Debate contribution: Conversion Practices (Criminalisation) Bill: Second Stage
Debate contribution by Ms Claire Sugden on .
- 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 5762870
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank the Bill sponsor for outlining that intention, but, to go back to my earlier comments, the wording has to reflect that so that we can feel confident that the Bill would not create that unintended consequence. Certainly, if the Bill passes Second Stage this evening, the Committee will need to focus on why that part of the source legislation has been lifted out and what alternative safeguard is intended to distinguish between legitimate parental responsibility and coercive conversion behaviour. There is a much more useful question to be asked than one simply about whether parents would be criminalised or whether they have nothing to be worried about. That also applies to religious expression. People must remain free to believe, preach, disagree, discuss and persuade. Clause 7(1)(b) provides that there is no intent to change or suppress where:
"the intent is solely to express beliefs or opinions, without directing a victim towards a particular sexual orientation or gender identity".
I will give my thoughts on that. That is an important protection, but religious freedom cannot mean that harmful or coercive behaviour becomes immune from criminal law simply because it has happened in a religious setting. Again, the distinction can be drawn, but the question for scrutiny is whether it has been drawn clearly enough. I will spend more time on gender identity, because it is one of the most important drafting questions to be asked about the Bill. Sex, gender reassignment, acquired gender under the Gender Recognition Act 2004 and gender identity are related concepts, but they are not interchangeable legal concepts.
The Gender Recognition Act applies in Northern Ireland and provides a particular statutory mechanism with particular legal consequences. The Bill does not amend that framework. It does not amend the law on sex. It does not change the law governing single-sex services. Its purpose here is to protect people from conversion practices directed towards their gender identity, and I support that purpose. Clause 6 deserves careful scrutiny, however. Clause 6 says:
"In this Act, a reference to a victim's sexual orientation or gender identity includes— (a) what the victim considers it to be, and (b) what the person considers it to be".
I understand why the second part of that is necessary. If someone — the accused — believes that another person is gay or transgender and subjects them to harmful conversion practices for that reason, the relevant issue is the characteristic that they believe that they were targeting and their intention to change or suppress it. However, my difficulty is why we need to say that gender identity includes whatever the victim considers it to be. Gender identity actually has appeared in legislation affecting Northern Ireland — census legislation in 2019 — but referring to a characteristic is not the same as giving the courts an interpretive rule about how that characteristic is to be understood in respect of a criminal offence that can lead to imprisonment. Therefore, whether intentionally or otherwise, clause 6 does more than simply mention gender identity.
505 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not qualifying”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.08 (qualifying needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not qualifying).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.96).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.93).
- Subject area: Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues.
- The overall probability was at or below the not-qualifying 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 | 0.07 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.03 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.03 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.05 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.07 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.96 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.08 | At or below not-qualifying threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.93 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.02 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.05 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| 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 01:21 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9. This record has been assessed 3 times; the latest assessment is shown.
Disagree with this assessment?
Classifications can be challenged. A person reviews every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.