Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): As members are aware, we have two panel sessions today. On the first panel, we have Lili Wu, managing director of the Chinese Welfare Association, who is online: you are very welcome. I also welcome Jamie Miller, head of policy and development at Housing Rights NI; Liz Griffith, head of migration justice at the Law Centre NI; and Fidelma Fearon, fundraising, evaluation and policy lead at Minority Ethnic Support Armagh. Thank you for coming and apologies for keeping you waiting for a few minutes. Thank you for your helpful submissions, which we appreciated receiving in a timely manner. Please go ahead and make some opening remarks.

Ms Fidelma Fearon (Minority Ethnic Support Armagh): I will go first. I work for Minority Ethnic Support Armagh, and I am also the chair of the TEO's Roma thematic group. I have submitted a brief to you, but colleagues from the TEO racial equality unit interviewed some of our beneficiaries about what they thought of the draft framework — not great — so I have taken on board what they said to add a wee bit to my brief.

There is concern that the draft framework for race relations does not adequately address restorative or reparative justice for minority ethnic communities that have experienced racism, exclusion, intimidation and systemic inequality over many years. While the framework focuses on relationship-building and cohesion, it does little to acknowledge or repair the harm already experienced by affected communities.

The proposed outcomes, particularly "Outcome 1: Elimination of Racial Inequality", remain broad and insufficiently defined. The absence of clear actions, measurable targets, delivery mechanisms and accountability structures creates uncertainty around how meaningful change will be achieved or measured in practice.

There is also a concern about the proposed two-year time frame. Beneficiaries think that it is unrealistic, given the scale and complexity of racial inequality and the absence of clear implementation structures. Long-standing systemic issues cannot be addressed through short-term aspirations alone.

They feel that the framework lacks clarity regarding leadership and accountability. Without identified lead Departments, named responsibilities, timelines, monitoring arrangements and enforcement mechanisms, there is a risk that responsibility may become diluted across government.

There is significant concern also about the continued absence of modern and robust race, equality and hate crime legislation in Northern Ireland. Existing legislative protections and policy approaches are widely viewed as being outdated and insufficient to address the realities of modern racism. By that, we mean the online hate, discrimination and community intimidation experienced by minority ethnic communities today. They feel that the Government have a duty not just to promote good relations but to actively intervene where racism, discrimination, exclusion and inequality persist. A stronger and more urgent response is required.

There is also concern about the terminology and overall direction of the document. Many stakeholders question why it is presented as a race relations framework rather than a race equality strategy. We have Together: Building a United Community (T:BUC), so we do not need T:BUC 2.0. This has to be a bit more specific.

Finally, among the people I have talked to, there is a concern that Northern Ireland continues to underestimate and, at times, deny the true extent and impact of racism experienced by minority ethnic communities. Any credible framework must begin with an honest acknowledgement of the scale of the issue and the urgent need for systemic action.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): OK. Thank you for your opening remarks. We will go through the panel, and then we will get to questions. Go ahead, please, Liz. Thank you.

Ms Liz Griffith (Law Centre Northern Ireland): Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Committee members, for your scrutiny of the document. I hope that you are familiar with the work of the Law Centre. We work in three areas of law: social security, employment and immigration. We work across all the council areas. Last year, we advised on about 18,000 legal matters, so we are quite busy. My role is in the migration justice team, and our expertise is primarily in forced migration. Given our expertise in immigration, we are interested in the interconnections between immigration policy and racial equality. There are organisations that are much better placed to talk to you about the impact of racism and racial inequality, and I am glad that many of them are here today.

I hope that you have seen the briefing paper that I have shared. I am happy to expand on any of the points. However, in my five minutes, I would like to focus on our overriding concerns.

The first concern is that, on page 6, it quite clearly states that the model

Of course we agree with that, but we are surprised that the document is about race relations rather than racial equality. As my colleague Fidelma pointed out, the concept of racial equality has a clear meaning in international law. It puts precise legal obligations on states and Departments and sometimes even on employers. In contrast, the term "race relations" does not bring the same clarity. In fact, I would say that it is devoid of legal meaning. Furthermore, the term "race relations" is problematic and has been critiqued for decades, because it masks systemic discrimination and inequality, and it misrepresents oppression as mere interpersonal disagreement or discord. Given that, the document needs to be reconfigured, and it needs to be a racial equality strategy.

I forgot to say at the outset that the Law Centre is really keen to see this work; we want it to work. There are some positive features in the framework, but, overall, our view is that it needs a significant overhaul if it is to deliver on racial equality. Calling it a "racial equality strategy" would be a start.

Another concern, which my colleague Fidelma has already flagged up, is that, although we expected a strategy, we received a framework. We all know what a strategy is, in public policy terms. A strategy has an action plan, indicators, performance measurements, targets and clear accountability. Those components are not immediately obvious in the document. The Department has adopted a public health methodology, which is interesting but ultimately rather baffling and perhaps a bit confusing. We want to know what will be delivered, when it will be delivered, how we will know that it has been delivered, and who is marking the homework. We want a strategy, rather than a framework.

I now turn briefly to immigration. In contrast to its predecessor — the racial equality strategy — which had a whole chapter on immigration, the framework is largely silent about the relationship between racial equality and immigration. Of course, immigration policy is set at Westminster. We, of course, recognise that there are very different views on immigration, including around this table, but the Department should not be silent on it. The framework outlines a vision of:

How can the Department reconcile that vision of equality in the context of hostile environment policies that are, by their very definition, exclusionary? The strategy should give the Department and Ministers a mandate to engage with the UK Government on immigration policy and to adopt a challenge function and to critique policy where necessary. The Department also needs to grapple with the links between anti-immigration movements, the far right and racist violence. It has shied away from all of those issues.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): I am conscious of time. We will get into some of those issues in the questions and answers. I am just conscious that we have two panels.

Who would like to go next? Go ahead, Jamie.

Mr Jamie Miller (Housing Rights): Thank you very much, Chair and members, for the opportunity to talk to you today about this issue. For those who do not know, Housing Rights is essentially a homelessness prevention organisation. For 60 years, we have been working to ensure that people in Northern Ireland have safe, secure and sustainable accommodation across all communities. Last year, we helped over 13,000 households on more than 67,000 housing issues, and I am delighted to say that we prevented 1,120 households from ending up homeless.

I mention the housing context because it is our view that housing is fundamentally important for anybody to integrate and participate fully in society, whatever community they are from, so it is really important that stable and secure housing be considered as part of the framework. There is no way in which to avoid that. I mention that because we find ourselves in a housing crisis. There are more than 49,000 households on the social housing waiting list, 32,000 of which are statutorily homeless. There are more than 5,000 households in temporary accommodation, including more than 4,700 children. That is just not acceptable. We have reached that position because of historical underinvestment in social and affordable housing. That has led to a rise in demand in the private rented sector in particular, which now houses more people than the social housing sector.

That private rented sector, in particular, presents a number of additional challenges. Vulnerable households now live in that sector, and it does not meet their needs. Ethnic minority communities are in that cohort. In fact, in our advice experience, they are disproportionately represented because of the barriers that they face. Members will be very familiar with lots of the systemic barriers. Some of them are touched on in the framework, including language barriers, the complexity involved in navigating our complex housing systems, digital exclusion and, of course, racism and incidents of violence that occur.

We are seeing that in our advice work at the minute. We are seeing increasing demand for face-to-face advice, certainly since COVID, but it has been growing rapidly in the last number of years. Forty-four per cent of our walk-in appointments are from newcomer communities, and 11% of those need translation support. As an organisation, we are adapting to that, and I am sure that other colleagues are seeing that as well. These are systemic patterns, unfortunately, and, without some sort of strategic intervention, it will only get worse and be harder for us to navigate.

I would like to make three key points. Our expertise, and my commentary today, is informed by our advice work — our direct experience and the experience of our clients. In our experience, the importance of community-based advice should not be underestimated. That is across the spectrum of potential advice needs. I am speaking today in a housing context. Housing Rights has been privileged in that we have been able to run a number of such schemes that focus on peer-based advice. We have been able to train peers in ethnic minority communities on housing advice so that they can provide that information in their communities. The project means that we can access people and communities that statutory bodies will never be able to reach. Those peer advisers are able to carry out their work in spaces that are safe and secure for communities. Staff in libraries and community centres are able to speak to their colleagues in languages that are more accessible. There is only so much that that peer model can support, so there are additional referral pathways to us for more complex cases.

It is really important for me to emphasise the role of the voluntary and community sector in improving equality of service provision across the board. Housing Rights does it in the housing sector, and I am sure that colleagues in the room do it in their organisations as well. Again, we are able to reach community groups where they are at. For a number of reasons, we are able to find and maintain engagement on a much greater level than statutory bodies are able to. However, we are only able to do that when we are adequately funded, and I am sure that all the organisations that are giving evidence today will be familiar with the funding challenges and pressures that come with maintaining that level of service. It is important that the framework recognises some of that, and, indeed, action plans should commit to funding voluntary and community organisations appropriately.

The last point to mention is that strategic alignment between this framework and wider Executive priorities is fundamental. Coming from a housing context, I think that this document needs to mesh with the Housing Executive's next homelessness strategy. I also think that, based on the work that we see, there is a huge overlap with the anti-poverty strategy. If there is not alignment between those documents, we risk gaps emerging, and either strategy that I have referenced could potentially fall down as a result.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Thank you, Jamie. Lili, do you want to make some opening remarks?

Ms Lili Wu (Chinese Welfare Association): Good afternoon, Chair and Committee members. Thank you for providing this opportunity for us to offer evidence on the draft framework. My name is Lili Wu, and I am the managing director of the Chinese Welfare Association. For many years, our organisation has been supporting the Chinese community and working alongside wider minority ethnic communities across NI through advice services, community development programmes, cultural engagement and well-being support. Through our direct work with individuals and families, we continue to see significant racial inequality affecting minority ethnic communities across many areas of our daily life, including access to public services, mental health support, employment opportunities and participation in civic and public life.

I also want to mention that, according to 2021 census data published by the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency (NISRA), 75,600 people in NI identified as belonging to minority ethnic groups, which represents approximately 3·4% of the population. The Chinese community is the largest minority ethnic grouping in NI, with approximately 9,495 people identifying as Chinese. As NI becomes increasingly diverse, it is essential that public policy and public services meet the needs of all communities in a fair, inclusive and equitable way.

Although progress has been made in recent years, racism, discrimination, social isolation, language barriers and even under-representation remain persistent challenges for many individuals and families. Therefore, we welcome the development of the renewed race relations framework and believe that it provides an important opportunity to deliver practical, measurable and long-term action.

The key issues that we wish you to highlight are racism, which we have mentioned, and hate crime. According to the latest statistics published by the PSNI and NISRA, race hate incidents and race hate crimes in NI have reached their highest recorded level since monitoring began in the 2004-05 period. In the 12 months to March 2026, police recorded 2,367 race hate incidents and 1,507 race hate crimes. That highlights the challenges that minority ethnic communities continue to face.

Members of the Chinese community, and of wider minority ethnic communities, continue to report their experience of harassment and discrimination, including online harassment, in their daily lives. We have been informed by the members of the community that some Chinese children continue to experience racial bullying and discriminatory behaviours in schools. Such experiences can seriously impact on children's confidence, well-being and sense of belonging as well as on their educational experience. We believe, therefore, that there is a continuing need for stronger anti-racism education, early intervention and culturally inclusive approaches in schools and other education settings.

Some incidents continue to go unreported due to the language barrier that we mentioned, limited awareness of the reporting mechanisms, fear of repercussions and low confidence in the existing systems. We believe that more must be done to improve the accessibility, responsiveness and public trust of the hate crime reporting process. That should be accompanied by stronger anti-racism education, public awareness campaigns and community engagement initiatives to promote understanding, respect and social cohesion.

Another major issue is access to public services. Many individuals experience difficulties accessing healthcare, mental health services, welfare support, education and the public consultation process, because of the lack of interpretation and translation services in councils and public bodies. Digital exclusion also continues to disproportionately affect older people and migrants. It is hard for them to get involved.

Mental health and well-being is another significant concern. We see cultural stigma, social isolation and language barriers continuing to prevent many individuals from seeking timely support. The COVID pandemic exposed inequalities relating to loneliness, emotional well-being and access to mental health services, particularly among older people and migrants — newly arrived communities. We therefore —.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Lili, sorry: I will stop you there. We need to have a Q&A session in which we can drill down into the purpose of our session and how we will respond to the Department. Thank you for going over a lot of the core issues —

Ms Wu: Thank you.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): — and thank you all for being on the panel. If you do not mind, I will go to questions, and that will help us to draw out some of the stuff.

I will start with you, Liz. I had not really noticed the change from "racial equality" to "race relations" until it was raised with me a couple of weeks ago. On its website, the Executive Office refers to the changed strategic approach as:

Given some of the narration on the issue, especially in relation to the ever-diversifying population in Northern Ireland and the good relations strategy, T:BUC, that you talked about, you can see, in a way, some of its thinking behind why the issue of good relations, in all its forms, should be addressed through a framework such as this. Will you drill down a bit more into why you feel that it is the wrong approach?

Ms Griffith: My sense is that it is perhaps trying to do too much and to appease lots of views. As I said in my preliminary remarks, "racial equality" has a legal meaning that is just not found in the term "race relations". As Fidelma said, there are other strategies, one of which is T:BUC, through which we can look at some of the broader community cohesion issues. However, we need to get the house in order, and that is done through having a very clear racial equality strategy.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Thank you. There was the 2005 strategy and the 2015-2025 one that we are just coming out of now.

I will turn to you, Fidelma. What robust actions would augment the accountability and transparency of delivery? What do we need to see in this framework that is not there at the minute?

Ms Fearon: From anybody who I have spoken to, such as beneficiaries, colleagues or any other stakeholders, it has been apparent that the cart has definitely been put before the horse. Racial equality legislation is 30 years old. It is time for it to be modernised so that it deals with the modern racism and discrimination that we have now, such as that on social media. That needs to be addressed.

Data is currently captured through the minority ethnic development fund, if anyone is a recipient of it. That is done through number crunching: it drills down into the data, saying, "You said that you would do two, but you did 1·5". There is no room for anything qualitative, such as case studies, to explain what is happening. One case could take maybe two months to deal with, but none of that is captured in the way in which the data is currently captured.

There is no accountability for somebody who is a perpetrator of racism and discrimination. We see that in — [Interruption.]

Sorry, that is my colleague calling. I do not know why he would be phoning me now, in the middle of this, but that would be like him.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Do not worry about it.

Mr Brett: He is watching online. [Laughter.]

Ms Fearon: What I am trying to say is that it goes right across public health. The Northern Ireland Public Services Ombudsman (NIPSO) has stated that it is inadequate and that there are no translation services, even when getting an appointment with the GP. If a person comes in and English is not their first language, they have the right to an interpreter. Kids go into school and are shovelled into a newcomers' class. They sit there all day, from 9.00 am to 3.00 pm — I have seen this, because I work with people on the ground — with a phone in their hand and nobody teaching them. What are the outcomes for those kids? How is their potential being met?

Lili talked about coming forward to report crime and things like that, but people will not do that, because they know that it will not go far. That is across the board, including in employment, where there are zero-hours contracts and no rights. This has to be dealt with by stringent means, not glossy documents and aspirations. There has to be some sort of accountability. We do not know who we should go to and say, "This isn't right. This hasn't been sorted out. This happened to wee such and such down the road". There is nobody to challenge such things.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Thank you.

Lili, I will come to you. I have worked in South Belfast for 28 years, and a lot of what you said paints a picture of what was happening 10 years, 20 years and 30 years ago. What was missing in the last two 10-year strategies that should be in this one to address the fundamental issues, barriers and discrimination that the people whom you work with and the organisations that work through the Chinese Welfare Association face? What specific actions, programmes or projects that were missing before should be in this strategy?

Ms Wu: On the actions, there is a lot that I was going to say. For ethnic minorities, I have to mention our funding. Addressing the funding issue is a long-term action. In the years ahead, we need a lot of things to support ethnic minority groups, such as a 10-year strategy, which you mentioned, and we will need to choose some other things such as education. The most important thing is long-term funding.

There is a need for clear timelines and measurable outcomes and more on the Department's responsibilities. Those are the most important issues to address.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Thank you, Lili.

Mr Dickson: I thank everybody for being with us today and for highlighting the need for us to shift from the notion of race relations to the important space of racial equality in Northern Ireland. I think that what you are telling us is that the consultation document does not cut it and that we need to ask the Department to go back to the drawing board, given the comments that we have received or are likely to receive during this conversation today.

From what you said, I know that you have a clear belief. I understand that you are saying that the narrative is not right and that it needs to change to one of racial equality. That is about not just the need to modernise and bring our legislation up to date but all the other things that we do around that, such as changing our language and our attitudes. Are you saying to us that the framework will not deliver that and that we need to go back to the drawing board and look at it again?

Ms Griffith: Yes.

Ms Fearon: In a nutshell, yes. In my final thoughts in my briefing, I said that we are always talking to the beneficiaries — ethnic minority people — about the fact that they do not want to be and should not be discriminated against. Yes, lived experience is essential, but it is not enough. Racial inequality and discrimination is everybody's issue. It goes from the top right down to the bottom.

We look to our leaders to lead and to be responsible about what they say about things and not to highlight or pour petrol on certain situations. It goes down into the classrooms and around the dinner table. It is an issue for everybody, not just ethnic minority people.

Mr Dickson: What you are doing is inviting our leaders to revisit this —

Ms Fearon: Please, yes.

Mr Dickson: — and to recognise that, internationally, the world moved on, a long time ago; Northern Ireland is, again, playing catch-up when it comes to such things; and that leadership comes from the top. This is a respectful request to those who are leading this — the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister — to get it right: they have to.

Ms Fearon: That is it. Northern Ireland should be at the top of its game when it comes to peacebuilding and things like that, given everything that we have been through. Since the Good Friday Agreement, even, it seems to have been green and orange. There needs to be room at the table for ethnic minority people. This is a new Northern Ireland. We have to change our perception of what Northern Ireland is, make room around the table for our ethnic minority neighbours and friends and move forward. There is no other way.

Mr Dickson: That room has to be made by way of equality rather than in relations.

Ms Fearon: Absolutely, yes.

Ms Griffith: The need for legislation is alluded to in the framework document, but when I looked at the delivery plan —

Mr Dickson: It is not there.

Ms Griffith: — I saw that it was not there. The Equality Commission has reported, repeatedly, that we have fallen behind GB, Ireland and other countries around the world significantly when it comes to legislation. The Law Centre acknowledges that legislation alone is not sufficient to address hatred and prejudice, but it is a building block: it is a non-negotiable starting point, and it is not committed to in the delivery plan. Is it an omission? It needs to be there as a priority.

Mr Brett: I thank you all for your work and dedication in this important field.

Jamie, I will start with you, if that is OK. Thank you for the work that Housing Rights does. I am a regular referrer to you, as your organisation is to us. I want to unpack some of the evidence that you have provided on the barriers to accessing housing services. The first relates to experiences of racism. Your paper states that:

Was evidence provided to you that housing providers in Northern Ireland engage in racism?

Mr Miller: The evidence that we have provided is the experience of our clients. It is their opinion and belief that, in the handling of their cases with housing providers — be it the Housing Executive or otherwise — they have been treated differently or, for whatever reason, it has taken more time for them to receive responses or outcomes.

Mr Brett: Was that with the Northern Ireland Housing Executive?

Mr Miller: I would need to go back and check. We have thousands of people a year, so I would need to go back and look at specifics.

Mr Brett: It will be a matter of concern for the Committee and, I am sure, everyone if there is institutional racism in a housing provider that is funded by —.

Mr Miller: I am not suggesting that. The evidence shows — it is included in the briefing — that ethnic minority communities spend longer on the social housing waiting lists, for example, than non-ethnic minority communities. There are examples of where there are complexities. Some of those are to do with cultural reasons; for example, they might be looking for properties or homes with certain criteria, and they are fewer in number. An element of that plays into the lack of trust that they feel with the statutory bodies. My commentary is around overcoming that lack of trust. It is fundamentally important to providing good outcomes for everybody.

Mr Brett: You covered the cultural preferences issue in your briefing and referred to large family sizes. Is the lack of availability of social housing with five or six bedrooms part of the reason?

Mr Miller: Yes, absolutely, it plays a role. I go back to my initial point about housing in general. There has been underinvestment, so there is a shortage of housing across the board, and that has knock-on impacts.

Mr Brett: You raised an issue about the removal of intimidation points. Is it the view of your organisation that they should be reinstated?

Mr Miller: It is more nuanced than that; it is complex. We welcomed changes to the intimidation points when they were brought forward, but their complete removal without alternatives creates risk, especially for households or individuals who have been victims of hate crime, for example.

Mr Brett: Yes, but it is also for all violence and intimidation.

Mr Miller: Yes. Housing Rights welcomed the reform when it was announced. We just think that additional work is needed to safeguard against some of the impacts of the change.

Mr Brett: Liz, you highlighted concern about missing commentary on immigration policy. Your briefing paper stated:

Will you unpack the "hostile environment policies"?

Ms Griffith: Thank you for the question. There are many examples of the hostile environment policy. One is the no recourse to public funds policy, which applies to most migrants who are here with a temporary visa. They are unable to access mainstream social security benefits, such as universal credit. It is designed to target migrants, but, in fact, we see British and Irish children whose parent is a migrant also being impacted on by a policy that was designed not to target them. There should be scope in the strategy for the Department to stand up and critique that. UK Government policy on immigration is having consequences and costs that are being felt here. The voluntary and community sector, the Churches, in particular, and the Belfast Islamic Centre play a key role in supporting destitute migrants. Why? It is because of UK immigration policy. That needs to be critiqued, and there should be scope for the Department to do that critiquing where it is felt locally.

Mr Brett: What was the rationale for choosing the word "hostile"?

Ms Griffith: I am referring to a raft of policies that is referred to as "hostile environment policies" that have been in place for 15 years or so.

Mr Brett: That is not the terminology that the Government use.

Ms Griffith: Correct.

Mr Brett: They use the term "compliant".

Ms Griffith: Correct.

Mr Brett: That is why I am wondering why you chose the word "hostile".

Ms Griffith: Our organisation is guided by international human rights standards. The treaty bodies have been very critical of UK Government compliance policies, so that is how we align ourselves.

The point is that a lot of immigration policy has an effect here. It has a cost here. It brings a cost to the health service and to first responders. There needs to be a role for the Executive Office to be able to push back on some of those issues where the effects are felt locally. I hope that I have addressed your question.

Mr Brett: Yes, you have answered it. I think that it is just a choice of word that some people may agree with and some may not.

Ms Griffith: Yes, that is a fair comment.

Mr Brett: I condemn outright any racism and intimidation of anyone, but I also represent people who would be of the view that immigration policy in the United Kingdom is already too lax, and I do not think that they would concur with it being described as hostile.

My final point is on paragraph 11 in your paper, which states:

Will you unpack that for me, too?

Ms Griffith: Yes. You will hear a little more on that from the second panel. There is an overlap between racist violence and the anti-immigration movement, and, sadly, there is an element of paramilitarism, which was identified in December by the Independent Reporting Commission (IRC). I am not suggesting that, right now, we will find an answer that satisfies us all. My point is that there needs to be scope to address and have conversations about the issues, and this framework is a place for that. Shying away from it does not assist any of us.

Mr Brett: You do not think that it is a bit of a sweeping statement to say that the anti-immigration movement overlaps with racist violence.

Ms Griffith: There are overlaps —.

Mr Brett: But there is not a complete overlap. As I said, racist violence is completely wrong, as is any form of racism. There are people who have particular views on immigration who condemn without hesitation or fear all intimidation and violence. I would not want anyone to pick up from this that there is a direct correlation between racist violence and those who may have particular views on immigration in Northern Ireland.

Ms Griffith: I have no difficulty in agreeing with that, but, as I said, shying away does not assist any of us.

Mrs Erskine: I will follow on from my colleague's point, which ties in with the "race relations" versus "racial equality" element. We have to be realistic about it. There are racial tensions in Northern Ireland, and relations in communities are probably not great right now, so, surely, that should be at the heart of any Executive documentation on resolving some of the issues in race relations. I am not saying that you cannot do both. Do you agree that the race relations issue and the equality issue can sit side by side rather than it being a case of either/or?

Ms Griffith: Yes. I do not see it as either/or. My point was that, if we frame it as a racial equality issue that places legislative reform at its heart, other very important aspects, such as community cohesion, will flow from that. The focus on racial equality is key.

Mrs Erskine: The reason for my framing it in that context is that there are, as Phillip said, people who have views on immigration and condemn the violence outright. They may see the equality issue rather than one of building up relations. Do you know what I mean by that?

Ms Fearon: I do. Community cohesion is a two-way thing, and all players have to come together to try to find a way of moving through this. We have done it before in Northern Ireland; we can do it again. That is where we have to go. Of course, people are entitled to their opinion. A lot of opinions come from a place of fear. There is a cost-of-living epidemic, for want of a better term, and people are afraid — scared and worried — and we always hear that saying, "It's their fault". Misinformation, stereotyping and those types of thing are frightening and dangerous. Of course, not everybody does that, and people can have the view on immigration that too many people are coming into the country and so on. However, we would be in a lot of trouble in our hospitals and factories and in hospitality if we did not have them.

Mrs Erskine: I will move on to housing, because that is a big element that I see in the community around race relations — certainly, in the community that I represent, in Fermanagh and South Tyrone. Something that was not covered in your correspondence with the Committee, Jamie, was houses in multiple occupation. Has Housing Rights had any engagement on that? Has it been flagged as an issue by people who get in touch with Housing Rights?

Mr Miller: Can you give me a bit more detail on what you mean?

Mrs Erskine: I mean, for example, the quality of housing, the legality surrounding some of the houses in multiple occupation or perhaps the fact that landlords are profiteering from people's desperation. When I look at the figures that you provided to the Committee, I see that the waiting list for social housing in Northern Ireland currently stands at almost 50,000 households. What have you heard about that element, particularly to do with houses in multiple occupation, because that is an issue in my constituency?

Mr Miller: It is probably best for me to go away and come back with casework-led evidence for you on that. In the private rented sector, however, we have seen significant challenges for ethnic minority communities. Again, it is the experience of individuals in those communities that they face discrimination when applying for private rented sector properties. That market is already incredibly congested for everybody. On average, there are 100 applications for a private rented sector property. It is a very tight market as it is. There have been examples of where, if someone was able to secure a private rented sector property due to need, it has been unfit for purpose. There might have been more people living in the property than there should have been. That reflects the desperation in the housing system in Northern Ireland as a whole. I can come back to you with more detail on HMOs.

Mrs Erskine: That would be great. I have to be honest: there is anger in communities about houses in multiple occupation. It normally falls in relation to race elements. That is why there is anger there. If we are to look at true inclusion in society, housing has to be right as well. That is why I raise that point in that context. If you could come back to me on that, that would be great. Thank you.

Ms Fearon: I am no expert on housing, but houses in multiple occupation are really for asylum seekers or those seeking refugee status. As you know, it is not a devolved matter. Stormont is sort of stuck when it comes to what it can do on that. Houses in multiple occupation are unacceptable with regard to human rights. They are dangerous. We have seen what happened in Dublin, where houses with children inside them were deliberately set on fire and things like that. There is a lot of work to be done. It is not ideal at all. The Home Office needs to take a bigger responsibility in the matter.

Ms Griffith: That is an example of the butting together of immigration policy and racial inequality that I mentioned in a housing context. It does not really affect your council area, because there are tiny numbers of asylum seekers in the Fermanagh area. More broadly, however, asylum seekers who live in Northern Ireland do so in accommodation that is provided by a company called Mears. Mears is a profit-making, private company that is paid for by government money. It procures the cheapest accommodation that is available, perhaps in working-class areas. Mears competes with the Housing Executive and those in the private rented sector. That is an example of where we need scope in the strategy for the Department and officials to query the Home Office on that kind of policy, because its impact is being felt here.

Mrs Erskine: OK. Thank you.

Ms Ní Chuilín: Thanks for your presentation. I raised the issue last week of race relations rather than racial equality for the reasons that you outlined.

You mentioned Mears and the fact that immigration is not a devolved area. The Committee has been trying to get Mears before it for months. It is refusing to come. For your information, we have also asked why the Race Relations Order 1997 review is being delayed in the Executive Office. We need to find out who is delaying it and why.

I share a lot of the concerns about the draft framework. How can anyone who is getting a brick thrown through their window because they are brown feel that they should be the person to reach out and talk to their neighbours? They mostly do in north Belfast, but look at what happened in south Belfast and in Ballymena last year. People were displaying their nationalities in their windows. How can you have race relations in that context? It is ignoring what has happened. I want to put that on record.

Housing Rights welcomed the removal of intimidation points, but it has failed to outline what should be in its place. The intimidation points were abused. They absolutely were abused. Too many people are punching down. Intimidation points need to be for people who experience violence, domestic violence, homophobia, sectarianism and racism, and that needs to be verified by the police. I would appreciate having a bit more of a definition around that. In our housing crisis, it is not those people's fault. There is not enough money coming from the British Government. It is a housing crisis now, and we need to get it sorted.

I have another issue. You are right that a lot of people are waiting, but the most recent set of statistics that I saw stated that Catholics in north and west Belfast have been on the housing waiting list the longest. I do not want to set one group against another. All I am saying is that people who have been denied equality for decades will wait longer, whether they are white or brown.

Have you had any meetings with the Department for Communities? I appreciate that this is about the framework that is out for consultation, and I have no doubt that you have put in a robust response. How does it relate to other Departments? What would the ask be, apart from changing the name and making it legally binding? What would it be for housing?

Mr Miller: There is probably a very detailed response to put back to you on that. I do not think that we really have time for it.

Ms Ní Chuilín: Not today. God, no. Absolutely not. [Laughter.]

Mr Miller: I would go back and say that it needs to be situated within the context. There are commitments in the housing supply strategy that Northern Ireland is not meeting. For the past 10 years, we have not been building the houses that we should have been building. Those commitments need to be reaffirmed, first and foremost, and there needs to be actual progress to hit those targets. That is the starting point for this in all the problems in the housing sector, and this strategy should top and tail with that.

Ms Ní Chuilín: Are you putting in a submission on this framework?

Mr Miller: We are working on our submission.

Ms Ní Chuilín: Brilliant. Thank you.

My last question is on chopping and changing it. You have outlined some of the things that should be in it. There is the point about putting it into a legal context in terms of a racial equality strategy. What else? I am not asking for a whole pile of detail. I am just asking this: where are the big gaps legally?

Ms Griffith: Thank you for the question. It might sound like we are being a bit pedantic here, but is that delivery plan an action plan? The independent reviewer of the last iteration of the racial equality strategy, Sabir Zazai, from the Scottish Refugee Council, said that the previous strategy was undermined by the lack of a clear action plan. My worry is that we are just sleepwalking into the same problem. In fact, the previous strategy was clearer and tighter: at least it set out what the measurements might be. We do not have that here.

Ms Ní Chuilín: So, it needs to be clearly governed by section 75.

Ms Griffith: And tightened.

Ms Ní Chuilín: And tightened. OK.

Ms Griffith: That is an overriding comment. There are lots of interventions that we might seek, but, overall, it needs to be strengthened.

Ms Ní Chuilín: When you are submitting your response, will you feed that into the Committee as well?

Ms Griffith: Yes.

Ms Ní Chuilín: Thank you.

Mr Gaston: I thank the panel members very much for coming along, submitting their information and giving an update and opening remarks here today.

I have a few questions, and I will start with you, Fidelma. I will pick up on a comment that you made about interpreters. You said that newcomers have a right to an interpreter in the school setting and in health. I presume that you mean across health, including doctors, hospitals and the whole suite of health services that we have here in Northern Ireland. Who is going to pay for that? Who do you expect to pay for that, when you make such a sweeping statement about somebody who has decided to come to Northern Ireland?

Ms Fearon: I did not make that statement, Timothy. It comes from a report from the Northern Ireland Public Services Ombudsman, which states that there should be some way in which to help people coming into any public service who need help, particularly the likes of the health service. One aspect of equality is having the right to be able to say, "I am sick. This is what's wrong with me", and to be dealt with. If you come in as an asylum seeker, you have, under international law, the right to be here. If you get refugee status, you have the right to be here. If you become an individual with EU settled status, you have the right to be here, and you pay your tax and National Insurance, just like everybody else, so you have the right to get the same services. That is how the services are paid for.

Mr Gaston: What war-torn country borders Northern Ireland or the UK?

Ms Fearon: I do not know. You would have to ask about Brexit.

Mr Gaston: Brexit?

Ms Fearon: Yes.

Mr Gaston: Surely, if you are a political refugee —

Ms Fearon: Again —.

Mr Gaston: — who is fleeing a war-torn country, you have to —

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Timothy.

Mr Gaston: — settle in the first safe country that you come to.

Ms Fearon: That is a question for the Home Office, not for me. The Dublin agreement stated that people had to go to the first non-violent country, but Brexit did away with that. I am no expert on that, Timothy, but that is what, I believe, has happened. We do not have a boat issue in Northern Ireland. I have not seen any boats coming up the Liffey, Carlingford lough or anywhere like that. We do not have a boat issue.

Mr Gaston: We have an issue with people coming into the South and coming across the border. If you want to bury your head in the sand about that issue, that is —.

Ms Fearon: I do not bury my head in the sand at all.

Mr Gaston: You talked about community cohesion's being a two-way thing, with all players.

Ms Fearon: Yes.

Mr Gaston: You are here representing the Roma community. We hear about lived experienced. If it is a two-way thing, what happened in Ballymena between the Roma community and the local residents?

Ms Fearon: Do you think that it was a two-way thing when people's windows and doors were put in, houses were petrol bombed, and children vomited in fear on the streets?

Mr Gaston: I am going back five or six years, when the Roma community came in and settled in Ballymena. What happened back then? Why was there no two-way engagement to create that community cohesion?

Ms Fearon: I work in Armagh, and we have that. I cannot answer for Ballymena. When I started working with the Roma community in Armagh, those people were in desperate need; they had absolutely nothing at the start of COVID. All the public services that were available shut up shop, so they had nobody. We had to keep our doors open and bring the Roma people in to help them. I can talk about only what we do in Armagh. We have community cohesion and a two-way street involving our local community, our Roma community and every other community. That is why we changed our name from "Armagh Traveller Support" to "Armagh Roma Traveller Support" and then to "Minority Ethnic Support Armagh".

We have a new Northern Ireland with a new cultural landscape. We are there to help all those people, including the local community.

Mr Gaston: I am glad that that is your experience in Armagh; it certainly was not the experience —

Ms Fearon: I work very hard to make that our experience.

Mr Gaston: — in Ballymena, where, over a number of years, community —.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Sorry. Timothy, please.

Mr Gaston: It is hard to hear when attending online, Chair, so apologies for that.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Yes. Fidelma, will you let Timothy speak? I will let you in after that, and we will then move on because the Committee is to take evidence from another panel.

Ms Fearon: OK.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Finish what you have to say, Timothy, and then I will let Fidelma back in.
.

Mr Gaston: I trust, Chair, that I will get the entirety of my time in the same way as other members.

Your written evidence sets out the lived experience and the community impact. I will read it out:

What are "the real issues at hand", Fidelma? I could tell you the lived experience of people in Ballymena that led to the trouble last year. I am against trouble. That was wrong, and I condemn it wholeheartedly. There must, however, be a realisation about what happens when a community that does not want to integrate comes into a working-class area, tensions are allowed to fester, and the demographic changes overnight. Do you class "Immigration without assimilation is an invasion" as a racist comment?

Ms Fearon: Assimilation?

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): We are getting way, way off topic. I will give the last line to Fidelma, and then I will close the session.

Ms Fearon: How disgusting a word is assimilation. Everybody has a right to belong. They do not have to change who they are to belong in a society.

Mr Gaston: So, they can just come in and take over a community, like they did in Ballymena.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Timothy.

Ms Fearon: I do not think that they took over. I saw the violence coming only one way, Timothy.

Mr Gaston: So —

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Timothy.

Mr Gaston: — are you saying that the five or six years of what the local community had to live under —

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Timothy, we are not getting anywhere here.

Mr Gaston: — such as the drug dens —

Ms Fearon: every time.

Mr Gaston: — and the prostitution houses —.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): OK. What we are trying to do today —.

Mr Gaston: Do you have any comment on them?

Ms Fearon: Is that new to Northern Ireland?

Mr Gaston: What about the families living —

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Timothy, I have closed the session.

Mr Gaston: — in Armagh —

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Timothy, thank you.

Mr Gaston: — who let the newcomer —?

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Timothy, I am not going to let you speak. We will finish the session. We are meant to be looking at what could be done to improve the race relations strategic framework and to better reflect the sector in it. We were getting way off topic there.

Mr Gaston: It is a two-way thing, Chair, as Fidelma outlined.

Ms Fearon: It is a two-way thing —.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Excuse me, I am not reopening this.

Ms Fearon: We need cohesion between people.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Fidelma.

Mr Gaston: Absolutely, Fidelma: I agree with you on community cohesion, but —

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Fidelma and Timothy. Guys —.

Mr Gaston: — that cuts both ways.

Ms Fearon: Oh, it does.

Mr Gaston: Somebody who comes to Northern Ireland and settles in the community must —

Ms Fearon: It is very difficult, Paula.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): I know.

Mr Gaston: — have community cohesion at their heart.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): OK. You have said that, and I am sure that the 'News Letter' will pick it up tomorrow, Timothy. Well done.

Mr Gaston: It has nothing to do with the 'News Letter'.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Well done, well done.

Mr Gaston: It has nothing to do with the 'News Letter'.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): I thank our witnesses. Thank you. Your written submissions were so helpful. We really appreciate them, and we will ensure that we incorporate and reflect them in our Committee response.

Ms Fearon: I expected that. I knew that it was coming.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Thank you very much, guys. We will just change the table.

Ms Fearon: They are lucky that I did not get stuck into the bastard properly.

Mr Gaston: Fidelma, if you want to carry this on —

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Timothy, please, honestly.

Mr Gaston: — I am happy for you to speak through your microphone, because I can hear every word that you are saying.

Ms Fearon: I am glad that you can.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Good. You can take this offline. Thank you.

Mr Gaston: I am happy to have that conversation with Fidelma about

muttered under her breath.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): OK. You are now disrupting the meeting, Timothy.