Debate contribution: Custodial Facilities: Protection of Rights and Safety
Debate contribution by Ms Connie Egan on .
- MLA
- Ms Connie Egan
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 20 January 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Custodial Facilities: Protection of Rights and Safety
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4744344
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I stand to speak on the extremely important topic of protecting the rights, dignity and safety of those in custodial facilities. My party and I wholeheartedly believe that we must do everything that we can to ensure that the societal rights of those in prisons or holding facilities are upheld while their liberty is taken away. Decisions and judgements must be made in the context of individuals' needs and risks. That is best done on a case-by-case basis, and that is why we will vote against the motion. We do not need to attack the rights or diminish the well-being of others, particularly those who are vulnerable or who belong to marginalised communities, to secure our own safety. For us to build a justice system that truly works, respect for the dignity of everyone involved must be at its core. It is imperative that we meet the needs of those who are in custodial facilities and give our full support to those in the Northern Ireland Prison Service. They are met with challenges every day yet they still execute their responsibilities and meet their duty of care for those who are held there. Their priority is the safety of everyone involved, and the calls that they make are informed by the advice of the South Eastern Health and Social Care Trust and, very importantly, the Equality Commission: true expertise that has curated the approach that we have today, something that the motion ignores. If we were to apply the blanket approach that the motion and the amendment suggest, we would not be fulfilling our responsibilities as a legislative Assembly to safeguard the well-being of those who are held in custodial facilities. There is nuance, individualism and context in every person who comes into contact with our criminal justice system, and it is imperative that we trust the judiciary, police and prison officers to recognise and respond to that. The current approach allows for the needs and risks of each inmate to be assessed on a case-by-case basis and for that inmate to be accommodated through how they access services in the prison. That guidance was implemented by the Prison Service in 2022, and it aligns with international best practice, including that from the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. It sincerely concerns me that any party that is represented in the Chamber could believe that there is a one-size-fits-all approach to our justice system and Prison Service. We are all different, and we all need different things. We should not make our approach to this issue any different. A blanket rule that does not have best practice at its heart is one of the dangers that is being discussed today. We have all been contacted by women's organisations, such as HERe NI and the Women's Resource and Development Agency (WRDA), which have asked us to oppose the motion. I will do so.
483 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not flagged”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.07 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.94).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.94).
- Subject area: Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups.
- The overall probability was at or below the not-flagging threshold.
This is an AI-generated assessment of the text, made against published criteria. It is not a finding of fact about the MLA or their intentions. The Assembly record itself is the fact.
Jev’s structured answers
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.07 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.03 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.05 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.94 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.07 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.94 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.06 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.62 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.32 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.05 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:47 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.
Disagree with this assessment?
Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.