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 28 of 49.
“Ahead of International Day of People with Disabilities on Friday 3 December, I highlight the barriers that disabled people face, not least in the wake of COVID-19. All of us have experienced isolation as a result of the pandemic, but, for people with disabilities, the effect of the lockdowns has been particularly hard felt. Many who remain vulnerable to the virus have spent vast amounts of time shielding in their home. Ultimately, as restrictions were eased, they were left with the impression that they were considered as an afterthought and, eventually, not being considered at all. <BR /> <BR />A Disability Action survey showed that 57% of disabled people faced challenges in accessing food and medicine in 2020, whilst 38% reported challenges around caring commitments.”
“The Member is somewhat misrepresenting the Minister's position on that. I will also pick up on his point about marginalised and minority groups. Very few sections of society are more vulnerable than victims of rape, for example. It is those people, and other victims of crime, for whom I am standing up and taking this position today. <BR /> <BR />As I say, access to justice matters most of all for the victims, and I trust that most of us will recognise that the system needs to change in order to give those victims a voice free from the intimidation and terror about which some have spoken so courageously in recent weeks. I commend the Bill and amendment No 3.”
“In that context, we should all remember that what we choose to prioritise in our public pronouncements matters. Access to justice —”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. In effect, removal of oral evidence at committal stage removes the stage at which intimidation can be a factor and reduces the trauma of the process for victims and witnesses. Ultimately, it is a fundamental part of a Bill that improves the experiences of victims and witnesses and thus gives them greater and truer access to justice. <BR /> <BR />In cases of serious sexual offences such as rape, Criminal Justice Inspection has spoken in favour of what we are doing with the Bill, while noting that the no-bill application process remains in order to provide an ongoing safeguard against spurious allegations. <BR /> <BR />In the end, the Bill is not about the technicalities of how the justice system works but about human beings.”
“I will just finish this, and then I will give way. <BR /> <BR />— is a recommendation of the Fresh Start panel and the Northern Ireland Audit Office. It should be noted, therefore, that those supporting these wrecking amendments are opposing Audit Office recommendations. <BR /> <BR />I will give way now.”
“Doing away with it will stop the intimidation of victims and witnesses, thus enabling more cases to proceed. Most of us think that more cases proceeding, more victims being heard and more perpetrators being punished is a good thing. <BR /> <BR />With regard to terrorist suspects, removal of oral evidence at committal stage —”
“I support amendment No 3, which is to enable the issuing of legal aid certificates, and I will oppose all other amendments. <BR /> <BR />The other amendments are wrecking amendments, as highlighted by other Members. From A Fresh Start to the Gillen review to New Decade, New Approach, it has been agreed that the Bill is a vital reform to create a more efficient and, indeed, fundamentally fairer justice system. The only people who would want to wreck the Bill are those who wish to ignore a good practice on behalf of victims and who want to act against the interests of victims. <BR /> <BR />It is well established, as the Member proposing the amendments well knows, that oral evidence at committal stage is not just unnecessary but contrary to good process.”
“On the point about the abuse of car parking, I represent South Belfast, and you will be aware of the geography and the layout of the City Hospital site. You come off the motorway, up the Donegall Road, and there is a big multistorey car park there. I do not suspect that any patient, visitor or member of healthcare staff would abuse that, but how would you prevent people from driving in, parking in the car park and walking into the city centre? That is my concern about the abuse of the car parking facilities, given the pressure on the Donegall Road at present with people doing that already.”
“<BR /> <BR />Fundamentally, the issue is about whether legislation should be used to dictate how trusts, with funding from the Department of Health, manage their estate. That is where we have a bit of difficulty with the proposal being in legislation as opposed to policy. We are concerned about unintended consequences, the unclear financial impact, including the potential, in practice, for poorer workers to be subsidising better-off workers, and the anti-environment impact of the Bill as it stands. Those concerns show clearly that the Bill needs a good bit of work. If legislation in this area, such as it is, is to be supported, it must not remove the flexibility of the Department and the trusts to manage their estates as they see fit, and it must focus on the actual issue. I will leave it there.”
“<BR /> <BR />The other issue is that the Bill does not demonstrate any clear evidence that all options have been considered. It looks like the options are either do nothing or total abolition. I wonder whether the Bill sponsor looked at abolishing charges just for workers and not for visitors. That said, I have spoken publicly about my father's experience when my mum was in the last months of her life. He was going up twice a day to bring soup, clean pyjamas and whatever; in some ways, he was almost like an unofficial carer, taking the burden off the staff. He had to pay the cost of car parking twice a day, which he did not mind, because he was in a position to do that. However, I recognise that, where people have to stay in hospital for a long time, the charges can mount up for their relatives.”
“I know that I am comparing apples to pears, but, when it was introduced in Forestside shopping centre a few years back, many constituents got a penalty notice and wondered whether it was legally enforceable. There are, potentially, lots of headaches for the trusts with people appealing penalties that arise from misuse of the scheme. <BR /> <BR />It should be emphasised that, in Belfast, the City Hospital is on the railway line, and the Ulster Hospital and the Royal are directly served by Glider halts. A general prohibition on car parking charges could discourage people from using public transport alternatives, even when they can. In the case of those with no access to cars, that must run contrary to Executive policy; someone from the DUP Benches mentioned that earlier. I have no doubt that my colleague John Blair will pick up on that.”
“First, taking steps towards abolishing car parking charges would be to the advantage of those who have cars, even if it were done in a targeted way, which, in fact, is not what the legislation does. The Bill sponsor's constituency has some of the lowest rates of car ownership in the UK. Those people without access to a car, who are, perhaps in many instances, reliant on taxis to get to and from work, are not helped at all by the legislation and, in effect, end up subsidising those with cars. <BR /> <BR />Of course, that brings us to the main issue with the legislation: prohibiting fee-paying car parks near hospitals will simply lead to them being used for other purposes. At the Health Committee, I want us to look at the costs of the car licence-plate recognition system and how that would be enforced in law.”
“Although the Bill sponsor did not take my intervention, it was around her mention of having had significant engagement with people who use car parking and the unions who represent them, but I did not get a sense that she had had significant engagement with the trusts about how they manage their estates. The Bill sponsor used the word "creativity" around the matter. There is the potential to raise revenue in other ways, so I wonder whether the Bill sponsor, who I know adopted the Bill, or her party have considered other ways in which the costs could be recouped, as opposed to coming directly out of the trust's pocket. <BR /> <BR />Ultimately, the question arises about whether the legislation solves the problem or creates others. Mr Chambers indicated some of the problems that, I agree, exist and certainly need to be teased out.”
“It is worth emphasising that the nature of health and social care work can be shift-based, thus a public transport system that is based primarily around nine-to-five working may not always present a serious option for them to get to work. That is where the argument arises that car parking charges are something of a tax or levy, charged effectively at random. <BR /> <BR />It may be noted that car parking charges are not necessarily an effective way to raise income, given their administrative cost. If the purpose was to raise money, other things such as on-site advertising would be considered. We can see, therefore, that charging does not exist for the purposes of significant revenue raising.”
“However, more needs to be done to address those issues in a fair and targeted manner, and, indeed, the way in which we achieve that may not necessarily be through legislation. As I said, that does not mean that we oppose the Bill. It means that we think, as others said in their contributions, that more thinking and scrutiny around it is required. <BR /> <BR />The Bill sponsor is correct to say that there is an element of lottery, given the differentials in charges between trusts and, in the Belfast trust, between hospital sites. It seems very unfair that staff who work in one trust and earn the same wage for the same work may face car parking charges at one location but not another.”
“I thank the Bill sponsor for introducing the Bill. Unfortunately, I was unable to get to the Health Committee meeting, as it clashed with another meeting. I have some queries that, no doubt, I could have asked at that stage, but I look forward to engaging with the Bill sponsor going forward. <BR /> <BR />As a party, we will support the Bill today, although we have some queries and, I will go so far as to say, difficulties with some of the principles in the Bill, not least because we are debating it in the very week following the conclusion of COP26. We certainly endorse the Member's contention that the financial burden on patients and visitors, who are already physically, psychologically and financially impacted by the experience of ill health, should be reduced and that we should do all that we reasonably can to reduce those burdens.”
“I thank the Minister for giving way. Minister, on your last point, you will have seen today's figures, and there has been a spike or large rise in the number of people aged 40 to 59 who have tested positive. I am due my six-month booster vaccination during Christmas week. Will there be any flexibility? My point is that we are starting to see a rise in numbers in that age group, and a lot of them will be due to have their booster doses in the mouth of Christmas. Will there be any flexibility in the five-month to six-month period? We do not want people heading to their Christmas dinner without having their immunity built up by the booster.”
“Thank you, Minister, for the work on that. When I speak to people in the sector, not least those who manage the home care packages, they tell me that they want to train up their staff to be the eyes and ears going into homes and reporting to GPs, for example, if they think that people are fragile on their feet. What work is being done to create a more integrated health and social care service here?”
“Minister, I go back to Pam Cameron's question. I have a constituent who has since left her place of employment and has been told that her previous employer is not going to apply on her behalf. Is there any recourse for people who find themselves in such a dispute?”
“It is increasingly evident that the choice is to act now, for minimal imposition, so that people can get on with their lives through Christmas while the health service is protected or to stick our fingers in our ears and face similar chaos next year, with people being unable to socialise in the run-up to Christmas while others are being turned away from A&E. I ask Members this question: who wants the latter? The time to be proactive is long past. <BR /> <BR />In closing, I put on record my support for the Health Minister and my opposition to the abuse that he has taken in recent weeks. His is probably the toughest job in government right now, and he has my full support.”
“Ventilation systems would count as a mitigation. Limits on numbers in locations where face coverings cannot be warn would count as a mitigation. Earlier closing times would count as a mitigation. Distancing, which was, bizarrely, removed from the regulations while cases were rising, would count as a mitigation. To go on with no mitigation is not an option. <BR /> <BR />Let us be clear: this is not an either/or situation. Inaction now comes at grievous cost later. We must put mitigations in place precisely so that we can relieve the pressures in our hospitals without the need for further lockdowns and closures.”
“I do not have time. I am sorry. <BR /> <BR />Those mitigations, as the whole Executive have finally accepted, may include certification demonstrating that people entering premises present lower risk because they are fully vaccinated, they have recently recovered from COVID or, best of all, they can demonstrate a recent negative test. It would be logical to say that any venue in which face coverings are impractical should be subject to such certification, meaning that entry to essential services such as retail would not be subject to checks additional to those currently in place but that people could make their choice about hospitality, particularly in high-risk indoor settings such as nightclubs. <BR /> <BR />To be clear, however, the mitigations need not and probably should not consist solely of certification.”
“<BR /> <BR />What kind of message did it send out that there is an exemption from wearing a face covering for eating, drinking and dancing? Can anyone show me the medical evidence that suggests that a face covering is absolutely essential while we are slowly walking or browsing in a shop but not while we are dancing on a crowded dance floor? It is nonsense, and everyone knows that it is nonsense. <BR /> <BR />As I said right at the outset of these debates last summer, either face coverings are an essential protection or they are not. Either they are required in all indoor venues to reduce risk or they are not. If they are essential but, for whatever reason, cannot be worn, other mitigations must be in place. Those mitigations —”
“Thank you, Mr Principal Deputy Speaker. I was not sure whether you would call me before Question Time. <BR /> <BR />At this stage, there is no point in forcing a Division to oppose those regulations, as they have already applied for three weeks. My party's ongoing objection to their proceeding without mitigation should be noted for the record, however. Frankly, given the most recent evidence that has emerged from the Department of Health, the decision to proceed with those regulations from 31 October genuinely defies belief. As my party's Minister made clear at the time, it was clearly unwise to abandon further restrictions from 31 October without putting in place appropriate mitigations. We can already see in the numbers and evidence that to do so was an error. Indeed, it does not take a genius to work out why.”
“Thank you, Finance Minister. I go back to your last answer about the awarding of contracts. Will that include the community and voluntary sector, which is in receipt of government grants?”
“I ask this again: how precisely will new services for those areas where the patient base may be low, like rare diseases or ME, which are currently lacking a full resource pathway or service, be of benefit? Where will responsibility lie for identifying, planning and engaging with primary and secondary care, and how will that be scrutinised? The fundamental question on behalf of the public is this: what are the benefits of all these reforms to those who need and rely on our health and social care services?”
“Those clauses and the Bill as a whole seem silent on those things, and the fact that we are taking up time now, during a pandemic and when hospitals are about to come under the greatest ever pressure, talking about a reform that does not deliver new expertise, better scrutiny and clearly improved performance for patients seems astonishing to me. <BR /> <BR />Given that the legislation is largely about how Northern Ireland is not large enough to do full commissioning on its own, we still need to ask exactly how commissioning and contracting health and social care services through the integrated care system model will improve performance for the public.”
“That is why, while I see nothing wrong with the content of the clauses or the Bill as a whole, I am frustrated at how much effort is being made to achieve very little. <BR /> <BR />The real question from the public — those who use health and social care services — is about scrutiny. Who is independently scrutinising performance? How did we arrive at such a shocking situation with waiting lists and waiting times? What new expertise will be brought on board in order to ensure that such gross failures in performance are neither repeated nor perpetuated?”
“Have we really seen any learning from, say, the reform of local government, which has essentially seen the same services delivered by the same council departments, with no identifiable efficiencies or savings readily apparent to the public? <BR /> <BR />That is not to say that the need for reform in health administration is not urgent. In the past year or so, we have seen the resignation of an entire board from the Regulation and Quality Improvement Authority (RQIA), the ongoing departure of senior officials who were replaced almost invariably by others acting on an interim basis and serious questions emerging about where accountability ultimately rests, particularly in social care.”
“<BR /> <BR />It is perhaps useful to go through some of the apparent benefits of the Bill, which should be most evident in clauses 3 to 5. It will apparently streamline bureaucracy, but I would like to hear much more about how that will be achieved. As Mr McGrath just pointed out, there have been indications that there will be reduction in costs of £400,000 per year. However, it must be said that that is a miniscule amount given the scale of the effort in a Department whose annual budget is already over £6 billion. I would like to hear more about how that will be a benefit. <BR /> <BR />The question that this all raises is this: what we have learnt from previous experience?”
“A Bill that initially set out fundamentally to abolish elements of administration in health and social care is now not abolishing one of those elements yet, for some reason, is still abolishing the other, seemingly before adequate commissioning frameworks have been put in place to replace it. Is that really the wisest thing that we could be doing and discussing in health at this juncture? Is there not a case for putting all those provisions on the back-burner while we focus on immediate, short-term priorities and then proceed only once we have a Bill that has been properly thought-through and that seeks to add new expertise to the administration of our health system without merely pushing more power and responsibility towards those who already have much of it?”
“For people with ME who have been waiting 11 years for commissioned services, what is the likelihood of more urgency being put into developing and commissioning those specialist services so that they can be delivered by those with specialist expertise? If a specific regional board with specific responsibility could not do that, why are we to believe that a Department will be able to? That view is reinforced by the decision to maintain local commissioning groups as per the amendments, including amendment Nos 5 to 7. <BR /> <BR />To be clear, this is a measure that I support, and, in fact, it was the focus of my speech when I last spoke on the Bill. However, such a fundamental reversal of policy only raises further questions about why we are making any of these reforms at all.”
“What we should be doing is proper reform, introducing new thinking and placing more power genuinely in the hands of service users. I have been, and I remain, open to hearing a clear case that that is what the Bill achieves, but, as yet, I have not heard it. <BR /> <BR />By abolishing the regional board with responsibility for commissioning and then transferring its assets, we leave more questions than answers. For example, how will pathways for people with rare diseases now be developed, and how will those be better linked to treatment and expertise away from Northern Ireland if that is necessary?”
“Since clauses 3 to 5 and the two amendments to add content after clause 2 are at the core of the Bill, I intend to make my remarks on the Bill as amended during this group. Although I do not intend to oppose any of the groups, and, indeed, I am supportive of the amendments, I was reluctant to support the Bill when it was last debated in the Chamber, and I remain somewhat unconvinced by it. <BR /> <BR />It still seems to me that a lot of effort is ongoing to achieve very little in practice; rather, in fact, it reinforces existing administrative mechanisms that, over the years, have been shown not to work. Just look at the length of our waiting lists. Ultimately, the Bill merely puts more responsibility in the hands of the same leadership system that delivered those.”
“Mr Speaker, I made my comments in the debate on the previous motion. Thank you.”
“We need to be clear that that is what the UK Government's taking no-deal off the table is about and that it demonstrates that the withdrawal agreement and all the benefits arising from it, including mutual social recognition enabling reciprocal healthcare arrangements with EU and EEA states, are now a fundamental part of UK policy and law. <BR /> <BR />To be clear, I wish that we had not needed a withdrawal agreement, because I wish that we had had no Brexit and thus no need to manage its ongoing damage not just to the UK's trade with the EU but to reciprocal healthcare arrangements such as these and to the sharing of best practice in medicines and medical devices. Nevertheless, the withdrawal agreement is where we are, and it will flavour UK policy across a range of issues in the coming months and years. I therefore support the motion.”
“With your consent, Mr Principal Deputy Speaker, I will make all my remaining remarks on the motions now, as they are almost all on international agreements. Before I do, I put on record my appreciation of the departmental officials' work on the LCMs and of all their work in recent months on the transition arrangements resulting from Brexit. They have done a marvellous job. <BR /> <BR />Again, I emphasise that all three motions passed the Health Committee with unanimous agreement. <BR /> <BR />Clause 122 concerns the ongoing need for clarity on international healthcare arrangements. Specifically, it removes arrangements that were initially put in place in case there was a no-deal Brexit.”
“<BR /> <BR />The amendments are largely technical, as I say, although I wish to draw attention to one aspect: the wide-ranging amendments to clause 85 in the form of additions under section 7 of the Medicines and Medical Devices Act 2021. The amendments are necessary to regulate information, and there is a specific emphasis that, in Scotland and Northern Ireland, information centres may have more substantial functions. I do not envisage that clauses 86 to 92 will cause any ongoing issues in Northern Ireland.”
“I support the motion, which received unanimous assent in the Committee. <BR /> <BR />The Health and Care Bill is, largely, technical but important legislation that carries out a range of reforms, predominantly to the NHS and social care system in England. Of course, we watch that with interest as we carry out our reforms, including our own Health and Social Care Bill. While there can be legitimate differences on exactly how such reforms should proceed, we are long past the phase when we debate whether or not reform is necessary. Therefore, the motion is a welcome reminder that, if we wish to protect the NHS, we need to reform it, and it is also a reminder that social care is an essential and integral part of the overall healthcare system.”
“I thank the First Minister and deputy First Minister for the statement. Before I ask my question, I put on record my immense admiration of the dignity shown by the birth mothers and adoptees throughout the process and in getting to this point. It has been inspiring. <BR /> <BR />As the deputy First Minister will know, during the research period, disclosures were made to the researchers on the nature of the sexual crimes. What support will be given to birth mothers and adoptees during the criminal investigations? The public inquiry will not stretch that far.”
“Far more work needs to be done to ensure that trans people have equal and adequate access to healthcare here, and I call on the Health Minister to take the urgent action that is required for the good health of our trans community.”
“We need to reassess how we can best provide care to our trans community. <BR /> <BR />A review of the gender identity service was due to be completed this autumn. The Minister has said that a key test for the new model will be whether it is able to offer timely care and support for patients. To achieve that, I strongly encourage him to address the criticism that there has been a lack of co-design in the review and a lack of engagement by his Department. It is essential that those with lived experience are included, that their views are taken into account and that gender incongruence is treated as a sexual health condition, as per global best practice. <BR /> <BR />I thank TransgenderNI, Focus: The Identity Trust, the Rainbow Project and others for all their work advocating on behalf of the trans community.”
“<BR /> <BR />As I have emphasised many times in the Chamber, we do not have a healthcare system that is free at the point of access when huge waiting lists act as a barrier to patients. TransgenderNI has highlighted that many trans people turn to the private sector, usually at great cost. Those who cannot afford private care often self-medicate with hormonal therapies acquired from unregulated sources and without any medical oversight. TransgenderNI promotes community and sexual health-based models of gender-affirming care as opposed to the outdated psychiatric and psychosocial standards of care used throughout the UK. By changing our approach to trans healthcare, we can begin to get on top of waiting lists, as psychiatric assessments are excessive and time-consuming.”
“This week is Transgender Awareness Week, and I take the opportunity to shine a light on how our healthcare system lets down trans people in our society. <BR /> <BR />Gender-affirming healthcare here for adults is provided by the Brackenburn Clinic. I have had the privilege of visiting that clinic. There are some really remarkable professionals working there, and we are lucky to have them in Northern Ireland. However, for the two years between 2018 and 2020, the gender identity clinic did not take on any patients, and the waiting lists are now extensive, with almost 500 people needing access to healthcare. It is appalling that some have had to wait as long as four years for their first appointment.”
“Do you not think that the language that you are using is offensive to members of the transgender community, many of whom suffer from severe mental health issues connected to their gender identity? Do you not think that that is very offensive to them, and that you should modify your tone?”
“I just have a question, really. I do not understand why you would think that it would be offensive to women. In the Chamber, should we not legislate for everyone in society and create laws that are inclusive?”
“I would welcome the opportunity to sit down with Mr Catney and go through some of the finer details that jumped out at me.”
“Going wider than that, I coach 11-year-old girls in hockey, and the Bill is valuable for sports settings. Does "public service body" include leisure centres, where girls change their clothes before and after matches? <BR /> <BR />I very much welcome the clause for those who live with a disability and the potential for period products to be delivered to them. I would like a little more clarity on how that would be achieved. Would it be from community pharmacists, for example? Have they been consulted? <BR /> <BR />As the mother of an 18-year-old girl, I am passionate about the issue, and I would have loved to see the Bill come through the Health Committee. If there is anything that I can do to support my colleague the Chair of the Education Committee, I will do so.”
“<BR /> <BR />I also congratulate the Department of Education and the Department for the Economy for their sterling work in bringing forward pilot projects. It is wonderful that that has happened without the need for legislation. In many ways, the Bill builds on that. <BR /> <BR />A couple of issues jumped off the page at me. The explanatory and financial memorandum states that, in Scotland, expenditure is estimated at £8·7 million. Here, if you read across, it would be £3·08 million. However, the Bill goes further than that, and I wonder how the costs have been worked out. The use of the term "public service body" is not widely used in Northern Ireland, and I seek clarity on the bodies that are included in that term. Are they charities that deliver on public services under contracts or commissioned services?”
“I support the Bill and thank the Bill sponsor, Mr Catney, for bringing it forward. It is very refreshing to see a male engaging in what has been a taboo subject for far too long. I also thank all the women's groups, in particular the Homeless Period Belfast and, in my constituency, Belfast South Community Resources, which do a lot of really good work at a grassroots level on the issue. <BR /> <BR />I will not speak for long, and I concur with much of what has been said. However, I want to address the issue of the word "person". As a woman, I take no offence at that, but the word "person" is inclusive, and it gives position and respect to those in the trans community who may need to avail themselves of period products, now or in the future.”