Official Report: Minutes of Evidence
Committee for The Executive Office, meeting on Wednesday, 27 May 2026
Members present for all or part of the proceedings:
Ms Paula Bradshaw (Chairperson)
Mr Stewart Dickson (Deputy Chairperson)
Mr Phillip Brett
Mrs Deborah Erskine
Mr Timothy Gaston
Miss Áine Murphy
Ms Carál Ní Chuilín
Ms Claire Sugden
Witnesses:
Dr Nisha Tandon, ArtsEkta
Ms Ann Marie White, British Red Cross
Mr Daniel Holder, Committee on the Administration of Justice
Dr Lilian Seenoi-Barr, North West Migrants Forum
Draft Race Relations Framework and Delivery Plan 2026-28: ArtsEkta; British Red Cross; North West Migrants Forum; Committee on the Administration of Justice
The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): I welcome to the meeting Dr Nisha Tandon, chief executive of ArtsEkta; Ann Marie White, refugee support operations manager at British Red Cross; Daniel Holder, director of the Committee on the Administration of Justice (CAJ); and Lilian Seenoi-Barr, chief executive officer of the North West Migrants Forum. Lili Wu from the Chinese Welfare Association is still online from our previous evidence session. Thanks so much to all four of you for coming to the Committee and for sending in your written submissions in advance of the meeting. As with the previous panel, I will ask you to make a few opening remarks? I will start with you, Nisha.
Dr Nisha Tandon (ArtsEkta): Thank you for asking ArtsEkta to be here. My piece is community cohesion. ArtsEkta welcomes the publication of the race relations draft framework, although I hate that title, and the associated 2026-28 delivery plan, which has no outcomes written into it. We particularly welcome the inclusion of community cohesion, which was given to us as one of your four strategic outcomes, and the recognition of racial equality. However, those issues require endorsement from the whole of society instead of just being included in the draft framework.
First, we were a bit confused by community cohesion being the fourth outcome; it should be the first. We were also confused by the definition of community cohesion. I have been in this country for 50 years and have worked on community cohesion since the day that I arrived. For me, "community cohesion" is not the right term, and I would like to know what the definition of that is. However, whatever definition is set, the framework sets a positive ambition. ArtsEkta believes that stronger implementation mechanisms, clearer accountability structures and more meaningful community participation will be required if the intended outcomes are to be realised.
We recognise the significance of the cultural — as someone working in the arts sector, culture is very important to me — social and economic contribution that minority ethnic communities make. You will have heard in the news today the amount that we are spending to bring in agency nurses. Why do we not have a workforce plan that can deliver a better outcome for this beautiful part of the island of Ireland? Minority ethnic communities also play a role in peacebuilding. I was part of the Shared Future civic leadership programme. I have sat on many boards, I still sit on the board of the Community Relations Council (CRC), and cultural life is my everyday life. My lived experience comes from the people whom I work with, and I know approximately 60,000 people from all backgrounds, not just minority ethnic backgrounds. That is our work.
True intercultural work is where race and ethnicity sit, and it is very important to us that we not forget our two main denominations, but it also brings in the ongoing experience and engagement work that we have done. We have, however, also identified several recurring concerns: increasing fear and insecurity. I had never felt intimidated when walking alone in the city centre or on the street where I live in south Belfast. I never felt that a woman of colour would get racist abuse during her daily walk. Over the last two years, I have suffered abuse, and that should not happen. That is happening to me, and I have good language skills, but, unfortunately, not every woman of colour has those skills. I use the term "hostile narratives" because what is happening is not right, and social media plays a crucial role.
There is a lack of trust in the institutions, and the reporting mechanisms are not there. There is insufficient coordination between the agencies, and the short-term, inconsistent funding lasts for only two years. What can we do in two years? We need better mechanisms for funding. There are limited opportunities. Again, I am repeating what the panel in the previous evidence session said. The report of the independent review mentioned a lot of things, but are we implementing those? The action plan is not there. The current framework is not coherent, and many things are missing from it. That is a very important point. The framework needs to be changed to a racial equality strategy. That is what I would like to see.
Ms Ann Marie White (British Red Cross): Thank you for welcoming us to the Committee today. I manage refugee support services in Northern Ireland's Red Cross. Every year, we support over 2,000 people who are seeking or have been granted protection. Primarily, that is to do with navigating services and the system as well as their longer-term contribution and integration.
In general, the Red Cross supports and welcomes the framework's ambition, but we believe that it needs a stronger focus on structured interventions, robust governance and genuine co-design with communities. Clarity on the change of terminology from a "racial equality strategy" to a "race relations framework" is key to understanding how racial equality will be addressed in order to underpin improved race relations or, indeed, good relations through Together: Building a United Community (T:BUC) in particular and the secondary interventions prioritised by TEO in the delivery plan. The introduction of cohesion in the plan is welcome as a whole-community approach, but including a definition of cohesion and measuring such would really enhance the framework and work towards ensuring better outcomes for everybody. It is about understanding what cohesion means.
Using a public health approach, as the framework states, will look at racism as a systemic issue, help to identify the root causes and address attitudes, behaviours and structural barriers through primary, secondary and tertiary interventions.
TEO has prioritised nine of the 25 interventions, and it has included those in the delivery plan. It has also included the nine interventions as part of the consultation. I am not aware of any engagement on how those were prioritised by TEO. We welcome further discussion on how the prioritisation process happened and, should the consultation feedback from people with lived experience or those working in the sector say differently, the ability to change the priorities.
Aside from providing a link to the consultation response, the Red Cross is undertaking quite a few consultations with people who have lived experience. We are hearing more about what people from minority ethnic communities see as priorities in addressing racial equality and supporting cohesion and integration in Northern Ireland. We welcome the two-year delivery plan and its agility, in that it proposes to ensure that it responds to "emerging needs and issues" — it is not static — according to the delivery plan.
We would welcome a bit more information on how the racial equality subgroup and the thematic groups can inform future editions, as stated in the delivery plan and throughout the document. A clear process outlining that mechanism, the TEO racial equality subgroup's ongoing engagement with TEO and TEO structures to monitor the plan would help to ensure a clear governance structure and clarity of roles. That clarity, governance around the accountability for delivery and the role of the subgroup are all really important.
Further detail on monitoring and evaluating the action plan and how the outcomes will be measured to achieve the vision in the race relations framework is essential to ensure accountability and measure the impact. In particular, there is a need to develop robust ethnic equality monitoring across all Departments in order to ensure that they achieve "equality of service provision", which is one of the key outcomes in the framework.
We recommend clear structures to enable community expertise to inform decision-making and annual progress reports to ensure transparency and accountability in all delivery. That links to the tertiary intervention of community-led reviews, as noted in the delivery plan.
The plan provides the opportunity to begin to address key issues and achieve the four outcomes set out in the race relations framework. The main intervention that the Red Cross sees as being key to removing barriers to integration is access to English language support. All the research that the Red Cross undertakes, our operational insight and the recent consultation feedback from our service users evidence the need for improved access to English. That is essential, and it has not been prioritised in the delivery plan.
Another barrier is the lack of recognition of international qualifications for purposeful economic contribution. Many refugees work below their skill level due to difficulties in having their qualifications recognised. We urge TEO to address that in the framework by supporting access to education and training for all and considering mechanisms to recognise international qualifications, as highlighted in the Department for the Economy's review of widening participation in higher education.
Lived experience and co-design are integral across all the interventions. Our work is rooted in inclusive, trauma-informed practice, and we have seen that involving people with lived experience in policy design leads to better, more relevant outcomes. That is not included as part of this outcome or as part of the priorities that have been set for the delivery plan. We will submit further feedback from those with lived experience through our consultations, including the priorities that they have stated are really important for them: to enhance racial equality and race relations and to thrive as active members of society economically, socially and culturally. The groups that we have been speaking to prioritised interventions through education, through managing media and misinformation, through cultural responsiveness and through confidence in reporting hate crime, identifying it and having legislation on it. Really importantly, everyone has spoken about understanding the root causes of racism from people with lived experience. That links as a secondary intervention of embedding cultural awareness and anti-racism training across public services.
In conclusion and in summary, the Red Cross urges the Committee to prioritise English-language support and recognition of qualifications as a primary intervention, to support the embedding of lived experience and co-design throughout the framework and ensure robust governance, monitoring and annual reporting. Those steps will help us to create a more inclusive, equitable and effective approach to race relations in Northern Ireland. Thank you.
The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Thank you.
Before I bring in the next witness, I say to her: my notes did not have you down as a doctor. I will give you your proper title.
Dr Lilian Seenoi-Barr (North West Migrants Forum): You are OK.
Dr Seenoi-Barr: Thank you so much, Chair. Thank you to the members of the Committee for inviting the North West Migrants Forum to give evidence today. The North West Migrants Forum works directly with racialised and minoritised communities across Northern Ireland. We are based in the north-west of Northern Ireland. We work with black and brown people, people who are seeking refuge, people who have been granted international protection, students, workers, families and long-term residents. We welcome the Committee's decision to hear directly from communities affected by racism, because that really matters to us. Too often, decisions about race and racism are made without the voices of those living with the consequences every day. Our community is deeply fearful of the scale and persistence of racism in Northern Ireland right now. Many people are not only hurt by individual incidents of abuse, hostility or violence but excluded by the wider failure to treat racism as a serious and urgent societal crisis.
As the first panel articulated, I want to be very clear from the outset that we cannot simply describe the framework for race relations as a welcome and necessary step. Northern Ireland has had strategies, drafts and final documents and commitments before. The 2005 race relations strategy, for example, was, in many ways, way stronger than what is currently before us. It contained an action plan and achievable objectives; had they been properly implemented. The problem has not been the absence of documents; it has been the absence of political priority, implementation, accountability and sustained leadership. Racial equality has not been treated as a core priority by successive Executives, and that is why, in our view, we have reached a breaking point in society. Communities are deeply disappointed. They are tired of being consulted without there being measurable actions. They are tired of racism being acknowledged in principle but not confronted in practice. The current draft recognises important issues: racism, racial inequality, hate crime, lived experience, access to public services, ethnic equality monitoring and the need for updated race relations legislation. Those are important foundations, but recognition alone is not enough. A framework is only as good as the actions, accountability and resources attached to it. Without a clear delivery mechanism, measurable outcomes, independent scrutiny and departmental responsibility, it risks becoming another document that describes the problem without changing the system that produced it.
Our central concern is that the framework is still framed around race relations. That has been the theme throughout today. That language is outdated and too limiting. It risks presenting racism as a matter of relationships, tension and community cohesion rather than as a matter of power, structure, institution, policy, rights and equal outcomes.
When we compare that draft with approaches in Scotland, Wales and the Republic of Ireland, we see that Northern Ireland is far behind. Wales is explicit: it seeks to become an anti-racist nation by 2030. Scotland deliberately uses the term "anti-racism" to mean identifying, challenging and dismantling systemic, structural and institutional racism. The Republic of Ireland defines racism as operating through power, institutions, policies, practices and cultural norms. Northern Ireland should not set a lower standard for itself. We therefore ask the Committee to recommend that the Executive Office revises the framework before finalisation and reframe it as an anti-racism and racial equality framework for Northern Ireland. That revised framework must include clear definitions of racism, institutional racism, structural racism, racialisation, anti-black racism, Islamophobia, antisemitism, anti-Traveller racism, anti-Roma racism, xenophobia and other forms of racialised harm. It must include measurable targets, named departmental accountability, proper resourcing, community co-production, annual public reporting and independent scrutiny. It must also reflect the lived experiences of the black, Asian, Roma, Traveller and migrant communities, people who are granted international protection, people who are seeking safety and all those who are affected by racism and racial inequalities.
Chair and members of the Committee, this is not about improving a policy document. I want to be very clear about that. It is about deciding what kind of society Northern Ireland wants to become. It is about whether our children feel safe in the street. It is about whether our young people can see a future here and whether racialised communities can live with dignity, equality and justice. Our young people are already asking whether they have a future here. That is true, not only for young people from minoritised and racialised communities but for so many young people across the North of Ireland who do not want to build their lives in a society that is marked by intolerance, hatred, division and inequality. That should concern every single member of the Committee, regardless of your background or belief.
You have asked us to discuss outcome 2: "Combating Racism & Hate Crime". My honest view is that the framework does not yet meet the scale of the crisis. Race hate is increasing, trust in the justice system remains low, and communities are facing racism, not only on the streets but online through misinformation, dehumanisation, rhetoric and harmful narrative. I tell people that I now have a PhD in racial discrimination and hate crime online, because I am one of the biggest victims of online racism in Northern Ireland. I know what I am talking about here. There is also a serious legislative gap. Northern Ireland is still waiting for modern hate crime legislation, despite the clear recommendations that were made through Judge Marrinan's review on strengthening protection for victims and improving how hate crime is addressed. A framework alone cannot protect people. If we are serious about combating racism, that must be backed by law, accountability, victim-centred justice and clear action on online abuse and racial misinformation. Otherwise, we risk producing another document that names the problem but lacks the power to change it.
Chair, I am almost done.
Dr Seenoi-Barr: If Northern Ireland does not act — if we do not act — with urgency, seriousness and courage, we risk losing a generation of talented and committed young people, who will leave because they cannot see a future in a society that refuses to confront racism honestly. Day in and day out, reports are telling us that people no longer want to come here, due to the hostile environment. I am happy to talk about that later. That is why it matters that we get the framework right. Thank you.
Mr Daniel Holder (Committee on the Administration of Justice): Thanks very much. The CAJ is a human rights NGO that has been involved in race relations for so long that we were part of the coalition of forces that campaigned for the first race relations Order back in 1997. I know that you want me to pick up on that. We also co-convened the Equality Coalition with UNISON. Some of our more recent interventions have been around countering increased far right organising activity. We have produced two reports, one of which is a set of case studies, including Lilian's case study, the second one being about the situation specifically in Ballymena and the role of social media, misinformation and disinformation. We are working on a third report, on Newry. If it is ever useful for that to be presented to the Committee, we will be happy to do so.
The other issue that you asked me to focus on was racial equality. There is no question that racist intimidation is one of the primary causes of racial inequality and underpins and exacerbates it. Let us not understate how grim things are now. There has been an absolutely horrific and terrifying rise in racist intimidation and violence, much of it involving elements of loyalist paramilitarism, which is what makes it so dangerous. Over the past few years, there has also been an exponential growth in far right discourse, far right misinformation and far right disinformation that drives and underpins the climate in which attacks happen. All of that is captured in our reports.
That has left us with a solid climate of fear among many migrant communities. A lot of intimidation has a specifically Islamophobic element as well. It is widely known — it will be known by everyone in this room, is known by the international media and has been discussed several times by the UN anti-racism and human rights structures — that paramilitary involvement in racist violence here is growing and getting worse, particularly intimidation from housing. It is also well known around far right organising.
What is absolutely jaw-dropping about the draft framework document that we are discussing is that none of that is referenced in it anywhere. All the reality of what is happening on the ground is airbrushed out of it. It is not referenced anywhere: there is nothing about the far right, nothing about paramilitary involvement and nothing about dealing with housing intimidation. Of course, those are the issues that shape racial inequality, primarily in housing, to the extreme that there are now no-go areas for migrant communities — areas in which, people are told, it is not safe to live. That has happened in some schools as well. There are also issues over accessing other services.
The issue was called out by the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) in 2024. It was also called out by the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR), specifically in relation to the right to housing, stating that authorities must:
"prevent and combat intimidation by paramilitary groups against ethnic minorities and migrants in Northern Ireland in order to ensure their access to adequate housing and to prevent de facto segregation".
One of the witnesses, I think, mentioned that this was called out by the Independent Reporting Commission (IRC) as well. It picked up the PSNI evidence of paramilitary involvement but really buried the idea that, if individual incidents were not sanctioned by senior leadership, only by local leadership, that somehow meant that there was no paramilitary involvement. When people turn up to your door in balaclavas, the level at which that was sanctioned does not make much difference to you.
All those issues are ignored by the current framework. They are also ignored by the Executive's tackling paramilitarism strategy, which makes no reference at all to paramilitary involvement in racist violence. It also makes no reference to housing intimidation. There are huge gaps in the strategic approach there, despite the UN calls.
There are other issues that are not mentioned in the draft framework document. Islamophobia is not called out at all, despite its underpinning a lot of far right discourse. A "hostile environment" was Theresa May's term. Of course, when the whole thing fell into much disrepute over the Windrush scandal, there was a switch in terminology, but there was no switch in the policies. The Immigration Act 2014 and the Immigration Act 2016 are still very much in place.
The other contextual factor that has not been mentioned yet is that we are staring at the prospect, within the lifetime of the strategy, of an election in the UK that brings into power a party with far right policies. Reform UK's manifesto does not hold back from what it intends to do. There will be things such as ICE-style mass deportations, the restriction of social security benefits to British citizens only and withdrawing from international anti-racism treaties and human rights treaties. There is nothing in the document about contingency planning for that, where it can be done within devolved competence, yet that is the reality that our minorities communities could face within the next few years.
The other issue that you asked me to focus on is the Race Relations (Northern Ireland) Order 1997, which, of course, has not been updated since the last century. It is absolutely striking — I had not realised this — that no Stormont legislature has ever voluntarily passed racial equality legislation. When it came in in Britain in the 1960s, it was resisted by the old Stormont Parliament. There was a long delay until it was brought in under direct rule in 1997. The only amendments to it, which were signed off by officials in secondary regulations, were compelled by EU directives and EU law. There has never been racial equality legislation. When you look back at it, it is a really sorry saga of broken commitments and long delays. All the work has been done on it.
At the beginning of this century, the Equality Commission put a lot of work into developing upward harmonisation of racial equality legislation through a single equality Bill. That was to be taken forward expeditiously as part of the commitments in the St Andrews Agreement, but it was politically blocked and did not happen. Given the context of the blocking of the single equality Act, the Equality Commission then focused on specific proposals for racial equality law reform that they published in 2009. They did not progress either. Then in 2014, it revised the proposals and came up with other racial equality law reform proposals, and those did not happen either. There was then a commitment in the 2015 racial equality strategy to do that, but nothing happened for years and years. In 2022, the commission refreshed and revised its analysis and proposals to bring them up to date after an expert paper by Professor Brice Dickson. It also produced its own position paper, which was a sort of blueprint for reform of the law, and then nothing happened until there were no Ministers in post, when there was then a consultation in 2023. That ended three years ago.
The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): I totally agree, and I think we will pick that up in questions. It is certainly something that Carál might mention. As a Committee, we hoped that we would have had even a first briefing on what is in the new race relations order. If we are going to make any progress on that, it needs to happen before summer recess. The clock is ticking. Apologies for cutting you off; I am just conscious of time.
I will go to Nisha first. First of all, I am so sorry that you experienced that recently.
Dr Tandon: I did not know that I am that famous. I should be sitting there, then. [Laughter.]
The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): I think it was your piece about local community tension monitoring and the early intervention system. Belfast City Council brought that in in 2009 — I went down a rabbit hole today on its Belfast tension monitoring process — and it then brought in the policing and community safety partnerships (PCSPs) etc. Whatever happened to those? I thought that maybe some of them were still in existence, such as the interface one in South Belfast. They are a really good concept. Did they get up and running and then wither away, as these things sometimes do?
Dr Tandon: I feel that the early interventions might still be being implemented, but, as for community tension monitoring, especially in the Belfast area, where we deliver our programmes, we have not come across any data or implementation of plans on how to do that. I know that PCSPs had dwindled a little bit in certain areas, but I have no answer for that. They need to be brought back. They were a good way of —.
Dr Tandon: Yes, and also recognising the issues and implementing ASAP. That is not happening any more — well, as far as I know. I could be wrong.
The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): I came to that conclusion myself when I looked online earlier.
The other aspect of your submission is the limited opportunities for minority ethnic communities to participate in decision-making. I am not sure whether you want to respond to that; maybe Lilian does. Do you want to take that first?
Dr Tandon: Yes, I can speak from a Belfast City Council point of view, because I am part of Belfast City Council's area. All the strategic planning goes on to make this a better place for everybody, but there is no minority ethnic representation. They will listen, and they will be invited to the consultations, but on the other hand, if it is a cultural framework or cultural whatever, we are the first to be asked. We give our interventions and our recommendations, and we are listened to when cultural and social cohesion is concerned. Otherwise, when it comes to planning infrastructure or planning this and that, we are not part of it, and I do not see any representation. Having said that, next week we are presenting to Belfast City Council's strategic planning committee — I do not know why we were asked to do that — on our way of working in our intercultural hub and how successful it has been. There are 16 creatives working there, and 10 advocacy and lobbying organisations sit in the hub. It is very intercultural, and it is working like a dream. Maybe the council wants to see us because it is a good story. However, I have no idea what will come out of it.
Dr Seenoi-Barr: That is the reality. Minoritised people are seen as visitors and not as members of society who are going to settle here. That is why they are not included in decision-making or participation. There is also an issue when it comes to consultation rather than co-design. You bring a paper on what you want to do, and you want people to take the best part of it which they can endorse. That is also a big barrier. The timing for consultations — including people in those discussions — does not take into account the reality on the ground. There are minoritised people who are working every single day. Not everyone is on social welfare, and not everyone wants to be on social welfare. They are allowed to work. They are busy working and building their lives, and they do not get the information because they are not met where they work. Therefore, strategies are used that are exclusionary and do not include their voices.
There are a lot of organisations out there that could mobilise minoritised people, who can credibly not only give their voices but go beyond, building communities and supporting the infrastructure that is required to change society. However, they are ignored because their voices are not valued. That is the point. The voices of minoritised people are not valued or respected as people who are the fabric of Northern Ireland. If we can change that to see them as part of society and not as visitors or as people who are here for a short period and leave, they might just be included.
The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Thank you. Daniel, you submitted quite a hard-hitting paper. I cannot say that I disagree with much of it, having worked in inner-city communities for my whole career. What do we do about this issue? You have talked about providing effective protection. I have supported people, not necessarily ethnic minority families but those who seem to be supporting people from ethnic minority backgrounds out of houses, and there seems to be a powerlessness around allowing people to live safely and free from racist intimidation. What would you like to see in the strategic framework or strategy to properly tackle that issue?
Mr Holder: We have a series of recommendations in our reports. One of them is the urgent need to tackle disinformation and misinformation that underpins the climate that justifies and leads to racist violence. A lot of that is done on social media, and we have mapped a lot of it. Political leadership against misinformation and disinformation is also extremely important. There are real crises out there in things like housing. Everyone knows that, and every elected representative lives that. That has been the case for many years. To scapegoat migrants for all that —. Obviously, every bit of demographic change and every bit of housing policy has different impacts across the housing market, but to scapegoat migrants —. A lot of the stuff that is online is variations of far-right tropes of the great replacement theory, which was put around in the Ballymena context, despite the population change in that council area being 0·1% in the latest year of those figures.
Therefore, tackling the disinformation and political leadership against racism is one element, but there needs to be a fresh look at the structural processes used to handle housing intimidation. The intimidation points thing and the vacuum that that has left was raised earlier. There was a much broader concern around that, however, the way that the system was operating was almost allowing paramilitary groups to subcontract intimidation. What you were getting was a system that verified the threat to make sure that it was real and then moved a person on, rather than focusing on enforcement action against the suspects and perpetrators, which is almost managing paramilitary intimidation in an area rather than doing anything.
Another thing that needs handling much better is racist intimidation in a public space with regard to the plethora of posters. The PSNI took significant steps recently to do that, initially removing posters with paramilitary links but then switching its policy so that it will now tackle and remove those displays that constitute the most harm. A whole lot of structural changes are needed in there, as well as broader issues.
Mr Dickson: Hopefully, I will not hold you up too long.
The comment was made this afternoon that a framework cannot protect people; it is going to have to be legislation. That is absolutely true, and the history of Northern Ireland has shown that time without number. I can go back to the 1970s, when we introduced fair employment legislation, religious discrimination legislation and equality legislation. It was only when it became law that someone could not be discriminated against on the grounds of religious beliefs that society in Northern Ireland started to change. There are lots of things that we can do with frameworks to encourage and develop programmes, but unless there is the stick as well as the carrot, it is just not going to work. That is the sad reality of Northern Ireland.
How do we invest in building this society and community so that they have true racial equality at their heart? There will be a cost to that. No doubt, it falls into the same category as so many things that happen in Northern Ireland: groups are set up, the funding is there, and then it falls away again and everybody is back in the race to get that funding. Surely that is an area that demands ring-fenced funding and serious fiscal intervention to ensure that we deliver a racially equal playing field for everyone. I am going to risk the wrath of the Chair and of Timothy in respect of this. Reference was made to Ballymena in the previous discussion. Mid and East Antrim Borough Council turned down money that was there to assist in building a better community for people and to assist people to integrate into that community. That was not the whole reason why things kicked off in Ballymena, but it most certainly contributed to it.
Dr Seenoi-Barr: You are completely right. We cannot implement race equality without investment, but we need to step back and look at the fundamental principles of the Good Friday Agreement. That is where equality and equality of opportunities really started in Northern Ireland. Right now, we cannot really say that there is discrimination between Catholics and Protestants when it comes to fair employment or even to housing. There is a crisis in housing, and we need to say that. We need to be clear that it is the lack of investment in housing that is causing the crisis, not immigrants coming here. When it comes to racial equality, we need to use the same principles. We are now not a community of two traditions. We are a community of more traditions, and we need to acknowledge that. We are becoming a global society because of global issues that are happening, migration and many other reasons. It is time, therefore, that we acknowledge that we are now a diverse society and need to step away from the 50:50 plan to something different. It can be 60:40 or whatever you want to call it, but it has to acknowledge that Northern Ireland is no longer a community of two traditions. We have moved past that. There are many people like Nisha. Nisha, you have been here for over 30 years.
Dr Seenoi-Barr: Fifty years. Our children are not immigrants: they are citizens of Northern Ireland. However, because they look different, they will be called "illegal immigrants". That is the fact. We need to move from seeing immigrants as people who have come here for a short period. They are members of this society, they are part of its fabric and they have to be included, just like everybody else.
Mr Dickson: Briefly, Chair, I will bust one other myth about people paying tax. There are barriers to getting into employment, but once you get there, you pay tax. However, you pay a lot more than tax. Many people who migrate to Northern Ireland bring family members and others. I have dealt with this as a constituency representative. I have had people who work in universities come to me and tell me about the additional £20,000 that they have to pay to engage in the National Health Service. That is unfair and wrong.
Dr Tandon: It is not only that. International students who come have to pay their fees on top of their accommodation, and then they have no right to work. That is it. They are coming from well-off families back home and contributing in our current economic conditions. That is where the issue lies as well. There has to be more anti-racism training in public services and institutions. It is a two-way story, not just the one way that you are here and you are taking — the same old stereotypes that we are having. I have lived here for so long. I do not want to make it "I", "I", "I", but I have worked from day one: I have contributed; my children are working; my husband worked; and we are contributing. However, now I fear for my grandkids. They are intercultural, but they are facing much intimidation and bullying in their schools because they are intercultural. They are married to a local subject. That should not be happening because they look different. That should not be. New systems have to be really embedded. These are the issues that happen on the community side of things as well. It is important that we work together, and leadership has to be key. If our leaders are not showing that, then, unfortunately, it is not going to go down to civil society.
Mr Gaston: I start by saying that I was disappointed, Nisha, to hear about what you have experienced. That is certainly not reflective of Northern Ireland.
Mr Gaston: I am disappointed to hear that that is happening in 2026.
Daniel, I will pick up on some of your comments. Will you define "far right" for me?
Mr Holder: The Overton window has shifted on that, given the fact that there are so many far right policies within a lot of mainstream parties, and, indeed, from the most powerful person in the world. Far right parties have a number of characteristics and use a number of tropes. One is the great replacement theory, which states that there is some sort of community displacement going on — a conspiracy for the Christian west to be replaced by Muslims, and things like that. It tends to be parties that focus on the scapegoating of a particular group, particularly a migrant or minority group, or Muslims, and tend to have quite coercive policies towards those groups. There are a number of ways in which you could draw out those facets. The way to really look at it is to look at the policies that are being openly presented in manifestos, for example. If things like mass deportations are mentioned or there is a mass scapegoating of migrants, then it is pretty far right. I welcome the question, because it is important that we call that out and do not shy away from it.
Mr Gaston: At the same time, you are applying a label to people who might hold views about protecting borders, which I have no problem with. That is something that I actively encourage. When the UK voted for Brexit, it was to take back control of our borders. You talk about scapegoating migrants, and you mentioned the crisis in housing in your comments earlier. Nobody in this room or in the Government is saying that immmigration is the sole reason for the housing crisis. Failure to connect to sewerage networks is a massive issue, as is the failure to build enough houses, but to say that immigration in Northern Ireland does not play a part in that is burying your head in the sand.
Mr Holder: First, there is a distinction between general political discussion on immigration policy and blatant racist scapegoating of minority communities, particularly when information is put forward that simply is not true and exaggerates the numbers. Quite often, in circumstances where an incident has been lit upon that involves someone from an ethnic background, the entire community is scapegoated and subject to mass expulsion or disproportionate —. It would be unthinkable, if someone from a Protestant and unionist background or a Catholic and nationalist background had committed or been accused of a crime, for the entire community to be targeted and blamed and put out of their houses as if they were all collectively responsible. There is a big distinction between the general discussion about immigration policy and regulating borders and the racist stereotyping of migrant populations, and the distinction can be mapped pretty well.
There is a real crisis in housing, and there are many factors that underpin that. Some of that was picked up by the previous panel. There is an issue with the Mears Group, the privatisation of asylum accommodation and the impact that it has on the housing market. At the same time, there is also a lot of misinformation and disinformation, some of which has come from elected representatives. There is discourse about how the Housing Executive might be housing illegal immigrants in a particular house. First, that is not the right term, but an irregular migrant does not get state housing. Any elected representative would know that, so why say it?
Mr Holder: There are some examples in the reports. It might have been your party colleague Edwin Poots.
Mr Holder: I think it was in relation to south Belfast and the HMO —.
Mr Gaston: It is important, if you make sweeping statements like that, to put somebody's name to it.
Mr Holder: I just have, Timothy.
Mr Gaston: You are saying that the Speaker of the House made those comments.
Mr Holder: He did not do it in his capacity as the Speaker of the House. I am referring to the issue in the Belvoir area of south Belfast some time ago. I can check the report for the name, but I think that it was Edwin Poots. It was about whether the Housing Executive was going to house illegal migrants. The context was that racist posters linked to the UDA had gone up, and there was a level of intimidation of minority communities.
The housing issue is not the only thing. We need to be careful about the HMO language. There has always been a genuine issue with HMOs, but some far right organising groups now use it essentially as a synonym for migrants living in particular areas. They know it is too obviously racist to say that they do not want migrants in the area, so they organise and campaign about HMOs, but when you look at the rest of the discourse and things that are posted and what is written beneath them, it is quite often blatantly racist. A previous member picked up on the issue of the exploitation of tenants by some landlords and the issues that that raises. I am sure that is a genuine issue across the board, but the solution is tougher regulation, such as rent controls and more robust regulation of the housing market. We cannot deny that there is an enormous housing intimidation problem that needs to be dealt with urgently through legislative reform, including the hate crime stuff that has been held up for years after the Marrinan review.
Mr Gaston: We cannot gaslight people and say that immigration in Northern Ireland does not play a part in that. You mentioned the 0·1% change in the mid and east Antrim area and said that it was misinformation. Look at Ballymena, for example: between 2011 and 2021, in the area defined as G3, 52% of those living in that area came from outside the UK and Ireland. There are 1,529 Roma people in Northern Ireland, and 785 of them are concentrated in the north Antrim area, with the vast majority of them living in Ballymena. That was a group of people who did not want to integrate into the local community. To say that it is far right to put out facts and figures like that is downplaying it. You talk about the far right as if you have disdain for people like that. Why would we need a contingency plan were Reform UK to form the next Government? That is a ludicrous statement to make.
Mr Holder: Is that your question? Why do we need a contingency plan if Reform UK form the next Government? Let us look at the figures, by the way. The figures are tiny across Northern Ireland. If you take one house and say, "100% of the people in that house are from a migrant background", and if you take one street, you can inflate figures.
Mr Holder: But if you look at the —
Mr Gaston: I am talking about a small area in Ballymena.
Mr Holder: If you look at the whole —
Mr Holder: If you look at the whole —
Mr Gaston: You are selective with the information.
Mr Holder: — council area, the numbers are actually quite small.
Mr Holder: I am talking about verified information online on far right organised accounts that inflate numbers and give misinformation.
Mr Gaston: Who are those far right organisations? Name them.
Mr Holder: Perhaps the Committee would like us, as Mr Gaston is suggesting, to come back and present the detailed information from those reports.
Mr Holder: I am sure that we could do that.
Mr Holder: On the issue of contingency planning with regard to Reform UK, it is eminently foreseeable, if there is an attempt to effect mass deportations, particularly if, as Reform has suggested, that is put under military control, that that will have a very serious impact on our community. Not only would that have a sectarian impact were it to be followed through here, but restricting benefits to British citizens only would clearly remove a massive safety net from those in our communities who are not British citizens. Social security is a question of devolved competence, to an extent, so there are contingency plans that can be made.
There are many other things, but I would be testing the Chair's patience.
Ms Ní Chuilín: Thank you, everyone, for coming. Daniel, your paper outlines the reality here. When it comes to legislation that is progressive — for example, legislation on reproductive rights for women, marriage equality and the Irish language — it all had to come from Westminster, because the DUP does not do rights. That is what you are talking about here. The need for a racial equality strategy will probably come down to the same thing. That is my own sense of this. I do not know, but that is my own sense of it. That is why people have had to go to court about an anti-poverty strategy and do so twice on the Irish language strategy. There is a denial of rights. I am only stating what you already know. Some people here want a racial equality strategy, while others want a framework. My advice is that that framework should be populated with language around a racial equality strategy. Having listened to you and to the panel in the previous evidence session, I am fairly confident that you will do that. I am embarrassed — again, I am sorry, Nisha, that you have had to go through the abuse that you mentioned — by the fact that Ballymena, south Belfast are not mentioned in that framework, nor is any phobia. My question is how you get a race relations order in the absence of political agreement.
Mr Holder: There is a real test here as to whether the current structures at Stormont are capable of delivering racial equality legislation or other equality-type legislation. We do not have the Stormont structures that were committed to under the Good Friday Agreement. We were supposed to have Executive and legislative power constrained only by a bill of rights — recognised objective standards.
Mr Holder: I managed to throw it in there. We have a different system that was devised at St Andrews whereby either one of the larger parties has a veto over practically anything that goes to the Executive. There is also a veto over things that can go on the Executive's agenda. Let us take this as a case in point. We have a racial equality strategy that commits to upgrading the Race Relations (Northern Ireland) Order 1997. Presumably, all of the parties signed off on that, and all of the work has been done, yet it has not happened. It is reasonable to conclude that someone has blocked it, given that TEO officials told the Equality Commission conference the other day that it was yet to go on the Executive's agenda.
Is the same person now signing off on the framework document and saying that we will upgrade the Race Relations Order whilst, behind closed doors, blocking it from going on the Executive agenda? Unless there is a change of heart, what hope do we have of a new Race Relations Order being delivered by the framework, given that it was signed off on in the previous strategy but its progress was then obstructed?
Ms Ní Chuilín: My point is that any recent progressive legislation to address the denial of rights here has had to come from Westminster, because this place needs to be reformed. That is basically what you are saying.
Ms Ní Chuilín: There will not be proper changes made to the Race Relations Order unless there is reform of the institutions to end vetoes.
Mr Holder: As a sector, all the consultation groups were heavily involved with all the parties in the New Decade, New Approach process. We got a lot of very progressive commitments on equality strategies and such things into the document. If you look at 'New Decade, New Approach', you see that none of them have gone anywhere. There has been no new approach. Those commitments have been repeatedly blocked or delayed, and it looks as though the 'good jobs' Bill will now go the same way. That is the worry that a lot of people in our sector have. The current structures at Stormont are incapable of delivering it. In our evidence to the Assembly and Executive Review Committee, we set out the reforms that we want to see made.
Dr Seenoi-Barr: It strikes me that we have elected representatives who believe that racial equality cannot be delivered here. That belief is based on history and on the evidence that we have seen. A few years ago, we gave evidence to a parliamentary Committee and asked that racial equality, especially the Race Relations Order and hate crime legislation —.
Dr Seenoi-Barr: Yes. We asked that such legislation come directly from Westminster. That was not supported by the Executive Office. I wish that political parties that believe that racial equality cannot be delivered here would support that ask. If their voices are added to the voices of minoritised people, who are asking that Westminster now legislate, because the Executive Office has no ability or political will to do so, those voices will be heard. I want to persuade Sinn Féin, SDLP and Alliance Members that it is time to agree that the Executive will not deliver racial equality or give us the safeguards that we need in order to feel that we are safe and that we belong here and ask Westminster directly for that to happen. That is my plea and direct ask, because it is very clear that we will never get racial equality here.
Ms Ní Chuilín: OK. My final question is primarily about housing and the removal of intimidation points for people who have been subjected to hate crime, sectarianism, domestic violence, homophobia or any form of violence or abuse. The current system does not allow for those protections. The previous system was abused. I think that every political party is agreed on that. We have seen families languish for years on the waiting list, only for someone to go in one door to buy a threat and walk out with points through the next. It did not matter what colour or religion anyone was: that system was abused across the board. As I said in the previous evidence session, my concerns and anxieties are about housing, because there is nothing else there for people who need protection. Section 75 does not cut it for them. They therefore need something else. What would that protection look like? Would that be covered in the Race Relations Order or in other legislation?
Mr Holder: The bill of rights would have had an enforceable right to housing, which could have dealt with the lack of a state response.
Intimidation points were removed. As there is with every system, there was a level of abuse. I do not think that that is why they were removed, however. They were removed in the mouth of a judicial review that was taken by the Human Rights Commission that related to the gaping hole in the law around victims of misogynistic violence and domestic abuse. That particular category was not covered, so that was the context in which intimidation points were removed. Their removal leaves a significant gap, because people can no longer get intimidation points. It also leaves a gap in data gathering and mapping of how much housing intimidation is going on, because it is now much more difficult to track.
Mr Holder: There is no real indication that the level of housing intimidation has gone down, but we will no longer be able to rely on statistics on applications for intimidation points.
Mr Brett: Thank you, colleagues, very much for coming to the Committee. The latter half of the presentations has been hugely disappointing. They have become very political. Dr Barr, you are entitled to do this today, but you a member of the SDLP. You are entitled to hold the position of being an elected representative for the SDLP, but it is important that the record reflects that. You may have a view that the SDLP —.
Dr Seenoi-Barr: I am not here speaking on behalf of the SDLP. Rather, I am speaking based on my lived experience —
Dr Seenoi-Barr: — and also about evidence-based —
Mr Brett: Sure, but you may have a position that the SDLP —
Dr Seenoi-Barr: — actions that we can see.
Mr Brett: — the Alliance Party and Sinn Féin should do a particular thing. When you are saying that, it is important to clarify —.
Dr Seenoi-Barr: That was clear from Carál, where she mentioned —.
Mr Brett: I did not interrupt you. Will you let me finish?
Dr Seenoi-Barr: Yes. Go ahead.
Mr Brett: Thank you. When you are making proposals that involve your political party, you should declare that to the Committee. I just want that to be on the record.
Daniel, your contributions were highly political, as well as being factually incorrect on a number of occasions. You should quickly reflect on and retract the remarks that you made about the Speaker. Your document states that he said:
"Speculation that the flats are to be used for illegal immigrants is rife".
You said earlier that he stated that the flats were being used by illegal immigrants. This meeting is being recorded and broadcast, so, if I were you, I would quickly retract your statement about Edwin Poots. It is very misleading, and he may wish to take it further.
You made comments about the 'good jobs' Bill, which you know nothing about. You have no idea about what will happen at the Executive tomorrow on the issue, yet you have come out with a blasé statement that it is to be blocked by the DUP. Do not make blasé statements about issues that you know nothing about.
You also stated that it would not happen anywhere in Northern Ireland that Catholics or Protestants would be put out of areas because of their religion. Have you heard of Torrens in north Belfast?
Mr Holder: I am happy to answer the questions.
Mr Holder: I will read into the record exactly what Edwin Poots said. It was Edwin Poots. Thankfully, I did get the right person.
Mr Brett: You did. You just got the wrong quotation.
Mr Holder: He is described as an MP here, however. He is, of course, an MLA. The document states that he said:
"Speculation that the flats are to be used for illegal immigrants is rife, and it is for [the Housing Executive] to confirm its veracity or deny it".
Edwin Poots must surely have known that there are no circumstances in which "illegal immigrants" —
Mr Holder: — would be housed —
Mr Brett: I am glad that you have now qualified and changed your —.
Mr Holder: — in Housing Executive accommodation, so it was highly irresponsible to make a statement that reflects far right tropes and discourse about irregular migrants being housed in public housing.
On the —.
Mr Brett: I am glad that you have corrected the record.
Mr Brett: I am glad that you have corrected the record.
Mr Holder: Let us see what happens with the 'good jobs' Bill, but I know that there was a trade union protest here last week, at which there were —.
Mr Holder: Yes, you did. There are quite serious concerns about the 'good jobs' Bill's not progressing.
Mr Brett: When you do not know the facts, do not comment.
Mr Holder: The third issue —.
Mr Brett: You said that it would not happen anywhere in Northern Ireland that Catholics or Protestants would be put out of their area because of their religion. I am asking —.
Mr Holder: No, I did not say that.
Mr Holder: What I said —.
Mr Holder: You can read the Hansard report. What I said was this: take a circumstance in which an individual who is accused of a serious sexual crime happens to be from a white Protestant community background or a white Catholic community background. There would not then be a pogrom against people from a white Protestant or Catholic background to remove them collectively from the area. The individual might be targeted, but the community would not be targeted. When, however, a migrant is accused of a crime — there are many examples of this — the entire community is then scapegoated and blamed.
That is very clearly what I was referring to.
Mr Brett: You therefore accept that people are put out of places on the basis of their religion and that areas have been —.
Mr Holder: I accept that there —.
Mr Brett: You accept that areas have been created where people cannot go to or live because of their religion. Do you accept that?
Mr Holder: I accept that there is sectarian and racist intimidation, yes.
Mr Brett: You therefore accept that there are areas where Protestants cannot live.
Mr Holder: I do not know about particular no-go areas.
Mr Holder: I cannot name a particular area.
Mr Brett: You have never heard of Torrens, no?
Mr Holder: I do not know about the circumstances in Torrens, and —
Mr Holder: — that would depend on whether —
Mr Holder: — there is an armed group.
Mr Holder: Is there actually —?
Mr Brett: It is relevant to what the witness said. Can you tell me which schools are no-go schools for ethnic minorities?
Mr Holder: You will be aware of this one, because it happened in your constituency.
Mr Holder: At the Girls' Model School, there was an incident.
Mr Holder: The Education Authority said —
Mr Holder: — that it was unsafe.
Mr Brett: — that the Girls' Model is a no-go school. Are you putting it on the official record of the Northern Ireland Assembly that the Girls' Model is a no-go school for ethnic minorities?
Dr Tandon: I do not believe that.
Mr Brett: We now have a member of the community saying that what you said is nonsense, sir.
Mr Brett: I will end my contribution there, Paula, but this is ridiculous.
Mr Holder: — that is not what I said.
Mr Holder: It is not what I said, Mr Brett.
Mr Brett: You said that there are no-go areas and schools for ethnic minorities in Northern Ireland.
Mr Holder: There are no-go areas for ethnic minorities, but, equally, the —
Mr Brett: You said that there were no-go schools.
Mr Holder: — Education Authority —.
Mr Brett: You have slurred the Girls' Model, which is a great school of great people.
Mr Brett: You should withdraw that remark. You have been contradicted by a member of the panel. You do not know what you are talking about. Stop making sweeping statements based on your politically motivated views. You may be against the DUP and the unionist community — that is up to you — but do not go against a school in Northern Ireland that does vital work, has members of the ethnic minority community in it all the time and brings in the great work that Nisha and others do to celebrate that. You should withdraw that remark and apologise immediately.
Mr Holder: There was an incident at the school. It is documented. The Education Authority —.
Mr Brett: Yes, there was, and it was condemned by everyone. That does not —.
Mr Brett: — a no-go school. You should reflect on that.
Mr Holder: It was a no-go school for those children.
The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): I will let Daniel respond, followed by Nisha, and then another member wants to come in. Go ahead, please, Daniel. Respond to Phillip's comments.
Mr Holder: There is a case study that everyone can read about the Girls' Model School. The Education Authority said that it was not safe for children of that ethnicity to remain there. The worry is that that pattern could be repeated in other places.
Mr Brett: You do not think that it is disrespectful —
Mrs Erskine: The Principal Deputy Speaker has been disrespectful to the DUP members who are here today —.
Mr Brett: — for a witness to come along to the Committee and —
Mr Brett: — claim that the school is a no-go area for ethnic minorities.
The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): I am saying that you are being disrespectful to the next witness to speak, whom you know that I was going to bring in next.
Dr Tandon: Phillip, that incident happened, and there was a big report about it.
Dr Tandon: We were approached as part of that, and we have been making long-term interventions in that school. We now have a sustainable model with the Girls' Model School and the Boys' Model School to prove that minority ethnic children are welcomed in that area. They are welcomed. The principal and all the teachers — everybody — are listening, and they are doing great work with our organisation. Yes, Daniel, that happened, and it was a big issue, but it has to be put in context. North Belfast is a very welcoming place if we really want to make it work.
Mr Brett: I just think that you should withdraw the remark. What happened to those two children was unacceptable — it was dealt with — but to state that a school is a no-go area for ethnic minorities, when, I guess, you have never set foot in it —.
Mr Brett: You just comment from on high about working-class Protestant communities, as you do in all the work that you have done.
Mr Holder: I think that you are trying to engage in sectarian mud-slinging with me by pretending that I am attacking a community when I am not.
Mr Gaston: You are. You have been doing that all day.
Mr Holder: I am attacking far right actors.
Mr Gaston: The evidence session has been full of it.
Mr Holder: Where did that come from? I am attacking far right actors —
Mr Brett: If I were to invite you to the school —.
Mr Holder: — who were involved in intimidation.
Mr Gaston: The far right, unionism: you take your swing, Daniel.
Mr Holder: I do have other examples.
Mr Brett: May I propose that we, as a Committee, invite Mr Holder to visit the Girls' Model —
Mr Brett: — and outline to the school why he thinks that it is a no-go area —
Mr Holder: It was at that point for those girls, Phillip.
Mrs Erskine: Like my colleague, I am entirely disappointed at how the end of this session has gone, to be honest. The DUP has been talked about as being deniers of rights and one thing and another. Phillip and I are on this Committee, scrutinising the framework document. Our party is in the Executive and holds the deputy First Minister position. We would not have got to this stage if we were deniers of rights, so I think that people need to reflect on their language.
The irony is that we are discussing inclusion today, so to denigrate other parties and castigate the DUP and unionism in this discussion has been an outright disgrace. I am disappointed about that, because Phillip and I come here as two people who are willing to listen, to inform ourselves and to scrutinise the documents before us. I therefore ask people to reflect on what they have said, because, political pleas were made today at this Committee about what should be taken forward. I have never heard the like of it in a Committee before, where parties have been left out a plea that was made to other political parties. I put it on the record that I find that quite offensive to parties that are in the Executive and that also sit on this Committee.
Daniel, you made some points about paramilitarism. Can you clarify what you mean?
Mr Holder: Do you mean about paramilitary involvement in violence?
Mr Holder: Many of the incidents that have involved racist intimidation and violence have links to certain elements of loyalist paramilitary groups.
Mrs Erskine: Do you believe that republican paramilitaries have been involved in such incidents?
Mr Holder: There is no indication of that yet.
Mrs Erskine: I represent the community in Fermanagh and South Tyrone, and I have seen republican activity that has involved intimidation, particularly when it comes to immigration. I therefore think that it is not just loyalism that is involved. We need to call out paramilitarism right across the board. Will you call it out today?
Mr Holder: Wherever there is evidence, yes. We are doing that. The two reports that we initially did focused on far right organising, and, in Ballymena and other places, that largely focused on the —
Mr Holder: — British loyalist connection. If you will let me finish —.
Mrs Erskine: People in Newry have been standing with a tricolour. I find it very strange that, if they were —.
Mr Holder: Some of your party's representatives addressed them.
Mrs Erskine: If they were loyalists, I find it very strange that they would hold a tricolour.
Mr Holder: Let me finish. Those were the first two reports that we did. The third report that we are doing does relate to Newry, where the far right activity is essentially Irish tricolour-waving, far right activity. It is not British far right activity, and it is not loyalist-linked at all. We have not, however, identified any links to any paramilitary organisation — for example, a named dissident republican organisation — or to any armed group. We therefore need to make a distinction between racism, racist discourse, far right ideas and such things that are taking hold through social media across all communities, not just affecting one or two.
What we are talking about is specific far right actors here, and there are clear indications of paramilitary involvement. You can look at the IRC report or at some of the PSNI statements. There are places where it is even more obvious. For example, at a new housing estate, UDA flags go up, and the words "Locals Only" or "No Foreigners" are then painted next to them.
Mrs Erskine: That is not just happening in loyalist communities.
Mr Holder: Most of the incidents that are mapped are.
Mr Holder: I do not have the figures to give you off the top of my head.
Mr Holder: I can give you patterns.
Mr Holder: The statistics do not fit your narrative. The overwhelming majority —.
Mrs Erskine: Yes, because I do not think that I am getting anywhere. I would like to see the figures for what he is saying.
Mrs Erskine: I do not want to open up the issue again, but I do want to state this. I did a quick check about schools. The school admissions code for 2021 talks about admissions for vulnerable children.
The sweeping statement that schools are no-go areas for children from ethnic minorities is totally blown out of the water when you look at that school admissions code. I advise that you look at it.
Mr Holder: To be clear, it is not the school admissions policies that make schools unsafe for ethnic minorities but areas where kids are told, sometimes by people in authority, "I would not go to that school. It will not be safe for you there". That happens.
Mr Holder: I am not going to name them, for obvious reasons.
Mr Holder: That would put —.
The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): We are again getting away from the purpose of the session. I gave you a bit of latitude, Deborah, because I recognise that some of the commentary today may have been offensive to you —
The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): — or upset you. We have to get back to the purpose of the session, however, which is to try to shape the document so that it delivers on the issues that the witnesses on this panel and the previous panel have presented to us.
Mr Gaston: "Witnesses". Jeepers, I have heard it all now.
Mrs Erskine: Yes, I have one more. Lilian, this question definitely relates to the document. In your submission, you state that Wales, Scotland and the Republic of Ireland are stronger in their approach. From reading it, I assume that you would consider them to be regions of best practice. Your submission states:
"Wales states clearly that it is working towards becoming an anti-racist nation by 2030."
"Scotland deliberately uses the language of anti-racism to focus on identifying, challenging and dismantling systemic, structural and institutional racism."
My challenge to you is to tell me how that will be done. How is a nation being anti-racist by 2030 quantified? How is it policed? If a nation reaches that goal, it cannot stop at 2030. I am not sure how that is achieved.
You talked about how online abuse is policed. I have received online abuse in the past few days. Policing online abuse involves challenging social media companies. That is not solely a government issue. It is wider than that, because we are talking about businesses. If that is something that you feel should be contained in any future Northern Ireland strategy, how do we achieve that?
Dr Seenoi-Barr: Thank you very much for your question, Deborah. We went to Wales with one of your colleagues to try to see how it will achieve that, and that is why I am confident that it will. Wales has backed all its strategies and outcomes with resources and knowledge.
The first thing to mention is education. Wales is the first area in the United Kingdom to have embedded minoritised ethnic people and black history in their schools. It is part of the Welsh curriculum for pupils to understand how people come to the country. Wales educates its young people to embrace different cultures and languages so that minoritised communities feel fully included. Welsh children use language that is very inclusive. They do not view minoritised people who come to Wales as being different from Welsh people. They have embraced that. If you look at how they recognise even the lived experiences of people and ensure that all policies, not just racial equality policies but policies on, for example, education and infrastructure, are followed, you will see that everyone is included.
Wales also invested in that, whereas investment is lacking in our framework. That is why I believe that Wales's vision will be achieved. It is not just talk. Rather, Wales has an action plan that is supported by resources. It has made tremendous progress. If you were to go to Wales right now, you would see that, yes, racism is still there — it is a global issue — but at least the country is making a lot of effort to ensure that people who look different are all seen as being Welsh. That is one of the best approaches to take. In the context of the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland, I recommend the Welsh approach.
Ms Murphy: I have a quick question. Thank you all for coming to the Committee. I know that it has been a long session. You sat in to hear the first panel as well.
We had TEO officials in a number of weeks back to brief us on the framework. You will have had further engagement with officials to detail your concerns, which you outlined in great detail today. Have officials been receptive to the specific issues that you raised with them during your engagement?
Ms White: We have raised lots of queries at the racial equality subgroup. The response has been somewhat defensive. Now that we have all put together organisational responses, we will get together before the submission period closes to think collectively and put together our subgroup. The subgroup is cited as being a key lead in ensuring accountability. There has been engagement to make sure that the structures are in place first of all. We engaged with the officials when they first launched the draft framework, and their responses felt somewhat defensive. That was the first time that we had had sight of the document, so we were reacting. Now that we have had a chance to sit with the subgroup, we still have concerns. You can see that based on what the previous panel said as well. We will respond and, in particular, look to the change in name and focus and the linked T:BUC and good relations strategies. The focus is very much on trying to understand what has happened and what the implications are for funding, resourcing and accountability.
We have also been looking at the refugee integration strategy. There was a promise that that strategy would have an action plan and a report, but we have not seen very much come out. There had not been very much lived experience input or review of the actions. Moreover, those key actions were decided by TEO or the strategic planning and performance group. There was no engagement to agree the key priorities, so it feels quite distant. We are watching and will respond accordingly. We have had direct conversations with TEO, so nothing that we are saying now is out of hand. We had those direct conversations with the director. There was an event last week with the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland at which everybody spoke quite frankly and engaged very well. The subgroup's role was mentioned and cited. We need to ensure that we understand that mechanism and the structures that support that. If there is a two-way process to influence that, we need to make sure that we know what those structures are and use them accordingly.
Ms Murphy: I will not speak on behalf of everybody on the Committee, but I do not want officials to come back after the consultation closes and, no doubt, when the final version of the framework is published, only to find that the high-priority concerns that you have raised today are not tangibly reflected in the framework. None of us wants to end up in that position. Thank you very much.
The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Thank you, Áine. That was a really constructive question on which to end.
I will pick up on the point that Ann Marie made about the refugee integration strategy. I do not think that we have received the report. We will forward that to you. I think that we have raised it, but, if not, perhaps we can chase it up again.
Ms White: The reports were made public as well, Chair.
Ms White: According to the strategy, there should be an annual report with the outcomes from the key priorities, and it should not just be sitting in the Committee. We would encourage that.
Ms White: If it gets to the Committee first —. We have a group that was set up to ensure the accountability structures of the refugee integration strategy. That is where the function sits. We have been keen to hear how that has progressed and hear about the accountability of those actions and the impact, which is more important. It is not just about the process but the impact.
Dr Tandon: Measuring the outcomes is very important as well. Having a good practice model and providing value for money are so important in the current climate. If you are not delivering that, there is no point.