Debate contribution: Custodial Facilities: Protection of Rights and Safety

Debate contribution by Ms Claire Sugden on 20 January 2025.

MLA

Ms Claire Sugden

Party at the time

Independent

Date

20 January 2025

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Private Members' Business

Heading

Custodial Facilities: Protection of Rights and Safety

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 4744382

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I will not support the motion, because I am not content with its blanket wording. We need to allow room for individual circumstances. However, I am sympathetic to the practical consideration of biological sex; indeed, it is crucial to address the difference between sex and gender. It is a distinction that directly informs the motion and the wider conversation that we are having around gender identity. Biological sex refers to physical characteristics, while gender identity is deeply personal and is rooted in an individual's sense of self. Both are valid and deserve respect, but they carry different implications in settings such as prisons, where physical realities and vulnerabilities must be prioritised to ensure safety. Indeed, while prisons have historically been segregated by sex, which, I appreciate, is to do with women's health and safety, that needs to be included in the discussion. By recognising sex-based differences, we diminish no one's identity. It is about safeguarding well-being, particularly in environments where safety and vulnerability are key considerations. There is a wider conversation in Northern Ireland, the UK and the world about the tension that arises between women's rights and the recognition of gender identity. It is not an abstract discussion but a real, difficult and deeply felt issue for many, including cis women and transgender women. I am often asked, usually by a man, "What is a woman?". I am a woman, but that is a deeply personal consideration. It is not about physical stereotypes or societal expectation but about the right to be fully oneself without external definitions or limitations. That applies to a consideration of our spaces as well, to ensure that we can be women with dignity. At the same time, transgender individuals face challenges that are no less significant. They, too, deserve dignity and safety. Balancing those needs is not easy, but it is necessary. The answer lies in thoughtful policies that recognise and protect the rights of both groups without allowing one to feel that its rights are being diminished by the other. Custodial settings amplify the tensions. Women in prison, many of whom are survivors of trauma including violence and sexual assault, need spaces in which they feel secure and supported to provide the maximum opportunity for rehabilitation, as any other prisoner would have. Transgender individuals will also face significant risks of harassment and violence in custody. Those overlapping vulnerabilities demand a balanced approach that carefully considers the safety and dignity of all groups. Dedicated wings, separated facilities or other bespoke measures can ensure that everyone is treated with dignity without compromising safety. Such solutions demonstrate that recognising physical realities does not negate the validity of gender identity; indeed, they ensure that no group feels excluded, unsafe or overlooked. We need to look to other jurisdictions to understand the importance of getting this right. There have been cases in England and Scotland that have shown the risks to prioritising safety and incidents in which poorly implemented policies have led to harm in women's prisons. Northern Ireland can and should lead with an approach that balances —

I appreciate the Minister's intervention. Yes, absolutely; that is why we need to take an approach that ensures safety for all in our prison system. However, we cannot take out the specific issues to which biological gender can give rise. We have to take the issue forward sensitively while ensuring safety for all.

564 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