Sinéad Bradley
South Down · Social Democratic and Labour Party · Northern Ireland
“<BR /> <BR />Periods have had many different names and have come, as Emma correctly pointed out, in many different colours. Mostly, they were talked about in hushed tones, but that is no more.”
“I, too, support the Bill, and I thank Pat Catney, my friend and colleague, for introducing it. <BR /> <BR />As a Member who sat on the Justice Committee, I am all too aware of some of the harrowing circumstances that young women face every day.”
“Pat's charm allowed everybody to embrace what he is trying to achieve today. I genuinely mean this: the people of Lagan Valley served the House proud when they put Pat Catney here. It is having people like Pat, with a good heart and good intentions, in a place where change can happen that results in days like today.”
“I am privileged to support the motion on behalf of the SDLP. Like other Members of the House, I have heard at first hand about the horrendous and heinous acts that led to the Domestic Abuse and Civil Proceedings Act.”
“I thank Members across the Chamber for their kind words. <BR /> <BR />I suppose that all of us like to consider ourselves to be fair. I include myself in that.”
“I thank my party leader, Colum Eastwood, for hearing my calls, understanding the importance of the Narrow Water bridge and making sure that it was included in the New Decade, New Approach agreement.”
The complete record
Every one of 747 lines we hold for Sinéad Bradley, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 15.
“Today, on behalf of the SDLP, I stand in recognition of this Bill. I genuinely welcome the fact that it has reached Further Consideration Stage. I will take a moment place to on record our thanks to the Clerks and the departmental officials, who, it has to be said, have worked tirelessly to progress the passage of the Bill within the very limited window of time that this mandate has afforded, and to all of the stakeholders who highlighted the absolute need for the Bill to be introduced. It is an important piece of legislation that seeks to better protect victims of sexual offences and the deplorable crime of trafficking. <BR /> <BR />The Bill will implement certain elements of the Gillen report on serious sexual offence cases, including the exclusion of the public from all serious sexual offence hearings.”
“Given the time that we had to drill down into whether we were satisfied that the amendments are fully reflective, we have come to a reasonable place. I am not sure that it is the final place when it comes to formalising the provisions for an Opposition here, but it is significant work that should be commended, and I welcome it on behalf of the SDLP. We will support each of the motions to amend. As the Speaker outlined, one debate will cover all the proposed changes.”
“I thank the Chair of the Procedures Committee for outlining the work that was carried out by the Committee. It is worth noting that our Committee was tasked with making sure that the procedures in this place reflect the AERC report and New Decade, New Approach. It was not within our remit or gift to decide whether those documents go far enough; that was far outside the Committee's scope. However, we listened intently to the advice that was brought to us about mirroring those two documents and to the legal advice that was presented.”
“I will not reiterate all the reasons outlined by the Minister and the Chair of the Committee, because I am very conscious of the time constraints on the Chamber today. I rise only to say that the SDLP agrees with this statutory rule and the temporary extension of provisions, as well as with the Minister's approach to finding a longer-term solution.”
“Minister, thank you for your statement. I seek some clarity. You explained that you wanted to extend the scheme to working tax credits and put on record the barriers that were in place to prevent you doing that. Had you costed extending the scheme to working tax credits? If you had, have you secured that money? If not, where is it?”
“I thank the Minister for her statement. Minister, in your statement, you refer to future work on refugees in the next recording period. How nimble are the joint agency task force and other stakeholders in speaking to the changing reality on the ground, particularly given that there are two different sets of circumstances for refugees on this island? Will the Minister speak clearly to that?”
“I rise in fear of being a participant in a DUP party political broadcast. It is public money. Although I welcome people having fair access to broadband, can the Minister say with absolute confidence that every penny spent has been value for money and well spent? Is he absolutely certain that every penny can be accounted for, and that there are no shadows around the pot of money?”
“I thank the Minister for her answer and, in particular, for putting on record her view on lifting the visa requirements, which I share entirely. I request that the Minister expresses that directly to the Prime Minister and the Home Office from her Department. On a more practical level, there have been calls across the House, with Members willing to do practical things like opening their constituency offices as drop-off points. While I appreciate that this cannot be done through the platform of an Executive, will the Minister, along with other Ministers, reach out, have conversations, try to coordinate some sort of practical effort and act as a leading voice in this, because people want to help?”
“Will the Minister give her assessment of the reasons behind the broad upward trend in the numbers of adults and children who have been referred to the NRM as potential victims of trafficking since 2012?”
“I thank the Minister for his answer. Minister, can you confirm that all the recommendations pertaining to Ministers and their spads will have been implemented before the establishment of a new Executive?”
“We have collectively made a very good effort to put that into words in the Bill in front of us. Like any legislation, however, it will show its merit only if it is operational in a way that helps the victims. That will require a significant amount of not just training but resourcing. We are moving to a new place with this suite of legislation, but — I would love to hear the Minister elaborate on this — I want to have confidence not only that we have done the right thing in taking forward the Bill but that we will resource it and make sure that it is operationally delivered in the way that it should be. Only then will we really be able to say that we have done the right thing. <BR /> <BR />I commend the Bill to the House, and I thank everyone who had a hand in bringing it here.”
“None of that legislation or those crimes are directed exclusively at women and girls, but, unfortunately, in the vast number of cases, women and girls are the victims. We have, of course, heard harrowing stories in which the victim was not a woman. The suite of Bills that we have developed during this mandate cannot be ignored in the context of the conversation about developing a strategy to protect women and girls. The foundation stones are quietly being laid today. The harassment laws did not encapsulate the full extent of the crime being committed, but I welcome that there is now adequate legislation to deal with it. <BR /> <BR />We have worked hard to understand this insidious crime, the psychological and, at times, physical effect that it can have and the long-term trauma that it causes for victims.”
“Whilst we refer, sometimes sweepingly, to places like the Office of Legislative Counsel, it is absolutely right to remember that behind them are individuals who work very hard and diligently. Today is another day when we see their work reaching Final Stage, and it is genuinely appreciated. <BR /> <BR />I welcome the fact that the offence of stalking is now defined in a Bill at its Final Stage. I am also reassured by the fact that the Bill includes the offence of threatening or abusive behaviour. It is a lesser offence, but its inclusion provides a safety net. Ultimately, the Bill and others like it in the suite of legislation that is coming forward speak directly to the problem that we have with violence against women and girls.”
“It is important to put that on record, because that open communication allowed us to not just scrutinise but really add value to the Bill where it was needed. The Bill Office was, as always, very accommodating and supportive of the Committee. <BR /> <BR />I thank all the Committee members — not just current but former members — who worked on the Bill, including Gordon Dunne, who was at many of the deliberations and, sadly, is no longer with us to see it at this stage. I am glad that the Minister, quite rightly, mentioned David Sewell, because we have learned that, sadly, he passed away while work on the Bill was proceeding. His hand and his work are enshrined in the Bill, and the Minister's reference to that work is a fitting tribute.”
“I thank the Minister for being here and for moving this significant piece of legislation. On behalf of the SDLP, I warmly welcome the Protection from Stalking Bill at its Final Stage. In doing so, I also thank all those organisations and stakeholders and, in particular, the individuals who worked with our Committee. Although those meetings were at times quite difficult to listen to, it was important that we did so, and we have a Bill that represents those views. As the Committee Chair said, there should be an absolute change in attitudes to stalking and to how it is dealt with. <BR /> <BR />I also thank the departmental officials, who worked very well alongside the Minister and with the Committee in informing the Bill.”
“Mr Speaker, this is my first time rising in the House since the untimely death of our Member Christopher Stalford, and, if I may, I would like to put on record my condolences to his family and to the DUP Members who spoke so eloquently yesterday. There were many moving tributes in the House, and I hope that, in time, Christopher's family will take great comfort from them. <BR /> <BR />Minister, I welcome your statement, and, as a Member for South Down, I particularly welcome the announcement to support the Mournes. My question centres around the figure that 30% of people regularly litter. Like, probably, every Member of the House, I absolutely detest seeing our countryside being littered frequently. Will the Minister elaborate on anything in this fund that will directly address that staggering figure of 30% and see it reduced?”
“That is good practice, but the proposed new clause is the critical foundation stone for building real support for the people whom we are desperately trying to reach. For that reason, we will support amendment No 17.”
“Quite rightly, it also includes this provision:”
“Amendment No 15 will underpin the determination for when help is required, and I will listen with interest to the case for it. Amendment No 16 looks to include class A drugs in clause 16, and the SDLP fully supports that. <BR /> <BR />Finally, amendment No 17 is proposed new clause 17A, which is titled "Protective measures for victims of slavery or trafficking". The new clause is, no doubt, the foundation stone that would allow for the STROs that have been discussed. Many stakeholders put forward compelling arguments for why STROs should be triggered. I have no doubt that amendment No 17 does that, but I would argue that, given the way in which it is drafted, it goes further. It allows for STROs and beyond and gives the Department discretion to implement any measures that it believes are necessary. It is not limited to notice orders.”
“This is about people living in the most horrific of situations. I would like to think that we have a fair system that reaches each of those people. I can see how we could undo the good work of amendment No 13 by agreeing to amendment No 14, but I will wait to hear the Member's contribution on that. I would also welcome hearing from the Minister, when she speaks to it, whether she knows of any other unintended consequences that I have not been mindful of.”
“My fear, however, is this: if we have limited access to resource and we put it into law that the Department is bound to support somebody who does not need it — if the outcome of a fair assessment is that the support is not required — is it fair that we then direct resource to somebody who does not need it, while, perhaps, somebody who desperately needs it sits on a much lesser package or level of support, if any at all? We have to be realistic. I genuinely fear that, as Mr Storey mentioned, the unintended consequences of amendment No 14 could become apparent. Whilst I am not unsympathetic to what it attempts to do, I am fearful that good intentions might result in wrong outcomes. <BR /> <BR />I say that having listened to the graphic explanation given by a Member of a photographic image.”
“also has good grounds. We all, on the Committee for Justice in particular, recognise that, when resource is tight, it is a case of robbing Peter to pay Paul. It is difficult to look at situations and say, "We know we have finite access to resource." I hope that there will be plenty of situations in which support is not required. Unfortunately, I do not expect that, within a 12-month window, there will be many such situations. <BR /> <BR />I see what amendment No 14 is attempting to do, and I will reserve judgement until I have heard full clarity on the situation.”
“We debated the timeline in Committee, but there was recognition that that period would take away a cliff edge and allow a person an adequate amount of time in which to rebuild their lives. It was not reasonable to expect anybody to live on the goodwill or discretion of the Department. The rationale and thinking behind the 12-month period in that amendment are sound. <BR /> <BR />The inclusion of the words:”
“I will speak on behalf of the SDLP to the amendments in group 2, which focus on trafficking and exploitation. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 12 seeks to move away from a set number of days and make support "based on need". We support that. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 13 seeks to move away from the discretion that the Department has. Stakeholders made the point that that discretion has been most welcome and much needed. Unfortunately, because a large part of the support is discretionary, people who have been trafficked live in fear of the unknown. They live from week to week or month to month and are dependent on the goodwill of others. That is an unfair situation to place anybody in, given the trauma that they have just come through. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 13 pins down in law a period of 12 months.”
“I thank the Minister for giving way. Does she agree that a court could make an assessment only if a case came forward in the first place? Victims who do not feel empowered and whose voices are silent will never feel empowered unless that certainty is put in place.”
“It is therefore essential that the Bill safely progresses by the end of the mandate to ensure that some of the most vulnerable are afforded the protections that they need and deserve. On behalf of the SDLP, I am committed to working with others to do just that.”
“as a defence. It was disturbing to learn about the cases behind that piece that meant that it had to come forward, so it is appropriate that it is alongside the offence of non-fatal strangulation or asphyxiation. Again, given the unique nature of those acts, the Minister rightly pointed out that they cannot properly be captured in other legislation. It is therefore appropriate that they are in this Bill. <BR /> <BR />I will draw my comments on the group to a conclusion. I have to record again my overall disappointment that the Bill has undoubtedly been pared back from what was originally intended. It is important legislation that is focused on enhancing public safety and improving services for victims of trafficking and exploitation.”
“Whilst the Minister is not opposed to that amendment, I heard her words about it. Given that the Bill has brought forward unique provisions, such as that on downblousing, it is important, as with most legislation, to have clear guidance on how exactly those can be rolled out for the betterment of all. <BR /> <BR />Like others, I have serious concerns about amendment No 9. It would go some way towards unpicking the recommendations of Gillen, who gave clear and rational thinking for why they were proposed in the first place. Certainty for victims is needed to ensure that they do not suffer; in fact, cases may not even come forward to the courts because people who may be victims do not feel that the system is there to support them. <BR /> <BR />I particularly welcome amendment No 18, which is on the elimination of:”
“I am also conscious that other Bills will necessarily be competing with it for space and time in the Chamber, so I will not go over all the comments made by the Minister or the rationale and thinking behind a lot of the amendments, nor, indeed, will I repeat the commentary that was very ably given by the Chair of the Committee, who put on record the many deliberations that the Committee went through. <BR /> <BR />I will quickly speak to the Committee amendments. Amendment No 6 will safeguard in particular young people who are dependent on the care of an adult for daily living. It is an apt amendment that puts payment by way of money in the Bill when so many young people are so dependent on an adult for love, support and welfare. I will also refer to amendment No 11, which gives the guidance.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Bill is an important piece of child protection legislation. It will sit amongst a suite of legislation and add a layer of protection for children who may be targeted by adults. This is an opportune time to say that it is important to acknowledge the importance — it was raised repeatedly at the Committee — of the legislation being underpinned by age-appropriate standardised relationships and sexuality education (RSE) in schools. Children need to be empowered to understand what a healthy relationship looks like and to know when they are on the edge of behaviours that are leading to abuse. <BR /> <BR />I appreciate the fact that the Bill is making its way through the House, even in these uncertain times.”
“It is important legislation that will better protect victims of sexual offences and the deplorable crime of trafficking. <BR /> <BR />The Bill will implement certain elements of the Gillen report on serious sexual offence cases, including the exclusion of the public from all serious sexual offence hearings. It also includes provisions arising from the outcome of a review of the law on child sexual exploitation and sexual offences against children. Other provisions include the creation of the new offences of upskirting and downblousing. Those provisions are to be welcomed and are long overdue. I must comment, however, that we repeatedly heard from stakeholders, including Barnardo's and the Children's Commissioner, about how the implementation of the legislation is as important as its content.”
“On behalf of the SDLP, I welcome the passage of the Bill to Consideration Stage. I, too, record our support for and thanks to the Bill Office staff, who worked tirelessly on it; the departmental officials, who worked very well not just with me, on behalf of the SDLP, but with the Committee; and the Minister. In these times, when we are navigating a new passage to deliver the Bill, although there is much negativity around our politics at the moment, I have to say that, despite that backdrop and on a more positive note, I sense that everybody on the Committee will work with the Minister and endeavour to find whatever pathway can be found to make sure that the Bill sees final passage. I commend all the Committee members for doing that, and I particularly commend the Minister for coming forward to work with us.”
“I appreciate that I may be asking one of the final questions today, but not even at the bottom of my barrel did I find the previous question that was asked of the Minister. <BR /> <BR />The Minister has put on record the very deep-rooted grievance that he clearly has with the UK Government who negotiated the Brexit protocol. After reflecting on his actions over recent days and weeks, does he recognise that he has now ultimately silenced himself as a player in where we move forward to in Northern Ireland?”
“Many red flags, and projected red flags, have been raised with the Justice Committee on issues from across the justice family and the Prison Service due to the 2% cut that is outlined for the Department of Justice. All those uncertainties are making people nervous. Will the Minister spell out what the absence of an Executive would mean in her trying to deliberate on those issues?”
“I thank the Minister for her answer. Minister, others talk the talk, but you have certainly walked the walk for Narrow Water bridge, and I thank you. I am conscious that only a short time is left in the mandate. Can the Minister give an assurance that the project has been sufficiently developed by the Department to ensure that any incoming Minister will have a clear pathway to its completion? I also ask the Minister to reference her good work on active travel and how that can be built around the bridge project. <BR /> <BR />I do not miss the opportunity to wish the Minister a happy St Brigid's Day.”
“Will safe methods of interaction with other humans for those in CSUs be utilised? If full mental health screening is introduced, as it should be, will there be a minimum number of days when TDOs must be exercised and the person in care transferred to a clinical setting?”
“Minister, thank you for your statement. As chairperson of the all-party group (APG) on preventing loneliness, it pains me to read the report. Loneliness can have a crippling effect on any of us. It has the ability to break us. <BR /> <BR />My question concerns the report's case review of a male prisoner, aged 20 years, who had a period of segregation and COVID-19 isolation in a CSU totalling 116 days. I recognise your apology today, but you back-pedalled on it somewhat in your previous answer. In my mind, that length of time is inhumane and torturous. I argue that those who are not engaging may be those who are not receiving the medical care that they need. We are aware that there are people in CSUs who have undiagnosed personality disorders. <BR /> <BR />Does the Minister anticipate that a maximum period of isolation will be adhered to?”
“I am eager to ensure that any reasonable solution that can be found will run in tandem with the roll-out of the legislation, where possible. <BR /> <BR />Finally, I place on record my sincere thanks to all those who made submissions to the Justice Committee. In particular, I single out for particular mention the victims who so selflessly shared their personal experience in the hope of helping to protect others.”
“That said, I listened intently to the Minister's opening remarks, and it is my reading of the situation that the Minister recognises, as do I, the good intention behind the amendment that has been presented by Rachel Woods and the need to find a solution to ensure that the adequate level of protection and resource is developed around victims who would be captured under section 75. Only then can we be absolutely certain that equal protection is afforded to all via the legislation. Whilst I accept that placing a duty in the Bill may not be the most effective way to proceed, I press the Minister on the need to work with those of us who wish to find a suitable way forward on the matter during the short time remaining in this mandate.”
“Having listened to victims of stalking, particularly those who had vulnerabilities associated with their disability used against them, I am eager to see how we can ensure that the legislation offers equal protection to everyone. I recognise that a data capture of section 75 would be a rich source of data for setting objectives and dispensing resources going forward, but I have to ask myself, "At what cost?" Setting aside the operational difficulties, a major concern that I hold, should the amendment proceed, is that a statutory obligation to record sensitive personal data may have the unintended consequence of suppressing victims coming forward. If so, the legislation's provision of equal protection could be questioned. Therefore, I will not support amendment No 7.”
“<BR /> <BR />Currently, incidents are concealed by the lack of specific legislation, allowing stalking to slip through the cracks of the criminal justice system. It is therefore welcome that amendment No 6 mandates that the number of stalking incidents be captured, as well as the number of prosecutions and convictions. It is only through the recording of that data that we can understand the extent of the problem of stalking in our society and measure the effectiveness of the legislation designed to tackle it. The departmental amendments, as presented by the Minister, present a strengthening of that legislation and will receive our support. <BR /> <BR />I turn now to amendment No 7.”
“<BR /> <BR />Currently, stalking falls under the umbrella of harassment legislation, and, as a result, it is very difficult to assess how many of the offences committed under the 1997 Order relate specifically to the act of stalking. As mentioned, we know that there is a legacy of under-reporting. However, statistics show a concerning increase in the number of harassment offences that have been reported in the North. In particular, we are mindful of the backdrop and the whole conversation piece around violence against women. Those statistics illustrate not only the need for a new legislative approach when it comes to sending a clear message to would-be perpetrators but the need to understand the scale of the crime.”
“<BR /> <BR />When the crime is eventually reported, victims have identified consistent problems with the way in which the police respond to their allegations, including a dismissive manner, a general unwillingness to intervene and a failure to keep the victim informed of the progress in their investigation. Therefore, although there is a need for legislative change to make stalking a stand-alone offence, it is clear to me that there is also a need for stalking-specific training for criminal justice agencies and professionals. I therefore welcome the inclusion of amendment No 5 in particular, which makes it mandatory for each listed authority, including the PSNI and the PPS, to provide training to relevant personnel when it comes to dealing with that vulnerable group of victims.”
“We heard from many stakeholders and repeatedly found that, unfortunately, the crime of stalking is often characterised by under-reporting and a lack of understanding about the behaviours from not just the police but the entire criminal justice system due to the often complex nature of stalking. <BR /> <BR />I believe that the amendments are essential for speaking to the legacy of that misunderstanding and under-reporting. Research has repeatedly demonstrated that victims of stalking often choose not to report their experiences due to the fear of not being believed, to such an extent that it is estimated that the average victim of stalking, shockingly, experiences over 100 incidents of the behaviour before they report it to the police. That figure shocked me, and it really shines a light on why the legislation needs to move forward.”
“At the outset, I acknowledge the comprehensive report delivered by the Committee Chair today, and I will endeavour not to be entirely repetitive in my remarks. I put on record my thanks to the Department for what was collaborative work with the Committee that has seen the inclusion of additional provisions relating to data collection and mandatory training and the requirement to report on the operation of the offence in the Bill. <BR /> <BR />Stalking is a serious and complex offence. It can be life-changing and can affect victims psychologically as well as physically, with serious ramifications for their social functioning.”
“We have taken a set of children who have not been born, and the Bill segregates and separates out those children who may have, or be born with, a mental or physical disablement. Surely that is the definition of discrimination. Members may find comfort in trying to conflate this and make it about a lot of other issues to pad out and, probably, hide their blushes, but I tell everyone in the House that I see it as discrimination, I recognise it and I will play my part in making sure that this Bill makes it through to the next stage so that I can look every person in the eye and say, "Whether you do or do not have a disability, you are an equal member of our society".”
“John Hume had the wisdom to see that we need to recognise people and their differences and embrace them. Only with that can we be at peace with ourselves and together as a community. It is through that lens of wisdom that I will be asking myself, "Does the language in the Bill discriminate against those people who have a disability?" I will read the language in the Bill, because there has been a lot of conflated debate around what exactly we are trying to achieve today. <BR /> <BR />The Bill reads:”
“In this case, we are talking about a person's disability. When I put the question to myself, given that the task of this Bill is to eradicate that discrimination, I felt compelled not just to support the Bill but to take action to help it proceed. <BR /> <BR />I also looked back, and I will quote a man I hold in very high esteem and use as a guiding light for many of the principles in life, no less a man than John Hume. When John Hume delivered his Nobel Peace Prize lecture, he said:”
“First, I thank Paul Givan, now our First Minister, for being the primary sponsor of the Bill, but I also thank Christopher Stalford for stepping up and making sure that this important legislation makes it through to the next stage of the process. In doing so, I also recognise that the crux of the Bill is about setting a person with a disability on the same legal footing as everyone else. If or when I see blatant discrimination — as I do in this case — I, like every other Member of the House, have a duty to recognise it, call it out and stop it. <BR /> <BR />For the sake of this debate and to give some simplicity to the matter, I looked up the dictionary definition of discrimination. It states:”
“Has she given any thought to the possibility of a requirement for there to be a retrospective audit of the cases of professional misconduct that may have been upheld by what has been described as a very ineffective council?”