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 20 of 45.
“I appreciate the Member's giving way. I understand what he says, but I see my role as an MLA to lobby Ministers on policy. I am held to account by the people whom I represent to ensure that I do that. I have great difficulty here, where it feels like a civil servant is holding me to account. That is not the right dynamic or direction of travel. I am held to account by the people of East Londonderry, not by a record kept by a civil servant. I would not support it if it stayed limited to a Minister's political party, but I would offer that we could extend that to political peers in the sense that it is Ministers and MLAs, if that is appropriate.”
“I suppose, but we need to clarify that, because, from my experience, those conversations and agreements on the actions to be taken forward did not happen just in Castle Buildings. For example, I was receiving phone calls at all hours of the evening about departmental policy that was immediate and required. Any intention behind that needs to be consistent, and such conversations do not happen just in a government building.”
“Those are a couple of areas where I have concerns, and I look forward to hearing Mr Allister address them.”
“I am happy to support that. <BR /> <BR />I am generally supportive of everything else, and I look forward to Mr Allister's responses to some of my points. There is an interesting point about record-keeping. As MLAs, we are already, to a degree, governed by law, such as the general data protection regulation (GDPR). I would be interested to hear whether what Mr Allister has drafted is compliant with the laws that are in place. For example, there is an amendment in relation to lobbying. If you are taking a record of people's details, do you have to let them know that you have done that? Do you have to dispose of it within a certain time frame? Is it even appropriate to keep that information if you are not going to use it because, for example, the lobbying intent might not have had any value?”
“If we were to include records of extended family members, we would be here all day and would get no business done. We need to limit what it means. I felt that it was already expressed in the standards for MLAs, particularly in relation to financial interests, but we may want to consider that before making it a necessity. <BR /> <BR />On the criminal offence of improper benefit to any person or third party, I do not think that there is anything more to say on that. If it is improper and intentional, people need to be held to account, particularly when dealing with the disclosure of government information. That is not appropriate. We cannot, on the one hand, say that we cannot take records of meetings because of the development of policy and then find ourselves, on the other hand, disclosing that information for other purposes.”
“Yes, I concur with Mr Muir and with Mr Allister on that point: we live in Northern Ireland, and everyone is related to everyone”
“Mr Muir talked about the issue with close family members. I thought that that was a technical point, although maybe Mr Allister will correct me. I had assumed that the Register of Members' Interests had confined it to more immediate family members and that removing "close" was just to tidy up the wording because it was already covered. I am not sure whether that is the case, Mr Allister.”
“I am not against it. We should absolutely extend it to special advisers, particularly if it is a political appointment. If anything, that keeps everyone right and ensures that your pursuit is within the confines of what anyone thinks it is for.”
“Perhaps the amendment will help to explore those things if Ministers are ever held to account. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 17 deals with the register of interests. I have no difficulty with that. I would have assumed that to become a Minister you already have to be an MLA and, as such, that register of interests would already be in place. Certainly, when I register my interests, I look across the wide remit of every Department. If I were to find myself in, say, the Department of Justice or the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, those interests would already have been disclosed in some way.”
“window, but is it reasonably practical? I will be the first to admit that, with the level of correspondence that I receive, it takes up to a month to get back to constituents. That is how busy I am, and that is how heavy my workload is. Forty-eight hours may seem reasonable and, perhaps, if you are in a Department, you prioritise those things, but, my goodness, I prioritise everything at the minute but am still not getting back to people as soon as I would like. We need to be mindful that, in practice, these things may not necessarily work out. Are we really going to criminalise people for that? I probably would never become a Minister again if that became the case, because I would be held to account for something that it was not my intent to do.”
“Yes, and I think that that is where the limitation of this law lies. In my experience, the systems that we use today and tomorrow will not be the systems that we will be using in five to 10 years, yet we might enshrine something in law that potentially has an expiry date because of technological developments. I appreciate the:”
“I want those things to be accessible to me, because, when you are driving an hour and a half down the road to East Londonderry, it is those things that make the job much easier. I recognise the intent behind the amendment, but let us be realistic about what is needed in order to put that into place. Perhaps it is something that we will just have to put in place if it finds its way into law.”
“It would not have been possible for me to forward or cc such messages in the Department of Justice, because it is just not possible. My special adviser at the time had to go home with an additional box attached to her laptop, which was clunky and awful, in order to be able to do her job. She was not able to access things if she was not going through that laptop. <BR /> <BR />I do not disagree with the point. We should try as far as possible to use official systems, not least for the protection of the information. If we are to do that, however, we need to put the technology in place so that the official systems are accessible. As a younger MLA, I want my diary on my phone. I want my papers, which used to come in two big briefcases, to be available on my tablet.”
“To be fair to Mr Allister, there may be an opportunity with the amendment or in the process itself to determine what the intent was, but perhaps that is just process. <BR /> <BR />I will now talk about the use of official systems, and I will again speak specifically about the Department of Justice. The official system there is much more obstructive, if you like, than any of the other systems in government. The email addresses for the Department contain "x.gsi.gov.uk", and there is a firewall there. To be honest, it is a really antiquated system. If we compare it with other systems and security Departments in jurisdictions in the United Kingdom, it is outdated. If I am to support Mr Allister's amendment about systems, for a start, we need to upgrade those systems and make them workable.”
“It is difficult to do what the amendment suggests, and it does put a real burden on the Minister. We as politicians are, after all, human and may aspire to ministerial office. I feel uncomfortable that, where the constraints and limitations placed on the job are envisaged in the legislation in order to have the perfect Minister, they are not practical, and perhaps the intent is not that. <BR /> <BR />The Bill came from a specific place: to address a lot of the issues that arose out the scandal of a couple of years ago. That is not a bad intent by any means, but we have to be careful to remember that most people do not have those intentions. Are we going to throw the baby out with the bathwater by limiting some people in their job and applying sanctions to them, when perhaps theirs was just an error in judgement?”
“Is it just communication coming one way, or is it something that a Minister has responded to?”
“Do we include direct messages on Twitter or private messaging on Facebook or other forms of social media? I cannot begin to tell you, Mr Speaker; I have received hundreds of messages today. That puts a significant burden on me and my constituency office, and I am a representative of only one of 18 constituencies in Northern Ireland. I appreciate that there are Departments that are full of civil servants who could assist with that, but I do not think that it is as simple as saying that I can forward something on to the Minister. I spend hours daily forwarding my messages and capturing a record of that, probably for my own protection. Other Members have talked about that. If we are going to have a record of being lobbied, we need to be careful about what that looks like in practice and what it means.”
“<BR /> <BR />"Record of being lobbied" — I do find this one interesting. Andrew Muir raised the point that, in other jurisdictions, the emphasis is on the person who is doing the lobbying rather than the person who is being lobbied. I am studying for a master's degree in communication and political lobbying at Ulster University, and, for me, communication and lobbying are a two-way street. How do we draw a line over the potentially hundreds or thousands of people who contact us daily? Do we have to make a record of those, even if they were unsolicited? I appreciate that the Member has considered potentially limiting that, but it is unreasonable to expect that every time someone contacts you. Again, what does "contact" mean? Is it face-to-face contact?”
“Absolutely. Even from my experience this past weekend, I was in conversations with Ministers about the COVID-19 restrictions. It is not that I would feel uncomfortable that they would go back to the Department and say that they were speaking to me over the weekend, but I think that there is something about being able to engage or lobby. The two corridors either side of us are called Lobbies for a reason: they give Members the opportunity to lobby Ministers in that space. We are overstepping a little when we start to bring civil servants into holding Ministers and politicians to account. As a Back-Bench Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly, I certainly would not want to be held to account by a civil servant. I do not think that that is appropriate, and potentially it is what the amendment suggests.”
“I ask the Member for North Antrim to consider extending that exception to other politicians on the same level, rather than restricting it exclusively to a Minister's political party. I understand why that is the case, but I work alone and it is about those relationships and conversations that I have. If anyone remembers my time in the Department of Justice, it was important for me to have that engagement with Members without there being civil servants in the room. That dynamic could cause some issues with the conversations and the relationships that are necessary away from the gaze of civil servants. Politicians are the buffer, if you like, between civil servants and the people.”
“<BR /> <BR />I am keen to understand the Member's rationale for making an exception for a Minister's political party in amendment No 14. I understand that, but I stand here as the independent Member for East Londonderry, and I appreciate the engagement that I have with other political parties away from civil servants. I ask the Member, rather than making it specific to Ministers' political parties, to consider potentially making an exception for other peer-elected representatives. The political conversations and relationships that we have as Members are better served away from civil servants. <BR /> <BR />I always maintain that a Minister's role is not necessarily to be the head of a Department; I see it almost as a politician holding the Department to account from within. That cannot happen if civil servants are present at meetings.”
“I understand the purpose of the amendment, and I have no difficulty in keeping records of meetings. However, it perhaps goes a bit further than is necessary, and, as others said, it is perhaps disproportionate in that respect. I would be keen to see how to make it more workable in the practical day-to-day workings of running Departments. I appreciate that all those things seem like a good idea in theory. They support the ideas of accountability and transparency, and that is what we all should strive towards. However, their workability gives me some cause for concern and may lead some Ministers to, if you like, go underground, whereby they will not speak to their civil servants or express their concerns. I would not want it to have that unintended consequence, because I appreciate its intention and where it comes from.”
“I caution Mr Allister that maybe something could be put into the amendment about substantive meetings, which may be more valuable to make a record of. <BR /> <BR />There is another question that I will ask about the amendment. The Bill sponsor is quite clear in this and other amendments that he is talking about departmental meetings. In this new world of Zoom calls and video calls, are those included? Are we looking at virtual calls? Are we recording telephone calls? I can say from my own experience that it is very lonely being a Minister. If there is a sense that someone is always looking over your shoulder, whether it is with every good intention or even with bad intentions — it happens — that would leave me vulnerable in the sense that I would not want to talk to anyone. Where does that go where policymaking is concerned?”
“I will not go into detail on any amendments on the Marshalled List other than the ones that give me some issues or cause for concern; in most cases, that is probably quite minor. <BR /> <BR />I will start with amendment No 13, which relates to the records of internal departmental meetings. I have sympathy with Members who expressed concern about the burden that that may put on civil servants and Ministers in respect of their meetings. Even from a constituency office perspective, I am quite obsessive about keeping a record of any meetings that I have, whether those be via telephone, via video call, face to face or via social media. I must admit that that creates an awful burden for me, and, in some cases, I am not getting back to people for a month because of the level of correspondence that I receive.”
“I appreciate the Member's giving way. My initial apprehension about amendment No 4 is probably the same as that of other Members. It somehow suggested to me that there was a limitation of political discretion. Can I confirm with the Member — he will know this better than me — that any decisions or process that one Minister adopts will not limit any future Ministers, set a precedent of any sort or suggest that Ministers will be limited in having their political discretion? For me, rereading this, it seems as though you are essentially putting on record what, in your consideration, should already be done.”
“Sadly, however, as we have seen in what has characterised the past three or four years, that has not been the case. There is nothing wrong with putting on record, or putting into writing, what should be the case. Therefore, I support this group of amendments, although I seek clarity from Mr Allister in respect of amendment Nos 1 and 2.”
“<BR /> <BR />It is disappointing that some Members have chosen not to engage. As I said, we politicians are coming and going. Mr Allister tends to cause controversy and, to an extent, we like him for that. He is not here as Mr Jim Allister, private citizen; he is here representing the people of North Antrim, and when we disrespect him, in his office as MLA, we disrespect the mandate that the people of North Antrim gave him. We are all entitled to have that opinion. <BR /> <BR />We need to get back to ensuring the integrity of the Assembly and to building confidence among the public. To be fair to Mr Allister, we ask: should this Bill be necessary? No, it should not. I would like to think that people's good intentions drive what should be done.”
“I agree with the suggestion that we should reduce the number of special advisers in The Executive Office from eight to six. I do not see the necessity for having any more than that, particularly when you compare it with other jurisdictions, where there is not the same representation of spads in Departments. <BR /> <BR />It is important to put on record what special advisers are there for and what their purpose is. I have outlined that insofar as what I needed to do. It is interesting, because I am almost agreeing with everyone on this side of the House. I believe that, ultimately, the buck stops with the Minister, who is the appointing person. However, if we do not have the appropriate and relevant structures in place to ensure that Ministers are holding to account the people they appoint, maybe Mr Allister's Bill is necessary.”
“If anything, it puts on record what I believe should already happen, a process similar to that which I would have conducted when I was in that role: seeking the correct person for the job. It also allows for political discretion, in that the Minister creates the job description and person specification. Arguably, if a Minister already has someone in mind, they can write it in a particular way to allow that person to be appointed. All the amendment does is require a Minister to put it in writing and justify their decision. Therefore, while initially I was intent on not supporting that amendment, I do not believe that there is too much wrong with it.”
“Having scrutinised the wording, however, I do not believe that it does.”
“In a way, we would subject individuals to a disciplinary process by someone who is not their employer. How would that look under the current arrangements? <BR /> <BR />I do not disagree with the intent of accountability. We are all subject to accountability structures. Ironically, Ministers are not subject to the same accountability structures. Had that been an area that was strengthened, perhaps the Bill would not be necessary. As it is drafted, it feels like a blurring of lines in the relationship between employer and employee. I am keen to know whether that upholds current employment law or at least complements it. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 4 seems to have given some Members cause for concern. I did not initially like it. I felt that it created a process that could limit the political discretion of the appointment.”
“I want to speak to only the amendments that give rise to issues for me. That does not mean that I will necessarily stand in their way, but I would appreciate it if Mr Allister would give me some clarity around them. Amendment Nos 2 and 3 would ensure that special advisers will be subject to the same disciplinary process as civil servants. Who would conduct that process? Would it be the Civil Service? Is that appropriate, given that the Minister, not the Civil Service, appointed the person? I would have difficulty if the Northern Ireland Assembly Commission, for example, were to discipline my staff as the employer, albeit it pays the wages and sets the terms. Perhaps there is some way of tidying that up so that the reporting structure that is required in any employment contract is made clear.”
“The fact that it has been able to get to Consideration Stage shows that it is as much about process and governance as it is about any sort of political intent. Politicians come and go, but these institutions will remain. Why? There is no better alternative. Ironically, the Bill gives me hope. I believe that Mr Allister is seeking to improve these institutions, which leads me to believe that, one day, he might buy into them”
“I suspect that that is why he does it. I do, however, pay attention to his consideration of law, policy, process and detail and to his incredible ability to make sense of those things. I do not share Mr Allister's opinion of these institutions. I recognise the value of the devolved institutions, despite their dysfunctionality. I agree, however, with what Mr Allister said in his opening comments: the Bill is not politically written. It may have had a political intent, but Mr Allister is well aware, as we all are, that the golden rule of politics is that it is the art of the possible. Had the Bill been politically written rather than politically driven, it would not have been possible.”
“Again, I appreciate that my experience as an independent Member will be different from that of anyone who is in a political party, but this is about delivery, government and getting things done. Any Ministers who accept the role and are prepared to relinquish their power lack integrity. If they do that, it is clear to me that they took the job for the title and the salary, and nothing else. It is important that we move the focus away from bad spads. It is bad Ministers who have allowed this to happen. <BR /> <BR />During my time as an MLA, I have learnt not to pay too much attention to Mr Allister's theatrical performances. The media do a wonderful job of that”
“When I appointed my spad, it was really obvious to me that there was an unwritten rule that the special adviser was my responsibility; that she answered to me; that she was held to account by me; and that she could be removed by me. It was not an equal relationship, and my special adviser was certainly not superior to me. She understood that and had no difficulty with it. If any Ministers, on taking the role, agree to lesser terms than that, that is entirely on them. That is what I, as Minister, understood the role to be. I would not have accepted it had it been any other way. I would not have taken it up, because I would not have accepted the responsibility.”
“I did not want my special adviser to be political, albeit she was politically astute and had been politically active; I wanted her to help me deliver. I was very clear about that, as was she. <BR /> <BR />I can only speak from my experience, and I know that that is not how spads are typically appointed. I am in a unique position: as an independent MLA, I am not constrained by political party lines or political party history. For me, the job was always about getting the job done. That is what every Minister's intent should be. That is what they agree to when they accept the responsibilities of being a Minister. <BR /> <BR />During the sideshows of the RHI mess, I often heard, "Poor Minister Me. The big bad spad made me do it". The spad did not. You made a choice to accept the terms of the relationship when you agreed to be Minister.”
“That is an interesting point. My special adviser took a pay cut to take on the role of special adviser and lost out financially. That is how skilled and perfectly capable she was. I was going to come to that point, but I appreciate the Member making the point for me. She will not mind me saying that she took a pay cut. She worked for an international company with the vice president and had worked in New York, London, Belfast and Paris. She was an incredible and unassuming individual, and we really had the opportunity to do wonderful things. Undoubtedly, she was the best person for the job. Interestingly, I have no doubt that, had Mr Allister's Bill and arrangements been in place, she would have been the person who would have got the job on merit.”
“I received many CVs from people reaching out to offer their skills, and fair play to them for doing that and putting themselves out there. I considered them, if only to assure myself that the person that I was appointing was the right person for the job.”
“I generally support the group 1 amendments. I bring a level of experience to the debate, having appointed a special adviser. I want to put it on record that not all spads are bad, not all spads are party political: some are there to do the job as interpreted by the Minister who appointed them. My interpretation of the role of a spad was to assist in the delivery of government programmes, to oversee the work of a public-sector Department through strategic external experience, to build relationships with internal and external stakeholders, to be a sounding board to echo back to me the bad as well as the good, and to be someone that I could trust to have my back. Who could I, at 29 years old, know with those abilities and the necessary experience and whom I could trust? Fortunately, I did.”
“We are in a position where we have been given requested information, and we understand it, but people outside this Building may not, so is there a way in which we can strengthen their understanding so that what we have here will work in practice?”
“<BR /> <BR />I appreciate the attention that the Justice Committee has given to it. I also really appreciate the evidence that the victims have put forward. I cannot imagine how difficult that has been. To an extent, it may have retraumatised them, but, if they are working towards trying to ensure that it does not happen to someone else, that is the biggest compliment that we can give them. As I said, I encourage the Minister to look at that. <BR /> <BR />In a topical question earlier, I asked the Minister about harm and how we define that in law. We have to be cognisant of the fact that, perhaps, a reasonable person would not understand what we understand.”
“I appreciate that. If there is an opportunity to get it right in this instance, we will prevent more victims being created. Other jurisdictions have had the experience of seeing the legislation in action and where its limitations are and have been able to go back and improve it. We are in the fortunate position — if you can call it that — of having seen over the past three years how it has worked in other jurisdictions. Perhaps we can do something to ensure that we do not have to come back to it for a second time. Our mistakes will affect lives. Perhaps there is something that we can do to strengthen it. I am not saying, "Remove it"; I am saying, "Strengthen it". I do not know the answers on this. I have not had the same focus on it as I would have had were I still in the role.”
“However, I will come back to that particular line.”
“However, when that behaviour is described, they start to think twice about it. Therefore, alongside that, I would certainly encourage the Minister to look at allowing the reasonable person, if you like, to understand what coercive control is, and maybe Mr Allister would not have the same objection. I do understand the ambiguity, and we cannot do that to victims. <BR /> <BR />Ironically, and I know that they are almost mutually exclusive, I do not support Mr Allister's opposition to clause 3 because, to come back to the point, the harm element of that clause is, essentially, the coercive control element. That was the intent and purpose of it. By including that clause, we are creating a new offence in Northern Ireland. That is important, as, hopefully, it will pave the way towards fewer instances of domestic abuse.”
“I am not saying that we train the general public. Where I am sympathetic to Mr Allister's comments about the interpretation of that particular line is that we assume that people know what harm is. People do not know what coercive control is, which is why it has been able keep victims in its grip for so long. I am not saying that we should necessarily object to what is in the Bill. However, I wonder whether there is anything that we could to strengthen it. Maybe that could be done by adding public awareness, so that the reasonable person would be able to make a reasonable judgement about what coercive control is. <BR /> <BR />I speak to many people and could nearly challenge them on their own behaviour, and they would be the first to say, "I do not behave like that".”
“I appreciate the Member's intervention. Those are my thoughts looking at the practical application. Yes, I absolutely recognise the sentiment. No one in the House wants it to become law more than I do, although, of course, the Minister wants that, too. I have been advocating for it for four or five years. It is long past time that we need to put it into statute. However, again, we would do a great disservice to victims of domestic abuse if we cannot put into statute something that will actually be workable and which the police and the Public Prosecution Service can understand. <BR /> <BR />I appreciate that there is an amendment that relates to training around that, but what about the general public? There is no reference in the Bill to a public awareness campaign. Maybe we need to do something to strengthen training.”
“I am keen for Mr Allister, if he wishes, to intervene to share his thoughts on that.”
“The Minister suggested that it will be on the basis not just of the words that are down on paper but on the basis of precedent and previous decisions. I am keen to hear where there are any examples of that, just to give me comfort that the application of it, as it is written, will actually have a practical effect when it is taken through the courts. <BR /> <BR />To add a human side, the reason that I cannot, ultimately, support Mr Allister's amendment is that, for me, it would give rise to concerns about the impact it would have on the victim. How do we determine physical and psychological harm in a court of law? Is it something that, for example, a medical practitioner has to be able to state is the case? Are we getting into a situation where the victim becomes the person investigated rather than the perpetrator of the offence?”
“Every Member will have heard, "The wounds and scars will heal; it's the mental torture that I have to live with for the rest of my life". That is an impact for not just the individual; it is an impact that has implications for wider society. Having intent linked to harm is absolutely right, but do we need to go further and define that harm so that, when it comes to the practical application of the law in a criminal court, it will be possible to apply this? The worst thing that we can do is give victims of domestic abuse hope, only for them to find that, after going through the awful process of criminal justice, it will not be upheld in a court of law. I do not know. This has not been applied here before.”