Debate contribution: Custodial Facilities: Protection of Rights and Safety

Debate contribution by Mr Robbie Butler on 20 January 2025.

MLA

Mr Robbie Butler

Party at the time

Ulster Unionist 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 4744851

Read the official Assembly record

Text

It might not take 10 minutes. I spent time over the weekend thinking about what I might capture and cover in the debate. That has been clouded, and rightly so, by the need to ensure that the language that we use in the Chamber is —. I am conscious that it is a controversial topic to debate. It matters to a lot of people. However, what we have seen, particularly from the Justice Minister, is an ideological politicisation of a topic that some people — not just politicians, but people from my constituency and from women's groups who have contacted me and who I have spent time with —. Let me put this on the record very clearly at the start: no one will stand in the Chamber and be more passionate than me in talking about what it is like to work as a prison officer in the Prison Service and about what it is like to administer the policies and regulations created by the legislation that this place makes. I served in the Prison Service from 1996 until 2000, working under immense pressure. Most contributors spoke very kindly of prison officers. You have to remember that they have no say in the rules and regulations that are made. Indeed, the very fact that they work in a prison probably curtails their being stakeholders in any design of or consultation on what we do here. What we do here is really important, but let me make this clear: over the decades, for many and varied reasons, prison officers in this country have worked under huge pressure and at huge risk. They get up under risk every day and go to work to protect themselves, each other and the inmates, regardless of where they are from. Some contributions, although certainly not those from Doug Beattie or other Ulster Unionist Party Members, prevented an opening up of the debate sadly. We could have done that and talked honestly about the thoughts and feelings of people across this country. I am going to read something out. There is no name on it; I am not putting a name to it. A lady sent me an email over the weekend from my constituency, Lagan Valley. She asked me to speak in this debate, stating:

"I am contacting you on behalf of myself and my wife".

She goes on to make various points about this debate. She says:

"Ms Long appears to be advocating for a system whereby trans-identifying male prisoners would be risk-assessed on a 'case-by-case' basis, with this evaluation determining whether they might be placed in the female estate. We believe such a policy would jeopardise the safety, privacy and dignity of women in prison, and that, furthermore, it is a human rights violation".

That is a lady in Lagan Valley. It is not a man: it is not Robbie Butler. It is a lady who is speaking up for herself and her wife. She has a position on the issue and has every right to speak in this debate. Anybody who says that the motion came from a misogynistic or transphobic position misses the whole point of the debate. You can critique the motion and say that it is not very good, but it is reasonable to have the debate.

I give way to the Member for South Belfast.

Absolutely not. The Member for South Belfast knows that I would not do that. I rate her very highly but she is not right about this debate. Some of the contributions may not have been helpful and strayed into other areas where language is really important, so I will give her that. However, most of the contributions were reasonably sensible. I am going to be honest: I was very disappointed with the Minister's contribution. She is a formidable politician, a really good public speaker and passionate about many things, but she is wrong on this. She claimed that the Chamber has not debated prisoner welfare and safety. Actually, as far back as when Eamonn McCann from People Before Profit was here, we discussed inmate deaths in the Chamber. We absolutely did. I stood here and spoke about it from the perspective of the staff who put their lives on the line to protect and save people and, by the way, never get recognised for doing so. I will move back to the motion. It is OK to have a difference of opinion. We have to be able to come into the Chamber and use appropriate language and not pigeonhole people as transphobic or misogynistic. I am not going to call anybody —.

No. I will not, because you did not do me the same courtesy.

Mr Speaker, she did not do me the same courtesy, and then —.

That is what is wrong. It was OK for her to label everybody else for not giving way, but it was hypocrisy to then not give way herself, which is what a lot of the debate centres on. I am at the five-minute mark, so I am just going to very quickly reference what a few Members said. My party colleague Doug Beattie compassionately read a perspective into the record. Many do not share that perspective — I get that — but he did not diminish anybody's rights. Rights are funny things, guys. We all know that. They do not sit in isolation: they come with responsibilities. Having rights without responsibilities is anarchy, because then you are in the space of competing rights. That is where we are. That is why we need to stand up and assess the responsibilities in this area. That needs to be taken into consideration. I am sorry, Mr Gaston, but you sought to take out the LGBT bit in the motion, which was really important, because the LGBT community suffers from higher levels of mental health issues and discrimination. That is not the case in this instance, but the fact that your amendment seeks to take out the reference to the LGBT community means that we will not be supporting it. Deirdre Hargey from South Belfast accused my party of grandstanding. Let me tell you this: in the prison system in 2024, we have segregated prisoner regimes. We still have paramilitaries and people from proscribed organisations in separated regimes because that is what they want. For too long, we have had a hierarchy here, where victims and perpetrators of crime are treated differently to people who come from proscribed organisations. That is something that we need to face into and on which I hope all parties can agree. Maybe there will be a debate on that, and we will then see Sinn Féin's money. I am not going to be cross with Connie Egan at all because I thought that her input was quite reasonable and measured. Connie, I hope that that does not get you into any trouble with your party.

I move on to Matthew O'Toole, the leader of the Opposition. We know the SDLP's position on these matters, but I thought that Matthew's was probably one of the best and most measured contributions, because he is willing to have a debate without labelling anybody, and that is important.

I was pretty sure about where Maurice Bradley was going to come from, but I will be honest and give him credit. He did not descend into a culture war. He did not descend into finger-pointing or accusing anybody of anything. He made it a useful debate. I am sorry, but I cannot extend to Paula Bradshaw what I said to Connie, because she started off, as her Minister did, by labelling my party and me in a certain way. We are not wearing it; it is as simple as that. I worked in the women's prison at Maghaberry when it was there, putting my life at risk, and I understand the regime differences. We need to tease out lots of stuff, but, given the nature of the response from the Minister, the Chamber is not the place in which to do it. Stephen Dunne homed in on the need to safeguard all spaces. He is not here for this part of the debate. I move on to Gerry Carroll. My goodness, he may as well join the Alliance Party. I like Gerry quite a lot, but, unfortunately, he brings nothing to these debates. He comes in and does not listen; he just comes in to talk. He is not prepared to have a debate or to listen. He comes in and just labels, but there you go. We then heard from the independent Member, Claire Sugden. Claire was trying to sit on the fence a bit, but, as a former Justice Minister, she made some good points. To be honest, I got a bit mixed up, because I am not sure how she can be sympathetic to biological sex yet not support the motion.

It is all on the record, and people can play the recording back and watch it. The Minister talked about my chuntering and tutting: there is no party in the Chamber that does more chuntering and tutting than the party to my left. To be honest, I know no other Minister who does it as much. That being the case, this is a serious debate. I hope that, after the votes, we can calm our jets, because this is a discussion that needs to be had. It needs to be had, because I know of no woman — no woman in my whole circle of life — who agrees with the position that the Minister advocates. They find it difficult to do so. Members are rolling their eyes. I understand that there are women's organisations that support trans women being in women's prisons, but there are other women's organisations, which I have met, that do not. We need to stop labelling one another, guys. That would be a start to this. If we cannot stop labelling one another, we will not move out of the cul-de-sac that we are in. I will finish with this: the party to my left can say that the motion is not right and that it would not work. What is there at the moment will not work. It is not protecting —.

I will give way.

I thank the Member for his intervention. We cannot respond to an amendment that was not selected. If it was not accepted, it was not accepted because it was outwith the scope and capacity of the motion. That probably demonstrates that the Member is right. I will end now, because my 10 minutes are up. We know what way the votes will go, but the discussion will not disappear.

1,789 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Uncertain: weak signal Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues

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 reviews every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.

Challenge this classification