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 8 of 15.
“The shared objective that we have in the House of developing good law demands that we consider and scrutinise the process of building legislation as it evolves. To that end, the SDLP recognises the value of the proposal to introduce a reasonableness test in clause 9. Amendment Nos 5 and 7 made that proposal. However, the second part of amendment No 5, which, I understand, may not be moved, departed from that and introduced a new notion of residency. <BR /> <BR />I will move on from that because if the Minister is not moving amendment No 5, I expect that we will be able to pick up on it at Committee and explore the reason and rationale behind it. I am also eager to know what, if any, impact that would have on clause 5.”
“The content of the letter, however late, has served as a key document in understanding the Department's objectives behind amendments relating to the threshold for parental responsibility and aggravation where a child is involved. It is also important to place on record that the newly evolved departmental position in the letter departs significantly from an earlier steadfast position held by the Department, an official position that requires mention because it strongly influenced thinking at Committee Stage and in our final report. <BR /> <BR />This is a legislative process, and, as debate matures and we develop our thinking on certain concepts and ideas, we should at least record the pathway that brought us to those final points of agreement.”
“The amendment proposes to place that in the Bill, and the SDLP has heard no reason why that should not happen or any limiting implications that it may have. <BR /> <BR />Clause 9 has been the subject of huge debate during the Committee Stage and on the Floor, and rightly so. I appreciate the Chair of the Committee putting on record the very long sequence of events that has moved thinking through our time on this. I appreciate that, even at this point, the Committee report may not now reflect the views across the Committee, and for good reason. It is important to place on record the letter dated 5 November from the Department to the Clerk of the Justice Committee for members' attention.”
“Clause 3 reaches that point. It exposes the behaviours of perpetrators and removes any tangled web of emotion and shines a light directly on perpetrators' behaviours and allows them to be judged in the cold light of day. It is clause 3 that should keep abusers awake at night. <BR /> <BR />The SDLP recognises the points raised by Mr Allister. However, I put it to him that the issues are not as black and white as we might like them to be. <BR /> <BR />On amendment Nos 2 and 3, the SDLP will support the Minister, as the amendments appear largely technical. I acknowledge the explanation given by the Minister and the Department to date. <BR /> <BR />We will also support amendment No 4. I appreciate that the explanatory and financial memorandum is guidance, but in relation to clause 9 it states that:”
“<BR /> <BR />Clause 3 speaks directly to the darkest, less well understood effects of domestic abuse, particularly in its psychological form. The manipulative, coercive behaviours of the perpetrator can deliberately set out to normalise the sinister intention behind their acts. <BR /> <BR />Throughout the deliberations, reference has been made to the much-publicised Hart case, with brothers Ryan and Luke giving voice to their much-loved mother, Claire, and sister, Charlotte, who were, after much abuse, finally murdered by their abusive father and dad. Luke Hart said in an interview:”
“Furthermore, clause 2 speaks of the reasonable person's assessment that one or more of the relevant effects of that behaviour is likely to be triggered. <BR /> <BR />The SDLP shares the Committee view that current legislation does not adequately recognise the fact that domestic abuse is not limited to physical violence and believes that the new offence addresses gaps in legislation, captures domestic abuse in all its myriad forms, will enable more effective action to be taken against perpetrators and will enhance the protection and access to justice provided to those victims by the criminal justice system. To achieve that, it is critical that clause 3 be retained. <BR /> <BR />A number of conditions must be met for the offence to be committed. Importantly, a defence on the grounds of reasonableness offers safeguards throughout the Bill.”
“The demeaning gaslighting and persistent behaviours that evolve over time often result in a victim feeling ashamed, with low self-esteem and low self-worth. The stripping of that individual's confidence and self-worth can lead to their believing that the behaviours of the perpetrator are in some way justifiable. At the depth of such oppression, it can be deeply challenging for a victim to see, with any real clarity, the extent of the wrong to which they are being subjected. <BR /> <BR />The SDLP supports clause 3. It recognises that it has been determined that a reasonable person has considered the coercive behaviour by the perpetrator to be likely to cause person B to suffer physical or psychological harm.”
“Amendment No 1, which we will oppose, proposes to leave out the reasonable person test. I heard Mr Allister's words, and I have sympathy for much of what he said. However, it is not as black and white as some of the legislation to which he referred. We are trying to pin down a complex issue in legislation. Unfortunately, that challenges minds and thinking on what has happened previously in a legislative process, which may not fit. It is a challenge and it is difficult. I appreciate Mr Allister's contribution, and I certainly have an open ear about the solution, if there is a middle ground. <BR /> <BR />Given the strategic and escalating nature of coercive control, it is important that there is a reasonableness test in legislation.”
“At the outset, I thank the Chair of the Committee for putting together such a comprehensive explanation of the Committee's work to date. It was a very fair synopsis of the work that has gone on to this point. <BR /> <BR />At this stage, I will not engage in thanking everyone — maybe I will leave that for later — but I will single out those people who stepped forward, told a personal story and gave a personal account to the Committee. There was nothing more sobering in making the Bill a reality than listening to the voices of those victims. I commend them. It was courageous, and I put on record the fact that it helped my thinking on where we took the Bill. <BR /> <BR />As the SDLP representative on the Justice Committee, I will open on the group 1 amendments.”
“How does the Department capture that data? In the past five years, how many trees have been planted? Have the Department's targets been achieved? Will the data be captured annually?”
“Should that be the case, the objective of swifter outcomes could be compromised. We therefore will engage with the Minister and the Department to seek assurance that these proposals are deliverable. <BR /> <BR />In principle, the SDLP welcomes the Bill and its objectives and looks forward to engaging in the process of scrutiny and building the legislation to ensure that it delivers on all its outlined objectives.”
“<BR /> <BR />On the basis of these proposals, it seems reasonable to conclude that the demands on the Magistrates' Court and the committal process could be significantly lightened. However, the additional powers proposed, arguably necessarily, may have the effect of cancelling out or reducing any such efficiencies. The aim of transferring cases to the Crown Court more quickly and shortening the time taken to complete these cases will, in the view of the SDLP, depend heavily on the redistribution of resources. Without a clear business case for the number of cases projected to flow through the proposed new system, the SDLP is concerned that the desired effect of reducing the length of the committal process could lead to new pressure and delay in the Crown Court.”
“It should be noted that a fair system that reaches justice in a timely manner is in the best interests of all parties. The inclusion of certain offences in the direct committal process, upon early inspection, certainly appears to be a clean and efficient way of reducing the delay that can be experienced under the committal process, as does the proposal to further simplify the process itself. I note the single list of serious offences to which direct committal will apply. Also important is that additional clarity will be given that any other offence that the Magistrates' Court considers to be related to the qualifying offence will also be directly transferred to the Crown Court at the same time.”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. At the outset, the SDLP acknowledges the reasoning presented surrounding the need for a reformation in the committal process and the objectives presented by the Bill. With mounting political agreements and an independent report spanning a significant time period, all indicating the need to engage in reform, it is regrettable that this matter has been delayed until now. However, we are here now. The proposals contained within the Bill present us with an opportunity to take action on any reform necessary. <BR /> <BR />There is no doubt that the committal process has its problems and a review is welcome. A reduction in the costly process may be achievable, but the opportunities to support the wellbeing of alleged victims and witnesses are amongst the strongest arguments for proposing reform.”
“Based on that answer, Minister, do you agree with me that the fundamental external factors that directly affect how efficiently any surge plan can work rely not just on the public playing their part and listening to the Chief Medical Officer but on the Executive hearing that message, acting on it and thus safeguarding everybody.”
“I thank the First Minister for that update. Can I ask the First Minister to give an update on the Victims' Forum and what, if any, appointments have been made to it? Is there an anticipated date for a conclusion?”
“Does the Minister agree that there is a real need to set up a working group, with stakeholders drawn from across the education sector, to help inform you on your decisions in the weeks and months ahead?”
“I note the Minister's work to date on the issue. Will she define or give a timeline for when we can expect to see some results from that work?”
“I thank the Minister for her elaboration on the work around the Narrow Water bridge, in particular, and for her renewed and ongoing commitment to that critical project. The Minister constantly references the importance of enhancing our economy. Does she share my view that we need to have projects that are ready to be built and ready to go as quickly as possible, particularly at this time? Does she agree that Narrow Water bridge is a significant project that will bring much-needed employment to the area? Will she commit to speaking to the Minister of Finance and his counterparts across this island to get that project ready for delivery?”
“I thank the Minister for her clear commitment to the Narrow Water bridge project. In particular, I thank her for visiting Warrenpoint and meeting the Narrow Water bridge community network. What discussions has the Minister had with the Irish Government on progressing this much needed and highly significant project, not just for south Down but for the whole island of Ireland?”
“I appreciate the Minister's response, particularly his reference to putting together the Procurement Board. Does he accept that the Procurement Board must work as part of a much wider framework? If so, will he also consider the appointment of a one-off fiscal commission to examine budgetary settings and structural challenges for the economy in the difficult times ahead?”
“The statement relies heavily on calls for responsible behaviour from all. I wholeheartedly support that, but further to Mr Nesbitt's question earlier, will extra resources or support be provided to all those who are assisted and charged with carrying out enforcement duties?”
“It is vital that there be robust North/South cooperation to ensure that our capabilities and enforcement are not reduced. I would welcome the Minister's thoughts on that.”
“<BR /> <BR />Similarly, I would be grateful to hear from the Minister what assessment she has made for the guidance to become available to other public bodies in identifying slavery. I am particularly thinking about staff in jobs and benefits offices, given that controlling someone's benefits is a known tactic of the gangmasters. I am also conscious that the Bill deals with the fact that children can be victims of this appalling crime. Has any thought been given to specific guidance on identifying child victims? <BR /> <BR />Finally, I am sure that the Minister is conscious that, at the end of the year, we will become the only part of the UK that has a land border with an EU country, which could make us a target for enslavers and traffickers, who see an opportunity in the loss of the European arrest warrant.”
“<BR /> <BR />I hope that Anti-Slavery Day, and this debate to mark it, can act as a reminder to the public at large of the signs of modern slavery and human trafficking so that we can all be alert to them. By recognising the signs of modern slavery, we, as public representatives, and our constituents can make the work of the PSNI and other public bodies even more effective and help to bring the perpetrators to justice. It is by equipping as many people as possible to spot the signs of this dehumanising crime that we begin to dismantle the perpetrators' power. That is why I welcome the guidance issued to local councils to help their workers to identify signs of modern slavery.”
“Forty-five days is not only an arbitrary figure, it is shockingly inadequate to recover from the mental trauma, and the often violent physical abuse, inflicted on victims of modern slavery, let alone enough time to help them to rebuild some semblance of a stable life. <BR /> <BR />As the motion rightly notes, not only is this the right thing to do for victims but it will strengthen enforcement and, hopefully, improve conviction rates by increasing the likelihood of victims having enough confidence in themselves and in the justice system to give evidence against the perpetrators. Providing leave to remain for at least a year would shift away from the 45-day cliff edge to a needs-based tailored system that the Work and Pensions Select Committee and charities that support victims of trafficking and modern slavery support.”
“I thank Mr Catney for his intervention and agree wholeheartedly: any right-thinking person would be disgusted by what is in front of us today. <BR /> <BR />The extension to at least 12 months to receive the guaranteed support, after identification by the national referral mechanism, rather than the present paltry 45 days is welcome. <BR /> <BR />Although progress had been made, for the victims identified since the 2015 legislation came into force, the support has simply not been there to prevent them from becoming destitute or homeless or even from being re-trafficked and enslaved.”
“The Bill will strengthen that legislation by ensuring that victims have at least 12 months. I take the points made by the Member, but the extension from 45 days to 12 months creates a broader window to answer the important questions that she asked.”
“Unfortunately, the latter takes priority, despite the fact that a precarious immigration status, in itself, makes someone vulnerable to exploitation and can be the reason they do not seek help. <BR /> <BR />The Bill builds on the landmark 2015 Modern Slavery Act. I must take this opportunity to pay tribute to the work of the former SDLP MP for Foyle, Mark Durkan, who was the only MP from Northern Ireland on the Bill Committee and the treasurer of the all-party group on modern slavery and human trafficking.”
“I support the motion and join other Members in condemning the abhorrent scourge that modern slavery is in our society. I hope that this debate helps to raise awareness of the realities of life for victims of modern slavery, who find themselves pushed into forced labour, domestic servitude and sexual exploitation. I also hope that the Assembly's support can help to ensure that the UK Government give the private Member's Bill the time to progress through Parliament. If this motion is agreed, and I sincerely hope it will be, it would be helpful for the Justice Minister to send a letter to the Home Secretary highlighting that. <BR /> <BR />The UK Home Office's responsibility for combating modern slavery comes into conflict with its zealous immigration enforcement.”
“I take the opportunity again to thank the Committee Clerks, who very quickly put their efforts into other work, in that time, that has been to the betterment of the House.”
“I made the point at the Committee that it is critical that, while we, no doubt, as a House, should and will challenge the Governments who are behind the agreement, we should collectively come together at every opportunity that we have to say that we have honoured it and have played our part. This was very much in the gift of the Procedures Committee. Therefore, I am pleased that we have brought it to the House. <BR /> <BR />I accept that there was a delay. The dates were set and, I have no doubt, could have been achieved, but, obviously with COVID, we all need to find a bit of grace and space to say that things that we would have liked to be done in a timely fashion could not be.”
“I support the motion. As has been outlined — I will not repeat what was said — this derived from the 'New Decade, New Approach' document. There was, I suppose, healthy debate at the Procedures Committee about how it was arrived at, and, to be fair, it was from representatives who, perhaps, were not subject to that document. The House does well to be reminded that the NDNA document, like every other agreement, is full of compromise. Whether I think that this is the landing place that we, as a party, would have liked to be at at this point, from a procedural, Committee point of view, is almost irrelevant. We were tasked with going forward and honouring what was in that agreement.”
“We are not in a place of absolute peace, but are we not in a better place? Have we not achieved something? Let us at least recognise what we have achieved together and realise that that is important going forward and that we can learn from each other and those who came before us. <BR /> <BR />I bring my remarks to a close by referring to the absolute need for the police to reflect our society and everybody in it. We all deserve to have confidence in reaching out to the Police Service. My colleague Dolores Kelly rightly referred to 50:50 recruitment. If we are serious about growing our Police Service, and I think that we need to, we must grow it in a way that we know has the absolute confidence of everybody in society.”
“There is, of course, much in the document that parties have issues with. <BR /> <BR />That brings me on to another point nicely. Members opposite have referred to Patten, and I appreciate that there are Members in the House for whom Patten was very difficult — exceptionally difficult — to take on board. With hindsight, however, was it not the right thing to do? Did it not bring us from a very dark place to relative peace? I give credit to the Members opposite, because there were times that agenda items came up that we half-anticipated Members walking away from. We had to come up with ways of keeping those Members here and ensuring that they did not walk away, but they did not walk away. They stood firm at the time, because there was a consensus that we all had to work together to get to a better place.”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank the Member for her intervention, and I agree entirely. We could go through the document. There are pledges in it for 900 nursing and midwifery undergraduate places, palliative care service improvements and IVF cycles. There is a list in there, and none of the pledges is prefixed with the words "additional money" that the Member referred to. It was the understanding that there would be additional money.”
“Any party that signed up to New Decade, New Approach had only to go through the list of priorities in it to see that extra money would be required to achieve them. If people did not think that extra money would be required, they really have to ask themselves some very serious questions. The understanding was that additional money would be required to achieve anything in that document, and we all have to unite behind holding the Government to account to bring forward that money.”
“The 'New Decade, New Approach' document has many items in it, across all Departments. Do we intend to bring each Minister in front of the House to put each priority item to him or her? Perhaps we would do that in normal times, but these are not normal times. The House has to get behind the document as best it can under the circumstances. I do not think that it is valid to say that the amendment that has been proposed is a distraction. It is not. The amendment is steeped in reality.”
“If that is the case, let us not pretend that the Chief Constable has not already put it on record that the pressures on policing will become immense. We could face disruption, through to slower and more laborious working practices, and the absence of data sharing will lead to immense problems in the Police Service. While I support the motion, I do not think that it is fair not to give that consideration.”
“As the SDLP spokesperson on justice, I support the motion as amended, and I speak to the obvious pressures on resource in the PSNI that were sufficient to, rightly, justify putting this into the 'New Decade, New Approach' document. Since then, the Justice Committee has heard directly from the Chief Constable about how COVID has impacted further on stretched resources. Initially, the types of crimes shifted during lockdown, with an increased emphasis on domestic violence emerging. Since then, the restrictions have eased and crime has resumed, but all of that happened in addition to the pressures that COVID brought along. Furthermore, the Brexit disaster rumbles on, with negative soundings that we may not strike a deal with the EU.”
“From the Minister's answer, it is fair to say that delays in our supply chain are an inevitable outcome of Brexit. He mentioned stakeholder engagements. I have spoken to hauliers who are still very much in the dark. They do not know what systems they need to invest in and what the costs will be. Can the Minister throw any light on that?”
“Thank you, Minister. I noted your words about the Northern Ireland economy not being able to weather another lockdown. However, given that the Minister is not up to date on the possible closure dates for such a scheme, is it not important that she open her mind and consider that this may be the window of opportunity in which we can financially assist some businesses in some way?”
“Mental health and loneliness issues need to be recognised, and we must empower communities to support one another. <BR /> <BR />As I said, I did not expect to be called to speak, but I welcome the opportunity. I support the regulations and recognise that more may need to be done. All Members have a duty to stand up with one voice and explain to the public why they have as much of a role to play in this as we do.”
“That will not be there as there is no absolute answer. We all have different perspectives. We all come with different priorities about what is important in our lives, which may be to do with your age profile or where you live. There is no doubt that everyone will have different solutions. We have to do our very best to reach out to everyone. If we ask someone to isolate, we have to know in our heart of hearts that they have the financial power to do that. That may be the £500 that was mentioned earlier, which still has to be announced. <BR /> <BR />We need to know that we can empower people with knowledge about support mechanisms. If people need to go into isolation or lockdown, they need to know that they will have access to food, medicines and support.”
“It is good to hear that the House is united against people with anonymous accounts, and some who are not anonymous, who spread absolute rubbish, with no foundation, that suggests that there is something other than facts behind the decisions that are made. <BR /> <BR />I listened to my colleague Mr McCrossan asking for clarity, because the messages can be contradictory. However, the messaging will be contradictory at times because this is not absolute situation; it is a balancing act. Of course we want our children to go to school, and life, as we all know it, to resume, but we cannot have it that way. We are all charged with finding out how much we can get away with without the risk of taking the virus home to the people who will be most affected. I do not come here expecting absolute clarity or for all the decisions to follow logic.”
“From my own outings, which I restrict at every opportunity, on many occasions, I see people who do not fit that age profile who are being equally as complacent. It may be that those individuals have exemptions from having to wear a mask or do not feel that they fit into any profile that specifically endangers them. If the latter is the case, what a selfish act that is. It is very selfish for people to go about their business and somehow feel that they are immune to the virus, showing no sense of responsibility to those around them or to the vulnerable. I join other Members in putting out that message.”
“I did not expect to be called, Mr Principal Deputy Speaker, but I appreciate the opportunity because I, too, want to offer my condolences to all those who have lost loved ones throughout the pandemic. I also want to thank the Minister and all his colleagues, who face a situation that changes hourly and the difficulties that arise from it. <BR /> <BR />I have listened carefully to the commentary in the House. There has been much speculation, even by us, about the age profile of those amongst the number with the virus. That number is growing at a frightening and alarming rate. I am fearful about the growing narrative that, ultimately, young people are the rule breakers or lawbreakers.”
“Let us make no mistake about it: the damage has been done, but it is on us to find the best way to preserve it or fix what has happened for the generations to come. <BR /> <BR />Minister, I repeat one of your titles. It is an appropriate one, and I know that it is probably the one that has brought you here this evening. It is the defender of our heritage and archaeology. On that basis, I look forward to working with you and stepping forward as the House unites to find a resolution to the problem — the unforgivable problem — at Knock Iveagh.”
“I do not lay the blame with anyone and will not spend the evening doing that. It is too critical an opportunity to ask what we can do about it. I could list Ministers, dates and events, and it is right to say that there are so many questions about how and why it happened. Processes, policies and procedures have been set aside on numerous occasions, which have layered the confusion and the impact of the devastation of what has happened on the site. I am on public record as being one of the objectors to the planning application for the retention of the mast on the site. Like many, my view is clear, and the harm that has been done there is clear for all to see. What I am less clear about is how it can be restored. Can it truly be restored in an archaeologically satisfactory way?”
“Sadly, the story of Knock Iveagh now has a chapter in it from our generation of which we should be ashamed. We genuinely have to ask ourselves how that happened. I welcome the fact that the Minister for Communities has come to the House this evening, because we all have a shared responsibility with her in the defence of our heritage and archaeology.”