Paula Bradshaw
South Belfast · Alliance Party · Northern Ireland
“They were places where those who were vulnerable were concealed, young mothers were stripped of their babies and children were stripped of their identities. Let us be resolute in our remembrance of what happened behind the doors of those institutions.”
“At all stages, the Committee has set out its clear support for the legislation's overarching aims and principles, which are to establish a statutory public inquiry into the systemic failings associated with mother-and-baby institutions, Magdalene laundries and workhouses between 1922 and 1995 and to create a statutory redress scheme for t…”
“Again, I refuse to call them "mother-and-baby homes", for we now know that there was nothing homely about them. What the Bill can and must do is offer a tangible declaration that the state accepts its responsibility.”
“As Chairperson of the Committee for the Executive Office, I welcome the opportunity to speak at the Final Stage of the Inquiry (Mother and Baby Institutions, Magdalene Laundries and Workhouses) and Redress Scheme Bill.”
“Key points were also made in relation to redress: the need to ensure that the Executive Office introduces clear guidelines for the scheme as soon as practicable; the need for the Executive Office to widely communicate and promote the scheme to all victims and survivors, including those who live overseas; and the need for the Executive Off…”
“The First Minister and deputy First Minister tabled a number of amendments that gave effect to the Committee's intent across a number of clauses. In several instances, the Committee chose to withdraw its amendments in favour of the Ministers' wording, where that better reflected the broader book of the law.”
The complete record
Every one of 2,444 lines we hold for Paula Bradshaw, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 24 of 49.
“With daily numbers of infections still running in the thousands amongst a population of under two million, we must do far more to address that anxiety. I commend the many people and organisations who continue to act responsibly, not least on behalf of those clinically vulnerable people. I look forward to hearing from the Minister about guidance for those who are clinically vulnerable and who perhaps remain anxious about a virus that is still out there.”
“Of course, face coverings remained mandatory in schools, potentially causing further confusion about exactly on what grounds they were not legally necessary elsewhere. <BR /> <BR />Notably, while most of us broadly welcomed the move, not just because it enabled us to do more things freely but because it suggested conclusively that the omicron variant was not as severe, others did not see it that way. For some, not least those who are clinically vulnerable, it caused significant anxiety — we have covered that subject many times in the Health Committee in recent months — and there was no clear guidance on what they should do now. Some people were getting quite ill, and others were expressing extreme concern about what would happen if they contracted the virus, given their underlying condition.”
“Whatever our views on the rights and wrongs of that, we are left entirely unclear as to what expert advice enabled that step to be taken at the time. <BR /> <BR />That touches on the other aspect, which, as ever, is communications. Questions on the announcement were taken by a senior official, who was left to reveal that self-isolation after a positive test had never, in fact, been a legal requirement. For some time after the announcement, public signs and announcements in certain locations, such as on trains and buses, still stated that face coverings were mandatory, suggesting that there had been little warning that complete revocation of the regulations was expected across all public services.”
“I support the regulation changes today. I appreciate that the Minister was put in a difficult position by the absence of an Executive shortly before announcing the revocation. Nevertheless, I have two specific concerns. <BR /> <BR />First, I am concerned about the lack of scrutiny afforded to this step. Although the regulations were brought in under emergency legislation, it is unclear why they should be revoked without consultation when the emergency legislation to reinstate them is still in place. A few days before the announcement, it seemed to most of us that the next step in the removal of restrictions would be relatively minor. What was announced, however, was extremely significant: an outright revocation that went well beyond what any of our neighbours was doing at the time.”
“Thank you, Minister, for giving way. For the record, can you outline how many times you and your officials engaged with the Bill sponsor to outline your concerns, which you have just explained to the House?”
“Thank you for giving way. You used the word "ramifications" several times. Will you elaborate on that, please?”
“I thank the Member for giving way. My point is on his commentary about the school estate. Does he agree with me that all sectors are in need of more capital build and refurbishment funding?”
“<BR /> <BR />Despite the note of caution that I raised about definitions in clause 2, I think that we have moved considerably closer to a great, workable Bill that will meet the sponsor's objectives.”
“It clarifies, to some extent, the overarching nature of the Bill by putting the focus on the Executive Office. To some extent, amendment Nos 7 and 13 do likewise. <BR /> <BR />Amendment Nos 2 to 6 are largely technical. They clarify "public service". I have no issue with supporting them. However, I am not sure that we have clause 2(2) quite right. No public service body, even as defined under an amended clause 8, has a school amongst its premises. I wonder, therefore, whether that still needs to be tidied up in either clause 2 or clause 8. I also support and welcome the clarity that is provided by amendment Nos 8 to 10, which have been tabled by the Committee. The Chair already outlined why those amendments are important.”
“On International Women's Day, I will say just a few words in support of all the amendments and the Bill as a whole, although I think that some minor work may be required at Further Consideration Stage. <BR /> <BR />My support for the objectives of the Bill is already on the record. The focus of my remarks is exclusively on the amendments. In general, the Bill, as set out by the sponsor, was designed to match policies elsewhere in the UK. I think that we will be closer to that objective once the Bill has been amended. My main issue concerned how locations are being defined, as well as why such focus is being given to specific Departments when the Bill focuses otherwise on public service bodies. Specifically, I queried at Second Stage why the responsible Department under clause 1 is Health. It is on that basis that I support amendment No 1.”
“The Minister may be aware that the Health Committee is getting a presentation on encompass this week. From reading the papers earlier, it seems to me that the sort of information that you have mentioned should be easier to collate. Will he speak to that?”
“I thank the National Autistic Society, the trusts and the Department of Health for their very important input throughout the process. Finally, I thank the individuals who have been in contact with me and my office on the topic. The Health Committee staff worked amazingly, as always, and the Bill Office provided great support and guidance. <BR /> <BR />The proof of the pudding is in the eating. The key to all this, in the end, is ensuring that the Bill makes the difference that it is intended to make. Let us now proceed swiftly with implementation.”
“I support the Bill at Final Stage, and I put on record my thanks to the Bill sponsor and the Health Committee for working so constructively on it. <BR /> <BR />The Bill addresses some troubling gaps in provision, and it provides lessons for other areas of our health service. Most of all, it reinforces the need to move beyond silos and embed multidisciplinary teams. The establishment of an independent autism reviewer, for example, may provide a useful example for other areas of scrutiny. <BR /> <BR />I repeat my thanks from previous debates to Autism NI for its work on the Bill, its support for the all-party group on autism and its swift responses to queries raised by me and my office as we considered the Bill.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I was not planning to speak on this group. Thank you.”
“On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Just we would like it properly recorded that the Alliance Party is —. Our vote on that. Sorry. Thank you.”
“We have to ensure that we have a Bill that addresses that while remaining in scope to address offences occurring where there is significant imbalance in power between adult and child and there is the potential for that power to be abused. The amendments as a whole provide for important extension of the abuse of trust provisions and technical tidying up while also demonstrating constructive work between the Minister and the Justice Committee.”
“Amendment No 1 strengthens and broadens the provisions relating to voyeurism, and the new clauses created by amendment Nos 12 and 13 and amendment Nos 42 and 47, which are consequential to them, serve to modernise the Bill by adding to it the offence that is now commonly known as "cyber-flashing". I should also draw attention to amendment Nos 21 and 22, which add to offences deemed to be sexual offences and thus create further consistency around suspects who may remain anonymous. <BR /> <BR />I recognise absolutely that predatory behaviour can occur in any environment where one person has power over another, particularly when an adult has significant influence over a young person in their care.”
“I will support all the amendments in this group except for amendment No 20, which, we feel, runs contrary to amendment No 19. For the record, in group 2, I will oppose amendment No 33, which runs contrary to amendment No 32. I will keep the remainder of my remarks specific to this group. <BR /> <BR />Fundamentally, we are here to enhance public safety, particularly for potentially vulnerable people, and to improve services for victims of trafficking and sexual exploitation. In that regard, amendment Nos 1, 12 and 13, although they are technical, are particularly important.”
“I am nonetheless happy that the reporting mechanisms in the Bill are now sound and that, importantly, we have covered "harm" more effectively. <BR /> <BR />I retain my concern that, where a child is conceived as a result of rape, the perpetrator may still apply for access. I urge any incoming Executive to act swiftly to address that, as well as other broader areas of child abuse. Nevertheless, it falls to us to get on with passing this legislation so that we can address the very human penalty that is being paid as a result of such outdated provisions relating to adoption. We have improved the Bill; now it is time to get on with delivering it to make life better for countless children and families across Northern Ireland.”
“The Bill is a very complex piece of legislation, and I am glad that we now approach the finishing line so that we can move towards implementation. We are 27 years on from the Children Order. Much has changed in that time, but the legislative position on adoption has not. We have no further time to lose on this. <BR /> <BR />Of the five amendments, I will make some brief comments on amendment No 2. I am still not entirely satisfied with where the amendment has landed. As a Committee, we had broad discussion on that part of the Bill throughout our deliberations, particularly clause 122(1). I still think that the amendments that were tabled by the Committee at Consideration Stage reflect that discussion fairly. For me, and for most of the Committee, it is meant to go well beyond formal education.”
“There is also clarity around the prohibition of the advertising of unlicensed products and around monitoring the risks of medicines that are relatively rarely prescribed. <BR /> <BR />Uniquely in the UK, for Northern Ireland the regulation of medicines is a devolved matter. I trust that that will enable us to respond swiftly to any concerns pharmacists or other healthcare professionals raise about how the scheme will be continued here once it is put on a statutory footing. We must therefore proceed with appropriate caution. Overall, however, this step makes a lot of sense and provides welcome clarity.”
“<BR /> <BR />There have, however, been occasions on which the scheme has been a cause of frustration to people, including some who have contacted my constituency office. No doubt, part of the reason for that is because the scheme remained non-statutory. It is evident that placing the scheme on a statutory footing will provide legal clarity for pharmaceutical companies, as they now have a clear framework for operation in Northern Ireland and across the UK, as well as clarity around data collection. It does much more than that, however. There is a significant element of tidying up which licences are necessary. That will do much not just for the providers but, more importantly, for people, by getting medicines out to them faster.”
“Again, I will say a few words in support of what is, in effect, a complicated but necessary set of regulations that will amend existing law to put the early access to medicines scheme on a statutory footing. Over the past two years or so, we have seen how essential clinical trials are to our common well-being. In 2014, the early access to medicines scheme was developed as a further lifeline. There is no doubt about the positive impact that it has had, not least for people with rare diseases, who would otherwise simply never have had access to medicines. It is also good news for those of us who sit on the newly formed all-party group (APG) on rare disease, because it is something on which we will be working.”
“The amendments to existing law will enable the ongoing provision of broad public coronavirus vaccination programmes alongside those for flu. That should provide significant reassurance to the population of Northern Ireland and across the UK. <BR /> <BR />I continue to urge those who have not been vaccinated or who have not had all the vaccines to which they are entitled to come forward. That remains our best way of protecting ourselves, our health service and each other.”
“I support the regulations. Ultimately, the regulations arise from the largely successful vaccine programmes for the coronavirus and the flu virus since 2020. They enable the extension of some aspects of the provision of human medicines for a further two years to April 2024. In effect, they also enable the permanent carrying out of vaccination programmes in the way that we have seen them being carried out over the past 18 months. <BR /> <BR />It does not need to be re-emphasised how important it is for us to ensure that vaccinations are available and carried out in as widespread a manner as possible, given that, alongside developing treatments and voluntary adaptations to behaviour, they are our sole defence against what continues to be a deadly virus.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. My remarks were in reference to the police having to intervene, which takes up valuable time that could be used to deal with other crimes. That was the point of my intervention.”
“I fully agree that none of us in the Chamber wants to see police time, or court time, for that matter, tied up with the offences, but, as political leaders, should we not be encouraging people not to protest and to have their silent prayers elsewhere where they would not come into conflict with the police and those who are trying to access healthcare? Do you not think that the responsible position would be to encourage people not to protest where it could cause those difficulties for the police?”
“Does the Member agree that it is not just about the women who are accessing healthcare at that point but can re-traumatise women who have experienced miscarriage and see graphic images at the protests?”
“I support the Bill sponsor's amendments and thank her and the Committee staff for their work before Consideration Stage.”
“The reason for that is not just about legal defence in the event that someone is charged with an offence; it has to do with knowing when the police should be called and providing clarity to prevent offences occurring in the first place. In other words, I want to ensure that there is no uncertainty and that, where there is space for reasonable protest, that is defined as well. That is to reduce the potential impact on police resources and, most of all, to reduce the likelihood of offences occurring. The distinction between reasonable protest and forcing people to run the gauntlet of hate to access healthcare will need to be carefully defined going forward and established not just in law but on the ground. <BR /> <BR />I hope that the Bill, strengthened by the amendments, can proceed with the uncertainty reduced.”
“Even then, the conviction was overturned precisely because the judge could not be clear that the unpleasant behaviour constituted criminal harassment. That is exactly why the legislation is necessary, but it is also why it is essential to be as clear as possible about what precisely that entails. I repeat that I welcome the Minister's commitment to look further at that through a policy framework. <BR /> <BR />Evidence was brought to the Committee emphasising that there would be a potential defence under the legislation that those engaging in abuse did not know that they had approached a protected person. That was raised under the definition of "protected person", but it also emphasises the need to be clear about where the offence applies.”
“No one can argue that it is reasonable behaviour to target women in a way designed to make them feel angry, uncomfortable, traumatised, scared, intimidated, upset, inadequate or unsettled by subjecting them to a torrent of public abuse as they exercise their right to access healthcare. <BR /> <BR />The Bill empowers the police to enforce safe access zones, and my concern was that the legislation initially did not make it sufficiently clear where those applied. During 2021, the police attended over 50 incidents at premises that would be protected by the legislation going forward. Before that, in the best-known case, police were deployed at the Marie Stopes clinic daily and reported 85 crime occurrences that resulted in just one successful prosecution.”
“I spoke to people who have been traumatised when accessing services, and we heard from the chief executives of the trusts, who talked about how their staff felt traumatised having to run the gauntlet through the protesters. When people access healthcare, they should not have to run that gauntlet of hate and harm. My intention was and is to ensure that the legislation is clear about where that gauntlet is. <BR /> <BR />We need to be in no doubt about the right to protest. However, as with any other right, it is not absolute. It comes with a responsibility, and, essentially, that responsibility is to behave reasonably.”
“I felt that, in an unamended Bill, the description of the zones was clear and was similar to the law already adopted in the Isle of Man in 2019. Usefully, other amendments have further strengthened that description, including reference to the abortion regulations of 2020. What concerned me in our Committee deliberations was that the ability to enforce the law, when distress was being caused that was clearly intentional, may have been limited by the Bill as it initially stood. To be clear here, we are talking not about reasonable protest, which is legitimate, but about behaviour that is likely to traumatise or further traumatise. When people are accessing healthcare —”
“Amendment Nos 7 and 9 are essentially the same amendment. It is worth emphasising that we still need to add clarity to the original Bill on that area, as my colleague Colin McGrath has just outlined, which follows on from evidence given to the Committee, particularly around the relative ineffectiveness of the law as it stands. <BR /> <BR />It bears repeating and emphasising that safe access zones exist elsewhere. In the words of the Queensland Law Reform Commission, they are:”
“I can confirm that I will not move amendment Nos 7 and 9, as the Health Minister has written to Committee members and the Bill sponsor and, at our special Health Committee meeting yesterday, outlined what those amendments would mean in practice. I welcome the Minister's assurance in his letter that he will develop a policy statement that sets out how these zones will be implemented. I will support all the amendments that have been tabled by the Bill sponsor. I will support her in her clauses not standing part intentions, and I will oppose all other amendments.”
“I take your point. An amendment that I tabled would support people who want to protest by giving them clarity. <BR /> <BR />You talked about reform of the harassment laws, but I see no amendments tabled by your party to address the issues that you are raising today. Why not?”
“I thank the Member for letting me in. The Member keeps using the word "influence". Does he not think that, by the time the woman or girl has arrived for her healthcare services, she will have already gone through an agonising process? By that stage, she will have made up her mind, so I do not think that it should be on anybody else to try to influence her at that point.”
“People can protest, but outside the safe access zones. That is what I will be supporting today.”
“I am not sure how many of the evidence sessions you listened in on, but when we heard from the chief executives of the trusts, we heard about a woman who had come to Northern Ireland from Eritrea to seek refuge here. She was sexually assaulted en route, and when she arrived here to have her healthcare needs met, she was harassed at the entrance to the facility. While I understand and support the right to protest, I also believe that the needs of women in her circumstances and similar ones should have primacy. Do you agree with that?”
“Minister, the issue of vacancies runs through all of the questions that you have been asked this afternoon. A Member raised that issue earlier. On 10 February, the British Medical Association raised concerns about the 300 vacancies for consultants and made reference to the fact that there are pay disparities with the rest of the UK. There are problems in the South as well. What is your Department doing to bring parity to pay here?”
“Thank you, Minister, for your answer. Minister, will you support some of your departmental officials' meeting some residents on-site? There is a new campaign called Save Our Lagan which covers that whole Stranmillis/Rosetta area. Will you support your officials' meeting some local residents?”
“The Minister will be aware that, every year, there are issues in the Holylands area of South Belfast. Residents there are already becoming nervous about what is to come this year. Will you offer them reassurance that work is under way to put in place a multidisciplinary cross-departmental approach to address that?”
“I have nothing to add other than to say that I support amendment Nos 2 and 3.”
“That is just one example of how the Budget remains, in too many areas, to be the product of a reactive Administration rather than a proactive Government.”
“A true transformation of health outcomes would include improved housing stock, more physical activity in the education system, better work opportunities, enhanced addiction services, more money for rehabilitating offenders and so on, all of which would involve allocations primarily or purely for other Departments. <BR /> <BR />I have a particular concern that much of the vital work that falls to Health and Justice is falling between the cracks, given that both Departments are under such pressure to <BR />fulfil their core functions. That will have long-term negative impacts on well-being and will only put more pressure on those Departments as they try to recover from not being able to put in place sooner relevant interventions such as rehabilitation.”
“For example, New Decade, New Approach came without a clearly attached budget. Programmes for Government are now developed on the basis of outcomes-based approaches, yet budgets are still allocated by Department. The core problem with Budget Bills like the one before us is that they mean we are still budgeting in black and white when we are trying to strategise in colour. <BR /> <BR />Recent surveys have shown that COVID recovery, taken as a whole, is still one of the public's top three priorities, alongside health and education. There is no Executive budget line to deal with that exclusively. Even the transformation of health is not solely a Department of Health matter by any means.”
“There is no budget for that in the Bill. As it stands, there still will not be in the next financial year without taking money from elsewhere within Health. <BR /> <BR />In the more immediate short term, there is an even more obvious example. We may need money to cover COVID testing that is specific to Northern Ireland, even within the current financial year and certainly early in the next one. Thus far, that has been covered by Barnett consequentials, but, given the tendency of the UK Government to make decisions based on whims rather than clear evidence, we know that that is no longer likely. If we needed the funding from existing budgets, where would it come from and how would that be agreed? <BR /> <BR />Overall, the Bill still represents a strange way to go about things.”
“The Department of Health's estimates suggest it is over £2 billion above its baseline pressures for 2024-25. In part, that speaks to an unreformed system, but it is also a legitimate requirement for COVID recovery in the longer term. Yet, with no Executive, those pressures, which will by then amount to close to over a third of the current baseline, will not be managed, as we will, in effect, only be able to carry over the current budget. In theory, the net effect is that in a few years' time the Department of Health will have only three of every four pounds that it requires. <BR /> <BR />We can look at the impact on a piece of legislation that is going through the Assembly. The Autism (Amendment) Bill includes provision for the appointment of an autism reviewer to provide scrutiny and support for people who are impacted by autism.”
“I will make a few brief remarks on the issues that arise from the Bill that specifically impact on health, although they can only be partially debated given the current context, which means that we are unable to do longer-term budgeting. <BR /> <BR />Let me start with a simple example. The Budget this year included, after October monitoring, bids of £69 million for trusts to meet COVID-19 pressures, nearly £11 million for vaccine management, and £3·5 million for the extension of vaccines, including boosters and the programme for 12 to 15-year-olds. That was allocated by the Executive after they had met and determined their priorities. <BR /> <BR />As has been mentioned many times this afternoon, the plan, of course, was for multi-year budgeting.”