Debate contribution: Conversion Practices (Criminalisation) Bill: Second Stage
Debate contribution by Mr Peter Martin on .
- 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 5706841
Read the official Assembly record
Text
No, I will not; I am sorry. I am genuinely disappointed. Perhaps she has not been in the Chamber for the entire debate and did not hear my speech, but I say to the Member opposite that I have done my best to be respectful and honest and to bravely reflect the views that my party and I have on the issue. I hope that I have done that with respect to everyone in the Chamber and everyone watching. Your comments were unfair. I turn to clause 3. Principal Deputy Speaker, you will be glad to hear that I will not get into a debate about gender identity. I have a range of identities that I was going to present to the Bill sponsor to clarify exactly what he means by the phrase "gender identity", but I will not bother with that. I will simply make this absolutely crucial point. The Bill seeks to introduce the concept of "gender identity" into law at clause 2(1)(b) and clause 3(1)(b), and it will become a legal minefield, perhaps a criminal minefield, for a range of people, particularly those who support the concept of the Supreme Court ruling that the words "sex", "man" and "woman" in the Equality Act 2010 relate to biological sex. I remind Members of the House that a clear majority of people in Northern Ireland agree with that, but I suspect that the Members opposite do not. Clause 8 states:
"In this Act, psychological harm includes fear, alarm or distress."
The Bill, however, as other Members have mentioned, does not include any diagnosed injury in that regard or any threshold. I am not sure whether that is standard practice in law, and I am happy to give the Floor to the sponsor — it is an honest question — to explain why that is not the case. Perhaps that can be picked up again if the Bill progresses to Committee Stage. I view that as a gap in terms of how that is measured. The relevance of that is that clauses 1 and 2 create offences that carry up to two years' imprisonment on indictment. Obviously, consent is no defence. I do not agree with that, but I understand why that is. I ask this question, however: why is clause 8, with its relatively broad concept, as has been touched on today, of fear, alarm or distress, presented without the qualifier "substantial" and without a requirement for some level of evidence to be presented of a sufficiently certain and appropriate threshold for a criminal offence? The Protection from Stalking Act (Northern Ireland) 2022 refers to "fear, alarm or substantial distress". The word "substantial" is included in that legislation, but the Conversion Practices (Criminalisation) Bill does not include that word, but references "fear, alarm or distress".
466 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Uncertain: weak signal Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues
Uncertain: this record is published but not counted in any total.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.51 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.82).
- The text adopts the identity-based framing in its own voice (0.58).
- Subject area: Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues.
- The answers did not meet either automatic threshold.
This is an AI-generated assessment of the text, made against published criteria. It is not a finding of fact about the MLA or their intentions. The Assembly record itself is the fact.
Jev’s structured answers
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.15 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.13 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.05 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.58 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.30 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.82 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.51 | Between thresholds |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing | 0.33 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.09 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it (chosen) | 0.58 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 1.00 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.00 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 16:22 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.