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 7 of 15.
“<BR /> <BR />It remains our preference that the commencement of legal aid be stipulated in Bill. However, the dilemma was this: could we stand by in good conscience and watch the Bill not moved today or at Final Stage? In particular, we should put that in a context where we all know that domestic abuse incidents are on the rise during COVID, particularly during lockdown. Let it be clear that everybody in the House agrees that domestic abuse is a criminal offence and we need it to be on the statute books as such. The SDLP, like others, is committed to realising that the commencement on legal aid will be realised. However, in a bid to ensure the passage of the Bill, we will not force the commencement issue in the form of amendment No 13.”
“It must be noted that the short but ambitious time frame for commencing the Bill has played a significant role in creating little room for full investigation. That may be a flaw in the process, as opposed to calling it a flaw to have to revise any established Bill. <BR /> <BR />Ahead of any vote on amendment No 13 and any outcome that might arise from that Division, I welcome the Minister's assurance following my intervention on the Floor of the House today. Likewise, I have satisfied myself that there is, as the Minister stated, an unambiguous legal duty on her to commence the Bill. I also repeat my assurance and place it firmly on record that the SDLP will listen to any warnings and, if they become factual, will support any revocation that may be required.”
“I thank the Bill Office, which assisted me in deliberations at that time, and the representatives from across the sector who shared their views on the potential effects and on a way forward. In particular, I single out for thanks the family solicitor Sinéad Larkin and Sonya McMullan from the Women's Aid Federation. <BR /> <BR />During my discussions with stakeholders who had so generously given of their time throughout the development of the Bill, it was made clear that it served nobody if the Further Consideration Stage of the Bill was not moved. Therefore, I genuinely welcome the fact that it has been moved today. I put that down in no small part to the work that played out in Committee.”
“As a representative of South Down, I take seriously my role of respecting the view of the House, acting with caution and being responsible in any proposals or positions that I adopt. <BR /> <BR />Despite my disappointment and the disappointment expressed by many, on behalf of the SDLP I immediately entered into solution mode. Having heard the distressing accounts of domestic abuse conveyed to us all during the deliberations on the Bill, one thing was clear: stalemate was and is not an option. I appreciate all those across the sector who facilitated emergency calls and meetings with me on that day and the days that followed. I thank the Minister, who agreed to my request for an emergency meeting, and the Chair of the Justice Committee, who agreed to call an emergency meeting of the Committee.”
“While the potential risks that the Minister referred to rest exclusively in clause 27, the coupling of commencement dates provided no space for the Minister to assess the likelihood or scale of the potential risk. Therefore, it was only proper that the Ministers' joint communication, which presumably took a day or two to be shared, used the words "could be significant". <BR /> <BR />For the benefit of Ministers Long and Murphy, I place it on record that their words of warning of potential chaos did not land lightly with me. I heard them, I valued them and I am every bit as eager as they are to urgently understand the likelihood and scale of any potential effect that may come into play.”
“The clause that, the Minister said, could have that effect was clause 27, and it could continue to have that effect even if the Minister's amendment is approved today. In light of that new information, while it was vague, it was clear that both Ministers anticipated the possible difficulties that might be realised via clause 27 and that any of the proposed amendments on that day would have been compounded by the passing of the Committee's amendment No 15. Amendment No 15 would have seen clause 27, as was likely to be amended by the Minister on that day, commenced along with parts of the Bill that create the offence of domestic abuse.”
“On 7 December, the Minister did not move the Domestic Abuse and Family Proceedings Bill because of concerns that had been raised by her with the Finance Minister on the Friday before. I will not go over all that, because the Committee Chair has accurately reflected the timeline. However, I will quote one thing from the letter:”
“Given the timeline of the Bill to date, however, along with the lack of consideration and full and thorough debate that we have been able to have on the issue, I am not today satisfied that we have drafted or pinned it down well enough to commence at this stage. It is with regret that I say that we will not be supporting those amendments. Going forward, however, we will work with the Minister on amendment No 7 — proposed new clause 27A — to try to encapsulate what has been attempted to be achieved here. <BR /> <BR />I will move to the Committee amendment, which started out as amendment No 15 but is now being presented as amendment No 13.”
“Although I acknowledge and appreciate that a more thorough assessment of income is completed on application for legal aid at the higher court, and that it is more likely that a victim will receive support, albeit with a contribution, it is also true in those circumstances to note that the principle of support would be lacking in that clause. For all the reasons that I have outlined, I ask Members to consider supporting amendment No 5. I believe that it is of critical importance that, in our offer, we consent to support victims throughout the family court system. <BR /> <BR />Those who tabled amendment Nos 4 and 7 will know of my absolute support for wanting to move to that space and to support victims in that regard.”
“<BR /> <BR />Clause 27 sets out a clear principle in law that victims of domestic abuse who are being brought through the family courts by their abuser will be supported by legal aid. The clause as drafted, however, does not extend to the family care centre, which is where many cases are destined to end. Cases transferred by a judge or that are presented to the family care centre via a right of appeal could see many of those victims financially compromised at that point, where the support that they require will not be available without the addition of amendment No 5.”
“I thank the Member for the intervention, and I agree. I go further: the social cost of not helping could be much greater, and we should explore that reality in more detail. <BR /> <BR />By not supporting them via the legal aid system, we may set victims on a downward spiral of becoming unemployed and more heavily reliant on the benefits system. It could be strongly argued that, by not supporting victims at that critical point, we are merely delaying the social cost, which will present in different forms at a later time. Early intervention through legal aid could offer a steady pathway to building a life beyond domestic abuse. The SDLP therefore welcomes the Minister's amendment and supports it, with that one further amendment being required.”
“Supporting those working-poor victims at this juncture offers them the opportunity to stay in work, and it represents the strongest method of using public money to help empower those individuals.”
“Victims who are in employment and in receipt of working tax credits, and perhaps also child tax credits and housing benefit, are likely to be refused legal aid support, as those benefits, which we all know are not a disposable income, are treated as such. Their income calculation perversely excludes them from legal aid, and their need to respond to court cases brought by their abuser has the power to break them financially. The working-poor victims are people who want to work. Their workplace can be of critical importance to them as they set out to rebuild their life. Their job is the focus of their life beyond the abuse. It is the environment that builds their confidence and their contacts with normality. Their need and want to work offers much more then a financial income: it becomes a sanctuary for their mental health.”
“When the clause was added, there was widespread agreement that more work needed to be done to refine the parameters of the entitlement, and I believe that the Minister's amendment goes some way to doing that. That, however, is with the addition of amendment No 5. <BR /> <BR />During the many deliberations and engagements with stakeholders, the SDLP was left with a very clear understanding of the effect that vexatious claims in the family court system was having on victims. The relentless stories of abusers who were using the court system to retain control or power over their victim was and is disturbing. A common and recurring theme in those instances included an abuser who had entitlement to legal aid and a victim who did not.”
“The breadth of regulations and provisions that can be derived from having this clause in the Bill are extensive. A period of two years for the operation of clauses 1 and 2 gives them an actionable time frame, and the House should also note that the regulations stemming from this clause cannot be made without the resolution of the Assembly. <BR /> <BR />I welcome the Justice Minister's proposals in amendment No 3, which seeks to honour the earlier vote in the House to make legal aid available to victims and survivors of domestic abuse who have been further victimised by their abuser through the court system. Regardless of the debate that will ensue on the issue, it is important to note that this is in the Bill. In supporting amendment No 3, I hope that it will stay in the Bill and that legal aid will become available to those victims.”
“It is in their interests to know when domestic abuse is an issue, and it is our duty to ensure that those same professionals are resourced adequately to deal with such reports. Amendment No 1 could be the lifeline that many young lives depend upon when domestic abuse becomes unbearable. I thank the Department and the Minister for following up on my request to add preschool education to this amendment. I very much welcome the amendment as a strong addition to the Bill. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 2 is also a thorough and detailed development of the original intent. I have no doubt that, when operational, the protective measures for victims of abuse will provide significant reassurance to those who are unfortunate enough to become reliant on their outworkings.”
“I am satisfied that the Committee has made a very robust contribution, as evidenced in the Bill at this stage. <BR /> <BR />In bringing forward this amendment, we recognise the ripple effect that domestic abuse can have on young lives. Children who are caught up in a domestic abuse incident of whatever form need support and protection. Without knowledge of an incident, school leaders and teachers will not know that the child may be in need of additional support or reassurance. The need to interpret any behaviours in the context of a potential cry for help needs to be flagged up at the earliest possible opportunity. Schools and teachers can and do offer a safe, steady and nurturing environment for our young people.”
“First, I am not just happy but relieved that Further Consideration Stage has been moved today. <BR /> <BR />I will go straight to the first group of amendments. Amendment No 1 inserts a new clause on information sharing with schools. The version presented is comprehensive, well drafted and carries on the intent contained in the Justice Committee's earlier amendment. This amendment provides one of many opportunities to place on record my thanks to departmental officials, who diligently listened to the views of Committee members and endeavoured to capture them in their amendments. It may also be an opportune time to thank the Bill Office, which assisted us in framing our thoughts on what we were trying to express in different amendments throughout the Bill.”
“Minister, I thank you for moving Further Consideration Stage. On amendment No 13, can the Minister at least recognise that, beyond these four walls, there is not much confidence in this place and that there is not much confidence among stakeholders that this commencement will happen unless it is in the Bill? I appreciate that the Minister has given assurances in other places. Can she give an assurance, however, in the House and for Hansard, that, for the remainder of her term, she will be held accountable for commencement happening?”
“I note that the strategy was to run until March 2021. Does the Minister intend to publish a final report following the final quarterly submission from the Prison Service management board, which provided the oversight arrangements for the programme?”
“Thank you, Minister. A few weeks ago, you gave a welcome reassurance to the House regarding concerns about the flu vaccination. Can you give that same assurance that all the logistical operation required for a COVID-19 vaccination programme will be in place and will in no way delay the vaccination programmes that are being rolled out?”
“I will close my remarks by offering my condolences to all those families who have been affected by the loss of loved ones during the COVID-19 pandemic to date.”
“While there is no denying that the credibility of some of the people in this place who have to step forward and deliver this has been shaken, ultimately, the people of Northern Ireland know better. They know that this is about them standing up for their communities, their loved ones and the people around them, and they ultimately know how thankful we genuinely all are to those healthcare workers who are stepping up day and daily and putting themselves at risk for the safety of others.”
“I take the Member's point. I am not privy to where the Education Minister is today. I do not say that to get at the Education Minister or the Economy Minister. I genuinely say, across the House, that it would be best practice to have the thinking and the logic delivered by whichever Minister is behind the amendments. I appreciate that, even had the Ministers been here today, they would be speaking retrospectively. The Ministers will be bringing something that has already happened, and that is difficult to iron out of the system, but a Minister's being here would have had great value. <BR /> <BR />Based on that, I do recognise and note the clarifying detail in these amendments. Like other Members, I urge the public to remember that this is about you. It is about you, your family, your neighbourhoods and your community.”
“11 amendments; nor is the scheme for taxi drivers, which is a very important cause. However, I would be swerving far from the amendments in front of me if I were to bring that to the Floor. I will not confuse matters further. <BR /> <BR />I thank the Minister for Health for coming forward with these amendments today. However, I am not sure that his doing so is good practice, to be quite honest. I would have liked an opportunity to have the Minister behind the amendments in front of us. We know we missed a lot of the scrutiny and that had to happen due to the speed that was required. That being said, this was an opportunity to put on the public record —.”
“I thank the Member for his contribution. It is a very clear ask, and a helpline would help every Member, as they will, ultimately, spread that information very quickly to those who need to know it. <BR /> <BR />I appreciate that sometimes the logic or the nuance behind some of the amendments is quite complex, and it is not black and white or simple to relay. However, when we take the time to do that, people do understand it. They do get it. Ultimately, we have these clarifying amendments in front of us, and there is detail against each of them. However, I have to admit that, while the last Member was speaking, I revised whether I was looking at the right amendments. While I would love to be speaking about the high-street voucher scheme, I see that it is not part of the No.”
“We are definitely failing in our communications and the way in which we explain the rationale behind a lot of the amendments and, indeed, the original regulations.”
“It would be a helpful part of that communication tool, regardless of who the Minister is or which amendment is in front of us, to use the House as the place to speak directly to not just Members but the media and public who are watching and give the rationale behind the amendments, the voices or stories that they heard that brought the Executive to a consensus and explain that for people to understand. <BR /> <BR />I have noted that, while there have been very harsh regulations imposed on almost everyone in some form, when the logic behind the regulations is communicated, people are very understanding because business people are also mothers and fathers. No one stands alone in any part of their life. COVID-19 rippled through every part of our economy and community, and it touches every house, household and individual.”
“I say, and I know, and I have heard — and I would like the Minister, as a Member of the Executive, to clarify for me — that money was set aside for that purpose. Money has been set aside purely for communication. I have yet to see the outworkings of that. I would appreciate it if the Minister were to enlighten me on that. <BR /> <BR />I will speak about the process that brought these amendments to the House. On this occasion, it happens to be the Departments of the Economy and Education that are the foundation Departments behind these amendments.”
“<BR /> <BR />That said, many amendments that come to the House in this form are a result of those phone calls, texts and messages that we get from people on the ground who are going to be affected by the announcements that have been made. Therefore, I get frustrated, as I am sure many Members do, that, when the announcements are made, the clarity is often not there. As a Member of this House, I have yet to find the correct, quick, swift way of getting that clarity. The goalposts keep moving as to what emails I should be using and what websites I should be visiting. It is a movable feast. There is a huge piece of work — a problem that has to be ironed out — as to how we communicate better, from the point when the announcement is made right through the process to this point, where we have clarifying amendments before the House.”
“On behalf of the SDLP, I acknowledge what are, ultimately, clarifying amendments that have come to the House. I recognise that we are in a global pandemic and that we are working a system that is far from perfect or ideal. Decisions are being made at Executive level, announcements are being made and I — like every Member of the House, regardless of party — will be inundated, almost instantaneously, by text messages and emails asking, "What exactly do these regulations mean for me, my business, my school or the organisation that I represent?" I appreciate that the piece of work in front of us is almost the latter end of that process. Today we are looking at the amendments that were required to bring in to check the regulations that were quite hastily, in many cases, put on paper and brought through the House.”
“I appreciate the Member's words. As an MLA, I am inundated with calls from businesses that genuinely do not know whether they can keep their doors open. Will she be fair and make that call to the Department for the Economy and her party colleague, who absolutely needs to step up quickly?”
“I am sure that the Minister will understand that many local small businesses, for instance in towns such as Kilkeel, Warrenpoint and Rathfriland in my constituency, that have been described as non-essential are vital to our economy. They will not be heartened to find that no due diligence has happened ahead of that announcement. I urge the Minister to put in place strategies that will reach those vital businesses to keep their doors open going into 2021.”
“Will the Minister elaborate on that? Is a consultant personally and solely responsible for ensuring the administration duty of placing a patient on that list? Furthermore, will he give an assurance that the terms of reference of any investigation will be to look at processes such as this and to compare them with how they are operating in other trust areas? Thank you.”
“At the outset, I declare an interest for the part of the statement that refers to the neurology recall, as my husband is one of the patients who have been recalled. <BR /> <BR />Turning to the urology statement and its contents, I thank the Minister for the assurance that he has given of the current safety in the Southern Trust. However, I refer the Minister to the part of the statement where he says:”
“These are the tools that will assist people in giving evidence, and that is a critical component of any legislation. <BR /> <BR />I will not rehearse what has already been said. Although we have thanked the Ministers, the Departments, the staff and the Clerks — rightly so — I will close by thanking the Assembly staff who have stayed to facilitate us here this evening.”
“I rise on behalf of the SDLP to support the final group of amendments. They may be the final group, but certainly not the least, because amongst them are the critical tools that can make the Bill work. Many stakeholders who appeared at Committee and who we spoke to as individual MLAs have been asking for these changes, and I want to thank the Department and the Minister for recognising the suite of legislative change that needed to happen beyond the Bill itself to make the Bill effective in that way. I certainly feel that these amendments do that. I note that amendment Nos 28, 29, 30 and 31 are minor technical amendments, but amendment No 32 is on the special measures in family proceedings, and amendment No 33 looks at prohibiting cross-examination in civil proceedings under certain circumstances.”
“It is best to include that data at the outset. If we are gathering data, it is a lot less expensive and labour-intensive to set up the format at the beginning, instead of having to revisit it because we missed out something. We may miss out things, and we may have to revisit them, but the fact that amendment No 26 brings in one of those items is to be welcomed. <BR /> <BR />In speaking against amendment No 25, the Minister made a compelling argument about operational capacity, which I accept, so, on that basis, we will not support amendment No 25.”
“The amendment sets down the first piece that we can move on with. <BR /> <BR />On independent oversight, the conversation started with the possibility of a commissioner, but that had to be pared down, and, at times, a bit of realism had to be injected into what resource may or may not be available. However, nobody deviated from the fact that having independent oversight is critical, because, otherwise, how would we know, without that data and somebody somewhere watching, how the Bill has hit the ground and how it is functioning? I welcome the review seven years after commencement. We must set parameters in trying to be realistic about resource. <BR /> <BR />We will also support amendment No 24, which is about the report on the operation of the Act. <BR /> <BR />We will also support amendment No 26.”
“That simple idea should be rolled out further. <BR /> <BR />We will support amendment No 19, along with amendment No 20 on the guidance on data collection. The points about that have been well rehearsed on the Floor, so I will not go over them, other than to say that we had a conversation about not just the reason why we need the data but the value of that data as we move into later stages after the Act becomes operational. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 21 is on training. I thank the Minister for not moving amendment No 15 yesterday. That helps us to start with a clean slate and to build to where this needs to go. I note that such collaborative work has happened at different junctures throughout the Bill. That has been helpful, because it has allowed people to air a view or express a direction of travel.”
“Like, I am sure, other Committee members, I was sent an email with a link to a video that showed us the origins of Operation Encompass. It was really interesting to watch. It showed a couple — he was a police officer, and she was a schoolteacher — coming together at the kitchen table to work out the missing link. It is so simple yet effective. The effect that it has on children's lives, as well as empowering teachers to do the best by a child on the day, should not be overlooked. I commend Ms Dillon for persisting that this needed to be in the Bill, but I recognise that it is just one part of what is required. We are reaching, through the Bill, some children who are involved in that process. This is not the wider piece that we should all do to find out how we reach all the children who may not be covered in the Bill.”
“I note that we are four minutes past the witching hour that Mr Beattie referred to. However, I have no doubt that the Members who are in the House will, like me, be motivated by the impact that this work can have. It is very much worth our while being here. That will spur us on until whatever hour we need to be here. <BR /> <BR />I have the advantage that two colleagues have eloquently spoken ahead of me on group three. On account of that and given that the Chair, Deputy Chair and other members have expressed many of the views that were discussed at the Committee, I will aim to make my remarks as quickly as possible. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 18 deals with Operation Encompass. Like many good ideas, it turns out to be a simple one.”
“Perhaps it is unfair to ask the Member to give way. However, on the issue of demand, is there not an argument to be made that there is a perpetual habit of bringing the victim to the court and having this system in place would diffuse that? Demand would, therefore, reduce, and costs that are being incurred at the court, which should not be required, would fall. Is it also true to say that, at this stage, nobody can truly put a figure on this, because we have never had a Bill that deals with domestic abuse? How do we measure it? How do we measure the numbers, which we hope will come out of the woodwork and be captured via the Bill?”
“The victim who is being dragged to court perpetually will not become financially broke by that if legal aid sweeps in and supports them. As the Minister said, however, this piece has not been developed as fully as it could be. What of those victims who may not run the full course of the Bill but are taking a case outside it? They, too, would deserve that support. <BR /> <BR />I spoke at length with the Member who tabled the amendment. I am torn, because I see that it is not a perfect piece at this stage. That said, the SDLP will support it because to anchor it now in the Bill is the right thing to do and allows us to tease out those further conversations around it.”
“One concern that I had and continue to have is that financial restraint — the perpetrator restricting access to finance — could mean the person fails to come forward. That could be the deciding factor in not taking action. <BR /> <BR />Likewise, the amendment speaks to legal aid. It is that recurring effect, and I know that the Member who tabled the amendment will speak to that. The perpetrator is trying to break the person in every way they can. If one of the tools for them to do that is to continually and persistently bring that person to court over minor and unfounded offences, just the process of having to do that and defend yourself is another form of abuse. I can see how the legal aid system stepping in would prevent the effect that the perpetrator hopes to achieve.”
“so any consultation process will have sufficient regard to what is heard during that consultation. I do not accept that that is a valid ground not to move and support amendment No 13. <BR /> <BR />The Member who tabled amendment No 14 will know that I have huge sympathy for it. It was my intention, although that has been unsuccessful to this point, to genuinely try to understand the position of the victim. In very many cases, unless we have right the piece where we talk about supporting the victim, victims may never present themselves. They may never have the confidence to come forward. We had to look at all the empowering tools that we could reach for in order to help those victims to come forward and present their case.”
“Again, I see how that is required to ensure that there is alignment on the age factor, so we will support it. <BR /> <BR />The Chair of the Committee outlined very well the Committee's position on amendment No 13. It is a reasonable presentation at this time, and it allows for a reasonable period for the Department to act. Rather than reiterate what has been said and further to the Minister's intervention, I highlight that the amendment is sufficiently vague about the regulations. The amendment states that:”
“What I will say is that, while I support the Minister's amendment in that regard in wanting to cover all young people, the SDLP shares the concerns raised by others that an inequality in sentencing will arise from that disjointed approach. I appreciate that I had the opportunity to speak briefly to the Minister about that during our last Justice Committee meeting, and I accept that the outcome is not entirely within the Minister's gift to resolve. Although, arguably, it is the correct thing to do, I urge her, along with the Minister of Health, to ensure that, if any inequality is raised at the time, urgent action is taken to swiftly rectify that. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 12 would insert a new clause, "Definitions for child cruelty offence".”
“First, I will speak directly to amendment Nos 9 and 11. <BR /> <BR />The SDLP recognises that the lowering of the age to 16 ensures that victims aged 16 to 18 who cannot seek legal redress through other provisions will be captured in the new offence. We note that the Bill is not intended as the legislative pathway for persons under the age of 16 for domestic abuse offences against them. Unlike 16- and 17-year-olds served by the amendment, they are reliant on the Children and Young Persons Act. <BR /> <BR />I was going to quote from the letter from the Minister at this point, but I think that that is sufficiently on the record at this stage. In the letter, the Minister talks us through the reasoning behind the Department's thinking, and I accept that.”
“<BR /> <BR />At this stage, we are minded to support amendment No 7, on the basis that it serves as a base for developing thinking and conversation on the withheld amendment Nos 5 and 6 in case there is added value that we should not overlook. <BR /> <BR />Finally, I want to put on record our support for amendment Nos 8 and 10 and acknowledge the Department for listening to the Committee and bringing forward amendment Nos 16 and 17, which the SDLP also support.”