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 5706703

Read the official Assembly record

Text

That is an excellent point from the Member for North Antrim. I assure Members that I am not trying to push all the way through to 10.00 pm, but I will make a little progress. I want to move on to definitions and thresholds and to focus on young people and the education sector, which is probably the most crucial piece and the one that I am most concerned about regarding the Bill. I take Members to clause 7, particularly on affirming that a pupil's self-identified gender identity is the only one that is protected, and I will expand on that. Exploring, for example, some level of social contagion, core morbidity, same-sex attraction or challenging or directing a child towards their biological sex could be framed as directing that child towards a particular gender identity and therefore, fall foul of the Bill. That engenders a range of individuals. Clause 7 also states:

" there is no intent to change or suppress sexual orientation or gender identity if—".

— the intent is to affirm the identity that the victim considers that they have or may have.

My question is this: why is that affirmation expressly safe, while exploratory therapy, watchful waiting or, perhaps, even assisting a distressed teenager would leave a person exposed? The affirmation referred to in clause 7(1)(c) can lead to a range of things. We have talked about it leading to puberty blockers, and it can lead to hormones and to surgery. Those things can cause irreversible, lifelong harm to individuals and their future. Ruth Paterson, an eminent local solicitor, has already been mentioned. She said:

"Even if you're the most trans-inclusive person, self ID for children and young adults with only affirmation being permissible under this Bill",

which is at clause 7(1)(c), would no doubt have:

"a chilling effect where therapists who want to support these vulnerable teens have to second guess ... how they treat them."

There is a deep irony here. The affirming provision in clause 7(1)(c) is, in relation to puberty blockers and encouragement towards life-altering, destructive surgery — destroying the ability of young girls to have children in future — a defence in respect of the "intent to change or suppress" while opposing it is not. Did I read that wrong? Have I missed something? I will say it again for Members. Just let this sink in. The affirming provision in clause 7(1)(c) is, in relation to puberty blockers and encouragement towards life-altering, destructive surgery — destroying the ability of young girls to have children in future — a defence in the Bill, while opposing it is not. For that reason alone, I cannot see how the Bill will pass. If the SDLP Member for Foyle wants to know why Members on these Benches oppose it so vehemently, I have just explained it to him. Under clause 2, would a parent commit an offence by grounding a 12-year-old who identified as transgender, where the purpose of that restriction was to prevent the child pursuing gender-affirming treatment? If not, which element of clause 2 excludes that conduct? Does the answer change if the parent says that their purpose is not to change a child's gender identity but to prevent them from accessing puberty blockers, because the parent considers the treatment inappropriate — I would agree with them — or, as things stand in Northern Ireland, illegal? That question remains unanswered. If the Bill progresses to Committee, perhaps it will be answered.

I will indeed.

I completely agree with my colleague from North Belfast. That is exactly where the danger lies. School counsellors and form tutors who took a cautious, exploratory approach with gender-distressed or gender-questioning pupils rather than affirming immediate social transition would risk being accused of conversion practices if the behaviour continued and they chose not to affirm or chose to challenge chosen gender.

The clause would no doubt have a chilling effect on relationships and sexuality education (RSE) in particular, and I can understand why. That may not be its intent, but it will. Teachers may choose to self-censor discussion about the Cass review findings, rapid-onset gender dysphoria, desistance rates — "desistance" refers to when kids who believe that they are trans realise that they are not — and sex-based rights in order to avoid complaints that they intended to suppress the victim's decided identity at that time.

726 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