Debate contribution: Exclusion of the First Minister from Office under Section 30 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998

Debate contribution by Ms Claire Sugden on 12 October 2026.

MLA: Ms Claire Sugden
Party at the time: Independent
Date: 12 October 2026
Type: Debate contribution
Business: Assembly Business
Heading: Exclusion of the First Minister from Office under Section 30 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998
Assembly identifier: Official Report component 5786922

Text

I have been a Member of this House for 12 years, and it has been a great privilege and a pleasure. I am not sure that I can say that today, because the people listening to us — if they even bother to listen to us — will be disgusted at some of the behaviour from across the House. It is no wonder that the people of Northern Ireland are fed up with the Assembly. I will take this opportunity to reflect on what has happened over the last number of weeks and on where we go from here. I will also speak to the responsibilities of those who hold ministerial office, given that the motion specifically asks us whether the actions of four Ministers who attended the protest at Drumcree were consistent with their obligations under the Pledge of Office. I recognise the right to peaceful protest, but there is a distinction between protesting against a decision and taking actions that prevent a lawful determination from being implemented. That distinction matters, particularly when you are a Minister. Other elected representatives were there, and they will be judged by the same processes as anyone else. Their actions will also be judged by the people who elect them. Ministers have additional responsibilities, and it is the role of the Assembly to use the appropriate mechanisms to hold them to account. The Pledge of Office requires Ministers to "uphold the rule of law" and support it unequivocally. I really struggle to reconcile those obligations with what we witnessed. I have heard the various Ministers justify what happened, and I will talk to that later. This is Northern Ireland in 2026, not Northern Ireland in 1995. We have spent almost 30 years building institutions, strengthening rights and establishing independent processes because we recognise that we will not always agree in a deeply divided society. Therefore, I ask this question: what is the alternative to what we have built? When two communities cannot agree and an independent body adjudicates between them, what happens when one side does not like the outcome? Do we simply keep going until they get the answer that they want? What happens to the other side, where accepted processes and law have upheld their position? If that is where we are, I genuinely question what progress we have made. The progress that we have made has been about peace and the institutions, and we must be very careful not to undermine them. I recognise the hurt, fear and intimidation experienced by the residents of the Garvaghy Road and Portadown. I recognise the wider impact that the dispute had across Northern Ireland all those years ago. I also recognise that, for 28 years, members of the Orange Order have continued to pursue a route that, whether or not you agree with it, matters deeply to them, so much so that they have applied to march every year and have continued to protest. I do not think that they have done so simply because they hate the people of the Garvaghy Road. That is too simple, and we should not make those assumptions. In a reconciled society, we should try to understand. We cannot talk about reconciliation while being prepared to understand only one side of the argument. That, I think, is where the political response has been so disappointing. I have spoken to many in my constituency who genuinely had no interest in whether the parade went ahead or not. They were not involved, they did not want to take sides, and they probably wished that the whole thing had not happened. However, they then watched the response.
Not now. They heard the language that was being used and felt that an entire community was being characterised and dismissed. Those are people who have embraced the peace process and respect their neighbours, nationalist or neither, but believe that their identity and traditions are equally legitimate. They will not necessarily be the people who are shouting the loudest, but they will remember how the episode made them feel. All political leaders need to reflect on that. I have never had a difficulty with there being a republican First Minister, because I respect it as a democratic outcome. I respect that it was mandated, and I respect voters across the region. However, that office carries a responsibility to represent everyone. The First Minister said that attending the process was the right thing to do. I must ask her to explain what that means. Right for whom? I understand why residents welcomed the support, but what about those who expected an independent determination to be respected? What about those who thought that their community was being spoken about with contempt? What about those who genuinely believed that we were moving beyond the politics of "us and them"? Being First Minister for all cannot simply mean representing everyone when their interests align with yours. We still describe places as being unionist areas or nationalist areas, as though communities have exclusive ownership of public spaces. Surely, nearly 30 years after the Good Friday Agreement, we should be moving beyond that. No community should have to surrender its identity to feel welcome, nor does any community have an unrestricted right to parade wherever it wishes. That is why we have independent processes to balance competing rights, and, when we disagree with decisions, we challenge them lawfully. Exclusion from ministerial office is a serious sanction. I will support the motions, regrettably. The obligations of the Pledge of Office are serious and must apply equally to everyone. They underpin everything that we do, the history that we have come from and the challenge that we have experienced along the way. If we do not have confidence in one another and in those who lead our Government, what does that say about these institutions and their ability to lead Northern Ireland forward? When the court proceedings have concluded, the protests have ended and Drumcree is no longer dominating our headlines, what will we have achieved? What will we have left behind? We will all still have to live together, respect one another and have confidence in the institutions that we have spent 30 years building. We cannot build a shared future if we are prepared to respect the rules only when they deliver the outcome that only we want. Every Member needs to reflect on that. I really hope that this place does not collapse because I still see value in it. However, we all need to look to the person across the Chamber from us and ask, "Why?".

1,099 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Awaiting analysis

This record has not been analysed yet. It is not counted in any total until it has been assessed.

Disagree with this assessment?

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

Challenge this classification