Debate contribution: Custodial Facilities: Protection of Rights and Safety

Debate contribution by Mr Matthew O'Toole on 20 January 2025.

MLA

Mr Matthew O'Toole

Party at the time

Social Democratic and Labour 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 4744346

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I will speak briefly on the motion and the amendment. When we discuss contentious issues that are subject to some controversy, as this issue clearly is — it would be odd not to acknowledge the fact that it has been the subject of significant public debate in recent years — it is important that we speak with honesty, sincerity and sensitivity. That goes for people who are trans, regardless of whether they find themselves in the custodial prison estate. It is important to note that, in Northern Ireland, transgender prisoners represent a tiny number of people. I do not know the exact number, but I think that it is in low single figures. For the best part of a decade, there was not a single individual. It also goes for women, who are entitled to an honest discussion about single-sex spaces, risk assessments in relation to the prison estate and other issues. The motion is specifically about the custodial context. Some remarks have strayed into other connected issues, because Members touched on the rights and expectations of trans people, but the motion is specifically about the prison estate, so I will limit my remarks to that and let others make comments about other issues. First, the most important thing is to say that, in such issues, the primary motivation should be the safety of all those in the prison estate. When a court finds you guilty of an offence and a judge has sentenced you, you are deprived of your liberty for a set period of time. When you enter the prison estate, there is a process by which you are risk-assessed. If and when you leave the prison estate on licence, you will be managed by the Probation Board. Those are criminal justice professionals whose job is to make decisions on risk. Risks assessments are made in conjunction with the health service. Nothing should get in the way of the primary motivating purpose, which is the safety of all those in the prison estate. That should be the overriding concern. One of my concerns with the text of the motion and, indeed, the amendment is that there are obvious potential unintended consequences. I will set them out. The motion says:

"biological males should be held in a male prison".

By "biological males" — I do not dispute the use of the term — Mr Beattie, I think, means "natal males": people who live as women but who were male at birth. A plain reading of the text is that, even if a person had, for example, received testosterone for decades, presented as a man and was living as a man — they could be a large, bulky individual and could even have been convicted of a violent crime — they would have to go into the female prison estate. Likewise, trans man would have to go into the female prison estate. There are clear unintended consequences that would not just present risks to the safety of other prisoners or, indeed, trans prisoners but place additional resource and management burdens on the Prison Service. The motion and the amendment would have very severe potential unintended consequences were they to represent a blanket policy.

I have no difficulty having these debates, but if we are going to table such motions in the Assembly, we should carefully think through the consequences of them. I have no difficulty talking about the importance of, in particular, female safety in the prison estate. I am also very clear on the need to talk about trans issues in a respectful and inclusive way. A very high proportion of trans people have been vulnerable in their lives and live pretty difficult lives, so, for example, simply shoving them into parts of the prison estate, particularly when they pose no discernible risk to anybody, would be a risk. As I said, I have no difficulty talking about safety in the prison estate, but we need to judge the issues on a case-by-case basis, with the absolute priority, whatever about questions of gender, being safety. It needs to be looked at on a case-by-case basis. I do not think that the motion or the amendment today are as nuanced as the debate requires. If we are going to have such debates, we need to have them in full knowledge of the potential unintended consequences. As I said, a plain reading of the motion and the amendment is that they do not really deal with the issues that are here. If there is going to be guidance from the Department, it clearly needs to take into account all those factors. I am afraid that neither the motion nor the amendment does that.

782 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

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.

Challenge this classification