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 5706847

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I appreciate the Bill sponsor's honest answer, and I do not doubt his sincerity in that regard. To a degree, he is right in that some of the Bill could be worked through, but I have spent time highlighting the bits of the Bill that are so dangerous — I will use that word — and, certainly, distressing to me that I will not support it. However, I accept his point on that issue. On policy design and precedent, we have talked about the fact that Northern Ireland already has extensive criminal offences that cover many of the underlying forces behind serious misconduct that accompany abusive conversion practices, including assault, sexual offences, coercive or controlling behaviour — the Bill sponsor made reference to that being part of domestic abuse legislation — and cruelty to children. The question, therefore, is this: what additional harmful conduct does the Bill criminalise that cannot be prosecuted under existing law? He has made some references to that during the debate, and I appreciate that. Notwithstanding that, what we have here today is a private Member's Bill that has no departmental EQIA, nor does it have any published human rights memorandum beyond the sponsor's own satisfaction. It has what I would call an "extremely dubious" research base, and I have gone into why that is. What the Bill does is introduce a wide-ranging criminal offence that includes no defence of consent and a 12-month commencement order. I ask the Assembly this question: is it right that we should pass an unprecedented gender identity criminal code into Northern Ireland law on that timetable, rather than wait, as has been mentioned already today, for a government Bill that has been stress-tested against Cass-era clinical evidence? There is a body of that evidence. I have tried to reflect some of it today and would like to have gone into more detail, but I suspect that the Principal Deputy Speaker would have pulled me in. There is also the For Women Scotland judgement, article 2 and a full section 75 assessment.

My fear is not just about what I have mentioned today. My real fear is for parents and teachers, who do not know how dangerous the Bill could be and how they might be affected. Lots of people have contacted my office about the Bill. I have already read into the record what some folk have said, but I want to reflect the views of some Christian organisations as well, because a lot of them have contacted me. The Christian Institute said:

"The Bill could potentially encompass prayer, teaching, counselling and pastoral support."

I know that the Bill sponsor will not agree with that, but it is important that all views be heard. That is what a Christian organisation is saying. The Christian Institute continued:

"Suppression could be encouraging someone to resist particular sexual desires."

That could be suppressing sexual orientation. On the issue of gender identity, in clause 6, the institute said, "Defining gender identity —.

I will indeed give way to the Member for North Antrim.

The Bill sponsor looks quizzical, but that is one for him to scribble down. Finally, on the issue of gender self-identification, the Christian Institute said:

"Defining gender identity partly by what an individual considers it to be introduces self-identification into criminal law."

I agree with the institute on that. The Evangelical Alliance made the argument that it supports protecting people, as does this party, from coercive and abusive practices. Importantly, however, it also argued:

"This must be clearly distinguished from consensual prayer, conversations and support."

It is fair to say that, in the Chamber today, there is a range of views on that matter. I have done my best to outline my concerns and to elucidate my party's concerns about the Bill. I will now conclude. To be fair, I have spent a lot of time on the Bill, as have some of my colleagues. I have read it in detail. I have spoken to a lot of people about it. I have spoken to a lot of experts about it. Despite some of the assurances given today, I remain deeply concerned about the Bill, to the level that, in complete opposition to the SDLP Member for Foyle, I believe that it is not the sort of Bill that we should allow to pass Second Stage. This is a place of scrutiny, and we are providing that today. It would be an absolute mistake for the Bill to be waved through to Committee Stage just so that the Committee for Communities can tidy it up. There are so many holes in the Bill that it is unrepairable. As such, I will be opposing its passage.

784 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

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.

Challenge this classification