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 36 of 49.
“Again, I am concerned that legislation has been allowed to reach this stage without front-line healthcare workers having been engaged in any meaningful way whatsoever, and we need to reflect on why an attempt would be made to push legislation through various stages without such engagement and scrutiny.”
“Unlike the sponsor, I have consulted widely on this, and I was struck by the words of one campaigner, who put the objective very clearly: there is a time limit on non-fatal abnormalities, and we are asking for that to be extended to Down's syndrome. <BR /> <BR />The sponsor raised a relevant issue in Committee regarding the need to avoid pejorative language, although, again, I note that he had not consulted with the healthcare professionals. Having engaged with many fetal medical consultants, I feel that the claim around abortion being mentioned in the same sentence as a diagnosis of Down's is questionable in Northern Ireland. It does not do justice to the extremely sensitive way in which our highly trained medical specialists approach the issue.”
“<BR /> <BR />There are those who will demonstrate their interest only for political gains and create division by arguing that raising clear objections to the Bill, which is incompatible with existing law and about forcing women to do things rather than supporting them, is, somehow, anti-disability. In doing so, they are demonstrating that they are interested not in delivery but in playing to emotions and divisions for electoral gain. We do not advance disability rights by pitting one set of rights against another, by presenting a Bill that happens to be solely about abortion or by engaging only with those whom we feel comfortable engaging with. Nevertheless, we should not ignore the Don't Screen Us Out campaign. There may be an opportunity to use the debate to achieve most of the campaign objectives.”
“<BR /> <BR />I repeat that I am highly sympathetic to finding ways, urgently, to provide greater support to women facing complexities in pregnancy to remove disability discrimination, but, regardless of Members' views on the issue, we need to consider whether it is adequate to pass legislation, even in general principles form, upon which there was no public consultation, no engagement with representative bodies or broad campaign groups, no understanding of the likely practical outcomes, and no evidence of consideration of alternatives which may achieve the objective more readily. Is ill-considered legislation, which is likely to be deemed to be unlawful in the courts, the best that we can do in this Chamber?”
“He went on to add that the NIO had consulted on regulations on the entirety of abortion law, but he said that the Bill is not about abortion but disability discrimination. A Bill that is focused on disability discrimination requires a focused consultation about disability discrimination, not a reliance on a consultation that was fundamentally broader and about a different subject.”
“No, I will not. <BR /> <BR />Or, put simply, whether we are going to need another courageous woman to sort out intentionally muddied waters in our courts. <BR /> <BR />I return now to the remarkable absence of consultation on the Bill. It is standard practice for private Member's Bills to be publicly consulted on and for professionals to be involved in engagement and scrutiny. As we established in Committee, the sponsor could say only that he had a meeting with the GMC lined up subsequent to his appearance there, and he then went on to mention one individual but could not give any context as to who that person was. Therefore, he had put forward a Bill without any consultation with representative groups. That is not adequate for good legislation.”
“The task is to present policy and legislation that is, as Theresia Degener said, a correct interpretation of the convention, which recognises that gender equality and disability rights are two sides of the same coin. This legislation is not it. <BR /> <BR />Ultimately, the question is about whether we are going to try to pass legislation, which will, inevitably, be judicially reviewed over whether the Assembly has the discretion to amend legislation that would run contrary to Westminster legislation, requiring the implementation of international human rights obligations, or —.”
“Therefore, the sponsor of the Bill has misinterpreted the convention. He also says that, in his opinion, the Bill is human rights compliant, but it is clear that that is a point of significant contention. <BR /> <BR />However, the key point is that, of all the things that the sponsor could have brought forward to ensure appropriate and ongoing social and financial support for women to decide to carry pregnancies to term in cases of severe fetal impairment, he has chosen to focus solely on forcing the woman to travel. As a result, the premise of the Bill rests on a misinterpretation. It is legislation that will be overturned because it is based on a false premise.”
“She also notes that using the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, referred to by the proposer, in any effort to restrict or prohibit access to safe abortion:”
“As noted, it is not always possible to distinguish between severe and fatal when these things are being considered in practice. That is absolutely not a licence to ignore the aspects of disability discrimination that many may legitimately feel are inherent here. However, it does demonstrate that the Bill, as introduced, will not accomplish the stated objective, not least because it breaches requirements in primary legislation from the UK Parliament. Even more importantly, we also need to emphasise, as the Chair of the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities put it:”
“So, the scope of the regulations is specified: they must implement paragraphs 85 and 86. Paragraph 85(b)(iii) states:”
“Its recommendations were in paragraphs 85 and 86. Section 9(1) of the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2019 specifically requires the Secretary of State to ensure:”
“Instead, without consulting, an ardent campaigner against trusting women just happened to present a Bill that focuses solely on abortion and specifically on forcing women to carry a pregnancy to term without support. <BR /> <BR />With regard to the human rights aspects of the Bill, it is reasonable to point to all the UN conventions, but, ultimately, the Bill focuses on regulations arising from just one. The 1979 Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women was agreed to by the UK Government in 1986. The 'Report of the inquiry concerning the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland under article 8 of the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women', chaired by Theresia Degener, was published in 2018.”
“Indeed, he was intent on proceeding quickly without taking the time to run a public consultation or to consult the Equality Commission or the Human Rights Commission, as would be the norm before proceeding to First Stage. He hoped to push this Bill through without proper consideration. We need to address why he was so keen to do that. Let us be clear that that is what he did. His justification that the abortion regulations were consulted on is a peculiar one, given that he also goes on to claim that the Bill is not about abortion but about disability discrimination. Let us remind ourselves that, if this were really about disability rights, he would have run a public consultation on how to ensure that people with Down's syndrome and other conditions could be and feel equally valued.”
“<BR /> <BR />If we want to have an impact on this issue, we also need to pass legislation that is human rights compliant. Otherwise, it will simply be overturned. The question is whether we want to look like we are doing something or actually want to do something. The Bill, as it stands, falls into the former category. It will take people on an emotional journey and then fail to deliver on the promise, because it will be overturned and no difference will be made. It cannot be repeated enough that it speaks only to forcing women to carry the pregnancy to term, not supporting them to. Indeed, it offers no explicit support whatsoever. <BR /> <BR />We need to be clear that, had the sponsor been confident on this point, he would not have skipped the usual stages through which a private Member's Bill normally goes.”
“If lack of support is the issue, why does the Bill do nothing about that? It bears repeating that it could do something about it. A Bill could require a framework of support for pregnant women who receive a severe fetal impairment diagnosis that sets out statutory obligations for social, financial and emotional support, not just through the pregnancy but throughout childhood and potentially beyond. Such legislation would be about supporting women to carry pregnancies to term, not forcing them to. Had the proposer engaged properly in public consultation or a call for evidence, that point would no doubt have been made. Yet again, we have to note that he elected not to call for evidence. For him, disability discrimination refers only to abortion, not to ensuring a lifelong pathway of support for families.”
“<BR /> <BR />It is worth re-emphasising that the proposer said that the lack of support for women speaks to the issue, yet he has elected to do nothing about it. There are no guidelines, even about the language to be used, for example, about Down's diagnoses, and there is certainly no support available in it. To be clear again, such support does not exist and there is no budget for it. There is scant counselling available, with some trusts having psychologists and social workers on hand while others do not. Frankly, there is very little information aside from that provided by professionals, whom the proposer has chosen not to consult. <BR /> <BR />Nothing in the health or welfare system will be changed by the Bill, yet women will be forced to proceed with pregnancies regardless.”
“<BR /> <BR />It must be emphasised that women in that position are entirely alone in every sense. They must book their own appointments in England, they must travel alone, they must seek their own information, and they must make their own decisions on who to involve and who not to involve. Probably the most crucial point is that they must ask for a post-mortem when they are there, because that allows for an enhanced care package for them for future pregnancies. <BR /> <BR />No one ever thinks that it will happen to them, but, for women, it can become a horrendous reality. Anyone in the Chamber could be in that position or have a family member in that position: alone, frightened and uncertain. The Bill creates more of that, not less, so it is absolutely about condemning women.”
“<BR /> <BR />The shameful situation in which vulnerable women are left to make horrendous choices without support could only be made worse by the Bill. When asked in Committee whether women who were seeking abortions would, as a result of the Bill, have to travel in some instances, again the sponsor gave no answer. That is, however, a likely practical outcome, as we have seen in the Republic. The sponsor specified that the Bill is not about condemning women, yet that is precisely what it does. It would condemn them by limiting their choices and risking ostracization if they chose to travel and force them to carry pregnancies to term without adequate support if they did not or could not travel. The Bill's sponsor accepted that point in Committee.”
“I have a lot to get through; I might let you in later. <BR /> <BR />Ultimately, this legislation derives from Westminster, and there is a duty on the Secretary of State. There is a specific reason that commissioning is important and should be part of a Bill such as this. Legislating for commissioning would potentially enable a requirement for the Department to bring forward regulations, perhaps informed by a systems-wide review of maternity services by the RQIA or another regulatory body, to develop a robust framework for pregnant women who receive a diagnosis such as Down's. I have spoken to professionals who would have no objection to such a clear framework and, in fact, would welcome it. That could be informed by much of what the Don't Screen Us Out campaign is advocating.”
“That not only brings into broad view the fact that it is the sponsor's party that stands in the way of a woman's right to choose but reinforces the failure of the Health Minister and the Assembly to commission health services. That failure is discriminatory against women and is another form of oppression.”
“The Bill fundamentally attempts to interfere with a woman's right to choose, and, I repeat, forcing her to do something rather than supporting her. <BR /> <BR />I move on to commissioning. When asked which pro-life groups he had engaged with, the Bill's sponsor accepted the blunt reality that it was not many. Therefore, I do not know whether the proposer is aware that he is said to have guaranteed that commissioning abortion services will not be an outcome of the Bill. <BR /> <BR />The Bill claims to be about disability discrimination, but then it chooses, out of all the aspects of disability rights that it could have chosen, to be solely about abortion regulations.”
“Professionals pointed out that effectively forcing a 23-week time limit on abortions in certain circumstances may lead to more abortions taking place rather than fewer. The Bill's sponsor evidently had no idea why that would be the case, but the answer should be obvious. We should not force women to make life-changing decisions in a rush and when there is limited support for those who choose to continue their pregnancy, about which the Bill does nothing. With limited support, what decisions are likely in such a scenario? The blunt reality is that the best people to judge what to do in cases of difficult diagnoses are the women, after they have taken advice from the professionals. It takes at least 18 years of training, learning and career progression to become a fetal medicine consultant.”
“Women who can travel to England for screening or pay for it in an independent hospital here for £320 will be at an advantage over those who cannot. That cannot be right, yet the Bill exacerbates the problem rather than solving it.”
“I will move on to the issue of medical screening. It is worth noting that, at the Committee, when a question about screening was put to the Bill's sponsor, he had nothing to say about the ramifications for the future of antenatal care. That is an important practical issue. Screening is carried out by NHS England earlier than it is by Health and Social Care (HSC) in Northern Ireland. There is therefore the potential here for women not to be adequately informed about what is to follow, how to prepare and, depending on means, the differential impact.”
“I will continue with my last point. I should add that people with disabilities should not be cast as a single community of like mind. As the Women's Resource and Development Agency (WRDA) puts it, it is as diverse as any other group. It is:”
“Minister, will you please outline whether your Department has carried out any research into how many lives would be put at risk if there was a delay in our vaccination programme?”
“I want to add at this point that, given the current rightful focus in the media on gender-based violence and the need for respect for women, that intransigence on the commissioning of those services has also delayed the requirement for appropriate, science-based relationships and sexuality education (RSE) in schools. That is still outstanding. The Health Minister needs to consider that.”
“<BR /> <BR />With regard to disability rights, we need to look at the general lack of support for people with disabilities and, indeed, mothers who have been given a diagnosis of what is now termed "severe fetal impairment". Again, the question arises of why other action to support them has not been taken. The Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) report is clear that mothers who choose to take their pregnancies to term must be supported, yet the Bill seeks only to force them to do so, not support them. That speaks to a particular set of priorities. I wonder whether the Health Minister has given thought to the outworkings of his failure to deliver on the commissioning of the full contents of the abortion regulations: probably not.”
“Again, I have to add that the proposer has made no effort to understand the situation by engaging, for example, with women's groups, a wider range of disability campaigners or medical professionals. At the Committee for Health, he admitted to having been selective and — I quote — engaging with whom he wants to engage with. <BR /> <BR />Moving on to disability, we need to consider whom we trust on sensitive issues like this. Most of us watched on with dismay, for example, when a man who had openly mocked a disabled reporter was elected leader of the free world. For most of us, that appalling mockery should have ended his campaign. That said, others among us actively supported that campaign, cheered his election and even advocated his re-election. Others can judge what that tells us about their priorities.”
“Let us talk about what happens during pregnancy. Here, some of us have a clear idea, and some of us have no idea. The diagnoses come at around the 20-week stage of much-wanted pregnancies. What is presented by proponents of the Bill is a society in which women, finding out that the fetus they are carrying is seriously impaired, decide, solely in their own interests, to opt for termination. What kind of ogres do proponents of the Bill think we women are? Do they seriously think that a woman who has begun to develop an emotional attachment and connection with a fetus would be so utterly callous? We need, once and for all, to end the nonsense that a woman faced with a complexity or crisis in her pregnancy will simply want abortion on demand. That is a scurrilous phrase, which completely misrepresents how decisions are made in practice.”
“We would also do well to interpret it correctly. The chair of the committee has stated:”
“I can well understand the bewilderment of pro-life groups seeing the proposer introduce a Bill that fundamentally reinforces the law on abortion and, indeed, highlights the need for it. Maybe he would like to make further attempts at chipping away at women's choice and bodily autonomy, but he will always be the proposer of a Bill that reinforced a Westminster law that would never have been passed had the Executive in which he served not crumbled. <BR /> <BR />What bewilders me and should bewilder all of us is why a Bill that is supposedly about disability rights and ensuring that support for people with Down's syndrome is equally valued would focus solely on abortion regulations. The UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities has been widely quoted, and we would do well to adopt the convention into law.”
“I put on record my support for my colleague Councillor Michelle Kelly, who is seeking, through legal services at Belfast City Council, to outlaw the graphic imagery that is used in the high street. What they do to women who have miscarried, had abortions or any sort of trouble with their pregnancies is very triggering and brings back the trauma. <BR /> <BR />What the Bill does nothing about, despite its stated intent, is the need to address the key issue of support for women taking pregnancies to full term where possible when they are told about severe fetal impairment. There is a question about whether that support should be given a legal footing, but the Bill does not touch on that.”
“Is it not interesting how, last week, I was heckled and disrupted and, this week, another woman who is trying to stand up for the rights of other women is heckled and disrupted? It is absolutely ridiculous, and it speaks to the behaviour of the Members behind us.”
“<BR /> <BR />Nevertheless, let us leave the pro-life and pro-choice designations aside and focus on the Bill. It seeks to confuse the grounds on which abortion may take place late in pregnancy, and nothing else. Everyone in the House would like to get to the stage at which abortions do not take place late in pregnancy; indeed, none of us is pro-abortion. This is about women's rights and women's autonomy, not about wanting to see abortions take place.”
“It is a pity that, over the decades, unionists were so unconcerned about an Irish Sea border when it came to women's rights. <BR /> <BR />Let me move on to abortion principles. It is worth emphasising that we also have to judge the Bill on its content. There, it becomes rather interesting. The Bill accepts the abortion law as it appears in the regulations that it seeks to amend. Far from seeking to abandon all those regulations or even to amend most of them, it leaves almost all of them completely untouched. I hear claims that this is not about pro-life and pro-choice, but let us be clear: passing the Bill will be claimed by some who are pro-life as a victory. It will, however, merely reinforce the fact that the law in Northern Ireland has been liberalised and that an incremental attempt at repealing it is bound to fail.”
“Even though I do not like how it was done — I believe in devolution — one of the few advantages of having had the Assembly in cold storage for three years is that a historical wrong was put right. <BR /> <BR />The Bill is about chipping away at the newly won right for women to choose. If it were to pass, no one should doubt that that is how it would be presented. That refusal to trust women and, indeed, specialist medical professionals is not restricted to one party by any means. We see an ongoing refusal by the Health Minister to commission services, as required by law. That is not the only failure on women's reproductive rights. We have also seen, for example, failures to ensure access to IVF on the same basis as in the rest of the UK.”
“There is no trace at all of any serious attempt to gather evidence. The Bill is really about the ongoing denial of women's rights. It sets out to pit disability rights against women's rights in a divisive manner rather than to recognise that they are parts of the same human rights standards. <BR /> <BR />It has been a long struggle for women to get the same right to choose as has existed in the rest of the UK for half a century. Of course, certain parties fought that every step of the way and continue to do so; indeed, had they not played a part in bringing down the Executive, it is likely that parties in the Assembly would still be working to deny women full or even any bodily autonomy.”
“If we are genuine about the disability rights issues that have been legitimately raised by Heidi Crowter and others, the Bill, on those grounds alone, will clearly not deliver. <BR /> <BR />To be clear about my position, which others intentionally misrepresent, I am keen to explore whether we may be able to do something arising out of the debate along the lines of much of what the Don't Screen Us Out campaign is requests. I will take the opportunity later to put on record some of the issues that we need to consider urgently in that regard. A priority among them is support for mothers taking pregnancy to term. That is something that the Bill does absolutely nothing about. That is because the Bill is not really about disability discrimination. If it were, it would surely take a different form.”
“Excuse me, please. I did not interrupt anybody else.”
“I apologise, Mr Speaker: I misheard. I thought that the Member was asking for an intervention. I was not questioning your authority over points of order. <BR /> <BR />The point that I was making is that it is highly likely that this will end up in the Supreme Court, where it will be reversed. <BR /> <BR />If we are genuine —”
“Are we content to pass a Bill, the main effect of which will be to force women to take action, rather than our supporting them? Regardless of our position on the issue, we may be sure, because it breaches the requirements of that primary legislation from Westminster, that, if we pass the Bill simply as it is, it will be reversed in the courts as it breaches the Westminster legislation that puts into law the UK's human rights obligations.”
“Leaving aside its obvious incompatibility with primary legislation at Westminster, as contained in section 9 of the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2019, it has been presented without consideration of the human rights implications, with no thought given to the practical outcomes or unintended consequences and with no clarity on what its actual effect would be. At best, it is a lazy attempt to play off rights against each other as part of what is, in fact, fundamentally, an attempt to incrementally reverse abortion liberalisation. <BR /> <BR />It is clear from what we have heard in the Health Committee that the proposer has approached this process without any serious engagement with the key people or on the key issues.”
“I recognise that this is, in broad terms, a matter of conscience. I am reserving my position on the general issue until I have further guidance on the legal and human rights aspects of the Bill, specifically its legal compatibility, its human rights compliance and, most notably, whether legislation is, in fact, the most appropriate way to deliver the outcome sought. By outcome, I mean, essentially, the outcome desired by the Don't Screen Us Out campaign, which wishes to ensure that people with Down's syndrome are and feel equally valued. <BR /> <BR />While I reserve my position on the issue, I cannot do so on the Bill. As presented, it is utterly inadequate.”
“First, to determine how their lives are impacted on, are you going to try to meet the residents of the Holylands, be it over Zoom or through some socially distanced meeting, to hear at first hand a more qualitative response from them to the consultation that closed on Friday? Will you also join me in calling for people to stay away from the Holylands on St Patrick's Day?”
“Thank you, Minister. Happy International Women's Day. Obviously, we both represent the Holylands area of South Belfast, and you will know that the ongoing problems there are escalating as we get closer to St Patrick's Day.”
“— and that the advice of the Human Rights Commission can be provided promptly. Thank you, Mr Speaker.”
“The question is about how they are to be interpreted. We should never underestimate how important that is. In addition to the lack of support throughout their life for women who choose to carry pregnancies to term in the event of a diagnosis of severe impairment, there is clear evidence that the impact of female-specific health conditions, such as heavy menstrual bleeding, endometriosis and pregnancy-related issues on women's lives, including on workforce participation, productivity and years lived in good health, is overlooked. Furthermore, since the Bill is predicated on disability rights, it is to be hoped that the motion will have the full support of the Assembly —”
“Moreover, Members may welcome advice on any potential implications for economic and social rights arising as an unintended consequence of the Bill. <BR /> <BR />The motion is not a commentary on the intention of the Bill, which provides for a welcome discussion on how best to ensure the ongoing support for women to take babies to term, if available, as well as around the urgent need to stop the perpetuation of stigma around such conditions as Down's syndrome. Rather, it is a request for clarity on the best way to ensure that disability rights and gender equality are treated and advanced in legislation and public policy as part of the same internationally recognised human rights standards. <BR /> <BR />In closing, it is appropriate, on this day, to note that women's rights are central to the issue.”