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 5706662

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I think that the Member has answered her own question. What the Equality Commission has said is very interesting, especially in the context of what we are discussing. The timing is indeed very interesting. I want to stay on the supporting evidence for the Member's Bill for a moment, and I promise that I will then get on to some of the clauses. I point the Bill sponsor to paragraph 15 of his EFM, where he refers to an Amnesty International report. That paragraph states:

"In July 2025, Amnesty International released a report revealing a sharp rise in funding and activity by anti-LGBTQIA+ groups across the UK. The report identified 12 organisations actively promoting conversion practices, with spending by these groups increasing by 165% between 2019 and 2023. Amnesty warned that these groups are 'weaponising misinformation' and exploiting prejudice to undermine LGBTQIA+ rights."

The report was called 'A Growing Threat: the Anti-rights Movement in the UK.' It identified 117 dangerous organisations that Amnesty characterised as part of an anti-rights movement. It argued that those organisations were connected through campaigns and objectives that, in Amnesty's view and, I suspect, the Bill sponsor's view, sought to restrict rights relating to women, LGBT+ people and other groups. A particularly controversial section classified gender-critical organisations as part of the supposed anti-rights movement. Groups named or discussed included Children of Transitioners; Trans Widows’ Voices; For Women Scotland; the Gay Men’s Network; Genspect; The Lesbian Project; Lesbian Strength; the LGB Alliance; the LGB Alliance in Wales; Liberal Voice for Women; Safe Schools Alliance; Seen in Journalism, which is an excellent site, and if you are not following it on Twitter, you probably should; Sex Matters; Thoughtful Therapists; Transgender Trend; Women’s Workshop; the Women’s Rights Network; and Beira’s Place. Beira’s Place is a sexual violence support centre for women, set up by J K Rowling. It supports women who have been sexually abused. The report that Mr Tennyson has cited in his EFM — that excellent report by Amnesty — put Beira’s Place on that list of 117 dangerous organisations that Amnesty and, I suppose, the Bill sponsor support as being characterised as part of an anti-rights movement. I think that it is appalling that Beira’s Place and others made the list. The report also included Christian organisations, including CARE, the Christian Institute, the Evangelical Alliance and others, which strongly objected to being characterised as anti-rights.

I will indeed.

I thank the Member for his intervention. I am more than happy to speak for a moment on CARE. It was just one of the Christian organisations cited in the 117. I read out the others, some of which the Bill sponsor might identify as "progressive". However, CARE is a Christian lobbying organisation, which, as the Member rightly pointed out, pioneered the human trafficking legislation from about 10 years ago. The list that Amnesty International came out with, and which the Bill sponsor has put in the EFM as supporting evidence, went up on 8 July. It was then removed within 48 hours. Amnesty was forced to apologise, was forced to apologise again, and, eventually, said that the document should never have been published. That document — widely discredited, widely disowned and widely disgraced — remains as evidence in the EFM, with a list that cites a sexual abuse support centre for women as one of the most dangerous organisations in the UK. I will move on to the Bill. I will talk about competence in relation to clause 2(1)(b). Following the Supreme Court ruling in the case of For Women Scotland, the legal meaning and operation of "sex", "gender" and "gender reassignment", and some aspects that relate to Northern Ireland, are contested. I expect that the Member would accept that. The Equality Commission has sought some level of judicial clarification, because of the interaction between the Sex Discrimination (Northern Ireland) Order 1976 and article 2 of the Windsor framework. We are yet to see that, but it may, perhaps, emerge at some point. I think that the Bill sponsor clarified this earlier, so he will have to forgive me if I am drifting, but I do not believe that the Equality Commission has formally endorsed the Bill as drafted. I am happy to pose that as a question.

He said no. That is fine; I will accept that. Will he accept written advice or a submission from the Equality Commission, if it publishes such advice?

OK. The Bill creates criminal offences based on — we have had this phrase a couple of times today when referring to the Bill — gender identity, especially regarding the Supreme Court ruling. What is the precise legal meaning of "gender identity" in the Bill? How many gender identities does it cover? I am not going to ask the sponsor to list them all or to interact in that way, because I think that we have covered that. I will move on. It would be fair to say that, in the area of gender identity, there are a range of views — in fact, there are a range of views in the House — but there is not a range of views from the Supreme Court. It has made it clear how it feels about that. Mr Tennyson stated earlier that it is not about pitching LGBTQI+ people against Christians. On that, I firmly agree with him. In many ways, he has done the opposite, because a number of LGB groups have already come out in opposition to the drafting of the parallel Bill that is proceeding through Westminster. I have been inundated with correspondence and emails regarding the Bill. I could spend the next 45 minutes reading some of those out, but I am not going to — do not worry.

Do you want me to? I could read out emails from parents, teachers or ministers, all of whom are deeply concerned about the overreach in the Bill and what it could do. I am not going to cover again what colleagues have mentioned. However, I plan to read out a couple of emails.

These were sent to me by two gay men whom I know fairly well. I promised them that I would read them out, and I will do so because you will not hear these voices from Sinn Féin, the SDLP — only one SDLP Member is here — or Alliance today. They do not agree with them. I am illustrating that there are LGB people who completely oppose the Bill and what these folks are trying to push through. One of them wrote:

"This Bill is deeply flawed. Far from protecting vulnerable young people, it is likely to harm gay and lesbian teenagers in particular. Criminalising counselling or talking therapy around gender identity could stop confused young people from seeking legitimate help. In an online culture that constantly tells them they were born in the wrong body, that vacuum is extremely dangerous. Without exploratory conversation, someone who is gay or lesbian may be pushed towards damaging and irreversible medical transition rather than towards accepting who they are."

The second young man wrote:

"This Bill is nothing more than an imposition of gender ideology upon Northern Ireland. It does not have the interests of gay people at heart, because, if it truly did, it would not be lumping us together with the compulsory affirmation of transgenderism and transitioning."

I will, once I have finished reading this out:

"My sexuality has nothing to do with gender dysmorphia and gender transitioning, and I resent to see it being used as a cover to smuggle the affirmation of gender ideology into law."

1,271 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Uncertain: close call Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues

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.

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