Debate contribution: Conversion Practices (Criminalisation) Bill: Second Stage

Debate contribution by Mr Peter Martin on 15 September 2026.

MLA

Mr Peter Martin

Party at the time

Democratic Unionist Party

Date

15 September 2026

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Private Members' Business

Heading

Conversion Practices (Criminalisation) Bill: Second Stage

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5706628

Read the official Assembly record

Text

As we get further into the debate, I concur with some of my colleagues on this side of the House. My colleague from Upper Bann said at the start of the debate that it should be respectful. I will add to that and say that it should be honest and brave. Some of the crimes that Mr Tennyson, the Bill sponsor, highlighted at the start of his contribution are heinous, but I point out that they are covered by current law. I acknowledge the Bill sponsor's emotionality at the beginning of the debate. He clearly believes in the Bill very deeply. Of course, that does not make it right, but I wish to acknowledge it. I will pick up on a few comments that Members have made. With the exception of Mr Tennyson, perhaps, there has not been a propensity to take interventions from those on this side of the House. The Sinn Féin Member for Mid Ulster, for example, said much earlier in the debate that an intent to suppress or change identity is transphobic. She then left the Chamber. Perhaps she is the last person to know that her party, Sinn Féin, is currently banned from all Pride protests because of Pride's view that banning puberty blockers is in itself transphobic. That applies to the SDLP and Alliance as well, I believe. Those three parties should perhaps reflect on that. I was disappointed that the SDLP Member for Foyle did not take any interventions. At the start of his contribution, he said that same-sex relationships were fine and so forth. He then used the phrase "pray the gay away", saying that that idea was wrong and so forth. I am happy to give way to the Member if he can tell us whether he has ever heard the phrase, "transing the gay away". No? OK. It is useful to know this stuff before we come in. I will give the Member a quote. It is a common phrase among gay men and women who are gender-critical. The phrase "transing the gay away" is about people who went to, for example, the Tavistock Gender Identity Development Service (GIDS) in England. Dr Matt Bristow, a doctor who was a former clinician at Tavistock, came to believe that that gender reassignment clinic was providing "conversion therapy for gay kids". The Member used the phrase "pray the gay away", but the phrase "transing the gay away" is about the fact that a lot of gay people believe that some of the GIDS stuff that went on — it was stopped because of the Cass report — was about eradicating gay people, because it affirmed them as trans. That clinician called that "conversion therapy". I will quote Stella O'Malley, whom my colleague from Upper Bann mentioned. She heads up an organisation called Genspect. She said:

"?Northern Ireland is considering one of the most far-reaching conversion practices laws in the UK, yet almost nobody seems to have noticed."

Do not worry, Stella. Some of us have, certainly those of us on this side of the House. I will also pick up on a comment from the Member for North Antrim, who referenced Alan Turing earlier. For those who are not aware, Alan Turing was a mathematician at the start of the Second World War and one of four people responsible for breaking the Enigma code. I apologise to any Polish folk who are watching for my pronunciation of the names of the three other heroes: Rejewski, Rózycki and Zygalski. They, along with Alan Turing, were responsible for ensuring that this country had food during the Second World War. Alan Turing was gay, but he was a hero. He was treated shamefully after the war. Thankfully, however, any crimes that he committed — in the view of the Government of the time — are no longer illegal, and rightly so. I will speak about the initial research that was commissioned by LGBT-sector organisations and funded by former Minister Hargey of Sinn Féin. I will not go over all the stuff that my colleague from Upper Bann mentioned, as she covered it pretty well in her remarks. That study was fairly ambitious. It was supposed to establish how prevalent harmful practices were in Northern Ireland and examine the outcomes for the people affected. As my colleague mentioned, the researchers managed to find 10 people to interview. They had had a target of 15. By January 2023, there were no further interviews conducted. There are no research figures for the number of LGBT people in Northern Ireland, but, taking the figures for England and Wales and reading them across, there may be about 61,000 LGBTQI+ folks here. When we look at the sample on which the Bill is based — 10 — we see that we would be creating a new criminal offence based on a sample of 0·0167% of the Northern Ireland population. For academic research that is to be relied on to inform directly the creation of a new criminal offence, which is what we are talking about, that sample is incredibly thin. In fact, I suggest that it does not even meet the cigarette paper standard. The accounts of some of those 10 people describe very distressing experiences. No one on this side of the House who opposes the Bill today would agree with the practices that they describe. Distressing is not synonymous with criminal, however, and nor is disagreement, religious teaching, poor professional practice or unwanted medical opinion. Criminal law requires clear definitions. We have talked at length about that today. A new offence must establish precisely what behaviour is prohibited. Otherwise, there is a risk of sweeping into the criminal sphere legitimate conversations, parental guidance, religious expression and professional disagreement. Based on my understanding, conducting 10 interviews does not establish such a prevalence. There were 59,000 domestic abuse crimes from 2022 to 2025 in Northern Ireland. Some of the provisions in the Bill that its sponsor has talked about come from some of that law, and we have talked at length about that as well. For stalking, which has also been mentioned in the debate, the figure is 498 crimes. Given that number of crimes, it is completely legitimate to have legislation to deal with those offences. Is it legitimate to legislate for 10 that took place over a longer period? I have a question for the Bill sponsor, and I am happy to give him the Floor. It is about his consultation. I am not sure whether he has it in front of him. On page 4, table 1 shows respondents by type. I am happy to read out the information so that he can give me an answer. It states that there were 1,291 responses to his consultation. How many of those individual respondents live in Northern Ireland?

1,138 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Qualifying

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 01:21 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9. This record has been assessed 3 times; the latest assessment is shown.

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