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

Debate contribution by Ms Claire Sugden on 28 September 2026.

MLA: Ms Claire Sugden
Party at the time: Independent
Date: 28 September 2026
Type: Debate contribution
Business: Private Members' Business
Heading: Conversion Practices (Criminalisation) Bill: Second Stage
Assembly identifier: Official Report component 5762860

Text

I support the Bill at Second Stage. I support the general principle that people should not be subjected to harmful practices intended to change or suppress their sexual orientation or gender identity. I have concerns that I will speak to, but I believe that the Bill can address those concerns within its existing scope and architecture. It will need amendments if I am to ultimately support it through to its Final Stage, but fixing those issues would not require us to fundamentally rewrite the Bill or turn it into something different. Its basic structure is capable of carrying the changes that are required while retaining the purpose for which it was introduced, and that is really important to my support at Second Stage. If I am wrong and the changes do not go through, I may not support it at the subsequent stages. The Bill is criminal legislation, and it creates offences that can carry a custodial sentence of up to two years. Therefore, we need to be clear about the conduct that could be criminalised, the intention that must exist, the harm that must be caused and, equally important, the conduct that remains lawful if the Bill is put into statute. Like others, I have received considerable correspondence from constituents who are genuinely concerned about how the legislation will be interpreted. I probably came to the debate from a perspective that I was likely to support the principle of the Bill, but I have tried to understand the concerns that have been put to me and whether they have a legitimate basis, whether they have a basis in law or whether the drafting could create unintended consequences. It is not enough for us to simply say that something is not the intention of the Bill; if there is ambiguity in the wording, what ultimately matters is how that legislation can be interpreted and applied. That is particularly important when we are creating a criminal offence. One argument has been that we already have laws covering assault, harassment, domestic abuse and coercion and that there is no need for an additional offence. I am not often persuaded by that argument. The fact that conduct may already fall into some area of criminal law does not necessarily mean that the existing framework adequately identifies or deals with a behaviour that we are trying to address. We have done that elsewhere in the law. Sometimes, legislation is needed because a particular pattern of behaviour is not being adequately captured. Coercive control and domestic abuse legislation is an example of that. Sometimes, naming the behaviour specifically matters, because it helps victims and practitioners in the criminal justice system to recognise what exactly is happening. The Bill sponsor's case is that there are conversion practices that may not fit neatly within the offences that already exist: for example, purported therapeutic interventions intended to change or suppress somebody's sexual orientation or gender identity or coercive behaviour by someone who does not fall within the definition of "personal relationship" under our domestic abuse law. The Bill therefore creates separate offences relating to "conversion therapy", "coercive conversion behaviour" and:
"removing a person from Northern Ireland for ... conversion practices."
That is a legitimate gap that we have to examine.
Does our current law provide for that? I am not sure that it does. There has also been considerable concern expressed about whether ordinary conversations between parents and children, religious teaching or difficult therapeutic conversations could be caught by the Bill.
I do not see that as an accurate reading of how those offences would operate as a whole. For conversion therapy to be an offence, there would have to be conversion therapy, a specific intention to change or suppress the victim's sexual orientation or gender identity and a specific intention to cause physical or psychological harm as a consequence. Those three key elements are required to come together. There is also the defence of where the conduct was "reasonable in the particular circumstances", but how we deliver on the principle matters just as much as the principle itself. The legislation would have to be understood by the public, parents, religious organisations, therapists, the police and, ultimately, the courts. Where a legitimate boundary can therefore be made clear in the Bill, I believe that we should make it clear. That is essentially what Members across the House have been saying. The parental issue is a good example. I do not believe that I would support a blanket exemption for parents, because being a parent cannot provide immunity where there is genuinely harmful or coercive behaviour towards a child. I do not believe that any one of us would support that. I do think, however, that the relationship between the Bill and the domestic abuse legislation from which the coercive behaviour provisions have been drawn deserves much closer examination. The Domestic Abuse and Civil Proceedings Act (Northern Ireland) 2021 contains an exception where the alleged victim is under 16 and the accused has responsibility for that child. The 2021 Act's explanatory notes make clear that the reason for that is not that direct abuse by a parent is acceptable but is because other child protection offences are considered the appropriate mechanism for dealing with that abuse. That is important. A parent will routinely do things that, in a relationship between adults, could look controlling. Between two adults, monitoring where a person is, restricting internet access, setting curfews or deciding where they can go or whom they see is quite worrying. Between a parent and a child, however, that is parenting. The 2021 Act recognises that difference in context. The Bill appears to borrow substantially from that coercive control framework but does not carry across the parental exception. There may be a good reason for that.

966 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