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 3 of 21.
“In order to ensure that any zone that is established under the legislation is effective but only as big as is necessary to meet the aim of the Bill, amendment No 4 sets a distance of 100 metres from each entrance and exit point of a protected premises. However, there is the option to extend that to a maximum of 250 metres at the request of an operator, should it be required due to the specific geographical setting of a particular premises in order to meet the objective of the Bill, which is to ensure safe access for protected persons, as laid out in clause 4. <BR /> <BR />Again, I will try to address an issue that was raised about private operators. I think that Mr Allister raised that. I do not see anywhere in the Abortion (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2020 that private operators will be part of the Bill.”
“I turn to clause 5 and amendment No 4. A considerable number of submissions expressed a preference that the Bill should detail a minimum distance for the extent of the zone. The Department of Health, in particular, raised concerns with me about the difficulty that the Bill's original provisions would present for it. I recognise that including a minimum distance would somewhat simplify the process of designating a zone. I am also mindful, however, of the evidence provided by the Human Rights Commission, which was that previous jurisprudence on the issue is clear that a court would determine not the general principles but the specifics of a zone. For that reason, I propose that clause 5 not stand part of the Bill. Instead, I propose new clause 5A in amendment No 4.”
“The advice that I have received from the OLC is that that is preferable, as the conditions set out in the Bill are sufficient without the need for additional steps where the Department needs to make a determination and any additional issues created by that process. That is also commonplace in Bills where safe access zones are operable in other jurisdictions.”
“but then goes on to outline conditions 1 and 2. That is a processing error. Apologies. I have spoken to the Bill Office about it, and it will be corrected in the printing of the Bill following this stage, should the amendment pass. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 3, which refers to clause 3, sets out how certain premises that provide information, advice or counselling about abortion can also become protected premises. The amendment takes out the requirement for the Department of Health to make a determination that such a premises can be treated as a protected premises and replaces it with a provision that such premises can become protected premises by virtue of fulfilling the three conditions set out in the clause.”
“This amendment also ensures that the Bill's remit will be contained to only those premises where it is required, as a premises will become a protected premises only when notice is given to the Department of Health by an operator that it wishes to become one, rather than implying a blanket zone for all premises capable of becoming protected premises. <BR /> <BR />Although the will of the Department, the Committee and a number of key stakeholders was that the safe access zone should apply automatically rather than through some sort of process with the Department of Health, amendment No 1 allows a zone to be established by way of the legislation without such a process being necessary but in a way that is workable in practice. <BR /> <BR />Members will note that, on the Marshalled List, amendment No 1 states:”
“The clause provided an overview of the Bill's intention, but it added no substantive legislative content and could be confusing when read with the provisions elsewhere in the Bill. It was deemed unnecessary, and I was happy to take that advice on board. <BR /> <BR />I propose amendment No 1 to tidy up clause 2. It amends the clause to make it refer directly to the Abortion (Northern Ireland) (No. 2) Regulations 2020. This is important to ensure consistency with the language used in other legislation so that the Bill's provisions will relate directly to the commissioning of abortion services.”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. <BR /> <BR />Those engaging in the behaviour that we are trying to regulate are causing real harm and traumatising women, pregnant people, staff and the wider public. The behaviour is not low-level. Those people are not there to help or support. They are there to bully, harass and intimidate someone away from accessing healthcare safely and in confidence. The fact that someone felt so threatened by this legislation that they deemed it acceptable to make a threat against officials goes a long way to highlight the mindset of some of the people involved. <BR /> <BR />I will now address the clauses specifically. On the advice of the OLC, I propose that clause 1 no longer stand part of the Bill.”
“I hope that that unfortunate incident will concentrate minds in the Chamber about how serious the issue at hand is.”
“It is completely out of order. I want those officials to know that they have my full support.”
“At Second Stage, we heard Claire Sugden, I think, say that the Bill seeks to be a preventative Bill rather than a Bill that seeks to address harm when harm has been done. That is critical in the circumstances that we are talking about. We must ensure that the rights of someone who is accessing services are protected. As the Human Rights Commission stated in its evidence, it is too late to seek redress once access to healthcare has been impeded. Again, that backs up what was brought up at Second Stage. Therefore, it is important that legislation is capable of preventing harm from occurring in the first instance. <BR /> <BR />Before I discuss the amendments individually, I reiterate my condemnation of the threats that have been levelled at the officials in the Department for merely doing their job and working on this private Member's Bill.”
“I thank the Member for that. They are all deemed to be insufficient and inoperable in these circumstances, which is exactly why the behaviours and the distress happen. The health and social care trusts told the Committee that that is why they have had to, I think, put strengthened windows in some of their premises and move services to other places. Their staff have had to change their journeys to and from work, and women presenting with miscarriages nearly did not come to the centre to seek access to services, even when, if they did not, their life was at risk. The current legislative framework does not work in these circumstances. <BR /> <BR />Harm must have occurred for enforcement and action to be taken.”
“First, a patient who is attending a sexual and reproductive healthcare centre for the purpose of accessing abortion services will, in all likelihood, attend that centre only once. That was debated at Second Stage, but I feel the need to repeat it, since it has been brought up again. The offending behaviour is unlikely to ever be considered to be a course of conduct, as it will happen on only one occasion.”
“I have been happy to engage with the Committee, the Department, the PSNI, the Human Rights Commission, the Attorney General and the Office of the Legislative Counsel in order to help inform my decisions around what amendments are needed to give effect to my intention with the legislation and ensure that it is workable and effective. <BR /> <BR />The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, the trusts and the Department of Health made it clear in their oral evidence sessions that there was no alternative legislation or regulation already in place that could deal with the problem. Harassment laws require a course of conduct to occur before action can be taken. There are two issues with that in the context of what happens outside sexual and reproductive healthcare centres.”
“Given the findings of the CEDAW UK state report that I have referenced, the overwhelming evidence provided by the trusts to the Committee and the testimony of service users and staff included with many of the responses to the call for evidence, it is clear that there is an urgent need for intervention, such as that proposed in the Bill, in Northern Ireland to ensure that safe access to legally available services and information is permitted. <BR /> <BR />I listened intently to the Health Committee's evidence sessions over the past few months, when it heard oral evidence from the Northern Ireland Human Right Commission, the health and social care trusts, the Department of Health and the Police Service of Northern Ireland.”
“I thank the Member for that. He is absolutely right. There are caveats with those rights, but those caveats need to be prescribed by law. They are not, currently, but that is what the Bill would do. Rather than wiping out protest, as some think that it would do, the Bill prescribes in law and under human rights articles the balance of those competing rights. <BR /> <BR />I return to the Ealing case, in which it was found that, had the local authority not provided safe zones, it would have been in breach of the human rights of patients who needed access to abortion services and information.”
“Those are not absolute rights, however, and it is not sufficient to say that, because it will restrict those rights in certain circumstances, the Bill is not compliant with human rights. The reality is much more nuanced than a simple, binary understanding, whether that be deliberate or not. A balancing of rights is required. Indeed, as the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission highlighted in its evidence session, the court in the Ealing case found that, had the local authority not taken action to ensure access to the clinic, it would have been breaching the human rights of those patients.”
“Again, I hope that that will go some way towards reassuring those who shared any of those concerns. <BR /> <BR />The Health Committee's call for evidence on the Bill closed on 12 November 2021. The call for evidence led to 45 written responses from organisations and 6,412 submissions from individuals. I note the high number of responses to the call for evidence and am pleased with the level of engagement, particularly from the sectoral bodies impacted on. That will undoubtedly help me and us, if possible, improve the quality and robustness of the legislation. <BR /> <BR />While I note the volume of responses from those opposed to the Bill, they tended to focus solely on the rights of those engaging in activities outside sexual and reproductive healthcare clinics, such as freedom of assembly, freedom of speech etc.”
“I thank the Member for providing clarity on that. <BR /> <BR />The DUP is opposing the Bill at Consideration Stage today, saying that it cannot understand the rationale behind some of the amendments. It is fair to say, however, that no amendments to the Bill would be acceptable to the DUP, because it does not want the Bill to pass, just like Mr Allister, who is upfront about that. <BR /> <BR />Concerns have been raised about the automatic setting of zones and the publication of such zones. It is unfortunate that the Minister is unable to attend today, but I want to make Members aware that I and the Committee have been given every assurance from him that he will address that. If it is OK, I will let you know that the Minister has stated:”
“DUP councillors on Newry, Mourne and Down District Council also supported a motion calling for exclusion zones like those proposed here.”
“While he acknowledged liberty of speech and the right to protest, he stated:”
“In its 2018 UK state inquiry, CEDAW found that the UK's failure to protect women from harassment while accessing sexual and reproductive health services and information amounted to a breach of article 10 and article 12 rights under CEDAW. Therefore, women are discriminated against in accessing specific educational information, including information and advice on family planning, to help ensure the health and well-being of families. That is the context for the Bill. <BR /> <BR />Today, we were to debate the amendments to the Bill, not to discuss opposition to abortion. I find it confusing to hear that the DUP will not support the Bill, given that DUP councillors in Belfast City Council supported a motion brought by Green Party councillor Áine Groogan back in June 2021. The DUP councillor Gareth Spratt stated:”
“Thank you to everyone who has spoken so far. As expected, some Members have taken the opportunity to use this debate to rehash views on abortion rather than to discuss what is happening on our streets outside clinics and charities. What is happening is a deliberate campaign of harassment and intimidation against women who are seeking to access services. That would not be tolerated in access to any other health service, but, because of views on abortion and reproductive healthcare, we turn a blind eye to it. <BR /> <BR />The Bill seeks to allow safe access to sexual and reproductive services. On that point, I will refer to CEDAW, as I think I have done in the past. CEDAW carried out a full state inquiry on the UK, which it very seldom does.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. On her point that there has not been enough time, work on the Bill began in this institution in 2016. We had three years with no Assembly, and it was finally introduced in September last year. I note that the Member's party colleague introduced a Bill on 5 July, just before recess: this Bill was introduced just after recess. Although her colleague's Bill has gone through to Further Consideration Stage, the Member says that there was not enough time for this Bill. The reason why I attended the Committee yesterday was not timing; it was due to the availability of the OLC and the departmental officials.”
“is also a protected person: in this case, the mother whom you are speaking of.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. In clause 4(b), the person who is”
“Thank you, Minister. Do you recognise that, in Northern Ireland, we produce higher emissions per head than China?”
“Thanks, Minister. You can berate me all you want about what, you think, I think, but let us not forget that we do not even have a waste strategy. That is something that you can bring forward and it is within your Department's remit, but you have failed to do so.”
“We have a moral duty to future generations and to our planet to reject the half measures proposed today. We must not pass amendments that weaken legislation. When the scientific evidence from the IPCC shows us that things are worse than we realised, we should respond by stepping up, not by burying our heads in the sand. It is time to face up to our responsibilities as legislators and as political leaders. We must acknowledge the privilege that we stand in and pass the strong net zero climate legislation that Northern Ireland needs. <BR /> <BR />In this group of amendments, we will support amendment Nos 3, 4, 15, 16 and 18.”
“is closing. <BR /> <BR />Headlines are telling us that half the world is "highly vulnerable" to the crisis. Impacts of global warming are now simply "irreversible", according to the UN's latest assessment. Climate change is causing "widespread" and "irreversible" impacts. The IPCC report says that up 3·6 billion people are "highly vulnerable to climate change", largely from extreme heat, heavy rainfall, drought and fire. I can assure Members that those 3·6 billion people are highly unlikely to be living in Western or developed nations. Those people and populations have not caused this crisis, yet they will face the worst possible consequences. We owe them a future, not split targets. <BR /> <BR />Today, the IPCC chair warned us:”
“The report states that human actions are causing "dangerous ... disruption" and suggests:”
“Headlines around the world today are telling us of the:”
“UN Secretary General António Guterres stated:”
“I thank the Member for that. My opposition is in the context of the amendment paving the way for split targets, a point that I already addressed. All the parties that supported and voted for net zero emissions really need to think about that. <BR /> <BR />The IPCC released its latest report just a few short hours ago at 11.00 am. It is its bleakest report to date. Last year, it told us that humanity was facing "code red". In its findings today, it told us of:”
“Referring to the goals of the Paris agreement in that context is confusing and makes little sense when the Bill has an overarching net zero-specific target. If methane emission reductions do not help to achieve the overall target, they are not appropriate, regardless of whether it can be argued that they contribute to achieving the goals of the Paris agreement.”
“Instead of our farms being able to avail themselves of the opportunities presented by net zero, they will be reputationally harmed, and the status of our produce downgraded by the implication that we do not take the climate crisis seriously and are not doing all that we can to reduce agricultural emissions. Amendment No 17 is scientifically illiterate. It will harm our planet and our farmers. <BR /> <BR />The Green Party will also oppose Sinn Féin's amendment on ensuring:”
“I am sad but not at all surprised that it feels as though climate denial has come back to the Chamber. As well as harming our planet, that approach lets our farmers down. <BR /> <BR />If passed, amendment No 17 would turn Northern Ireland's agriculture sector into a global climate laggard. While farms and farmers across the world are striving for net zero, Northern Ireland will be left behind. As consumers and international investors begin to look at the climate impact of their financial decisions, Northern Ireland agriculture will increasingly be locked out of the opportunities associated with being a global climate player.”
“yet the Minister's amendment No 17 proposes to exempt agriculture from emissions targets altogether. That is hardly following the science, no matter how tricky you might find it to understand. The Minister's version of science seems to be that, if we do not count the emissions, they are not there. Denial is not an option. Unfortunately, as much as some might like to, we will not address the crisis by pretending that it is not there. <BR /> <BR />Just last week, we saw the effect of climate breakdown and how it is affecting Northern Ireland. Are we really proposing to just ignore the increasingly frequent extreme weather patterns and deny that they ever happened? If people's homes flood, do we just propose to ignore it and pretend that it did not happen?”
“I urge Members not to go down that path. <BR /> <BR />The CCC could not have been clearer. It stated:”
“All greenhouse gases matter, yet before us we have amendments to introduce split targets for methane, a gas that has a warming effect that is 84 times that of carbon dioxide. To have a less ambitious target for methane would serve to fundamentally undermine Northern Ireland's climate action and ambition, and therefore we lose credibility on any claims that we might want to make that we recognise that we are in a climate emergency. <BR /> <BR />By allowing the amendments, we turn our back on the crisis. We refuse to take responsibility. We fail to show leadership, and we endorse climate denial becoming climate delay. The Green Party cannot and will not endorse that. Split targets have proved to be insufficient elsewhere, and they will prove to be insufficient here.”
“In its 2019 report, 'Net Zero: The UK's contribution to stopping global warming', the CCC stated:”
“What the Assembly has agreed so far is perfectly consistent with the scientific and expert advice, but the proposed amendments represent an attempt to disregard the facts completely. <BR /> <BR />In its 2019 report, 'Land use: Policies for a Net Zero UK', the CCC stated:”
“Throughout the debates in the Chamber on climate legislation, the advice of the UK Government's Climate Change Committee was often quoted, and rightly so, and we must follow the science, as evidence, and the expertise behind it. The CCC said that we should have a target of at least 82% but have the political choice to go for net zero if we wanted. As I have quoted many times, the CCC's chief executive, Chris Stark, said that:”
“Since the introduction of the first Climate Change Bill and a net zero ambition, it has become clear that tasking the very Ministry that has responsibility for our biggest emitting industry to bring forward a climate Bill was never going to work. We need to be really honest and speak to climate change as being the real challenge rather than targets being a significant challenge for some, because all sectors and all people need to be protected, not just some. <BR /> <BR />The title of the group 1 amendments is "Methane and interim emissions targets, carbon units and carbon budgets", and that is what I will speak to.”
“I thank the Minister for his statement. However, I point out that there is a widespread lack of faith that the delivery of these actions will be carried out in a timely manner. Following on from the previous question, some blue-carbon habitats are protected by current legislation, based on the habitats' contributions to our biodiversity, but there are opportunities for blue-carbon habitats and stores to be protected, given their role in climate change mitigation and adaptation. Therefore, will blue-carbon habitats be afforded legal protection based on their carbon sequestration and storage processes?”
“Northern Ireland urgently needs its own Environment Act that reflects our unique environmental and geographical context, includes a substantive commitment to non-regression and creates adequate legal duties on Departments to achieve targets. The overarching target should, of course, be net zero, and we should not hide behind split targets. When we get that right, we can begin to build a sustainable future for all.”
“They do not protect or improve our environment. That is why the Green Party voted against them when they came before the House for debate. I urge all parties to pay close attention to the detail, and, where we can, we should demand better. <BR /> <BR />Northern Ireland is the twelfth worst region in the world for biodiversity loss. All our waterways fail to meet basic good standards. Those stats and many others are a damning indictment of the Executive's destructive approach to environmental protection. Minister Poots, you are overseeing a public health and environmental disaster. Your Department and the Environment Agency have serious questions to answer on how pollution in Northern Ireland has been allowed to get this bad. You are not alone, however. Many blind eyes have been turned, and it needs to stop.”
“In our environment strategy, however, we set ourselves a target to reach 70% of water bodies to be at "Good" status by 2027. Before we have even begun, we have regressed. If that is a sign of what is to come, it does not bode well. <BR /> <BR />The issues about targets point to a bigger issue. When Northern Ireland misses its target in the environment strategy, what sanctions will we face? As far as I can see, the answer is none. The UK Environment Act places no duty on Northern Ireland to set and meet targets. That is pretty shocking and totally inadequate. It backs up the demand for our own independent environment protection agency, which, as Mr Blair pointed out, was, of course, promised under the New Decade, New Approach agreement. <BR /> <BR />The Northern Ireland provisions that will commence with the order are not fit for purpose.”
“You could meet those targets and not see any improvement in air quality. How can a strategy that lacks measurable targets in most areas meet the legal requirement to significantly improve the environment? While we know that between 500 and 600 premature deaths every year are attributed to a lack of clean air, we still do not set basic measurable targets. <BR /> <BR />The water quality targets in the environment strategy do not even meet existing standards. The 2000 EU water framework directive required all member states to have all water bodies at "Good" status by 2015: Northern Ireland failed. We were then told that the target was 2021, and Northern Ireland failed again. Having failed to meet that target, member states were given 2027 as the deadline by which all water bodies should meet good standards.”
“While the Green Party welcomes the NI provisions of the UK Environment Act coming into operation, we have little confidence that it will result in any improvement to our environment. Departmental actions that have so far come out of the Environment Act do little to inspire such hope. <BR /> <BR />The environment strategy that has been mentioned — the public consultation on it closed recently — is intended to act as Northern Ireland's environmental improvement plan, which the OEP will provide oversight of. Under the Act, environmental improvement plans are required to "significantly" improve the environment, yet the strategy does not even set basic measurable targets: for example, the targets on air pollution are vague. They want to publish further strategies and improve monitoring.”
“Some 19,307 hectares of Brazilian land are used to grow soya to feed pigs in Northern Ireland. That is industrial farmland of about the size of 19,000 rugby pitches where the Amazon once was. It is almost as if Northern Ireland is offsetting its carbon in Brazil. Much as some may like to point the finger at Brazilian beef as being responsible for deforestation, our food system and locally produced meat are very well connected to deforestation and environmental damage around the world.”