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 2 of 45.
“Minister, I agree with you, but what is being proposed is the end point rather than being about how we get there. I will continue, and the Minister can interject as appropriate. Had this proposal come before the Assembly as part of a fully developed Executive strategy, not a Justice proposal as such, but supported by the Department of Health, the Department of Education, the Department for Communities and the Department of Justice — we are capable of doing that, because we have seen it with the ending violence against women and girls strategy — with clear plans, clear responsibilities and clear funding attached, I would support what is being asked for. What we are seeing, however, is the end action, if you like, for something that has not been fully thought through.”
“I am going to take an intervention from the Minister, because she asked first.”
“I will finish my point, Minister. My difficulty is that I do not disagree with the principle of what we are trying to achieve here. I entirely agree that we need to approach this matter in a different way, and not in a punitive way. We need to do that with the appropriate support services in place. Given my daily conversations with social workers in my constituency, who struggle in a different capacity, I do not think that we have thought through how this will work in practice. That really concerns me.”
“With respect, how we treat people will depend on finances and on the public service response. Quite frankly, that just does not exist.”
“I do not think that we do. I am happy to be challenged on that, but having listened to the debate, I have heard the punitive arguments. That is why, I believe, I am putting forward a different argument. I am not disagreeing with what people are trying to achieve here. I agree that 10 is too young, but what is the alternative? What is the replacement for that?”
“I say that not from my experience as Justice Minister — I was in the job for merely nine months — but from my experience of being an MLA for 12 years and seeing the failure on the ground to support children. I will cover it in my contribution, but my view comes from a place of genuine fear about expectations that are based on research and data from across the world. Does that apply in the context of Northern Ireland? Does it apply in the context of silo government and public services that are at capacity and for which there is no money? I am not sure that it does. We have to be careful about assuming that the outcomes that research and evidence have found across the world apply to the Northern Ireland context, because that is to assume that we have in place all the things that others have.”
“I appreciate that, and I have reviewed the Ray Jones report. I can see the groundwork that has been laid, but my difficulty is that that was a health and social care report. Minister, with respect, if we were going to get the support from an Executive who have to follow through on legislation, the change would have been agreed at the Executive table. I am therefore battling a little with the fact that if you, as Minister of Justice, cannot convince your Executive colleagues, who, ultimately, have to implement the change, to agree to it, where will the commitment come from to put in place the services that we need? <BR /> <BR />I appreciate what you say about putting the cart before the horse, but it is such a serious issue.”
“I am sympathetic to that, because progress has not been made by the Executive or through a private Member's Bill. My difficulty is that I do not share that confidence that the support systems will follow, because, throughout the mandate, we have repeatedly heard Ministers, Departments and public bodies explain that existing statutory responsibilities cannot be fully delivered because funding is unavailable or resources are stretched beyond capacity. Against that backdrop, I struggle to understand why we should assume that creating new obligations will automatically produce the services that are currently missing.”
“It is the cost of failure in our society. If we are serious about reducing offending among children, we need to understand why children offend in the first place. We need evidence, interventions and properly funded support services, and we need to identify vulnerability earlier and respond to it more effectively. <BR /> <BR />One of my concerns about the debate, which has been stalled for many years, is that those who support change are seeking to use the Justice Bill as the vehicle to move the conversation forward, and I understand why. There is a belief that, if the law changes now, the support systems to enable the change will follow and a belief that the amendment may be the only available opportunity to make progress at this time.”
“Too often, the justice system is asked to deal with children whose difficulties began long before they ever came in contact with the police or even became known to social services, because many of them have experienced trauma, neglect, family breakdown, mental health difficulties, educational disadvantage, involvement with criminal influences or coercive control by paramilitary organisations. Many have been manipulated. Many are being exploited. By the time that they enter the justice system, multiple opportunities for intervention will have been missed. In truth, it is not a Department of Justice issue; it is a Department of Health issue, a Department of Education issue and a Department for Communities issue as well. It becomes an issue for the Department of Justice only after all the other systems fail.”
“While I agree with the argument for change, in principle, I remain unconvinced that we have done the work that is necessary to make that change be successful in practice.”
“They are susceptible to trauma, adverse childhood experiences and negative influences. Sadly, many children today, not least in Northern Ireland, are exposed to more of those influences than previous generations were. They are less able to assess risk, understand consequences and regulate their behaviour. For that reason, I believe that a legitimate conversation needs to be had about whether the current minimum age of criminal responsibility remains appropriate. Indeed, that is not a new conversation. It crossed my desk 10 years ago, when I was Minister of Justice. It was a difficult issue then, and it remains a difficult issue now, with little movement in those 10 years. I do not dismiss the arguments that have been made for change. Indeed, there is much in those arguments that I agree with in theory.”
“I am sure that you are all delighted to see me stand to give my contribution — well, we will see. Thank you, Mr Speaker. <BR /> <BR />I hope to give a different perspective from that of other Members. I am not able to support any of the amendments, and, in my contribution, I will explain why. <BR /> <BR />If children as young as 10 are coming into contact with the criminal justice system, we have a serious problem, and that should concern all of us. It should force us to ask difficult questions about what has happened in that child's life long before they ever reached that point, and I appreciate that other Members acknowledged that in their contributions. <BR /> <BR />Most of us instinctively recognise that children are different from adults. They are still developing emotionally, psychologically and socially.”
“On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Can I confirm that "all parties" includes the two independent Members? I have not had any opportunity through representatives of a party, because I do not belong to one, to say what I need to say in the debate. May I suggest that the Members who do not want to continue with the debate remove their names from the speaking list?”
“<BR /> <BR />What troubles me most is that much of what we are seeing appears to be driven by fear, misinformation and deliberate provocation. Northern Ireland has experienced significant demographic change in recent years. That is the reality. Immigration policy is a matter for the UK Government, and people are entitled to expect leadership on these issues. However, whatever concerns people may have, there is no justification for what we have witnessed on our streets. For too long, politics has been shaped by fear caused by one group or another. Twenty or thirty years ago, that was through a sectarian lens. Today, in some quarters, it is through a racial lens, and we should all know better.”
“They are entitled to question how immigration is managed and to debate pressures on housing, public services and integration. Those conversations are entirely legitimate. However, what is not legitimate is using concerns as an excuse for violence, intimidation or hatred. Many of the people who have been targeted in recent days are our neighbours, our colleagues and our friends. They work in our hospitals, our care homes, our schools, our hospitality sector and businesses across Northern Ireland. The reality is that many of our public services and businesses would struggle enormously without them. Their value, however, is not simply in the work that they do. Their value is in the fact that they are people — individuals — who have chosen to build their lives here, raise their families and contribute to our communities.”
“They have acknowledged the deeply valuable contribution that migrants make to our society, and they have made it clear that the attack should not be used to divide people or fuel hostility. We should be led by their example. Despite their pain, their anger and their concern for their loved one, they have shown more leadership than most. They understand that attacking innocent people will not help the victim; they understand that targeting entire communities will not deliver justice; and they understand that exploiting a tragedy for other purposes helps nobody. <BR /> <BR />I have heard from constituents who have concerns about immigration, and it would be dishonest to pretend otherwise. People are entitled to hold views on migration policy.”
“The events that we witnessed across Northern Ireland over the past week were shameful. A man was seriously injured in a horrific attack. The person accused of carrying out that attack has now been arrested and charged. Our focus should remain on the victim, his family and the criminal proceedings that will now follow. Instead, however, we have seen homes attacked, businesses damaged, families intimidated, police officers assaulted and entire communities left fearful. None of those people was responsible for what happened last Monday evening. <BR /> <BR />Throughout all of that, the victim's family have shown dignity. Despite the unimaginable circumstances in which they find themselves, they have called for calm and for peaceful protest.”
“Would it not be wonderful if everybody got what they wanted out of the Bill and everybody supported it so that it could achieve its intended aims? However, if he does not do that, I suspect that Members will reach a different conclusion when the Bill returns to the Chamber. The wonderful thing is that, if the Minister does not do what needs to be done, the House hopefully will.”
“The debate, at its heart, is about the balance between accountability and trust, between effective inspection and professional autonomy and between protecting educational standards and maintaining positive industrial relations with a profession that is already under considerable strain. I am content to support the Bill at Second Stage, but, if the concerns raised by teachers are not addressed through scrutiny and amendment, Members should not assume that I will support it at Final Stage. We will see whether we get that far. <BR /> <BR />The Minister still has time to build confidence in the provisions. I look forward to seeing how he will do that as the Bill progresses through its stages. If he does that, the Bill will become stronger.”
“Hopefully, the legislative steps will allow us to do that.”
“I have sympathy for them, because I have a partner who works in that area, but I am not raising these concerns out of my own interests; I am raising them because a number of people whom I represent have raised them with me. One message that I hear consistently is that teachers need support, not more challenge. In some ways, that is why teaching is different from other professions. Other professions have this process in place, but we are bringing it in for teachers at a point when it feels like just another thing that they have to deal with. That context is really important, particularly if we want to implement the Bill effectively for the reasons that we say we do and with the intentions that we say we have. We need to bring people along with us. I am not entirely sure that we are doing that with the approach that we are taking.”
“I agree that, if we cannot shape the clause in the way we need to, we should just vote it down and take forward the Bill that was probably intended from the outset. <BR /> <BR />The concerns that have been raised by teachers deserve to be taken seriously. The Minister needs to demonstrate not only what problem he is seeking to solve but why this particular approach is necessary and proportionate and that it will be accompanied by the appropriate safeguards. Equally, can the Minister achieve his objective in a way that teachers understand and support? Ultimately, that is why we are here and spending so long on the Bill's Second Stage. I am not a teacher.”
“<BR /> <BR />I recognise the value of the legislative process. It is disappointing that some would seek to not allow it to progress, but I hope that the majority in the House will, because it is at the next stage that it can be heard. If we all support about two thirds of the Bill, my concern is about what will happen to that two thirds if the Bill is voted down tonight. What will happen to the obligations from the Supreme Court judgement? Will they just lie on a shelf until the next election or until we get a further court ruling? It would be bit irresponsible to throw the baby out with the bathwater. I am confused by parties taking that position. Everyone seems to support the other two clauses but not that one particular clause, and we can address that in the other stages of the Bill process.”
“I have a few questions. The Member has talked about what the Bill says and does not say, but is it clear? Is what it says enough? What exactly constitutes a failure to cooperate? What protections exist for those who participate in lawful industrial action? How will disciplinary powers be exercised in practice? What safeguards will prevent disproportionate sanctions? How do we ensure that legitimate professional disagreement is not conflated with misconduct? There are important and necessary elements in the legislation, and those warrant progression. I want to be clear, however, that my support for the Bill at this stage — believe it or not, David, I will support it at this stage — should not be interpreted as support for every clause as it is currently drafted, nor should it be interpreted as support for the Bill at Final Stage.”
“I take that point. Equally, although it may be a copy-and-paste email, everybody who puts their name and address to such an email feels strongly enough to want to send it. I would not undermine that. Indeed, I respond to every such email that I receive, because I respect the fact that those people have taken the time to engage with it. I appreciate the fact that that may be led by someone who exists to lead it, but I would not seek to undermine those emails just because they all say the same thing, because the people who send them feel strongly that what it says represents how they feel. I cannot reiterate that point strongly enough. The Minister and his party may disagree with that, but we need to recognise that that is how people feel and that that is how they interpret the Bill. <BR /> <BR />I will quickly make progress.”
“In fairness, it is not just about the Members over there; it is about the number of emails that we have received from across Northern Ireland. If it was one or two, maybe we would accept that as an anomaly, but what we received —. I know that, to an extent, that is driven by the unions, but that is why they exist. It points to a systemic issue. I have said a number of times that I would rather we deal with it upstream so that, if there are problems, they do not get to that point. If they do so, ultimately, who suffers? It is our children.”
“If that is the case, there is a significant misunderstanding. Why is there a significant misunderstanding? It is not —.”
“Equally, however, we can improve things if we support teachers more. My approach would be to speak to teachers on the ground — speak to the unions, but speak to the teachers on the ground as well — and ask them what would improve the inspections. As the Minister said, teachers welcomed inspections in religious education because they helped bring a standard to it; most teachers do. I receive emails from teachers across my constituency saying that they have had a wonderful ETI report, and I congratulate them on that. They are really proud of that. If anything it sets a standard and a bar. The difficulty with the legislation is the sanction that it imposes. That is not to say that we should not move to that in future if people do not play ball, but we have to give them the cards to play with, and we are not giving them the full deck.”
“Support and communication: we have to support our teachers more. I understand the budget pressures that the Minister is under in trying to provide an ideal education system that supports teachers in the way that many of us advocate. However, we are going down a route of, "Well, if it doesn't happen, let's just sanction people", and that is where the difficulty is. People are desperate for additional support — I genuinely mean it when I say that they are crying out for help — and, in doing so, they are now faced with potential sanctions because they are not working in an environment that provides that support, and then these mistakes happen, potentially. <BR /> <BR />That is not to say that we should not hold people to account for mistakes, but the purpose of doing so should not be to get someone in trouble; it should be to improve things.”
“Originally, the Minister consulted on criminal sanctions for obstructing inspections, but that proposal is no longer before us, thank goodness. I heard the Minister describe what is in the Bill as a compromise, but I will say to him — it is worth listening to this — that teachers still feel that it uses a sledgehammer to crack a nut and are concerned because, whilst the outcome might not be a criminal conviction, it still makes them feel vulnerable. <BR /> <BR />If there are issues in our teaching system, that is, in most cases, probably because of the pressures that teachers are under. We therefore have a responsibility to recognise not just the crime, if that is what you like to call it, but what leads people to commit it. I would apply that across every Department.”
“To come back to what the Minister was talking about, is the mechanism proposed in the Bill the right one?”
“Sometimes, the only support that they get, Minister, is from their trade unions, and even that is limited. To an extent, I sympathise with the trade unions: they are using every tool in their box because they feel that they have no choice. I do not necessarily agree with that, but let us understand why they are doing it rather than just saying no. <BR /> <BR />I return to the point that I was making before David's intervention: inspection is an important part of our education system. Parents rightly expect standards to be monitored. Every Member in the Chamber, as a taxpayer, expects that. Children deserve a system that identifies problems and supports improvement. Safeguarding arrangements must be effective. Every Member in the Chamber should agree that none of those objectives should be controversial.”
“I thank the Minister for that, and I get it. The general point is that they call for action because they feel that they have no choice. Do I agree with that? Not necessarily, but we would be better to understand the why rather than the how, as all of us would then end up in the appropriate place. If I was to sum up my contribution, it would be that we need to talk, communicate and understand more. This feels like a dogmatic, stick approach from the Department when teachers are saying, "You know what? Just support us, Minister. Support us and understand our workload". I declare an interest: my husband is a lecturer in further education, and I fully appreciate and sympathise in respect of the workloads, the strains and the additional difficulties.”
“The work that we do in the Chamber is done on behalf of the people whom we represent, and that includes teachers as well as parents and kids who go to school, so, absolutely, we have to bring people along with us, as they are important stakeholders in the conversations. I do not feel that the Bill necessarily does that. The last-minute approach that most of us got in those emails show that they feel like they have been a bit wronged. Maybe all of us, whatever side of the debate we are on, need to take a step back and listen. There is value in doing that at the next stages of the legislative process.”
“If we are looking at this, we have to put in place something in the form of engagement. <BR /> <BR />I do not even know what the sanctions are. If you let me progress with my contribution, I will ask those questions of the Minister. That is important. Teachers are not sitting here tonight because they do not want to be held to account; it is quite the opposite. They just want to know what it means for them and whether it will mean another burden in a job that most of them went into because they love it. They do not want to feel every day of the week that they are doing something wrong — to feel that shadow over them.”
“I will give way in a second. <BR /> <BR />That is the frustration that we hear from the teaching profession: too often, we approach this negatively. I am not unrealistic or naive enough to assume that there are not situations in which we absolutely must take action, but teachers feel that this is being levied on all of them, even though everybody in the Chamber, including the Minister, knows how incredible our schools and our teaching profession are. At the other end, it is not good either. <BR /> <BR />I am not saying that I will vote down the Bill, but I have a concern about the mechanism that we are using to enforce inspections in the way that we are. To me, it is a dogmatic way of looking at this. I take your point about other professions, but those things have existed and are part of their framework and part of how we move forward.”
“What you propose is using a stick, rather than a carrot, to enforce the inspections.”
“I thank the Member for his contribution. If he had focused on the start of my contribution, he would know that I mentioned that it is not about not having school inspections; it is about the sanction that follows. Ultimately, it is an enforcement issue. Is that the right mechanism?”
“<BR /> <BR />For years, teachers have been telling us that the demands placed on them are becoming increasingly difficult to sustain. Sadly, many teachers do not look at the proposals and see support; many see another layer of pressure being added to an already stretched profession. Many feel that they have not been listened to for years. What they see in the Bill is not support: they see another sanction. That may not be the Minister's intention, but that is how the provisions are being received by many in the profession. That really should concern all of us.”
“They are identifying safeguarding concerns, supporting young people with mental health and special educational needs and dealing with the consequences of pressures that, elsewhere, our public services are failing to deal with. The reality of today's classroom is very different from what it was even a number of years ago. As support services have come under pressure, more and more responsibility has fallen on schools and, ultimately, on our teachers. We speak regularly in the Chamber about waiting lists for child and adolescent mental health services (CAMHS), pressures in special educational needs, difficulties accessing assessment and the growing complexity that we now see, yet we do not always acknowledge the impact that those pressures have on teachers and on the environment in which they work.”
“Lessons have to be prepared, work has to be marked, reports have to be completed, parents have to be contacted and pastoral issues have to be managed. That work does not begin and end in term time. I think that many of us assume that, for teachers, school's out for summer, but many of them spend significant parts of their evenings, weekends and school holidays preparing for the year ahead, because, while they are teaching our children during the day, much of that additional work has to be done outside the classroom. <BR /> <BR />Increasingly, teachers help children to navigate challenges that extend far beyond education.”
“What struck me most about those emails was that I was being asked to reject the Bill outright in very few of them; in fact, many explicitly supported the religious education provisions and accepted that legislative change is required in that area. Their concerns, as we have heard, focused on the disciplinary provisions. I do not believe that teachers are raising those concerns because they are opposed to accountability, nor do I believe that they are arguing that schools should never be inspected. I hear something quite different. Teachers talk about increasing workloads, the growing administrative burden, recruitment difficulties, retention challenges and the increasing complexity of the issues that they are dealing with every day. The school day does not end when the bell rings.”
“If we expect that to happen elsewhere in our education system, it is difficult to argue that religious education should sit outside that framework. <BR /> <BR />Similarly, I understand the rationale behind extending inspection arrangements to education providers that currently sit outside existing structures. Where public money is being invested in education provision, there is a legitimate public interest in ensuring that provision can be assessed appropriately. <BR /> <BR />Members will not be surprised to learn that my concerns relate almost entirely to the provisions on inspections, cooperation and disciplinary action. Like other Members, I have received many emails from teachers, school leaders and union members.”
“Like other Members, there are aspects of the Bill that I support — indeed, I support two thirds of it — but there is an area that concerns me. Members will not be surprised, given the debate, to hear what that area is. <BR /> <BR />I will start with the provisions relating to religious education. It seems that there is broad recognition across the Chamber that the Assembly simply cannot ignore the Supreme Court judgement. The court identified a gap in the current arrangements. It is therefore our responsibility as legislators to respond to that judgement. I have no difficulty anyway with the principle that religious education should be subject to inspection in the same way as other areas of the curriculum; of course it should be. Inspection is ultimately about transparency, accountability and ensuring that standards are met.”
“<BR /> <BR />By all means, let us move the Bill to the next stage, get it into Committee and then to Consideration Stage, where we will go through it clause by clause and ensure that we get it right and end a practice that, I think, most people in Northern Ireland would like to see end.”
“The activity still exists in Northern Ireland. Quite frankly, I am horrified by that. I think that most of us, on seeing the worst effects of that activity, will be horrified. If the Assembly cannot legislate to ban that type of behaviour, I am really unsure about what the purpose of this place is. That is not to say that we should not listen to all those involved; it is not to say that we should not correct some of the misinformation that is being put out there; and it is not to say that we should not improve the law and take each word and phrase as it is. As I have said a couple of times, we need to look at it in the context of the wider legal framework, of case law and of what these things mean. That is how judges will interpret it, which is important.”
“However, it is not unreasonable for us to conclude that some practices really should end, even if they have existed historically. It is also notable that many people are surprised to learn that the activity remains lawful in Northern Ireland at all. <BR /> <BR />There will be aspects of the Bill that require amendment or tightening as it progresses. We can learn from other parts of the UK about what not to do. If anything, if Northern Ireland is late in legislating where other regions have legislated, there is a benefit to that: we can strengthen areas where criticisms have existed. <BR /> <BR />At this stage, we are being asked whether the principle of the legislation deserves further scrutiny and development. In my view, it does. As I have said a number of times during my contribution, the issue has not gone away.”
“I appreciate that. I think that I have said already that what exists in other parts of the UK is not perfect. I appreciate that there are criticisms about implementation. <BR /> <BR />That having been said, the core principle of what Mr Blair is trying to do is to remove the barbarity that exists in the countryside in Northern Ireland. Maybe we should do more to ensure that we implement it better, but, ultimately, it is about the principle and the message that we are sending, which is that that activity just is not acceptable. It is not acceptable simply because it is something that we have always done and it is tradition. The Assembly has consistently legislated on standards, behaviour and welfare as society has evolved. This is one of those issues, albeit a number of years too late.”
“The current issue on which we are trying to legislate does a disservice to those individuals, because they are then characterised in a certain way. As I said, such a law has existed in England and Wales for over 20 years. Changes have also been made in Scotland in that regard. There was a private Member's Bill on the issue in the previous mandate. It is not as though there has not been enough warning about the issue of hunting animals with dogs, but nothing has changed: that barbaric activity still exists. I say this to the Member and others who oppose the Bill: I have yet to meet anyone or read suggestions or comments from anyone who supports that barbaric treatment of animals. We are trying to ban that activity.”