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

Debate contribution by Ms Kellie Armstrong on 15 September 2026.

MLA: Ms Kellie Armstrong
Party at the time: Alliance Party
Date: 15 September 2026
Type: Debate contribution
Business: Private Members' Business
Heading: Conversion Practices (Criminalisation) Bill: Second Stage
Assembly identifier: Official Report component 5707408

Text

I thank the Member for that contribution. I do not think that I need to respond to it, because it was a viewpoint, but I will say that the debate has generated strong opinions, which is understandable because it touches on issues of identity, faith, family life, personal liberty and safeguarding. When we cut through the rhetoric, the question that is before us is simple: should anyone be subjected to harmful practices that are intended to change their sexual orientation or gender identity? I believe that the answer to that is no. The evidence that has been presented in support of the legislation is deeply concerning. Survivors have described experiences that left them feeling ashamed, isolated, frightened and damaged. I would like to take Members back to the start of the debate, when Mr Tennyson — I do not want to embarrass him — got emotional. I can understand why that happened. Some people who have been through such practices have spoken about being subjected to degrading interventions disguised as therapy. Others described coercive behaviour within their family or community or in faith settings. Those are not accounts that any of us can simply dismiss. What struck me most when reading the evidence was that many of those who were affected were vulnerable people seeking support, guidance or acceptance who instead encountered attempts to convince them that a fundamental part of who they are was wrong and needed to be fixed. That is terrible. Mr Tennyson has been very clear, throughout the Bill, that the offences of providing conversion therapy and engaging in coercive therapy are based on intent. That is important. If a person says that they are gay, lesbian, bisexual or whatever, and another person says, "No you're not", that is one thing. If yet another person has the intent to change the person and make them not what they are, however, that is different. Sadly, some parents do that. I have been involved in many different situations in my time with parents and with the wave of different families. Members have to remember that, when children are subjected to abuse, including physical abuse, within a family, it is most usually carried out by their parents or siblings. We cannot say that all families are perfect, and that is why, when the Bill sponsor talks about protecting parents, a simple conversation is not a problem; it is a problem whenever the intent is clear. Broader studies have shown that LGBTQ+ individuals experience higher rates of suicidal thoughts and self-harm than the general population due to minority stress, discrimination, coercion and social stigma. That does not come from just one report. If anybody wants to, they can go on to their phone now and look up the Samaritans' website, on which there is a particular page for people with LGBTQ+ backgrounds to consider seeking support and help. It is very sad to know that people are forced into a situation where they would rather kill themselves than live in a society that does not want them to be there or that does not respect them. Mr Martin talked about Alan Turing. What an incredibly intelligent man he was, and thank goodness for him, because his cracking the code led us to a successful outcome in the Second World War. Let us not forget, however, that Alan Turing was not just prosecuted: he took chemical castration to avoid jail because he was homosexual and ended up dying by suicide. That is what some of our young people, and our not so young people, go through.
I am moving on from that point now, if the Member does not mind. Mrs Dodds talked about this being draconian legislation. I do not think that it is.
What is more draconian is for people to be forced to live a life that is not them and to be forced to live a life where they have to deny who they are, thus denying themselves. There has been talk that the Bill is poorly drafted. I have said it before and will say it again, having been down this road with my own private Member's Bill: the House owes an apology to the Bill Office and to whomever drafted the Bill, because those people are qualified professionals. They do not produce bad work. Members can sponsor private Members' Bills. We put forward our proposals, do our research and undertake our consultation. We then present everything to the Bill Office and its drafters, who come up with the wording in the Bill. There is meaning behind every single word. I put it on the record that I am not one of those Members who, with every private Member's Bill, slights the Bill Office.
No. I am going to move on. The fact that there is a minority population in Northern Ireland that has higher rates of suicidal thoughts and self-harm than the rest of the population should concern every single Member, regardless of their political or religious beliefs.
No. I will move on. I welcome the fact that the Bill focuses not just on intent but on harm and coercion. The offences in clauses 1 and 2 require specific actions, a specific victim, an intention to:
"change or suppress sexual orientation or gender identity"
and proof that harm has occurred. The legislation is not simply about disagreement or expression of beliefs. Those legal safeguards are important. Many people, however, will have genuine questions about where the boundaries lie, and it is important that those concerns be addressed openly and clearly. I will therefore ask Eóin, the Bill sponsor, questions for him to respond to in his winding-up speech. I ask him to consider being very clear in answering them in order to cut through some of the noise so that we have clear answers. First, can he assure parents across Northern Ireland that ordinary conversations with their children about sexuality, relationships or gender identity would not of themselves be criminalised under the legislation? If a parent is seeking to guide, advise or support their child rather than coerce or harm them, can he explain why such conversations would fall outside the scope of the Bill? Secondly, many faith communities will also be listening closely to the debate. Can he confirm that a priest, minister, imam, rabbi or other religious leader would not face prosecution simply for preaching, expressing religious doctrine or sharing traditional beliefs from the pulpit?
No, I will not. I will move on. Can he explain how the requirement for there to be a specific victim, harmful conduct and intent would provide protection for freedom of religion and freedom of expression? Thirdly, the Bill contains a defence of reasonableness, about which others have talked. Can he elaborate on why that safeguard has been included and how it is intended to operate in practice? Does he believe that it would provide an additional layer of protection against unintended consequences? Finally, as the Bill progresses, can the Bill sponsor confirm whether he is open to further refinements that provide additional reassurance to parents, carers and faith communities while ensuring that the central objective of protecting people from conversion practices remains strong and effective? At its core, the legislation is about dignity and protection. It is about ensuring that nobody is subjected to harmful practices because of who they are. It is about recognising that safeguarding should apply in every setting, be that in a professional environment, in a community organisation or, indeed, in a faith setting. We can support freedom of religion while also protecting people from harm. We can respect parents while also challenging coercive behaviour. We can have difficult conversations about identity while also drawing a clear line under practices that seek to damage, shame or correct. We heard very clearly from some Members from the DUP that they will oppose the Bill at Second Stage. Mr Martin said very clearly that he is up for scrutiny. I am a member of the Committee for Communities. It was mentioned earlier that all voices should be heard.
That can happen at the Communities Committee as part of its consultation. However, if you vote against the Bill, you stop scrutiny, and you prevent the voices from being heard when they could be heard. I say this to the DUP: you can vote against the Bill tonight, but ask yourself the question, "Do I really want it to be scrutinised?". It does not sound like you do.
I thank Mr Martin for that. I remind him that, not that long ago, the Minister, Gordon Lyons, chastised me for wanting to go into the detail of a Bill at Second Stage. It is interesting to see the difference at this Second Stage. As a member of the Committee for Communities, and somebody who is passionate about, and an ally of, people across the LGBTQIA+ community, I am disappointed that the House has had to rely on Mr Tennyson to bring this forward and that the Department has not brought forward a Bill on the matter. It has been bubbling along in the House for a long time. We do not have gender equality or sexual orientation strategies.

1,530 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Awaiting analysis

This record has not been analysed yet. It is not counted in any total until it has been assessed.

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