Debate contribution: Custodial Facilities: Protection of Rights and Safety

Debate contribution by Mrs Naomi Long on 20 January 2025.

MLA

Mrs Naomi Long

Party at the time

Alliance Party

Date

20 January 2025

Type

Debate contribution (made as a minister)

Business

Private Members' Business

Heading

Custodial Facilities: Protection of Rights and Safety

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 4744793

Read the official Assembly record

Text

At the outset, I say that it was disappointing today, in a debate that purported to be about the protection of women's dignity and of women's rights, that a sequence of men in the Chamber chose to speak at us and for us rather than give way to listen to us as women. In fact, when the Ulster Unionist Party Member for Upper Bann was holding forth on things as unrelated to the motion as vaginal birth, breastfeeding and pregnancy, he refused to give way to a pregnant woman who has vaginally birthed two children and breastfed both of them and may be more experienced in such matters than the Member to my right. It says a lot that we are having a defence of single-sex spaces in a place where, today, women's voices could have been heard more clearly but others would not give way, with the notable exception, I have to say, of Mr Carroll. I know that the Ulster Unionist Party is keen on preserving single-sex spaces; indeed, its Assembly team was a single-sex space until relatively recently, with their new Member joining. Therefore, I know that it is a long-standing commitment.

No, I will not give way, because, interestingly enough, I think that, when a woman is holding the Floor and making her speech in response to the debate, it is appropriate that maybe she should be allowed to do so without interruption, given the discourtesy that was shown to us earlier. I welcome the opportunity to respond to the motion. I thank the Members who acknowledged the sensitivity and complexity of the issues being discussed and the potential for what is said in the Chamber to impact on the lives of vulnerable people in our community. We can and should debate and discuss these issues. However, it is important that, when we do, we do so in a considered and temperate manner. This is just one of many debates that we will have in the House, but, for some people, including those who are transgender and those who are raising transgender children, these debates, the words that we use and the things that we say are everything. We need to be conscious of that when we approach the issues. When I look around today, I am struck by the fact that no one in the Chamber is the same as the person next to them. We all come from different backgrounds. We have all had different journeys through life. We have different fears, different hopes and different aspirations and, yes, even in the Chamber, different vulnerabilities. We see and experience the world through a different lens as a result. No two women are alike; no two men are alike; and no two people are alike. We also have a reasonable expectation that our differences will make us a part of society and not apart from society. There is always a risk when issues of identity are the subject of public and political discourse that the discussion is marked by contention, fractiousness and a lack of compassion, nuance and understanding. Approaching issues in that way can inadvertently make individuals and groups in our community feel further marginalised, vulnerable or fearful. I am determined to guard against that. My Department is fully committed to providing continuous support for the LGBTQI+ community and to all other minority communities throughout Northern Ireland when they are in contact with the justice system, whether that is as a victim of crime, a witness, a complainant, a defendant or a perpetrator. We are committed to doing so while ensuring that there is no diminution of any other person's rights. Rights and equality are not finite. Their extension to one person or group does not diminish their availability to others. None of us are truly equal and protected until all of us are. The placement of those from the transgender community in prison has recently been the subject of inaccurate media reporting. It is regrettable that the public discourse that led to this debate is about one individual from a minority group that all of us in the Chamber have a duty to protect and support. Every prisoner has the right to a degree of privacy and dignity in their personal business that we in the Department always endeavour to protect as a rule. Therefore, we do not comment on individuals committed to our care. I took the opportunity last week at Question Time to set the record straight about that case, given that it was already in the public domain. However, I will do so again, because, despite my explicitly setting out the facts, none of those professing concern about the issue seem to have taken on board anything that was said in the Chamber last week. There was no ruling against the Department. There was no finding that the Department did not have a policy. In fact, the judge did not respond to the writ of habeas corpus but said that it was appropriate and right that it should be left to the Department to process a prisoner through the system in the normal way. That is what happened, in effect. To be clear, there has been no judgement against the Department's policy and no ruling against the Department's policy. Yet, a number of Members erroneously stated that in the Chamber again today. If I, as a Minister, came to the Chamber and misrepresented facts, knowingly misrepresented facts, I would have to come back and apologise to the House for misleading it. Yet, Members will stand up in the Chamber and misrepresent facts, despite the fact that they were brought to their attention in the Chamber last week, and nothing happens. People can essentially insinuate and smear without having facts. That is a risky approach to take. My Department and the wider justice system are keenly focused on ensuring that the safety, security, rights and dignity of every individual who comes into contact with the justice system are upheld. Every day, across the justice system, we expect and trust the independent judiciary, the Police Service, the Prison Service and others to consider the risks and needs of the individuals for whom they are responsible. We ask those professionals to make decisions in context, taking into account the complex individual circumstances and wider public safety considerations, in order to manage that risk. That is their job. I, for one, find it incredibly depressing that, despite the fact that the Prison Service has managed to do that so successfully over recent years without serious incident or cause for alarm, we find ourselves second-guessing the policy approach that it has taken. They are professional people who live to protect the people in their care as well as their colleagues and the public. Of course, that applies not just to matters of gender identity; it applies to ethnicity, socio-economic status, health, disability, age, sexual orientation and many other matters. To manage the risks and needs of an individual who comes into contact with the justice system will almost always require consideration of a complex combination of factors unique to each case. In many ways, the Northern Ireland Prison Service has one of the most challenging roles in that work, as its engagement with individuals is likely to be for months or years rather than hours or days. It is not a one-off risk assessment; it is an ongoing process for anyone in the justice system. Their development and behaviour in the system inform that ongoing risk assessment. Therefore, whilst there is a point-of-time risk assessment for the initial committal, that is not where responsibility for the risk assessment of a prisoner ends. It is foolhardy to suggest that you could, by legislation, in the way in which it has been suggested, manage that ongoing risk in a meaningful way as a person transitions through the justice system, with different levels of risk and different levels of challenge attendant to their case. From my many visits to prisons and discussions with prison staff and management, I know how seriously they treat those responsibilities and the efforts that they invest in getting it right. I provide the assurance that is, I trust, being sought that the rights, safety and dignity of every prisoner are taken seriously by Prison Service. It is odd that this is the first time that we have had a debate about the welfare of inmates in our prison system. It is the first time that we have had the opportunity to talk specifically about that beyond healthcare matters. The wider issues of safety, security and dignity in our prisons have not been raised in the Chamber for debate previously. In that context, it is interesting that we are having the debate in this way. In my time visiting prisons, I have spoken to many of the women who have been discussed here today. I have spoken to the women in the women's prison and have listened to them. Many of them recount to me that they feel safer there than pretty much anywhere else that they have been in their recent lives. That stands as a testament to the fact that our prison officers know their job. They know what they are doing and are informed in order to be able to do it. It is for that very reason that, some years ago, we completed a review of the procedures for managing transgender individuals, following engagement with the Equality Commission and the South Eastern Health and Social Care Trust. Prior to that time and in line with the views of previous Ministers of Justice, Prison Service had a long-standing practice in place to deal with transgender and, indeed, intersex prisoners. Let us remember that not everyone who does not fit neatly into the categories of male or female has made a decision to transition; some who are born intersex may also end up in the prison system and need to be housed safely. That also needs to be considered by those who want to play out culture wars. This should be done on a case-by-case basis. There is no point tutting: when you raise those issues in the manner in which you have without seeking the facts or seeking to inform your position, it can be seen only as a cheap shot and not as an informed contribution to the discussion. Following the deaths of two transgender prisoners in English prisons and the issues in Scottish prisons that have been referred to in the debate, a decision was taken to put in place a formal process and take on board the learning from both, because, of course, the problem in Scotland was that a black-and-white approach was adopted. It should never have been adopted and will never be adopted by the Northern Ireland Prison Service. "Guidance on the care and management of transgender prisoners" was subsequently implemented by the Prison Service in August 2020. Far from being opaque, the policy has been available for anyone who wished to request a copy of it, read it, talk to me about it or talk to Prison Service about it. Interestingly, the only enquiry that we had was a question from Mr Gaston that came after the motion was tabled. No other Member asked to see that information or requested a copy. That is how concerned they are about the policy.

That is where their intellectual curiosity led. The policy is far from opaque; it is available in the Library. I hope that people will read it. Indeed, to be fair to Mr Gaston, I believe that he quoted from it today. He has paid attention to what is happening on the issue. That is the only credit that I am likely to throw in his direction in this debate

but it is credit nevertheless.

In general, when a person who is transgender is committed to an establishment as directed by the court, the Prison Service will consider their specific needs on a case-by-case basis in line with best practice. In doing so, it takes a person-centred and risk-based approach to decisions on accommodation and care, informed by advice from colleagues in the South Eastern Health and Social Care Trust. Under the guidance, specific arrangements can be made in respect of where the person is accommodated and how they access services in prison. To be clear, the argument put forward by Mr Beattie that people were simply released into general population on every occasion is a nonsense. Of course that would not always be appropriate; it may never be appropriate. It will depend on a risk-based assessment of the individual. Prisons undertake that to ensure that prisoners, many of whom are vulnerable, can fully engage in the regime without detriment to their safety. Equally importantly, they seek to do so without detriment to the rights, safety or dignity of other prisoners. The assessment includes members of the health team, and it is close to Maurice Bradley's description of what he would like to see in prisons. Perhaps, when he takes himself to the Library and reads the policy, he will be reassured that we take a multidisciplinary approach. However, the motion today, if he and his colleagues support it, would mean the opposite of a risk-based approach, which is the very approach that Maurice Bradley said was the right way to go. The Prison Service engages regularly with the Equality Commission and other appropriate organisations to facilitate the delivery of training to prison staff. It also works on an ongoing basis to ensure that the rights of women are respected and protected. To that end, a women's safety officer was appointed at Hydebank Wood women's prison in October 2019 to enhance the support available to women in custody. Many people come into prison with a range of unmet needs, contributed to by social exclusion, wider societal issues and inaccessibility of services in the community, particularly health and mental health services, or failure to access those services.

In conclusion, the judiciary, PPS and PSNI do not decide where prisoners go. The motion is fundamentally flawed.

2,349 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:51 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