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 42 of 45.
“Are we stimulating the conversation around the family having to make a decision that had not been discussed prior to the person passing away? I have a bit of a reservation about that, because it even alludes to some of the points that Mr Ross has raised. <BR /> <BR />My final point is that Northern Ireland is a generous country. We are the leading country for living donation, but that does not seem to be reflected in deceased organ donation rates. For me, the difference seems to be consent and who gives it. If both systems require family consent and the ultimate variable is family consent, why do we need to change the system? Again, it comes back to the awareness campaign and how effective that will be. If awareness campaigns do not work currently, will we have an awareness campaign that will be effective in upholding the legislation?”
“Yes, I accept that point. If there were a provision that ensured that a deceased person's wishes were fulfilled, perhaps that would take away the conflict. No one could argue with it in that respect. It is how you put that into practice. Logistically, a last will and testament would not work, because there is just no time, but I would be interested to see how that could be considered through Consideration Stage. <BR /> <BR />It is true to say that the current system is not stimulating the conversation. I am keen to understand how the new system would stimulate the conversation. My understanding is that it would become the norm that, in the event of someone's death, they would donate unless otherwise stated or if the family did not want them to donate.”
“I thank the Member for her response. The next question that came to my mind is that the current system is not stimulating the conversation around organ donation.”
“For example, could it be done even through their last will and testament, if that were possible, although I know that timing can be a bit difficult in that respect. According to this legislation, would it supersede the family consent element, or would it even supersede the European law around the family needing to consent to it?”
“That goes back to my point about having confidence that someone will fulfil my wishes should I pass away. I fully appreciate that the family needs to remain central to this, but there will be cases where, although the deceased was willing to donate an organ, their family will not be willing to make that decision after their death. That is entirely understandable, and I appreciate the reasons around that. Has Mrs Dobson considered provision for willing donors who know that their families would not be able to make the decision in the event of their death? In a soft opt-out system, could there be provision for people who really want to opt in and want to donate their organs after death that almost overrides the family decision?”
“Again, I thank the Member for his intervention. I do not suppose that we can ever be confident in that. I suppose that it is one aspect of the Bill that it has to coincide with a really significant public awareness campaign. Equally, I could say this: where do we get the confidence that my wishes to donate my organs and potentially save four to five lives will be respected after I am gone? I do not have that confidence. The overriding principle for me is that we will save lives in this respect. I do not think that we can have certainty on both sides of the argument, but, at least on one side, we are increasing the opportunity to save lives. <BR /> <BR />I want to bring in my other concern about family consent. I know that, in Committee, a couple of Members raised the issue of whether consent meant consent.”
“I thank the Member for his intervention. I do not quite accept that rationale, because I think that people who really do not want to give their organs should they pass away will make that clear to their family. It is a case of changing the culture and the ethos in Northern Ireland. I was quite taken by a quotation from someone who, when presenting to the Committee alongside Mrs Dobson, suggested that we should nearly make this part of the dying process, and that seems to be the case in other parts of the world.”
“I appreciate the Member clarifying that for me. If it is the case that people on the organ register cannot donate their organs without that consent for whatever reason, are we losing people who are willing to donate because a family member maybe has not been available to sign that consent form? I appreciate you clarifying that for me, because it does not weaken the argument in any way. I also noted during your presentation —”
“I recently read the Hansard report of Mrs Dobson's presentation to the Committee, and I would like her to clarify a point for me. Is it currently the case that clinicians are able to remove organs from deceased registered donors without the consent of family should they not be available to take the decision, for example?”
“Indeed, for me to move forward in supporting the Bill, I have to feel that I am convinced on these issues. Like other Members, I have looked at family consent. On one hand, I believe that the Bill will strengthen the purpose of family consent. Does someone wish to confirm for me that family consent is required by European law? I think that the Bill will reinforce that and make it stronger.”
“It demonstrates that, of those who responded, 82% agreed to change the law to soft opt-out. I very deliberately said "those who responded", because I know that a Public Health Agency survey indicated quite a significant figure. I do not believe that the comparison of the two undermines the public consultation conducted by Mrs Dobson; I think that it represents the view of those who are informed about organ donation that it is the right way to go. It strengthens the case that we need to have some sort of public awareness campaign around organ donation, because the likelihood is that most people would then subscribe to it. <BR /> <BR />I will touch on some of the aspects that I am maybe questioning. I would not go as far to say that I disagree with them, but I am certainly not convinced.”
“I think that I have gone online, but there has been no follow-up since, so I am not sure whether I am on the register. Perhaps that is my fault, but it is assumed in my own head. Even that in itself is a problem. Should something awful happen, God forbid, and my partner is not approached and I had wanted to give my organs away, someone would have lost the opportunity to have his or her life saved or improved greatly. Mrs Dobson's proposal removes the confusion and gives another opportunity to save a life, and I keep coming back to the point that that is the overarching principle of the Bill. While I have reservations on some aspects, that is something that we should all bear in mind. <BR /> <BR />I wish to consider the public consultation on the Bill.”
“<BR /> <BR />I acknowledge Mrs Dobson's commitment: it began on the birth of her son, and she has carried it through to the Chamber. She has also instigated debate outside the House. I understand that, since the public debate in January, there have been more cases of organ donation. Even if the Bill should fall at whatever stage in the Assembly, Mrs Dobson should be proud of the fact that she has saved and changed lives. <BR /> <BR />While preparing for the debate last night, I raised the issue with my partner and we had a conversation. I made my wishes clear: I said that, should anything happen to me, I would be more than happy to donate my organs. I believe that I am on the register; I am not quite sure. I ticked that box when I was upgrading my driving licence.”
“I support the Bill's Second Stage because the overarching principle, which we should all consider, is that it will save lives. That said, I am not fully convinced by some aspects of the Bill, and it is usually the aspects that are dependent on each other, because it almost seems that one thing has to happen for the other to be fulfilled. Therefore, I believe that it is necessary that we challenge the Bill and look at the aspects of it that we are unsure of in order to uphold its integrity moving forward. It is an important Bill, and it will affect people's lives. We have a responsibility as Assembly Members to give it the consideration that it deserves. In the legislative stages to come, we look forward to doing that.”
“I take no pleasure in joining Members of this House to express my horror and deep sadness at the events in Paris on Friday evening. I offer my sincere condolences to those who have been bereaved of those lives that were taken so callously by others. When a loved one is taken from you at the hands of another, the pain sears through your whole being and that pain never leaves you; it scars you. Mr Speaker, it takes a special kind of bastard to inflict that pain on so many. I apologise for my language, but I really cannot think of any other word to describe them. Friday's events were inhumane. They were carried out by bad people driven by a gross misinterpretation of religion and God. They have no place among us. I stand by the people of France and all the people of the world who are fighting against this evil.”
“I will bring the issue back to where we started. Does the Minister concede that his initial decision to approve Cam Burn wind farm was ill advised, given the planning legislation, and that, since I submitted two priority written questions, which he is yet to answer, he has done a quick U-turn to abide by the law?”
“I am glad to hear that the Minister acknowledges the pitfalls of being in and out. Given that farming underpins our economy, has he met any farming groups to discuss the impact of a Brexit on that industry?”
“Is the Minister able to clarify the administrative costs for the Youth Council that he presented to the Committee? I submitted a freedom of information request, and there seems to be a discrepancy.”
“For the benefit of the House, will the Minister reiterate her priorities from the June monitoring round and tell us about any that have come up since?”
“It may spare a few blushes next year, when Martin McGuinness is likely to be the leader of the largest party in Northern Ireland and take the First Minister's role. That is reality; it is where we are. <BR /> <BR />I agree with Mr Allister; I think that the Bill could go further. Indeed, I am looking into tabling amendments that will hold Ministers to account. Certainly, I look forward to working with Mr Agnew, if he wishes to table those amendments, so that we can hold to account Ministers who are currently perverting their Pledge of Office when they take on that role. <BR /> <BR />To conclude, I welcome the Bill. I think that it could go further, but we can do that later. It is certainly a start. I look forward to the Consideration Stage.”
“It is based on structure and on having a voice. If a technical group provides for that, I am quite happy to do that. I think that one of the biggest failures of Northern Ireland politics is that people think that challenging someone in your own party is seen as a failure. It is not; it should be a strength. If you can challenge someone from within your own party and move forward, it makes you stronger. I wish that other parties would see that, because we might start getting some truth out of here. <BR /> <BR />The Bill's proposal on the naming of the First Minister and the deputy First Minister is quite controversial. I agree that we should perhaps call it what it is. Martin McGuinness is as equally the First Minister as Peter Robinson, or Arlene Foster currently is.”
“Thank you for that contribution. Yes, it is entirely true. People say to me, "Claire, I haven't seen you in Stormont today. What are you doing up there?", and I say, "Well, I am doing a lot more than one particular party in the Assembly". Truth be told, more often than not, I prepare speeches and contributions but am timed out. Sometimes, it is not even worth having an opinion, so I do it in other ways. I do it in questions. Just think what I could do if I had a realistic opportunity to table motions that I could get onto the Floor of the House. We would probably be here a lot longer than we are currently. <BR /> <BR />Speaking rights tie in with the technical groups: would being part of a technical group give us more opportunity? People will ask why I would I want to work with people who do not necessarily share my views.”
“That is because, as an independent, I am always the last to speak on an issue. The debate will go back to John when I finish, so it has made things difficult for me. There are issues in my constituency that I have been unable to speak on because I am always the last to speak. I have been timed out long before the debate gets to me. That is not fair. The 3,003 first-preference voters entrusted to me by my predecessor deserve a voice, and I think that the current mechanism does not allow for that.”
“<BR /> <BR />We have three private Member's Bills — a fourth when Mr Allister tables his next week — coming from this corner. What unites us? What is the success of this corner? It is because we are not in government. We have the integrity that we can challenge, without prejudice, and that is important in getting the truth for the people of Northern Ireland so that we can move forward and make things better. Even the Ulster Unionist Party has been more effective since coming out of government, and let us hope that it stays that way. <BR /> <BR />I will not go into detail on all aspects of the Bill because we will have the opportunity to do that at Consideration Stage. On the technical groups within the opposition, yes, I would quite happily work with most of the men in this corner — all of them.”
“After representing the people, the role of a Member of the Legislative Assembly — that is an MLA, for those of you who do not know — is to scrutinise effectively the work of the Northern Ireland Government, the Executive, to ensure that they are making the right decisions on behalf of the people of Northern Ireland. The House does not scrutinise the Northern Ireland Government effectively — it cannot. The most effective scrutiny that comes from the House is in this corner of the Chamber. Since becoming an MLA, I have asked more questions than any other MLA in Northern Ireland, which I am very proud of. Wee independent Claire from East Londonderry has done her job 100% more than any other Member of the House. Added to that, I have asked more questions than all the other MLAs of my constituency put together. We can do the job if we want to.”
“It is not perfect. There are aspects that I certainly disagree with, particularly in respect of the Speaker and how we elect him, but, one day, I will advocate that we break the mould that he is trying to put before us today to create something better in Northern Ireland, and that is what we should strive for. We should always be striving for something better. That does not mean changing what has passed; it means building on it, and I think that that is essentially what we are doing here. We need to be brave today and in the coming stages of the Bill. <BR /> <BR />The essence of the Bill is scrutiny.”
“Subsequent agreements cast in the Good Friday mould are not working. The latest — the Stormont House Agreement — has yet to be even removed from its box or wrapper. We need something different that puts the people of Northern Ireland first. I take Mr Agnew's point that perhaps we should take this to a referendum. The Good Friday Agreement was decided upon in a referendum, and maybe such a change now needs the substance of the people of Northern Ireland behind it, because the House certainly does not have the substance of the people of Northern Ireland behind it. <BR /> <BR />I am not saying that we should throw the Good Friday Agreement or any of the work that we have done until now into the bin. It should remain a very important part of our history, but now is the right time to create something new. Mr McCallister's Bill is a start.”
“We made those concessions for peace and, rightly or wrongly, we now ultimately have peace, but now is the time to start making Northern Ireland work on a structural level.”
“Indeed, it is not my intention to undermine the Good Friday Agreement. It was necessary and was the only way at the time given the intractable differences of those involved. However, I hope that, in 17 years, we have grown and learned. Although the differences clearly remain the same, we are, thankfully, very different today than we were in 1998. That is why I think that we need to break the mould of the Good Friday Agreement. It has served its purpose, but it does not show where we can go from now. <BR /> <BR />The Good Friday Agreement had its failings. Of course it did. It was not perfect, but the political nonsense that is making fools of us all as Members of the House is the outworking of those failings. Ultimately, there is a lack of accountability.”
“First, I congratulate Mr McCallister for tabling one of the most important Bills since the Good Friday Agreement. I am disappointed, although not surprised, that its gravity is not being acknowledged in the way that it should. On one side of the House, the largest political party has decided that its dirty, inconsistent mess is more important than moving Northern Ireland forward. Directly opposite, the second largest party is fearful of breaking the mould of the Good Friday Agreement because, perhaps, Northern Ireland might stand a chance. <BR /> <BR />We should break the mould of the Good Friday Agreement. I am reluctant to say that, because it has served its purpose in bringing an end to violence and, although we have come far, we still have a way to go in addressing our troubled past.”
“Thank you for the response. Unfortunately, I do not really share the Minister's confidence and do not think that local government is moving as quickly as possible. That money should have been on the ground a lot sooner and, with further moneys coming from Europe and through her Department in January, I am concerned that we are not spending that money in the way that we should, particularly as it is the only show in town. What is the Minister doing to put further mechanisms in place to ensure that we will get that money on the ground some time soon?”
“I think that the university took that decision entirely in isolation. That is unacceptable, considering that a significant amount of the money that it receives comes from the public purse. <BR /> <BR />I also think that the decision to take the Ulster business school to Magee is quite ridiculous. The Executive have a responsibility to look at the decisions that are affecting my constituents and those of others represented in the House. Will the Minister consider reintroducing a higher education funding council for the future of Northern Ireland, as seen in other parts of the United Kingdom?”
“At what point does the Department need to re-evaluate the outline business case, which is nearly a year into approval by DFP?”
“It is a great thing that there is some positive news coming from Ballykelly, and it just goes to show that this Assembly can do things when we want to. Have any of the stakeholders interested in the site expressed any concern about the current political situation?”
“I asked this question as a priority, but the Minister is late in answering it, so I am happy for him to answer me now. Has he received an HR 1 about the loss of the school and the subsequent redundancies from the Ulster University?”
“I thank the Minister for his response. Will he confirm whether the Ulster University is moving towards establishing centres of excellence in each campus, and that a veterinary school in Coleraine would be a perfect fit for what it is planning?”
“I thank the Minister for her response. I welcome the fact that there will be no direct impact on the Special Olympics. Coming from a successful Olympic town, as Coleraine is, with Sean Campbell winning silver in the recent Special Olympics, I feel that it is important that the Minister acknowledges the part that disabled-bodied people have to play in sport. Does she have any plans to introduce further money into the sector?”
“So for the good of the people you claim to represent, move on — step aside, if you will — and encourage young politicians like Gary Middleton, Steven Agnew, Chris Lyttle, Claire Hanna, Megan Fearon, Sandra Overend and me to be the future of Northern Ireland and these institutions.”
“It is about the people whom I represent. If losing my seat and never speaking a word in the Chamber again will help us to move forward positively, by all means, bring it on, but it will not do so, because, I believe, Northern Ireland will only truly move on when the people who were involved in the Troubles are no longer in politics.”
“<BR /> <BR />My interpretation of what really is happening here is deflection and election. There are people bleeding this country dry, and the current events are providing a very convenient smokescreen. I see it in my constituency, where we have a drug problem that is often hidden by raising contentious issues. These people will be caught, and I look forward to that day, because the people of Northern Ireland deserve better, and I trust that they will realise that come the next election. Whether it is in a month or next May, we will have an election. There is nothing wrong with electioneering, but it should begin the day after you earn the mandate that you were given, not in a panic to get one over on your competitor. <BR /> <BR />As an independent, I probably have more to lose than anyone in the House, but it is not about me.”
“He will not get that disabled parking bay because the Minister and the Committee have to sign it off, and the former does not exist any more. <BR /> <BR />Mr Watton is only a small piece of the puzzle of Northern Ireland, but when one piece is missing, the bigger picture is ruined. The collapse of our institutions is being felt from the people up. Politics are being played badly from the top down. The events that have unfolded since the death of Mr McGuigan are really quite unbelievable. A lot of big decisions have been made on "What if?" To go further, in my belief, many who sit in the House are not fit for the job. Yes, I appreciate that they were given a mandate, but I really do not think that the people expected this nonsense when they trusted you with their vote.”
“I am concerned because we have much to lose, not just in the message that Northern Ireland has failed but with the prospect of being governed by people who do not know us, who are, understandably, quite fed up with us and who will not fight for the people or sell our country for the potential that it has as we can. <BR /> <BR />The events that unfolded on Thursday make me very sad. My constituent Mr Watton — I know that he will not mind me saying his name — has been waiting for a disabled parking bay for over six months. Mr Watton is very ill. It takes all his strength to walk several feet, and he is certainly entitled to a space. He is entitled to a public service that will make his life that little bit easier while he focuses on his strength and his day-to-day struggles.”
“Mr Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak on this matter. I will begin by saying how privileged I feel to stand here and represent East Londonderry in the Northern Ireland Assembly. Whilst we find ourselves in exceptional circumstances, I will continue to do the job that I was entrusted with while I can. The 100,000 constituents I work for expect me to represent them in the House. <BR /> <BR />This house of cards is falling, and good will come of that only if the jokers at the top come crashing down too and do not get up again.”
“I thank the deputy First Minister for his answer. I still do not think that it is good enough, so will he now provide me with the names of the civil servants to approach in order to get things done for the people whom I represent, now that the Government have proved themselves finally defunct?”
“Is it not ironic that the House is united when it comes down to real human tragedy? I hope that, in the days and months ahead, we can look to our own advice for our own circumstances, but I do think that we need to help these people. <BR /> <BR />Whilst I agree with Mr Swann when he said that energy from some quarters had gone into blaming, I think that that energy should be refocused on helping, because those people need help and support right now. Equally, I agree with Mr McCrea: political circumstances brought these events about on a long arm, and the only way that we will fix this politically is to look back and see how we can help them. Bickering about those circumstances today will not bring that little boy back, but help may stop others from finding themselves in the same circumstances.”
“Ms Ruane began her contribution by saying that we should not dwell on the horrific pictures that we have seen, but I think that we should. People dead and washed ashore, and a boy cold not from the chill of the water but through death, which came far sooner than it should have, but death was the risk that his family took for his survival. I said last week that I would not wish for his family's circumstances, and I am really sure that they would not have wished for them either. <BR /> <BR />I am very fortunate in the life that I lead. In fact, every single one of us in the House is very fortunate in the life that we lead. What all this does, other than hopefully ensuring that those people now get the help and support that they need, is to put things into perspective.”
“Long may she reign over us. God save the Queen.”
“I am happy to join others today in congratulating Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. As Mr Allister said, the Queen had a good 34 years as monarch on me before I was even a twinkle in my mother and father's eyes. That is why I think that she is such a remarkable role model for all, particularly for me as a young woman, as someone to look up to and admire. Her grace and humility in her reluctance to mark this occasion demonstrates her admirable character. I have been very fortunate to have been in her presence on two occasions in this past year, and I was taken by how much she captivated her audience. She is a leader because she brings so many with her, including those who do not necessarily support what she represents. Whilst Her Majesty is reluctant to celebrate her achievement, I am heartened that the House has seen fit to do so.”
“I welcome the Minister's earlier positive comments about the community and voluntary sector, so why are we replacing the current provider of the meals on wheels, which is a community and voluntary sector group, with, potentially, a contractor to cut costs?”
“I wish that the Minister had not said that this was not just another initiative, because the cynic in me says that that usually means that it is. On a serious note, I welcome the policy, because it offers a lot of opportunities for young people and for the local economy. <BR /> <BR />A significant barrier for those not in education, employment or training has been the cutting of the pathways education maintenance allowance (EMA). The Minister mentioned financial assistance in the statement, so, further to the review, is he minded to continue pathways EMA?”