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 5762880

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I thank the Member. I understand why people are asking about the wording and how it could be relied upon as a statutory definition or recognition of self-declared gender identity. I do not think that that is the policy objective of the Bill, but there is uncertainty there. The Bill sponsor needs the law to protect someone where a perpetrator targets someone's actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity. The Committee needs to examine whether that can be achieved without the current wording around what the victim considers their identity to be. It may be sensible to make it explicit that any interpretation of gender identity is "for the purposes of this Act only". Many Members have talked in the debate about how it may be interpreted, but I understand that there are instruments in legislation whereby we can say that the interpretation of a Bill applies to only that Bill. That would ensure that the Bill does not give an unintended definition of "gender identity". It does not alter the meaning of "sex" or "acquired gender" or alter existing rights or exceptions elsewhere in law, but the principle matters to me. We should be able to protect transgender people from harmful conversion practices without the Bill inadvertently becoming a vehicle for changing the meaning of "sex" or establishing a wider system of gender self-ID in Northern Ireland law. I do not believe that that is necessarily what the Bill does, but, if we can remove ambiguity, particularly in criminal legislation, we should. That brings me to article 2 of the Windsor framework. I appreciate that the sponsor has indicated that the Equality Commission did not identify an article 2 breach during the development of the proposal, but it is still worth examining the issue properly. Article 2 protects certain existing rights, safeguards and equality protections in Northern Ireland from diminution following Brexit. The fact that the Bill engages equality and human rights does not, in itself, mean that article 2 is breached, but the question is whether an existing protected right is actually being reduced. The conversation around gender identity potentially comes into that. I have not really seen it demonstrated that the Bill removes an existing sex-based right. It does not expressly amend sex discrimination law, the Gender Recognition Act or single-sex exemptions. However, if we are giving "gender identity" a new or uncertain statutory meaning, it is reasonable to satisfy ourselves that doing so will have no unintended consequences for existing sex-based protections. I would expect the Committee to test that carefully with the Equality Commission, the Human Rights Commission and the appropriate legal experts. Again, if a saving provision could make it explicit that the Bill leaves existing sex-based rights elsewhere in law untouched, that is worth considering. Again, a lot of the opposition to the Bill is about giving a definition to gender identity, but if we can explicitly write into law that the provisions do not go beyond the confines of the Bill, might Members around the House accept that and support the Bill? There is also a question around "psychological harm". Clause 8 says:

"psychological harm includes fear, alarm or distress."

I do not accept the suggestion that someone merely saying, "This conversation upset me" automatically establishes an offence. Other elements still have to be proven. "Distress", however, is a broad term. Difficult conversations can cause distress. Parenting can cause distress, as can therapy. The Chamber often causes me distress. However, if we mean genuine psychological harm, the Committee should look at whether the legislation needs to be made clearer so that trivial or transient distress is not sufficient.

I thank the Member for her intervention. The legislative process is such that we can amend and shape the Bill, so that it does not give rise to that. I support the principle of the Bill — in fact, I think that most people do — but if, when we get to the detail, it can be worded differently, then, hopefully, we can get to that with the support of the House. Equally, if the Bill is not changed to my satisfaction and I think that those things cannot be addressed, I will not necessarily support it at its Final Stage. The role of the House and of us as legislators is to create good law, and, right now, the Bill needs work. Certainly, I hear that suggestion from this side of the House and, indeed, throughout the House. I support it because there is the possibility of changing the Bill without undermining its integrity and what it tries to do. There have been other Member's Bills in the House that I thought needed too much change and could not be changed to the point at which I could have supported them. We can, however, do it with this Bill, and if we cannot, we have various stages at which we can reject it. We have a Bill sponsor, but the Bill belongs to the House. It is now our job to get to a point at which everybody agrees with it.

I have a great concern that we may have a week left in the mandate to get through any of the various stages. That does not mean that we do nothing. We have to do what we can. If our scrutiny does not get the Bill to the point that it is right for everyone, then we do not vote for it. That is our job as legislators. There is an opportunity to learn a lot from the Westminster context and perspective. To some extent, the legislation introduced there is a different vehicle. This is a contained Bill, which might not go as far as Westminster's, but I do not think that we should do nothing. A harm exists. Those in the Member's party, as well as others, have acknowledged that harm. If existing legislation does not address it, it is OK that we are seen to address that inadequacy. It may mean that we do not eventually end up with the Bill that has been presented at Second Stage, but it does not do any harm for us to test it at least. That is our job. I will go back to my point on distress. We need to be clear that transient or trivial distress is not sufficient. We need to provide greater certainty without weakening the protection that the Bill intends to create. Therapy is another area in which I need greater clarity. Someone who is questioning their sexual orientation or gender identity should be able to explore that openly with an appropriate and qualified practitioner. Exploration is not conversion. Good therapy should not start with the predetermined conclusion that the person must be affirmed in one direction or pushed in another. That is the defining difference. It should allow someone to question, explore and understand what they are experiencing.

The Bill protects certain regulated healthcare professionals where they act in accordance with their professional standards, but the Committee needs to examine whether that protection adequately reflects the wider range of counsellors and psychotherapists who practise legitimately outside the bodies that are specifically listed. I would be comfortable with legislation explicitly protecting neutral, exploratory and non-directive therapeutic support. That would not provide cover for conversion therapy; it would help us define the difference between genuine therapeutic exploration and an intervention the predetermined purpose of which is to change or suppress somebody's sexual orientation or gender identity.

There is also a question around children. The Bill does not appear to contain an age-specific exclusion for someone accused of the offences. I do not accept that ordinary playground disagreement, unpleasant comments or bullying would automatically become conversion practices. The specific conversion intent and the other elements of the offence would still need to be established. However, Northern Ireland has a low age of criminal responsibility, so the Committee will need to consider how the offences are intended to operate in peer-to-peer situations involving children and whether existing youth justice safeguards are sufficient. Such things are not an issue until they become an issue, which is why we have to anticipate how the legislation could be interpreted. There are occasions when I support the policy objective behind legislation but conclude that the Bill itself is fundamentally the wrong vehicle for it, and I have said that. I made that distinction with the Display of Flags and Emblems Bill. It was absolutely the right intention that we progress that issue, but the vehicle was not right. That is not where we are today, however. This Bill needs shaped, but its core architecture is capable of carrying those changes. The Bill already separates conversion therapy from coercive conversion behaviour. It deals separately with taking someone outside Northern Ireland for conversion practices, and it requires intent and harm. It contains protections around expression of belief and regulated healthcare. The work now is to make those boundaries sufficiently precise. That scrutiny will also force us to confront difficult but worthwhile questions about the interaction between criminal law, equality law, freedom of religion and expression, parental responsibility, existing sex-based protections and the Windsor framework. Those conversations are not a distraction from the legislation; they are part of getting it right. To come back to Mrs Cameron's point, we may not have time to do that, but having those conversations on record will help to set a foundation on which we can potentially look at this again if we run out of time. I support the Bill today, because I support the principle that harmful conversion practices should be outlawed and because the concerns identified are capable of being addressed without abandoning the legislative framework in front of us. That support is not unconditional. If my concerns cannot be satisfactorily resolved as the Bill progresses, I will reconsider my position at later stages, but I believe that they can be resolved and that the Bill should now have the opportunity to go through to detailed scrutiny. On that basis, I support the Bill's Second Stage.

1,678 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not qualifying

Jev’s structured answers

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.

Challenge this classification