Debate contribution: Justice Bill: Consideration Stage

Debate contribution by Ms Claire Sugden on 16 June 2026.

MLA

Ms Claire Sugden

Party at the time

Independent

Date

16 June 2026

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Executive Committee Business

Heading

Justice Bill: Consideration Stage

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5625014

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Minister, you are misrepresenting me. I did not say that. I said that I am sympathetic to what you are trying to do. I am just not sympathetic with how you are trying to do it. A Back-Bench amendment is not the appropriate vehicle by which to do it. I would much rather see a collective Executive response, and I reiterate that, because the support and implementation required would come not only from your Department but from Health, Communities and Education, and we are not seeing that. Therefore, I think that it is dangerous. It is not me trying to ride two horses. Again, if we were in a similar circumstance to where this has been implemented across the world, I would be more sympathetic. Minister, there is context to everything, and the context does not exist for this to be an appropriate or safe amendment moving forward. Why stop the conversation there? Why not commit in your final months as Justice Minister to put that review in place and to open up the conversation? As I said, I commend the proponents of the amendments for bringing this conversation forward and into the public domain. That is important, but let us do it in a way that convinces not just me. I do not stand here on my own behalf. I stand here as a representative of my constituents, and it is many of them who are saying this to me. For you to disregard that and to be quite indignant about that is disappointing. How we move forward in the debate is not by calling people names in relation to sitting on the fence. It is to be responsible about the job that we need to do in the Assembly. It is a difficult and serious issue when I am not supporting it, because I like to think that I take a reasoned position on this. I hear all different perspectives in the House, so, if I am not supporting it, maybe you should understand why rather than criticising the reasons just because I disagree with you. Those are fundamental questions. I am not comfortable with criminalising 10-year-olds, but neither am I comfortable that we are removing a framework without being satisfied that there is something better ready to take its place. We have to be uncomfortable with the fact that, for some of the most vulnerable children in our society — I regret saying this — contact with the justice system may be one of the first points at which they receive consistent intervention, structured support or sustained engagement from public services. Sadly, that is my experience. I appreciate what is happening in Foyle and Belfast, but that is not necessarily happening in East Londonderry or other constituencies across Northern Ireland. Unless we have a consistent approach — we will not, because a lot of it is from community and voluntary interventions, and we know how unstable the funding is in those areas — we will not have the ideal that you describe. Again, I come back to our Executive. I do not see the commitment there to what we are trying to do. It is across the board, it is cross-cutting, it requires a holistic approach, and I am not convinced. Again, this is not an argument for criminalising children, despite what others may accuse me of. It is an indictment of the failures that occur long before the child reaches the point of crisis; it is an indictment of the opportunities that were missed; it is an indictment of the interventions that never happened; and it is an indictment of the wider system that often waits for too long to respond and does not do so until the child is in crisis. If we are going to remove a framework, we have a responsibility to demonstrate that there is something better to replace it. It is not good enough to say that the statutory obligation will require that, because, as I said —

— many statutory obligations are not being upheld, so why would I be convinced that this one would be upheld? Go ahead.

I appreciate that, but are you convinced that those things will be put in place prior to that commencement? Are you convinced that the Minister of Health, the Minister for Communities and the Minister of Education — if his support is required — will commit to that, despite the fact that they have not supported this at the Executive?

Yes, go ahead.

My point is not about the commencement but about what happens prior to the commencement. You may be convinced of that, but I am not, and that is why I am not supporting it. It is because of my 12 years of experience in my constituency office and seeing the failures that happen to our children day in, day out. That is my biggest worry. If we get it wrong, everybody loses. The child who has offended loses and does not get the intervention that they need; the child who is at risk of offending does not necessarily get the support early enough to prevent it; and the victim may not receive the accountability that they expect.

Yes.

869 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:57 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.

Disagree with this assessment?

Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.

Challenge this classification