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

Debate contribution by Mrs Pam Cameron on 22 September 2026.

MLA

Mrs Pam Cameron

Party at the time

Democratic Unionist Party

Date

22 September 2026

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Private Members' Business

Heading

Conversion Practices (Criminalisation) Bill: Second Stage

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5741140

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I thank my colleague for that intervention. I agree wholeheartedly with him. It is clear that there are very real fears around the reach of the legislation. That is not just from straight, socially conservative politicians. Many people are rightly alarmed by the impact that the legislation could have. That absolutely includes the impact on free speech and parenting. I will come back to my notes. We hear some stories and wonder why no one has taken the matter to the police, quite frankly, because they sound ripe for prosecution, but we have not heard of any cases where the police have refused to prosecute or cases where the courts have refused to convict. If I had been presented today with a law that would tackle real abuse and genuinely do something new to end it, I would vote in favour of it.

However, I have yet to be shown evidence of a genuine gap in the law that needs to be fixed or a single case study that shows that someone could benefit from the Bill.

The Bill sponsor seems to think that the Bill is well targeted and carefully worded and that it has protections for free speech and medical practice. Many of us have seen the legal advice from one of the UK's top lawyers, Aidan O'Neill KC. He is clear that the Bill does not work like that. Mr Tennyson says that there are holes in the law, but I am afraid that it is his Bill that is filled with holes. The wording is impossible to understand, incredibly vague and replete with unintended consequences. Let me quote Dennis Kavanagh of the Gay Men's Network, a criminal lawyer, who has said that:

"This Bill is breathtakingly broad and uncertain. Normal family life and therapy will come under a wide net of criminal liability it casts. There is no proper place for criminal law in day-to-day situations which are already difficult and tense for people and families."

I will.

No, thank you. I appreciate the intervention from my colleague. It is good to have those facts put in front of the Chamber. They need to be heard. I even wonder whether the Bill is so broad that it might criminalise trans activists. Could those who encourage a young person to identify as trans be at risk of prosecution if that young person later says, "You encouraged me in the wrong identity. You pushed me. You manipulated me. You coerced me. You have harmed me"? We know of an increasing number of people who have detransitioned or wish to do so and, undoubtedly, have been harmed by transgender ideology and those who push it. How certain is Mr Tennyson that the breadth of his Bill will not also result in problems for those whom he deems to be on his side of the debate? We may not yet have reliable figures that show the full scale of detransitioning, but those individuals exist, and their experiences cannot simply be ignored because they complicate the narrative surrounding the Bill.

Not at this time. Indeed, NHS England has acknowledged that an increasing number of people are seeking to detransition, with no clear route through which they can access appropriate care. Some have undergone significant medical treatment and are now living with physical and psychological consequences. They deserve compassion, proper clinical support and freedom to discuss their experiences honestly. What reassurance can the Bill sponsor give that a counsellor or therapist who helps such a person to explore regret, uncertainty or a wish to return to living as their biological sex would not risk being accused of attempting to "change or suppress" a gender identity? Even if a prosecution were ultimately unsuccessful, the prospect of investigation might be enough to make professionals afraid to engage with those difficult cases. That is not a theoretical concern; it is precisely why vague criminal legislation in such a complex area is dangerous. I say "dangerous". The law must protect people from abuse. It must not silence detransitioners or make professionals frightened to provide them with open-minded, non-judgemental support. Those concerns are not confined to people who reject transgender identities. As I mentioned, following last week's debate I was contacted by a trans woman who supports my party's opposition to the Bill. She gave me permission to share her views. She told me that the Bill is wide open to interpretation and could be manipulated to push this blocker and hormone agenda for minors — something she has been against. Those are her words, not mine. Members may agree or disagree with her conclusions, but her contribution demonstrates that concerns about the breadth of the legislation cannot honestly be dismissed as hostility towards transgender people.

There are people with direct personal experience of such issues who are also worried about the consequences for children, parents and professionals. Of course, on the whole, the main concern about the Bill will come from others. Consider this scenario. Perhaps a man asks for support from his minister to remain true to his religion's sexual ethics. Some time later, however, he changes his mind and wishes that he had never embraced Christian sexual ethics. He hates them, in fact, and wishes that he had never asked for prayer. He now claims that the lifestyle that he was encouraged to live suppressed him and caused him distress. Under the Bill, will his church minister not be liable for prosecution, resulting in a conviction, a fine or even imprisonment? What about a child who asks to be affirmed as transgender against their parents' advice and against the safeguarding policies of their school? It seems that they will be able to call the police on their family or on their school for suppressing their identity. Most of us understand that living and growing up in 2026 is not easy. I often think about what I did not have growing up, and I am eternally thankful for that lack of information, lack of technology and lack of imagery, which can be so damaging to a young mind.

Not this time. I believe that parenting today is more challenging than ever before, and I am very proud and delighted to be a new grandmother —

— and not a new mother in the day and age that we are living in, such is the challenge of protecting young minds from the often harmful and damaging world around them. Parents trying to help their children feel comfortable in their own skin or teachers urging them to wait until they have thought it all through should not be in the cross hairs of the criminal law. I do not want to get into all the technicalities of the Bill at this point, but what I have seen tells me that the Bill has been drafted in a hurry without sufficient consideration of the risk involved. However, to be fair to the Bill sponsor, even with more time and consideration, problems would remain. Westminster has been trying to do this for many years, and it is now taking months to consider a draft before even tabling a Bill, yet, after all this time, it has found no way of resolving the unintended consequences. The Westminster Bill is also being attacked from all sides. I want to talk about what the Assembly Bill would mean for my constituents, because the reality is that bringing a child up is difficult. There are so many pressures, from the influence of social media to mental health issues and more. The Bill would place yet another pressure on parents, particularly those who may already feel like they are walking on eggshells if their children are experimenting with their identity or are struggling with adolescence in this complicated world that they inhabit. Parents need to be able to guide and direct their children — "direct" is in the wording of the Bill — without fear of facing accusations and investigation and involvement from social services. Yes, they should provide loving support in a way that respects their child's perspective, but they need to feel free to give honest answers, to give a steer and to encourage their child to do what they think is in their best interests. I want to take the opportunity to speak about the opinion of Stella O'Malley, who is a psychotherapist and the founder of Genspect, which is an international organisation that advocates for a psychological approach to gender distress. She is concerned that the Bill will have a chilling effect on conventional therapy. Stella O'Malley talks about not supporting conversion therapy and of having no interest in trying to turn gay people straight. She refers to the history of gay conversion therapy, including the appalling practices involved in conversion therapy attempts. She points to significant problems with the Bill and states that it:

"does not simply outlaw abusive attempts to turn gay people straight; it creates criminal offences around attempts to 'change or suppress' either sexual orientation or gender identity. Adding gender identity is a catastrophic game-changer."

Those are not my words. Stella continues her explanation by stating:

"The bill therefore makes a fundamental category error. There is a well-established association between childhood gender nonconformity and later homosexuality. The girlish little boy who loves dancing in a glittery princess dress may simply grow up to be gay."

She continues:

"If he is told that he is really a girl, and this leads to puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones, we risk a new form of chemical conversion therapy that is often described as 'transing the gay away'."

She goes on to say:

"A therapist working with a gender-distressed young person must be able to ask questions when the client is considering irreversible changes to a healthy body. Why do you want to change your body? When did this begin? What else was happening in your life? Could your distress have another explanation? Can we slow down? Have you tried less-invasive strategies? That is not conversion therapy. It is conventional therapy."

Then we come to freedom of religion. Stella O'Malley says:

"Freedom of religion means little if religious leaders may hold their beliefs but dare not express them."

There are so many negative views of the Bill. It is not just poorly drafted; it is incredibly dangerous and wholly unacceptable. To conclude, I oppose abuse in any form against any person, and I will support any LGBT person who is facing abuse. We should not be telling sections of our community that they are not protected under current law as things stand. I cannot support a Bill that could do far more harm than good.

I do not support the Bill.

1,781 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Qualifying

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 00:50 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r7, methodology 1.7.

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