Claire Sugden
East Londonderry · Independent · Northern Ireland
“That is, gosh, almost 35 years ago, yet we are still having the conversation in 2026. If I were to speak to that eight-year-old girl, I would tell her, "When you are 40, Claire, this will not even be a consideration for you". Sadly, however, it still is. It is deeply disappointing that, when we had an opportunity, it was not taken.”
“Indeed, I tabled an amendment to that Bill to achieve the desired outcome, but, sadly, the opportunity was not taken. One of the strengths of the Assembly is that Committees can identify where Executive legislation has fallen short and produce their own practical, targeted solutions.”
“Frankly, we should be listening. Sometimes, we talk about equality in broad terms, but the Bill reminds us that equality is often about practical things. It is about removing unnecessary barriers from everyday life and ensuring that opportunities and choices do not depend on arbitrary differences between schools.”
“That is ridiculous. The point that we should all pay attention to is that of girls feeling less exposed. We should focus on that even if there were no other reasons to pass the legislation. Girls simply want to get on with their school day without having to think about something that most boys take for granted.”
“That meeting was a reminder that issues that can appear small to adults — there have been adults who have asked why the Assembly is legislating on this — can be issues on which we need to legislate. When people do not behave appropriately, we as a legislature have a responsibility to legislate.”
“Around one in seven couples in Northern Ireland experiences fertility problems, yet Northern Ireland continues to offer one of the most limited publicly funded fertility services anywhere in the United Kingdom. Couples face lengthy waits, restricted eligibility criteria and fewer publicly funded IVF opportunities than elsewhere.”
The complete record
Every one of 2,208 lines we hold for Claire Sugden, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 45.
“I beg to introduce the Age Discrimination (Goods, Facilities and Services) Bill [NIA 46/22-27], which is a Bill to make provision for the prohibition of unjustified discrimination, harassment and victimisation on the ground of age in connection with the provision of goods, facilities and services.”
“For those reasons, I am pleased to support the Bill. I look forward to its various stages. Hopefully, it will become an Act.”
“Frankly, we should be listening. Sometimes, we talk about equality in broad terms, but the Bill reminds us that equality is often about practical things. It is about removing unnecessary barriers from everyday life and ensuring that opportunities and choices do not depend on arbitrary differences between schools. No pupil should have to seek permission to wear trousers. No pupil should have to rely on the goodwill of an individual school to be able to access something that should be available, consistently, across Northern Ireland. The Bill provides that consistency. It is practical and proportionate, and it reflects the views of many young people who will be affected by it. Perhaps most importantly, it brings us into line with what many schools have already recognised as common sense and equality.”
“If anything, they were asking to be treated equally in wearing the uniform. That is an important distinction. <BR /> <BR />We often talk in the Chamber about listening to young people and making policy with them rather than for them. On this issue, they have spoken clearly. Young people have explained why it matters to them and how it will affect them.”
“That is ridiculous. The point that we should all pay attention to is that of girls feeling less exposed. We should focus on that even if there were no other reasons to pass the legislation. Girls simply want to get on with their school day without having to think about something that most boys take for granted. Boys do not have to think about it because they are able to wear trousers. <BR /> <BR />None of the reasons given for girls wanting to wear trousers to school is unreasonable. None of them should have to be justified at all, because it is not about fashion, about ethos or about abandoning school uniforms. For many reasons, I agree with the principle of having school uniforms. The young people who engaged in the debate in Committee were not even asking to opt out of wearing a uniform.”
“That is, gosh, almost 35 years ago, yet we are still having the conversation in 2026. If I were to speak to that eight-year-old girl, I would tell her, "When you are 40, Claire, this will not even be a consideration for you". Sadly, however, it still is. It is deeply disappointing that, when we had an opportunity, it was not taken. Where a leader in our Government had an opportunity to allow girls to wear trousers to school, he did not do so. That is something on which we should all reflect. <BR /> <BR />Other Members spoke about the warmth that trousers provide during the winter months, and I absolutely agree. Points were made about participating in outdoor learning and practical activities, and I really take the point about being stung by nettles. Why is it that girls have to do hopscotch on grass because they are wearing a skirt?”
“That meeting was a reminder that issues that can appear small to adults — there have been adults who have asked why the Assembly is legislating on this — can be issues on which we need to legislate. When people do not behave appropriately, we as a legislature have a responsibility to legislate. When children are telling us of their experiences, as happened with me, we absolutely should listen to them. As other Members have said, girls are speaking about having dignity during their periods. They are speaking about their comfort. As a child walking to and from school, I recall getting my PE kit out. I used to hitch the shorts on and then throw off the skirt, because I was desperately uncomfortable wearing a skirt. That was to be able to walk home, which was about a mile down the road.”
“I remember leaving that meeting desperately sad and disappointed that that was what they were asking me, not least as the mother of a girl who will grow up in this society. Here we have primary-school girls already thinking about how they need to protect themselves from the behaviour of others. We have to be absolutely clear that the responsibility for upskirting lies entirely with those who do it. Girls should never have to change their behaviour because of the actions of others. We must continue to challenge that behaviour wherever it exists, and the Assembly needs to look at that acutely as soon as possible and certainly in the next mandate. <BR /> <BR />We should listen when young people tell us about the reality of their lives.”
“Indeed, I tabled an amendment to that Bill to achieve the desired outcome, but, sadly, the opportunity was not taken. One of the strengths of the Assembly is that Committees can identify where Executive legislation has fallen short and produce their own practical, targeted solutions. That is what has happened here, so I commend the Committee for taking the initiative. <BR /> <BR />I became involved with the issue not because I was looking at school uniform policy per se but because a young girl — a primary-school child — asked to meet me to discuss it specifically. She explained to me that she and her friends wanted the option of wearing trousers, because that was not possible at the school that they attended. They were concerned about upskirting: primary-school children approached their local MLA to talk about upskirting.”
“I therefore absolutely commend the Committee for filling that equality gap, because it is important that the Assembly demonstrate what is important to our society. While there is a practical reason behind the legislation, we have to come back to equality, and a society that has equality is certainly a society in which I wish to live. <BR /> <BR />Different schools have different policies, meaning that two girls living on the same street but attending different schools will have different choices. More than that, it means that girls have a different choice from boys. Fundamentally, that is what we are trying to say here. As others have said, I had hoped that the matter would be addressed in the previous school uniforms legislation.”
“The reality is that the right for a girl to wear trousers to school still depends on the school that she attends. It depends on the school's uniform policy and decisions that have been taken by individual boards of governors. <BR /> <BR />I will address some points that have been made in relation to that. Matters of equality should not be the decision of a board of governors but an overarching decision of the Executive and the Assembly. It is disappointing that the Education Minister did not take that decision himself.”
“I am very happy to support the Bill at Second Stage. Last Friday, I visited a local school where girls already have the option of wearing trousers as part of their school uniform. During that discussion with primary-school pupils, I mentioned the fact that the Assembly would soon debate the School Uniforms (Trousers) Bill and the right for girls to wear trousers. As I said that, many of them looked genuinely puzzled: they simply could not understand why that was something that required law; it should be a fundamental part of what already happens. In many ways, our young people are ahead of us. To them, this is not controversial; it is simply a common-sense issue. Unfortunately, their experience is not one that exists everywhere.”
“The very least that we should ensure is that, throughout that journey, people have somewhere to turn for independent advice and specialist support. I sincerely hope that a new organisation can be found to continue that important work. If not, the Department of Health should work urgently with healthcare providers and the voluntary sector to ensure that that support is not simply allowed to disappear. If we are serious about improving fertility services in Northern Ireland, we cannot measure success solely by the treatment. We must also consider how we support people through one of the most difficult experiences and processes of their lives.”
“They are left trying to decide whether they want to try again, whether they can afford private treatment or how they can come to terms with a future that they never expected. Those conversations do not happen in a consultant's office; they happen at home, often in isolation. For many people, Fertility Network UK has been the place that they turned to for that support from others who genuinely understood what they were going through. <BR /> <BR />Northern Ireland already asks more of people experiencing infertility than any other part of the United Kingdom. We ask them to wait longer, we offer fewer publicly funded opportunities for treatment, and we ask them to navigate a more restricted system.”
“Around one in seven couples in Northern Ireland experiences fertility problems, yet Northern Ireland continues to offer one of the most limited publicly funded fertility services anywhere in the United Kingdom. Couples face lengthy waits, restricted eligibility criteria and fewer publicly funded IVF opportunities than elsewhere. We rightly focus on improving the journey of access to treatment, but treatment is only one part of that journey. Fertility treatment can take over every aspect of someone's life. It affects relationships, work, finances and mental well-being. Women often carry the physical burden of treatment, but the emotional impact is shared by couples and families alike. When treatment does not work, patients do not simply stop being fertility patients.”
“In the meantime, new referrals for support have already stopped. Fertility Network UK is a service recognised and signposted by our own regional fertility centre, providing information, peer support and practical guidance to people who are navigating infertility.”
“I highlight the uncertain future of Fertility Network UK in Northern Ireland, following the announcement that its parent charity has entered a managed closure due to financial pressures. While efforts are ongoing to transfer the Northern Ireland service to another organisation, there is no certainty that that will happen.”
“Minister, what impact do you anticipate the industrial strike having on waiting times? I am aware of a patient who was sent home today after urgent testing because there would not be a doctor to interpret their results.”
“Minister, non-domestic vacant rates are a significant burden on many businesses across the board. What you have announced today will not support all those businesses. I appreciate that your proposals will raise revenue that, as you say, can be used by councils, but they are not getting that support, nor are they getting support from your colleague in the Department for the Economy. Will you therefore outline how we can better support businesses on the high street, using the opportunity available through the rating system, so that our town centres stop becoming ghost towns?”
“How do we convince the services on the ground, given the things that their staff tell me? I appreciate that that is anecdotal — that is my experience — and that others may have experience of other parts of Northern Ireland, but I am one of 90 MLAs and, I am sure, others have had the same experience. We need to iron that out, but we should do so before we reach the point at which we potentially vote for it. <BR /> <BR />Convince me. Genuinely, I am probably the most movable person on the issue, because I agree with the proposal in principle. However, agreeing with it in principle is different from agreeing with it in practice, and, as legislators, we have a responsibility to look at it in practice. Otherwise, what is the point of examining legislation?”
“I am not hearing the conversations; I hear, "Let's raise this, and everything else will follow". Forgive me, given my experience of being in the Chamber for 12 years, for not trusting the Executive to follow through on the things that they promise us. That comes from seeing failure after failure. <BR /> <BR />I come back to the need to understand why children offend. It is about preventing offending and ensuring that, when intervention is needed, that support is there. I hope that people listening to my contribution see the matter from that perspective. I came into the Chamber having made my feelings about this clear in conversations with Members and the sector. I will be honest: I am still not convinced by this. If I am not convinced, how do we convince the public? How do we convince the people we represent?”
“How can we drive such an important policy change if we do not have the commitment from the people who are responsible for driving it? <BR /> <BR />Where is the work on examining the capacity of our systems to respond? What is the assessment of the additional support that will be required? We are being asked to vote on a number, and I am asking what sits behind that number. If we cannot answer that question, are we ready to make the change? For me, it comes down to context, readiness and preparedness. As a Back-Bench Member whose job it is to scrutinise the Executive, I think those are valid questions. It is not simply a case of yes or no but a case how we do it. That is what I am asking.”
“<BR /> <BR />If we are to start importing a number — I will come to the specific number in a minute — we must be prepared to examine whether we have the structures in place that make that number work. I have listened carefully to the debate on whether the age should be 12, 14 or 16. To be honest, I come back to the same conclusion, which is that the age does not matter to me as much as the conversation about how we support the change, should we make it. Where is the evidence for Northern Ireland, not the evidence from jurisdictions across Europe and not necessarily the evidence from Scotland? Where is the evidence for our particular context, in which we have a siloed Government and Ministers around the Executive table who cannot agree?”
“I feel that we are approaching the end of that problem rather than the beginning. I know that you agree with me, Minister, because I have heard you say it in other debates. This did not begin in your Department. It began long before a child ever came near it. Members will point to jurisdictions where the age of criminal responsibility is higher. That is fair, but are those comparisons useful if we are not willing to look at them in the context in which those jurisdictions operate? What interventions and support services exist there? What resources are available? What responsibilities are placed on other Departments? What outcomes have been achieved? Is all of that together in one report? Is it something that the Executive are taking forward?”
“<BR /> <BR />I will move on to speaking about victims. There is the uncomfortable reality that some children commit extremely serious offences. Victims do not experience less harm because the person responsible is a particular age. The families of lost loved ones do not suffer less because the offender is a child. Communities affected by serious violence do not experience that harm any less. That does not mean that children should be treated as adults — far from it — but it does mean that any reform must carefully balance the developmental needs of a child, the rights of victims and the need to maintain public confidence in the justice system. <BR /> <BR />If children as young as 10 are committing serious offences, as I said at the start, we have a serious problem.”
“It is aye or no, but I do not have the context to go down the route of saying aye. I will go through the No Lobby when we vote, but, if I were to have the context that neither you nor the Executive have provided, I might go through the Aye Lobby. We can change our mind if information is available. I think that you said that Mr Frew's position may be movable, yet now you say that mine is not, because it is either yes or no. I have spoken to the various children's sector organisations and said to them, "I'm movable on this, but provide me with data and information". It is not about rehashing reports but about doing it from an Executive perspective. Minister, I will keep reiterating the point that you need Executive support, and I do not think that you have it. I know that you do not have it, because the amendment is a Back-Bench amendment.”
“Minister, I do not accept that summary of what I set out. It is not a case of accepting it or not: there is context. There is data.”
“My point is not about the commencement but about what happens prior to the commencement. You may be convinced of that, but I am not, and that is why I am not supporting it. It is because of my 12 years of experience in my constituency office and seeing the failures that happen to our children day in, day out. That is my biggest worry. If we get it wrong, everybody loses. The child who has offended loses and does not get the intervention that they need; the child who is at risk of offending does not necessarily get the support early enough to prevent it; and the victim may not receive the accountability that they expect.”
“I appreciate that, but are you convinced that those things will be put in place prior to that commencement? Are you convinced that the Minister of Health, the Minister for Communities and the Minister of Education — if his support is required — will commit to that, despite the fact that they have not supported this at the Executive?”
“— many statutory obligations are not being upheld, so why would I be convinced that this one would be upheld? <BR /> <BR />Go ahead.”
“It is across the board, it is cross-cutting, it requires a holistic approach, and I am not convinced. <BR /> <BR />Again, this is not an argument for criminalising children, despite what others may accuse me of. It is an indictment of the failures that occur long before the child reaches the point of crisis; it is an indictment of the opportunities that were missed; it is an indictment of the interventions that never happened; and it is an indictment of the wider system that often waits for too long to respond and does not do so until the child is in crisis. If we are going to remove a framework, we have a responsibility to demonstrate that there is something better to replace it. It is not good enough to say that the statutory obligation will require that, because, as I said —”
“We have to be uncomfortable with the fact that, for some of the most vulnerable children in our society — I regret saying this — contact with the justice system may be one of the first points at which they receive consistent intervention, structured support or sustained engagement from public services. Sadly, that is my experience. I appreciate what is happening in Foyle and Belfast, but that is not necessarily happening in East Londonderry or other constituencies across Northern Ireland. Unless we have a consistent approach — we will not, because a lot of it is from community and voluntary interventions, and we know how unstable the funding is in those areas — we will not have the ideal that you describe. Again, I come back to our Executive. I do not see the commitment there to what we are trying to do.”
“<BR /> <BR />It is a difficult and serious issue when I am not supporting it, because I like to think that I take a reasoned position on this. I hear all different perspectives in the House, so, if I am not supporting it, maybe you should understand why rather than criticising the reasons just because I disagree with you. <BR /> <BR />Those are fundamental questions. I am not comfortable with criminalising 10-year-olds, but neither am I comfortable that we are removing a framework without being satisfied that there is something better ready to take its place.”
“Why stop the conversation there? Why not commit in your final months as Justice Minister to put that review in place and to open up the conversation? <BR /> <BR />As I said, I commend the proponents of the amendments for bringing this conversation forward and into the public domain. That is important, but let us do it in a way that convinces not just me. I do not stand here on my own behalf. I stand here as a representative of my constituents, and it is many of them who are saying this to me. For you to disregard that and to be quite indignant about that is disappointing. How we move forward in the debate is not by calling people names in relation to sitting on the fence. It is to be responsible about the job that we need to do in the Assembly.”
“Minister, you are misrepresenting me. I did not say that. I said that I am sympathetic to what you are trying to do. I am just not sympathetic with how you are trying to do it. A Back-Bench amendment is not the appropriate vehicle by which to do it. I would much rather see a collective Executive response, and I reiterate that, because the support and implementation required would come not only from your Department but from Health, Communities and Education, and we are not seeing that. Therefore, I think that it is dangerous. It is not me trying to ride two horses. Again, if we were in a similar circumstance to where this has been implemented across the world, I would be more sympathetic. Minister, there is context to everything, and the context does not exist for this to be an appropriate or safe amendment moving forward.”
“I am taking a decision not to support the amendments, because I see the difficulty with them on the ground. It is not to do with my time in Justice; I have already said that. It is to do with my 12 years' experience of working on the ground, chatting to the statutory agencies and seeing the pressure that they are under and the failures that happen. When police officers who are aware of what we are trying to do come to me saying, "Don't do it. We will be worse off", that gives me pause for thought. It should certainly give you, as Minister of Justice, pause for thought.”
“Well, Minister, that is the reality of the Executive that you are part of.”
“No, I will make progress, because I expect that the intervention will be more of the same. <BR /> <BR />What I suggest to you is that, if you want to move forward on the issue, which you and your colleagues are clearly so passionate about — as I said, I am not unsympathetic to what you are trying to do — you need to convince us as Members to do that. My job as a Back-Bench MLA is to hold to account the Northern Ireland Executive of which you are part. If you are telling me that you are unable to convince your colleagues in the Executive, what confidence do I have, as a Back-Bench Member who scrutinises that Executive, that we are going to —?”
“Wow, Minister. I think that you are failing to govern, which is why this is being introduced as a Back-Bench amendment by your party. What I am suggesting to you is —.”
“No, Minister, I am not making excuses for taking no decision; I have said that I cannot accept the premise of the change on the basis of amendments, because I am not convinced that that is the right way to do it. I have heard others say the same. With respect, Minister, if you cannot do it as a Minister in the Northern Ireland Executive, and we are recognising that, why are you in the Executive?”
“Quite frankly, most people are only hearing about this because of the debate today. I commend the proponents of the amendment for doing it, because we are finally having the conversation. Sadly, the reality is that we still will not go anywhere with it. I recommend that the Minister takes forward something on her own initiative and calls the bluff of those who say that this is something that we need by saying, "OK, Executive colleagues. If this isn't fully worked out from an Executive perspective, let's do it with a cross-departmental approach". If you are not going to do that, where do we move next?”
“I agree with that, but, unfortunately, when Ministers do not support a proposal and there is not collective responsibility at the Executive table, that is what it ends up being. Maybe that is a criticism of our Government and how issues are taken forward. <BR /> <BR />The point that I am trying to make is that I do not disagree with the principle of what we are trying to do. This should be about recognising why children commit crime. I get your point about reports and all of that, but what has followed? The amendment is not the result of a recommendation that has been fulfilled from an Executive report; it is a Back-Bench amendment to the Justice Bill. <BR /> <BR />Over recent days, people have said that we need to have this conversation more widely in the public domain. That is fair.”
“By all means pursue that, but you are asking me to vote on a policy change that requires that input and commitment. Sadly, I do not see it.”
“Does that include reducing the minimum age of criminal responsibility? If that is the case, why is this a Back-Bench amendment to a Justice Bill?”
“Minister, with respect, how many recommendations from those reports have been implemented?”
“Otherwise, the Minister would have introduced the measure in her Bill, it would have been signed off by her Executive colleagues, and we would not be debating it as a Back-Bench amendment to a Justice Bill. That is what worries me. <BR /> <BR />l will recommend something to the Minister, because we are where we are with the petition of concern. I would really like to see a review of why children commit crime, one that looks at all the things that she has talked about, building on the Ray Jones review, but also looks at what Health is not doing and what Communities is not doing.”
“It is the silo approach to our government. It is the fact that the Departments are not working together. That is the failure. That is where progress has not happened. I appreciate what the Minister said about a trauma-informed approach. Prior to her being announced as Justice Minister, I met with her permanent secretary and ensured that, had I been given the role, we would have put together a trauma-informed approach. I recognise and commend the work that goes on in the Department of Justice, and I commend communities for doing that work too. The biggest problem for me is that the people who would make the decisions and drive forward and fully implement the change are not on board. They are not.”
“No, I want to finish my point. I will give way in a minute. <BR /> <BR />My point is that, if we cannot get that commitment around the Executive table, how can we genuinely ensure that what we are trying to do will be fully implemented? That is a risk.”
“I did not say that progress was not happening outside of the Building. My point was that progress has not happened inside it. Otherwise, the measure would be in a stand-alone Bill introduced by the Minister of Justice, not an amendment from one of her party colleagues on the Back Benches. The reason that it has been brought forward in an amendment by one her party colleagues on the Back Benches is that she could not get Executive agreement for it. The point that I am trying to make —.”
“<BR /> <BR />I appreciate that there have been reports, including the Ray Jones report, which was published in 2023. However, the change does not have the commitment of the Executive, nor does it have the commitment of public services across Northern Ireland. People are genuinely fearful that we are doing this too soon. I say that reluctantly, because, as I said earlier, we have been having this conversation for 10-plus years. What have we been doing in those 10-plus years? That is not a criticism of the Justice Minister. This place was down, and we could not pursue that. Unfortunately, we were too distracted by other things that do not have an impact on people's lives as much as issues such as this do.”