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 38 of 49.
“Sadly, it is likely that we will pay the price for that lack of contact for years to come. <BR /> <BR />I put on record in mid-April a call for testing in care homes regardless of symptoms, as it was an obvious means of protecting those who were vulnerable to the virus, so this is not a matter of speaking in retrospect. It was obvious early on that testing was one tool that needed to be implemented proactively. We should not have waited until other jurisdictions acted first. <BR /> <BR />Regarding the future, the report contains further findings and recommendations which I hope are helpful to the Minister and his Department.”
“Nevertheless, specific issues were raised regarding a lack of urgency to get ahead of the virus. <BR /> <BR />Moving on, we saw for a long time an inability to take account sufficiently of the importance to mental well-being of visiting and meaningful contact. The risk of the virus was increasingly understood but there was, for many weeks at least, a tendency to focus on the virus without recognising the severe impact of having no contact with family and friends. There was, for example, a missed opportunity to introduce care partners at an early stage. It should be noted, and has been noted here today, that that is still not fully implemented across all care homes. What we describe in the report as innovative methods to allow visiting needed to be put in place long before they were discussed as part of a Committee inquiry.”
“<BR /> <BR />We have seen, with huge concern, the impact of COVID on care homes in Northern Ireland and, indeed, in many other places. Our preparations for a pandemic had not fully taken into account the potential of a virus that would spread indoors and leave older people particularly exposed to death and serious illness. Therefore, it is evident that the system had not adequately prepared for the impact on care homes. <BR /> <BR />The report, rightly, outlines the fact that there was already a broader context of an underfunded and unreformed health and social care system, and thus of undervalued care homes within that system. That made it very difficult to respond adequately when capacities suddenly became limited by greater pressure on homes, with fewer physical rooms with which to meet demand because of social distancing requirements.”
“We need to recognise how difficult it has been for residents and their loved ones to have such limited contact, waiting months to catch even a glimpse of their wives, husbands, mothers or fathers. Then, when they did, they were aghast at how much they had become withdrawn and sorrowful, with their conditions worsened, feeling that they had been abandoned. That was alongside the general confusion of the pandemic. <BR /> <BR />It does not suffice just to pay tribute to care home staff. We need to do so much more to show them how much we value them and the support that they provide at all times, not just during pandemics. They are another group in society who have, until now, been undervalued, and we must never ever forget their contribution.”
“Naturally, I support the motion on the inquiry report. The Health Committee staff are to be commended and thanked for all their work on it, and I echo the Chairman's thanks to those who gave evidence to the inquiry. I agree with him that the informal Zoom session that we had with relatives was probably one of the most moving experiences during the pandemic. <BR /> <BR />I would like to put on record that I have a family member who works in a care home. <BR /> <BR />I start by passing on my sympathies to all the families whose loved ones died in our care homes due to this horrendous virus. Their grief will undoubtedly have been made worse by the circumstances of the pandemic.”
“Those are all very warm, woolly words today, but victims and survivors expect a lot more.”
“First Minister, you used the word "shunned" in your statement. You will recall that, last September, I asked you specifically whether the victims and survivors from mother-and-baby homes could access the counselling services that were being put in place for the historical institutional abuse victims, and you said no and that it was the responsibility of the Department of Health. A couple of years ago, I asked a very senor official from the Department of Health if he would put in more resources for contact tracing for people, and he said no. Why, all of a sudden, has this become an issue? Is it because the South's commission report has come out? The women involved who are living today still feel shunned. Will you please outline what additional financial resources you and the Department of Finance will put into that?”
“They all do an amazing job, and we owe them a debt of gratitude.”
“It leads me to believe that special educational needs teachers need to be treated as carers for the purpose of vaccination and prioritised accordingly. The second strikes me as a blatant contravention of the whole purpose of bubbling. The idea is that the virus should not be transferred between bubbles and thus potentially between multiple households exponentially. I therefore call for a significant and urgent rethink in those areas. <BR /> <BR />In conclusion, it seems to me that we are experiencing a lack of funding and, perhaps more than that, a lack of knowledge of how we manage special educational needs, both in general and during the pandemic. I pay particular tribute to the numerous SEN schools in South Belfast, from the leadership and boards of governors through to the staff and the visiting healthcare professionals.”
“<BR /> <BR />With specific reference to the pandemic, I remain concerned that the current view is that routine use of PPE is not required and that transport provision may be based on the notion that children can be in more than one bubble. The first of those may, in theory, be sound technically, but it does not strike me as being practicable in any way.”
“<BR /> <BR />A service can simply be withdrawn, but, on other occasions, attempts can be made to maintain a service in a way that does not support or suit the child. Notably, many parents mention, as other Members have, that long-lasting relationships with familiar or trusted staff have broken down to the children's detriment. That also ties in with warnings about a mental health pandemic to follow the COVID pandemic, which, the evidence states, may afflict households with children with special educational needs unless strong and appropriate intervention is planned now. That aspect of the problem is as yet undefined. However, once again, it emphasises the need for a mental health strategy absolutely no later than the timescale that is currently planned for. That strategy should be fully funded, assured by expert input and ready to go.”
“It is for others to comment on the educational aspects of that, but it surely demonstrates that there is also a need for early years intervention that was not met pre pandemic. <BR /> <BR />From the health angle, what is most concerning about the specific pandemic situation is the effective withdrawal of many services, from trauma support to autism provision. Indeed, a Queen's University report, 'Understanding Life in Lockdown for Autistic Young People', indicates clearly that anxiety and worry are the predominant emotions for many children with autism. Angel Eyes also notes the lack of clarity around the vision support service, which is not a new issue but has been exacerbated by the pandemic.”
“What I have been told over and over again, and what is evident from the reports that are mentioned in the motion, is that there is a sense that Education Authority officials do not pay significant enough attention to the professional viewpoints that are set out by schools, teachers and principals, or even of the expertise that is available in the third sector. <BR /> <BR />In health, we talk about moving to patient-centred care. With special educational needs, we need to move on the same basis to pupil-centred provision, yet there is an evident risk of children not being recognised as requiring special educational needs provision. Over the five months from May 2020, twice as many children were statemented each month as in the equivalent month in 2019.”
“<BR /> <BR />Although parents point to a lack of funding in those areas, that is not their main issue. The issue of children who may have special educational needs has been exacerbated by the pandemic, with many parents feeling that their child's evident needs are not being met because those needs have not been officially assessed or practically recognised. There is a specific question about statemented children not having access to a social worker or being considered or provided for.”
“I wish to add some comments, predominantly from a health perspective, because there is a considerable crossover. <BR /> <BR />The first issue that I wish to emphasise, to which other Members referred, is that, although the motion is specifically about the impact of the pandemic on children with special educational needs and their parents, the difficulties are by no means confined to those that have arisen from the pandemic. Indeed, many parents will state clearly that the main impact of the pandemic has been to exacerbate problems that already existed. As the ongoing underfunding of provision continues, we can see the extent to which it is difficult even to establish how much we spend on special educational needs provision right through to increasing bureaucracy.”
“We have gone some way this year towards reducing the infection rate but still not far enough. Infections are still too high, pressure on hospitals is too big and the impact on our population's well-being is too vast. However, there is evidence that, from the immediate Christmas period, when people are given clear guidance, they will behave responsibly. We need to redouble our efforts around the messaging and, most notably, in avoiding the three Cs — crowds contact and close spaces. If we give the public the right tools, I have faith that we will get through the next few months until the impact of the vaccination programme is fully felt. There is a clear light at the end of the tunnel, but we must maintain our courage and discipline until then.”
“We see that the virus — both old and new variants — were already circulating far too rapidly before Christmas. The fact that infections were evidently on an upward trend from the 11 December was the reason for amendment No. 24, closing so-called non-essential shops and hospitality immediately on Christmas Eve to avoid the Boxing Day sales rush. All the evidence suggests that that was wise, as I have just outlined. Amendment No. 25 provided clarification around taxi services.”
“Therefore, there is, as yet, limited evidence that the spike in cases and hospitalisations arose from permitting meet-ups in private homes for one day over the immediate Christmas period. The evidence for increased contact and thus increased transmission points more to the period before it. It would be useful to have more direct research for Northern Ireland to confirm that the trends were similar to those in Great Britain. <BR /> <BR />It is worth noting, as we have seen from the dramatic rise in infections in the new year in the Republic of Ireland, that a travel ban cannot stop a dramatic rise in case rates if an upward trend in contacts and thus infections is already ongoing.”
“There are legitimate questions to be raised about how enforceable Christmas restrictions would have been anyway, particularly with regard to private homes. The Office for National Statistics has suggested from the trends of infection that there is evidence UK-wide that people were beginning to gather in homes for Christmas even before 23 December, the date from which, in law, they were allowed to, in most areas, although it depends a little on how much difference the new variant made to transmission. The evidence from Great Britain, in fact, shows that, during the Christmas bubble period, people largely avoided risky contacts, even though they were permitted, perhaps taking the opportunity to meet others but intentionally staying away from older people and those with underlying conditions.”
“On 16 December, there were 510 confirmed cases; on 23 December, there were 787; and on 30 December there were 2,143. A peak in hospitalisations followed a fortnight later. Let us hope that the peak in the number of deaths has now passed, but the numbers are still horrendous. We need to be aware that there is a penalty that we have to pay for pushing to open indoor venues before time. That is clear in the emerging research and is utterly obvious in the daily hospitalisation numbers. Let there be no more denial about what that impact is. <BR /> <BR />As noted, amendment Nos. 20 and 21 are tidying-up amendments. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No. 22 implemented the Christmas bubble, which amendment No. 23 reduced to a single day. The Health Minister has been more overt that things went wrong in that regard. It was a mess across the UK.”
“For all the emphasis on distancing, it has been clear since September or earlier that indoor venues are high-risk because of the transmission of the virus through aerosols. Even at more than two metres, the risk is high, particularly when an individual stays in a venue for a period of time and even more so if face coverings are not used, as they cannot be worn while eating and drinking. That raises questions about the risks in workplaces or places such as motorway service stations, where people can still be seen eating and drinking and therefore not wearing face coverings indoors. <BR /> <BR />Let us look at the case numbers, which, we know, follow actual infections by some days, as they typically follow symptoms, test arrangements and result reporting.”
“The Health Minister has, implicitly at least, already noted that even that date was clearly too soon. <BR /> <BR />We could already see at the time, not least in the size of the queue outside Primark in the Abbey Centre immediately at midnight and the inability in practice of many venues to keep up with the new requirements imposed by the regulations, not least on maintaining contact details and ensuring spacing, while remaining profitable, that such a reopening with fully two weeks to go until Christmas would create a problem down the line. Members all need to be clear that the health emergency is the economic emergency. <BR /> <BR />One problem was that the scale of the risk was poorly understood.”
“The issue of closing times for takeaway services was also raised, and the Committee was advised that those issues would be considered further. <BR /> <BR />As previously discussed, Members have concerns about the limitations of post hoc scrutiny and the continuing approach of legislating without formal consultation and impact assessment. It is acknowledged, however, that this opportunity for debate allows Members to place on record their views, and we trust that it will inform subsequent regulations. <BR /> <BR />I now wish to make some remarks in a personal capacity. The regulations are already passed, but what can we learn from them? Members will recall that amendment No 19 followed a series of attempts by one party in the Executive to reopen higher-risk services, contrary to the scientific advice, in November.”
“I do not see why the Committee cannot be added to the list of recipients of accessible versions of the regulations to facilitate it when it undertakes its scrutiny. <BR /> <BR />On a more positive point, we were advised that the most recent version of online information had been translated into a number of languages. That is very welcome and is something that the Committee has long been calling for. <BR /> <BR />Economic questions have been raised by the Committee, given the wide-ranging impact of the health protection regulations. Officials were asked for their response to frustrations expressed by local retailers who see multinationals continuing to sell items that they, as smaller operators, cannot.”
“<BR /> <BR />Effective scrutiny and accessible information remain significant issues for the Committee. Members have not always found the online information entirely clear, up to date and accessible. We are now at amendment No. 25 to the No. 2 regulations, and the Committee has previously asked to be provided with what would effectively be a tracked change version showing the net effect of the amendments at any given point. That has not been forthcoming, and again the official simply directed the Committee to look at the nidirect website. As a Committee member who has long sought improved communication, I have to say that this is not good enough, and I suspect that Members all agree with me on that point.”
“She explained that the approach remained one of education first in an effort not to be heavy-handed and that the interplay between rules and public attitudes and behaviours was not always predictable. <BR /> <BR />In reflection on the extension of the requirements to gather customer information, the official was asked whether any consideration had been given to including postal addresses in order to discourage any breach of the two-household rule in hospitality settings. The Committee was advised that names and phone numbers were collected primarily to enable customers to be contacted if necessary, but the official undertook to consider the potential compliance benefits of requesting postal addresses. I would be grateful if the junior Minister who will respond could give any available update on that matter.”
“The Committee would appreciate early sight of any analysis produced by the review. <BR /> <BR />When asked about the learning in relation to the arrangements put in place over Christmas, the director acknowledged that what we were seeing now was clearly the impact of the relaxations that we are talking about today but pointed out that amendment No. 25, reversing some relaxations, reflected a response to the emerging data. She further advised that the modelling group was engaged in a constant process of review overseen by the Chief Scientific Adviser and was provided with updated information on a weekly basis. The director acknowledged that compliance, as raised by members, remained an area of ongoing concern and advised that there was active discussion on the subject across various groups, levels and sectors.”
“<BR /> <BR />Having discussed on many occasions the urgency with which the regulations were being made and the resulting lack of prior engagement and impact assessment, the Committee enquired about efforts to analyse the impact retrospectively to ensure that future regulations were informed by such learning. The director of population health advised the Committee that significant progress had been made in consulting the sectors affected by the regulations and that the number of amendments reflected the learning and responsiveness. She further alluded to an ongoing review of the impact of the regulations. When asked by the Committee to share the outcomes of the review, however, the official indicated that she would have to take the request away for consideration since it was more of a continuous process.”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I stand in today for the Chair and Deputy Chair. I rise initially to respond on behalf of the Committee and will then make some remarks in a personal capacity. <BR /> <BR />The suite of rules before us today gave effect to quite different approaches to restrictions within a few short weeks. The Committee's briefing on the regulations spanned its meetings of 14 and 21 January, the former of which I chaired. Members acknowledged the grave circumstances in which we found ourselves and the need to do all that we could to reduce the strain on the health service and its staff, who face into the eleventh month of relentless pressure on our behalf.”
“As the chair of the all-party group on cancer, I appreciate other Members raising the issue of cancelled and postponed surgeries. You have addressed that issue, so I will move on. Private healthcare providers include allied health professionals such as physiotherapists etc. In what way are you engaging with them to take forward support services for long COVID?”
“I also welcome the Minister back. It is great to see you. <BR /> <BR />Will you give us an update on the child anti-poverty strategy? We are a year on from 'New Decade, New Approach'.”
“My party will support all the amendments in this group. Thank you.”
“The whole reason why the Minister did not move the motion last week, and why we have reached this position, is that she wanted her departmental officials to have time and space to do the due diligence and work out those figures. That is why the precise figures are not here at present.”
“<BR /> <BR />It is for those reasons that I commend to the House the amendments appearing in the Minister's name, but I urge Members to consider rejecting amendment Nos 4 to 6, as their focus moves away from the interests of the victims and of good law. While we have improved the Bill by adding legal aid provisions, Members must absolutely reject amendment No 13, as it has not been financially appraised and risks the same sort of lack of proper scrutiny that led to the whole RHI scandal. That does not bear repeating.”
“<BR /> <BR />It is good that consensus has been reached on most points, and there is no question that amendment Nos 1 to 3 strengthen the Bill, enabling and requiring information to be provided to all education providers where necessary and appropriate, recognising and acting on the need to protect people from domestic abuse in the first place and not just punish the perpetrators after it has happened, and providing access to justice for all. We need to be careful, however, that we do not create bad law by not allowing guidance to be developed, administrative arrangements to be made and systems to be changed before new provisions, particularly around legal aid, come into operation.”
“Most of all, it has been clarified by Ministers that attempting to pursue this could lead, in effect, to the Northern Ireland Executive, and thus the Northern Ireland ratepayer, having to cover additionally the cost of some legal aid in England and Wales. Again, none of that has been consulted upon, had the financial implications fully considered or been checked to see whether it is even competent. We would not draft initial legislation without having done all those checks, so why would we allow it to have been amended without having done them? The Assembly must see that amendment for what it is and reject it as fundamentally poor process and, potentially, bad law.”
“Thank you. Members need to reflect on the fact that none of the amendments has been consulted upon. Our focus should be on support for victims who bring forward serious issues and not for perpetrators pushing spurious litigation. <BR /> <BR />I will move to amendment No 13. It is highly irregular to put in place a specific time for the commencement of legal aid provisions when it is unclear how long preparations will take. It constitutes poor lawmaking and serves no useful purpose. We cannot apply these provisions until guidance has been developed by legal professionals, administrative and operational arrangements have been put in place, and relevant changes to IT systems have been completed.”
“The Minister and her officials have been clear that they will take forward what the Committee has said. When they produce the guidance, they will take full account of what the Committee said on those issues.”
“This is why amendment No 3 is written as it is and replicates the protection already available for applicants for non-molestation orders. It enables fair consideration of what support is necessary and justified. <BR /> <BR />While amendment Nos 4 and 5 are, in my view, unnecessary, amendment No 6 concerns me most because it is blatantly counterproductive. The practical outworking would simply be to make it easier for perpetrators to access legal aid while masquerading as the victim. I urge Members to consider carefully whether that is what they really —.”
“<BR /> <BR />It is my personal hope that we will be able to move early on in the debate to a much broader reform of legal aid, as has been mentioned, which will manage this and many other aspects of access to justice more comprehensively and efficiently. However, I share the Committee's insistence that we have to make progress on it in the Bill. I emphasise that progress must be in support of victims, which is why amendment No 3 is written as it is. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 4 is unnecessary and would increase the cost without any benefit for victims. <BR /> <BR />A similar issue applies to amendment No 5, in that it is simply unnecessary as the discretion already applies in the higher courts where the waiver has been used in the lower courts.”
“For too long, the authorities' abilities to respond to domestic abuse have lacked clarification. However, this clause has the potential to change that. The regulations that follow on will be vital scrutiny work for the Assembly. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 3, is a carefully worded clause that enables access to legal aid for those who appear to be victims of domestic abuse behaviour and is designed specifically to ensure that this goes to the victims and not the perpetrators. It is important to have the wording exactly as it is in amendment No 3 and amendment No 7, precisely in order to ensure that legal aid is available to the right people in the right way.”
“in education or training with that provider. In our view, that renders a subsection of clause 28 unnecessary, as removed by amendment No 8. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 1 is important as it ensures that the enabling powers are robust in what can be achieved via regulations. That is particularly important in relation to offences and penalties. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 2 provides a consensus across the Department and the Committee on the explicit protection of people from abusive behaviour. I take this opportunity to draw attention to clause 26(2), which states:”
“— at the "education provider", which is not only a school but a college, any training facility or a preschool —”
“It also has a particular impact on the ability of social workers and the authorities in general to detect signs of abuse in the home at the very moment when there is less ability to escape from that home. Amendment No 1 recognises the importance of all education providers being made aware of incidents of abuse, and, clearly, in the context of the Bill, that means domestic abuse. A new clause before clause 26 will enable or require:”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. <BR /> <BR />Many of the issues that are dealt with in the Bill have already been rehearsed, and they are extremely important. I want to focus specifically on amendment Nos 1 to 8 and amendment No 13. I will support amendment Nos 1 to 3 and amendment Nos 7 and 8. I am opposed to the amendments to amendment No 3, namely amendments Nos 4 and 6. I am also opposed to amendment No 13, which arises from those amendments. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 1 is an extremely important addition to the Bill, particularly in the context of the time through which we are living. One of the most challenging aspects of the pandemic has been the necessary absence, either through school closure or self-isolation, of pupils from school, including preschool. That, of course, has an impact on development and education.”
“I thought that that was an important point, because nobody —.”
“Before I move into my main speech, I just want to address a point that the Chairman of the Justice Committee raised about losing a week because of the vital information that the Justice Minister and the Finance Minister brought to the Committee. This summer, we in the Health Committee recognised how much work was ahead of us and what we had to deal with, so we had hardly any recess — we were closed for two weeks — unlike the Justice Committee, which decided to take off nearly the whole summer. If you had not taken those extra four or five weeks, you would be about three or four weeks ahead of where you are now.”
“I am led to believe that no neonatal cots are available at any hospital in Northern Ireland or, indeed, the island of Ireland. Will you, Minister, clarify whether that is the position? If it is, what urgent action is being taken to avoid transfers to GB?”
“It is unfair to force these businesses to close and then to deny them support. I sincerely hope that things will be done better for businesses and their staff going forward. <BR /> <BR />In closing, I wish a happy Christmas to all the health and social care workers who have so valiantly battled the virus this year. I sincerely hope that they can all have some time to spend with their families and can recuperate from an exhausting year. Finally, I send my deepest sympathies to everyone who has been bereaved this year. We all lament the loss of their loved ones before the vaccine programme was in place.”
“<BR /> <BR />Again, going forward, I sincerely hope that those businesses and non-essential retailers who have been affected by the circuit breaker receive the financial support that was promised as soon as possible. Earlier, during Question Time, I was amazed that the Finance Minister did not seem to grasp how many businesses have lost out, have not received communication or are in the middle of an appeal under the local restrictions support scheme. I support the call made by Roy Beggs and others for a dedicated phone line for elected representatives. Like every Member in the Chamber, I continue to be contacted by desperate business owners who have not heard back about their claim or, worse, have been advised that they are not eligible when they have blatantly met the stated criteria.”