Debate contribution: International Day Against Homophobia, Biphobia and Transphobia

Debate contribution by Mr Gordon Lyons on 12 May 2025.

MLA

Mr Gordon Lyons

Party at the time

Democratic Unionist Party

Date

12 May 2025

Type

Debate contribution (made as a minister)

Business

Private Members' Business

Heading

International Day Against Homophobia, Biphobia and Transphobia

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 4938015

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Thank you, Principal Deputy Speaker. I welcome the opportunity to speak on the motion. When I took up office in this Department, I said that I would support and champion a safe and welcoming society, and that requires a commitment to true equality and freedom for all. Therefore, let me be unequivocal: there is no place for discrimination in our society. Every individual, regardless of their background, identity or beliefs, deserves to be respected and to have the opportunity to live free from hatred or exclusion. That principle is non-negotiable and lies at the heart of a just society. Let me turn to the sexual orientation strategy. Members will be aware that work was commenced in 2020 by the Department for Communities, on behalf of the Executive, on four social inclusion strategies — anti-poverty, disability, gender equality and sexual orientation — in order to progress the options proposed in the New Decade, New Approach agreement. The motion notes the work of the expert advisory panel. The panel was established in October 2020, with the objective of making recommendations on the themes and key actions that the sexual orientation strategy should address. The panel's report was published in 2021. Following consideration of the work previously carried out to develop each of the social inclusion strategies, alongside unprecedented pressures on resources across Departments, I decided to move forward on the development of the strategies on a phased basis, and work is now well progressed on the anti-poverty and disability strategies. It is true to say that much work has been carried out to date on the sexual orientation strategy. However, as that was undertaken in the previous mandate, it will be necessary to review and update that work before seeking approval from other Departments and Ministers. We are all aware of how the budgetary and legislative landscape has changed since the previous mandate, and that includes the recent Supreme Court judgement, which I will come to later.

Of course, final decisions on the content of the strategy will be subject to Executive agreement. I intend to make an announcement shortly on when work will commence on the further development of a sexual orientation strategy, including a timetable for bringing it to the Executive.

I understand the calls to bring forward the strategy. However, we need to ensure that any potential strategy is properly thought through. The motion calls for:

"an LGBTQI+ strategy without further delay."

What is a delay?

I am happy to give way.

I will be moving on to that point and will deal with it in more detail, but is the Member saying that it should be published today? Is it today, next week or is it a few weeks? What does it mean? It reminds me that Mr Honeyford is in his place. When it comes to Casement Park, he always says, "Just get it built. Just get it done", but, of course, we cannot just say that we are getting on with it and getting it done, because there are questions —

Just give me a second to explain. Give me the opportunity to explain what I am saying because they are not inconsequential proposals. Some of them, which came from the expert advisory panel report, are exceptionally controversial and divisive, and it would be very difficult to get political agreement on some of them. Let me give an example of some of the issues that were mentioned in the expert advisory panel report. There should be:

"Gender-affirming healthcare services for all ages",

"Conversion therapy has ended in Northern Ireland."

"All young people have access to age appropriate relationship and sexuality education inclusive of LGBTQI+ which is universal and not dependent on school ethos."

"Access to sports, activities, uniforms and facilities are accessible inclusive of all genders and gender identities."

"Gender Recognition legislation is fit for purpose".

For each one of those, you will have difficulty defining exactly what some of those terms are and what the implications are. You are talking about changes that will be felt across health, education and other aspects of our society. So, no, I am not prepared to take what the expert advisory panel report has produced and put it into a strategy, because it will not be realistic. It will not get Executive approval. In fact, one reason why Mr Carroll tabled his amendment is that there is no agreement in the Executive for the approach here, which talks about so-called gender-affirming healthcare services for all ages. All of those recommendations demonstrate why it is simply impossible to immediately produce a strategy that will get support from all Executive colleagues.

That is exactly what I am coming on to. I want to see what is possible, what is sensible and what will actually make a difference. I hope that the more sensible Members of the House can understand how significant and contentious some of the issues are.

I find that a despicable comment. I gave way to Mr O'Toole because of the specific point that we were on. I anticipated the question that, I believed, the Member was going to ask previously, and I asked her to give me time. It is absolutely disgraceful what she is insinuating about me, and I think we should lower the temperature —

I am happy that we lower the temperature, but I will not have my integrity impugned. I treat everybody in the House with the respect to which they are entitled, regardless of gender. I hope that the Member would know me well enough at this stage to know that that is the case. Let me turn to the amendments. Amendment No 1 highlights the recent Supreme Court ruling on the definition of a woman. First and foremost, that is a judgment that I welcome and that, I believe, brings clarity. I have therefore tasked officials with analysing the areas in my Department's responsibility that will be affected by the judgement. In due course, I will announce how that will manifest itself. Amendment No 2 concerns the supply of puberty blockers to those under the age of 18. The Member who proposed that amendment knows that, following unanimous support at the Executive on the matter, it will not succeed. Let me now turn to some of the comments that, I believe, are worthy of addressing. I agree with the Member who proposed the motion that decisions should be based on fairness and evidence. That is absolutely right and is the way in which we want to approach such issues. Mr Kingston made an important point that I will return to later, which is that many people were mocked and denigrated for holding the view that has now been confirmed by the Supreme Court ruling. That takes me to another issue that a number of Members raised. Mr Carroll said that we were simply following the lead of other political leaders, be it Keir Starmer, Donald Trump or Nigel Farage: that is an attempt to demonise people who disagree with him. Unfortunately, we heard the same from Sinéad McLaughlin. Hers were very disappointing comments. The amendment standing in the name of Mr Kingston and Mr Bradley:

"notes the recommendation of the LGBTQI+ strategy expert panel; further notes the recent Supreme Court ruling that a woman is defined by biological sex; further believes that future policy development in Northern Ireland should respect that ruling".

That is what the amendment states, but what do we hear from Members in the Chamber today, including Sinéad McLaughlin? We hear that the amendment aims to "stir up division" and that this is a "culture war". That is inappropriate language. There should be the ability in this place to disagree on some of the issues without some of the accusations that were flying towards this side of the Chamber. I think that there has largely been compassion and empathy as we have conducted the debate. I do not think that, to use Mr Tennyson's word, there has been an attempt to "weaponise" the issues. The words in front of us today in amendment No 1 simply state that we should recognise the ruling of the Supreme Court, which, of course, has implications, because it recognises the need to distinguish between gender recognition and biological sex when it comes to anti-discrimination legislation. That is fair and straightforward. As Mr Kingston said, there has been an attempt to mock, denigrate and demonise those who hold a different view. We should move forward in a different way.

Of course. That is often missed by those who take a different view. I am proudly pro-life and see that as being supportive of women and children. That is why I hold to those views. I will pick up on another comment that Mr Tennyson made. He said that I had refused to meet any LGBT groups: that is not the case. I have taken a similar approach to meeting all the expert panel advisory groups. I have had criticism from across the House when it comes to anti-poverty, disability and other issues. I am more than happy to meet to discuss those issues. I hope that he will recognise that, on some of the issues that we are talking about directly, I have offered to meet him. I am genuinely interested and concerned about what were previously called "conversion therapies" but have been extended and are now called "conversion practices". I have offered him meetings in the past, and we are going to meet again soon to discuss those issues, so it is disingenuous to suggest that I am not willing to engage or meet people on them. I can assure —.

Just to be clear, I was not saying that. I am just stating that that specific issue is of significant concern and needs to be handled properly. I have engaged, but I have taken a consistent approach to all those strategies and engaged with those who were involved in the expert panel reports. Mr O'Toole told us that we all needed to treat people like people: that is absolutely what I do. I have worked in many Departments and met many people, and you would be hard-pressed to find anybody who felt that I did not act or engage with them appropriately. He said that we needed to talk to people and try to understand where they are coming from: I hope that that extends to people of all backgrounds, including those who would disagree with him on some of the issues that we are talking about. I am disappointed that Mr Gaston does not feel able to support the amendment in the names of Mr Kingston and Mr Bradley. His concern comes from the fact that we are recognising that it is International Day Against Homophobia, Biphobia and Transphobia. I do not know the details of everything that is involved in those campaigns — there are probably some things on which I would also disagree with them — but recognition should in no way be taken as full-throated support or endorsement of them. We can recognise certain things without being fully supportive of them. I hope that, in light of that, he will reconsider his vote and support the recognition of the Supreme Court ruling and the view that we should follow the outworkings of that to their logical conclusion. As I said, I support the commitment in the motion to equality, diversity and human rights and, of course, the statement that:

"every citizen should be free ... from discrimination, violence or harm".

I am aware, however, that the aims, objectives and content of any potential strategy must be carefully reviewed and considered across Departments in light of the PFG and human rights considerations and the funding that is available. I intend to ensure that that work is carried out effectively and properly before any potential strategy is presented to my Executive colleagues.

1,982 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Second assessment

Jev’s answers did not settle this record, so a second model, claude-opus-5-5, read the same text (without the MLA’s name or party) and gave its reasons on 23 October 2026. How the second assessment works

Verdict

Not flagged

Public interest or divisiveness

Mixed

Against the published rubric

This is a ministerial reply to a motion on an LGBTQI+ strategy. Most of it explains the strategy's history, resource pressures, the need for Executive agreement and a forthcoming timetable, and it states that "there is no place for discrimination". It quotes specific expert-panel recommendations, such as healthcare, school relationship education and gender recognition, to argue that they lack cross-Executive support, which is a practical policy argument. There are loaded touches, notably "so-called gender-affirming healthcare", welcoming the Supreme Court ruling and rejecting the "culture war" charge, but these sit inside a substantive defence of policy and do not portray LGBT people as a threat.

Public interest or divisiveness

The contribution mainly does the job of a minister answering for government policy: setting out why the strategy has been delayed, what must happen before it reaches the Executive, and which recommendations are disputed. It also pushes back on opponents and uses one dismissive label for a form of healthcare, which adds some heat to a recognised flashpoint. Taken as a whole, the substance outweighs the point-scoring, though both are present.

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 12:23 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.

Disagree with this assessment?

Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.

Challenge this classification