmers must demonstrate proof of their losses in order to access support, and the amounts that they receive are dependent upon those losses. For the fishing industry, a lump sum has been allocated for distribution, with the only significant criterion being the size of the boat. Of course, the fishing industry differs from agriculture, and supports for the sector appear to have been treated differently, based on that justification.”
“<BR /> <BR />While the package is undoubtedly welcome, questions must be asked as to why this sector is being treated differently to others. The recent separate £25 million support package that was announced for the agriculture and horticulture sectors was intended, in the Minister's own words, to be:”
“I, too, take the opportunity to recognise the devastating impact that COVID-19 has had on European and domestic fish markets, and therefore on the fishing industry in Northern Ireland. It is really good to see a package announced that so substantially addresses these issues. The package will enable fishing communities to survive and, hopefully, thrive after one of the biggest challenges that they have ever encountered. However, I do have concerns in relation to differential treatment between sectors and disparities in the levels of support that have been allocated. This is without doubt the most substantial package that has been announced for any sector within the Department's remit and, indeed, as the Minister himself stated, it is the most far-reaching in the UK.”
“I, too, go back to the question for urgent oral answer. Do the First Minister and deputy First Minister believe that a commissioner for ministerial standards — for all Ministers — should be appointed as a matter of urgency in order to try to restore confidence with not only the public, but Members?”
“As a recent example of that, we all know that Northern Ireland needs an energy strategy and that the sector is waiting for targets, for example, for renewable electricity. Yet, after many responses to the consultation, we are hearing now that the Minister says that the strategy will not be produced until November next year. <BR /> <BR />I do not see how accelerated passage will help us to have any confidence that planning decisions will be made in any better way. As Mr Stalford said, there are many issues with the planning system at the moment, but this will not do anything to instil faith or confidence in ministerial decision-making.”
“The Committee on which I sit has been looking at the Environment Bill, the Fisheries Bill and the Agriculture Bill, all of which are coming through. In our evidence sessions, stakeholders told us that there are many problems and issues with those Bills, yet we are consenting to accelerated passage or to legislative consent motions. <BR /> <BR />I hope that the legislation will not be used, for example, to make planning decisions that will have a detrimental impact on the environment just to get the economy back on its feet. Planning applications have environmental impacts, as do capital projects but no expediency should be used just to keep the show on the road. Let us not forget that the Executive and Ministers already have the ability to make decisions but continue to delay them.”
“This is an important Bill but I cannot support the granting of accelerated passage. I listened to the meeting when the Committee looked at the Bill last week but it spent only a few minutes on it. I do not believe that that represents either good governance or good scrutiny. Accelerated passage should not be used to rush the Bill through. Without proper scrutiny, we cannot understand its full implications. <BR /> <BR />There was a judicial review and a judge ruled while we had no Assembly, Executive or Ministers. Things were forced into the courts. Since we have been back, we have been asked on numerous occasions to accelerate pieces of legislation or to pass legislative consent motions without proper scrutiny. We are continually hearing from a lot of Committees that we do not have the proper time to look at those matters.”
“Does the Minister agree that, although the House has always had the power to make changes, we have consistently seen environmental degradation and stubborn levels of pollution in Northern Ireland? While we can look to the EU, we have always had the ability; we have just chosen not to act on it.”
“<BR /> <BR />As it stands, I cannot endorse the extension of these provisions to Northern Ireland. We have an unprecedented opportunity to build back better with a just transition. To not do so is a dereliction of our duty. Thank you.”
“We can do better and here is how: work to amend the Bill. It is great to hear that our SDLP colleagues will be doing that. I am calling on the Minister and everyone else to do exactly the same. Include a substantive commitment to non-regression. Include a sunset clause for Northern Ireland so that we can create our own environment Bill that reflects our unique context. <BR /> <BR />The Scottish LCM, on the extension of the Environment Bill provisions to Scotland, was recently postponed due to their serious concerns about the content of the Bill. Why can the same not be done here? Fix this Bill, and bring this LCM back when the provisions will work to protect our environment. Westminster has shown no regard for the consent of this institution for previous LCMs, this one will be exactly the same.”
“The Bill and its provision relating to Northern Ireland are not good enough. The Ireland/Northern Ireland protocol has either not been considered or just not been addressed. There is no substantive commitment to non-regression or environmental law in Northern Ireland. The provisions relating to water quality do not instil any confidence that there will be no further deterioration on our rivers, lakes and coasts. The questions remain around public access to environmental justice. Let us not forget what is at stake here. It is our future and our homes. Are we willing to accept a future outside the EU with lower environmental protections? As Greens, we will not. <BR /> <BR />It is my belief and the belief of my party that the provisions of the Bill relating to Northern Ireland pose a threat to our environment, but this is not a done deal.”
“<BR /> <BR />I want to mention Aarhus rights, and I know that the Deputy Chair of the Committee mentioned that. The removal of Aarhus rights from the Bill — rights relating to public participation, public access to information and public access to justice — is a matter of huge concern for me. Article 8 of the Aarhus convention, to which the UK is a signatory, requires effective public participation in changes and decisions that can significantly affect the environment, and yet no public consultation took place at a Northern Ireland level on the contents of these provisions. Does the Minister agree that these rights are important? Can he enlighten us as to why there is no mention of the convention? Why has that been removed? <BR /> <BR />In conclusion, I find the evidence of the Bill quite damning.”
“However, there is no requirement for those changes to be positive. We need to see a clear commitment in the Bill to make sure that any change to water regulations and any standards are positive, and I call on the Minister to act to ensure that that is the case. <BR /> <BR />There is a simple reality that is not being engaged with here, and that is that we live on a shared island. That is not contained in the Bill, but that is our context. We share our nature and biodiversity, our air and our waterways. We share three transboundary river basins with the Republic of Ireland. Changes to the way in which we monitor water quality and any weakening of standards will affect those north and south of the border. At a time when North/South collaboration is so critical, why are we creating barriers to that cooperation on shared environmental issues?”
“While we share the Minister's concerns at the shocking levels of pollution and waste in our rivers, we are not as shocked, because we know, we have been watching, we see it and we hear it from people who continually tell us about the pollution, the damage and the waste in our rivers. Our waterways are already in a deplorable condition, with only 31% of our rivers classified as being in good or better condition. The River Faughan experienced five major pollution incidents between Monday and Friday last week alone. Is the Minister working with his Executive colleagues, including the Minister for Infrastructure, to stop that happening and to identify the polluters and hold them accountable? <BR /> <BR />The Bill gives DAERA the power to change regulations around the protection of our water.”
“It should also be noted that, after the House gave legislative consent to the Agriculture Bill, Westminster was still working on it and it is still working its way through the Committee Stage and the Commons. After we gave legislative consent, Westminster then voted, with the support of the Minister's party colleagues there, to lower the environmental and food standards contained in the Bill. I call upon the Minister to address that by engaging with Westminster to ensure that we have laws that work in practice. <BR /> <BR />We look at water quality, and it was absolutely great to see the Minister pictured yesterday in his kayak on the river with local people cleaning up the River Bann.”
“We are passing laws that are contradictory to each other and we have no provision to monitor their implementation or revise them when they are not working.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Minister must do his job and get this law right. That is how we will get this done. Anything else, and anything less, will just not be good enough. <BR /> <BR />There are other issues to touch on, such as agriculture and fisheries. Not only does this Bill not align with the protocol, it does not even align with the other Bills, the Agriculture Bill and the Fisheries Bill that we have been told that we have to give legislative consent to.”
“<BR /> <BR />Northern Ireland is facing monumental environmental disaster. Of the designated special areas of conservation here, 98% exceed critical levels of ammonia. More than one in 24 deaths here are linked to air pollution and, if we keep going along our current trajectory, a considerable proportion of this region will be under water by 2050. <BR /> <BR />Intention is all well and good, but let us be honest: there is also form here. Our track record is dismal. How can we trust that there will be any change, when time and again we have allowed environmental destruction to occur unchecked? Aspiration is inadequate. We need a straightforward and substantive commitment to non-regression of environmental law that is written and included in the provisions for Northern Ireland.”
“<BR /> <BR />Let me remind you that non-regression is an environmental and legal concept that requires regulations and standards that should not be diminished. A strong version of non-regression does not just prevent a row back, but requires continual advancement in environmental law and commitments. Experts have told us that non-regression is essential for us to meet environmental obligations. How, then, does the Minister account for the fact that the Bill contains no non-regression provision at all for Northern Ireland? <BR /> <BR />Government and departmental officials have indicated that they have no intentions of weakening environmental protections. That should not need to be explained, but it seems that it must: aspiration and intent do not equate to legislative protection.”
“<BR /> <BR />We do not know the answer to those questions because the Bill has not been tested to see how it will interact with the protocol. How is it that we are being asked to endorse the extension of these provisions to Northern Ireland when no consideration has been given to our local context? <BR /> <BR />The issue of non-regression has been mentioned by several Members, and it is hard to ignore the criticisms consistently levelled at the Bill by experts charged with its scrutiny. The House of Commons Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee has stated that the Bill's provisions are not equivalent to current EU environmental standards, and that, in some areas, they mark a significant regression from current standards. That is unacceptable. It is essential that the Government commit to non-regression in the Environment Bill.”
“We know that Northern Ireland is required to automatically adopt any changes to the EU environmental legislation listed in annex 2 to the protocol. We know that Northern Ireland will find itself extremely vulnerable to the impact of divergence between GB and EU law. Any such divergence would have implications for the protocol and for access to the EU single market. <BR /> <BR />What we do not know is how the protocol will impact on the UK's ability to create common environmental frameworks. Will Northern Ireland be subject to the enforcement powers of the European Commission and the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) for the protocol, and to the OEP for everything else? If Northern Ireland finds itself non-compliant with the protocol by implementing UK law or vice versa, which takes precedence?”
“If we are to pass legislative frameworks to protect our environment at least let us get it right, because time is running out. <BR /> <BR />When we look at the provisions of the protocol, not only does much of this Bill not fit the Northern Ireland context, in some cases it limits and restricts it. The Environment Bill's provisions, both UK-wide and NI-specific, have not been tested to see if they are compliant with the protocol. In fact the Bill, as other Members have mentioned, makes no reference at all to the protocol. Quite frankly, that is unbelievable. <BR /> <BR />We know that adherence to the EU environmental standards contained in the protocol is how Northern Ireland businesses will be able to access the single market.”
“That is hardly surprising, given the absence of an Executive during the Assembly's three-year hiatus and the lack of formal public consultation, at a Northern Ireland level, and the principles and governance aspects of this Bill. <BR /> <BR />We are facing huge issues in governance and enforcement gaps, and the provisions extended to Northern Ireland do not adequately address those in the Bill's current form. This Bill and its provisions as they stand in relation to Northern Ireland are simply not good enough. It does not meet our needs. It does not adequately address the issues that we face. We need to develop our own environmental legislation that is specific to our context and is aligned with the Ireland/Northern Ireland protocol. This is nothing close to that, so I find it hard to support the LCM.”
“This Assembly is being asked to endorse the extension of these provisions to Northern Ireland, but these extensions are sub-power provisions. They are still under scrutiny in Westminster, yet we are being asked to rush them through, despite knowing that we are doing so without adequate scrutiny. Why are we being asked to endorse provisions that are not even law yet and that do not work for us in our context? Most importantly, we still have the option to amend and improve them. <BR /> <BR />I have listened to the Brexit and Environment group, which has spoken of their concerns that this legislation has been developed for England, made common by default, fine-tuned for England but not tailored to the needs of Northern Ireland.”
“I thank the Minister for his answer. I am keen to look at the underspend that has happened with COVID. The Minister told us in one of his previous answers, I think, that there was £52 million from the business support package scheme that was unspent. Is it possible to use that money and to redirect it to those businesses and people who have fallen between the cracks? For example, I spoke to the arts sector yesterday and they are engaging with us — it is cross-party — but most of them have received absolutely nothing. They are crying out for a hardship fund or some sort of rescue fund package, so could we use or allocate money to try and save that sector?”
“We really, really need to keep public confidence and public trust in us, because we have not done an awful lot to get over the absolute scandal of 2015 and 2016. We need our independence, and we need to keep building trust, and I believe that we can do both. The Green Party will support the amendment to the motion.”
“Thank you. Those issues have been very well made in this Chamber, but what I am hearing is an awful lot about having no trust and no faith in an independent financial review panel because the only one that we have had to date got it so wrong. <BR /> <BR />Sometimes, the House gets it wrong. Sometimes people in the House get it wrong, yet we always have another chance to get it right. That should never stop us from ever trying to keep getting it right. We have had no independent financial review panel since June 2016. It has not existed. So, what is going on in that process? Why have we been left all those years with no one there?”
“That applies to everyone equally right across Northern Ireland. It is a very different rate and rent setting in Strabane high street, for example, from South Belfast, but that is not taken into consideration either. Our staff are treated differently. Every single staff contract that I have signed since being elected, I have handed it back to the staff with a recommendation that if they are not already in a trade union, they should join one and that they should challenge me on it. To date, they have all been so nice that they have not done that, but I still recommend that they do.”
“I was elected in 2016 after the financial review happened and after the stories of the expenses scandals had broken. The public lost so much faith and trust in us. There is no doubt that there are problems with the independent financial review determination and how we can access and use our office cost expenditure. They are much bigger than putting a phone number on a sign. Ms Bunting was absolutely right when she pointed out the restrictions in flexibility that we can allow our staff: the maximum working hours, the setting of salaries, and, if there are any changes, they go back to the bottom of the pay scale or even have to reapply through open competition for their own job. There are many problems with that, but, again, we have to remember why we are here. <BR /> <BR />There are even issues around setting a cap on office rental costs.”
“If there is anything that I can say today to try to offer just a tiny piece of comfort, it is to let Fiona and the family know that the Ormeau Road community cares about what has happened and wants to do all that it can to try to share in their grief and support them through the unimaginable times ahead in dealing with the tragedy of losing such a beautiful boy in such horrific circumstances. <BR /> <BR />I thank Mr O'Dowd for bringing this to the Chamber today and wish Fiona and her family every strength and courage to get through what will be horrific sadness in the time ahead.”
“On behalf of the Green Party, I want to take this opportunity to pass our sincere condolences to Fiona, Noah's mum, his family and his circle of friends. It was incredibly tragic to wake up on Saturday to the tragic news that it was Noah's body that had been found. Not many people could even begin to imagine how this has affected his mum. As we just heard from the last Member who spoke, so much of Noah's life has been shared on social media. The clearest thing for me was how close he was to his mum and what a strong and warm relationship they had. <BR /> <BR />I know that they have not long moved to the Ormeau Road.”
“We made the impossible possible. Will the Minister, please, continue to be brave enough to implement the actual change that is needed to halt the breaking down of the climate, and turn that strategy into a real green new deal?”
“I am deeply concerned at the emphasis on growth in the strategy. Why must the economy always be at the centre of every discussion that we have about sustainability and why must relentless growth be the only lens through which we can view solutions? There must come a point when we seriously consider how much growth this planet can sustain. I agree with the Minister's opening sentence though: it is hard to imagine a set of circumstances with more devastating global impacts than those that we currently face. However, if we open our eyes, we will see the other ongoing emergency which threatens the lives of millions more people; one that is set to destabilise and destroy entire economies. <BR /> <BR />In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, we were brave enough to implement unthinkable changes overnight in order to protect people.”
“— to make decisions about their bodies, lives and pregnancies? What happened to the slogan, "The North is next"? <BR /> <BR />The Green Party will vote against the motion and the amendment. I urge other Members — Sinn Féin included — to do the same.”
“Well, that has been done. What the motion and the amendment mean is that, although Sinn Féin might not want British legislation, it is happy to continue to export Irish and Northern Irish women to Britain for healthcare. That is simple hypocrisy in my book. What happened to the platitudes about trusting women —”
“However, the amendment will mean that women from Northern Ireland will still have to travel to access abortion healthcare. That is not my understanding of "local". Deputy First Minister Michelle O'Neill has stated:”
“The motion and the amendment would disproportionately harm disabled women whose pregnancies are diagnosed with a foetal anomaly and contravene the state's obligations under the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Mr Gildernew has already spoken in the debate. I will quote something that he said recently:”
“We should be discussing significant increases in funding to enable disabled people, rather than trying to broadly restrict rights for women in Northern Ireland. The Green Party will not support the start of a clawback. <BR /> <BR />Disabled Women Ireland has stated:”
“<BR /> <BR />It is ironic for the DUP to claim that it is morally unjustifiable to use a foetus as a political bargaining chip when the same DUP Members write to their constituents and request a letter-writing campaign to promote a change in legislation. But at least the DUP is consistent in its disdain for women, their bodies and their choices. The motion and amendment are not compliant with CEDAW, and our law states that we need to be.”
“A similar clause in the Irish Republic has resulted in women and girls whose pregnancies are diagnosed with severe and life-threatening abnormalities continuing to travel overseas to access abortion, just as if the law had never changed. <BR /> <BR />I am stunned at the Sinn Féin amendment. I am stunned at the forked-tongue language. The amendment would force women to continue to rely on healthcare in England, and that was not Sinn Féin's election message, which was about equality for all and compassionate healthcare. This is what a clawback of women's rights looks like, this is what political opportunism looks like and this is what populism looks like.”
“I am one of very many who are very thankful to the Westminster MPs, and to Stella Creasy in particular, for changing our laws. Instead of debating why Northern Ireland is still without regulations, we are debating laws that we cannot change. <BR /> <BR />Reducing an abnormality clause to permit only fatal abnormalities can, as shown by the example in the Republic of Ireland, actually limit fatal diagnoses due to the unattainable certainty required. The motion and the amendment would compel medics to make impossible distinctions between fatal and non-fatal abnormalities, limiting access to abortion healthcare. If the motion and amendment were enforced, it would mean that women and girls would be forced to continue to travel to England and beyond, just as they were before the legislation changed.”
“Let us not ignore the fact that most of these workers are in the caring, retail and hospitality sectors, which are historically low paid and with few contractual protections — even if we do clap for them on a Thursday. <BR /> <BR />How can we continue to ask people to adhere to rules when the rules are so unclear? When the lockdown was imposed, the virus was not as prevalent as it is today. So while the R number has fallen below one, and that is a very good thing and due to all the efforts that have been put in, we know that transmission is happening, yet responsibility for safety is still very unclear. <BR /> <BR />I ask that the further lifting of any restrictions starts with very clear messages and responsibilities — please — because COVID-19 has not gone away, and we are all very aware of that.”
“Some shops allow only one person at a time to enter premises, while others allow groups to go in together. Some places disinfect equipment between shoppers but others do not. Where is the clarity on that? Some have one-way systems, whether they are adhered to or not, but others do not. To answer these queries with, "Report them to the police, the HSC or local authorities" is inadequate. We need to give people and businesses very clear instruction as we continue to lift the lockdown. <BR /> <BR />Can all staff, regardless of any underlying medical conditions, including mental health issues, that they or those whom they live with may have be forced back into work as we relax these measures?”
“I was told of one incident where a physical fight broke out in a car park between two parties, who then made up, shook hands and returned to their socially distanced places in the queue before leaving with a watering can.”
“While people can be seen adhering to social distancing in queues outside outlets, the same is not true when you are on the inside, for example, even if they are wearing protective gloves and masks. They are handling goods on shelves and leaving them there. That puts staff and others at risk. Who bears that responsibility?”
“I know that the Economy Minister has produced priority sector guidance, which is a list published for advisory purposes to allow companies to make their own decisions, yet when lockdown legislation was imposed we did not allow anyone to make their own decisions. We asked for their acceptance and their adherence, so why is a different approach being taken to the relaxation? As Mr Chambers rightly said, people do need clarity and consistency. At the minute we do not have that, and ambiguity is encouraging people to interpret the changes to meet their own ends. <BR /> <BR />Who is responsible for ensuring that the public health measures are followed in places where relaxation is allowed? While we see some people wearing masks and gloves, not all are. Is there clarity on that?”
“The Green Party welcomed the easing of lockdown measures. We are very thankful to the Executive for taking things slowly and doing them at our own pace in a way that is suitable for the people of Northern Ireland. However, we also feel that, for the most part, people at the minute are deciding for themselves that lockdown is over. We can see that on our streets and in our public spaces. <BR /> <BR />As I am sure is the case with every other Member, every time a restriction is lifted I am inundated with people and businesses seeking clarity. While today we are yet again passing retrospective changes in statutory rules, yesterday other restrictions were announced, leaving exactly the same questions.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. Does the Member agree that the economic crisis that has been brought about by the COVID-19 will be surpassed if we do not address the climate crisis that is creeping up on us as well? The economic upheaval, and the change to our systems, lifestyles and businesses, will be even more drastic than those we are currently experiencing due to COVID?”
“The Minister mentioned that councils could make savings, for example, by not funding community festivals that are not happening, but what is being done to prevent councils going out of business? Is any preparatory work happening in the Executive to plan for the loss of those local institutions?”
“I am looking at the figures in the statement and those given by the Communities Minister previously and hoping that I have got my sums wrong. There is a £99 million scheme to cover a three-month rates holiday for all businesses, which means that it costs about £33 million per month. As we extend that by another month, I assume that that will cost an average of £33 million again. The extension of a rate-free financial year to some businesses is a measure to try to save those businesses, and that, of course, is very welcome. However, I go back to the stress on councils. Given that this is largely an income loss for the councils, which collect the rates, and the fact that the Communities Minister announced a package of only £20·3 million for councils for the next few months, it does not add up.”