Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): We are joined by colleagues from the Assembly's Research and Information Service (RaISe). I think that you will make an opening statement, and we will then move to questions from members. As ever with the Bill, I ask members to be respectful, and that includes being respectful of the limitations of the research officers in what they are here to address and answer. We will keep an eye on that as we go.

NIA Research Officer 1 (RaISe): Thank you, Chair and members. It is nice to be here. There are two briefing papers on the Bill: one is more about policy, and the other is a review of costs. I will take you through the former and then pass to my colleague. He is more of a numbers man and will cover the costs aspect. If you are happy and it works for you, Chair, we will go through both papers before taking questions, and we will then take those together.

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): I am happy with that.

NIA Research Officer 1: There was a lengthy discussion of the Bill at Second Stage, but, hopefully, our papers will be useful in the Committee's scrutiny of the Bill now. I will give a wee bit of the background to the Bill's introduction and look at the situation in some neighbouring jurisdictions, but I will not spend too much time on that. There is a lot more information in the paper, but we will get to the Bill as quickly as possible. As you will see, there are suggested scrutiny points in the paper that the Committee may wish to consider, but they are just suggestions, and I will leave that to you. I will touch on some of those as I go through.

It is worth noting the discriminatory nature of conversion practices. Their basis on the idea that a person is in some way unwell or abnormal causes feelings of shame, guilt, self-disgust, worthlessness, suicide ideation, suicide attempts and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Is it against that background that the sponsor brought the Bill forward. Research on the prevalence of conversion practice in the UK remains limited, and different studies use different methodologies. As a result, findings should be interpreted with caution, and direct comparisons between studies may not be possible.

I have highlighted a few surveys. In 2017, the UK Government launched a national LGBT survey — an online self-selecting survey that received over 108,000 valid responses. The published findings show that 2% of respondents reported having undergone conversion practices, and a further 5% reported having been offered them. A Galop report in 2022, which it described as the first nationally representative study of its kind, was based on research involving more than 2,000 LGBT+ adults. The report estimated that around 18% of LGBT+ people in the UK had experienced conversion practices. There is further information in the briefing paper on the age breakdown, race, religion and location of those who had undergone those practices, as well as information on who conducted or offered them.

Recent Northern Ireland-specific research commissioned by Cara-Friend, HERe NI, the Rainbow Project and TransgenderNI was undertaken by Queen's University and Ulster University, supported by funding from the
Department for Communities. The report states that the findings:

Nevertheless, the research found evidence that conversion practices have been offered and carried out in Northern Ireland over the past 10 years. They were undertaken in faith settings as well as in education and health settings, mirroring the UK-wide studies that showed that those practices occur in similar places.

I will touch on the legislation in neighbouring jurisdictions. I will not go through everything but will highlight a couple of things. The UK Government brought forward a draft Bill in June of this year, and that is going through pre-legislative scrutiny. I understand from officials there that the Joint Committee considering the draft Bill will report on it towards the middle or end of January. The Government in Scotland are committed to a trans-inclusive ban on conversion practices. There was a consultation in 2024, the analysis of which was in 2025. No specific legislation has been introduced there yet, as they are waiting to see whether the UK Government's Bill will be UK-wide — at the moment, it is not, but I think that conversations are ongoing on that. Wales has committed to pressing the UK Government but has no specific legislation. The Irish Government committed to banning conversion therapy and reaffirmed that commitment in the Dáil in May of this year, but no legislation has been brought forward to date. The Isle of Man is the only one of these islands that has legislation in place, and we will touch on that in a moment.

There is also a memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the jurisdictions throughout the UK and the island of Ireland. Signed by numerous professional medical organisations, it states that conversion therapy is unethical and harmful. Again, there is more detail on that in the paper, and we will touch on some of those Bills and proposals as we go through the presentation. As I said, the Isle of Man has passed legislation, although it is only one clause in a much wider Bill, so there is not a huge amount of detail, but we will touch on it.

The Bill seeks to end conversion practices in Northern Ireland. As set out in the explanatory and financial memorandum (EFM), it:

It seeks to end such practices by creating three new criminal offences: an offence of providing conversion therapy; an offence of engaging in coercive conversion behaviour; and an offence of removing a person from Northern Ireland for the purposes of conversion practices.

Clause 1(1) sets out what is required for the offence of providing conversion therapy. All of the following three things are necessary for the offence to take place: the undertaking or provision of conversion therapy; the intent to change or suppress; and the suffering of harm as a consequence. A definition of what constitutes conversion therapy for the purposes of the Bill is included at clause 4, which we will come to.

At this point, it is worth touching on clause 8, which deals with psychological harm. Clause 8 provides a bit more information on that. It sets out that, for the purposes of the Bill:

That mirrors the wording used to describe psychological harm in domestic abuse legislation, so it is not new. At Second Stage, the harm requirement was raised by some Members as an area of concern, and the Bill sponsor indicated that he would be open to discussion on that. That is discussed further in the paper, but members will see the proposed harm requirements in the UK Government's draft Bill. It uses the term "serious harm" and requires that there be:

and:

There is, therefore, a slightly higher threshold of harm in the UK Government's proposals. Members may wish to consider the harm requirement in the Bill and whether a higher bar could be used or whether that could exclude some individuals who have undergone conversion practices.

Clause 1(2) sets out the defence of reasonableness whereby a person could show that the therapy was reasonable in the circumstances. It is noted in the EFM that all three of the new offences have a defence of reasonableness, which:

The Bill sponsor's view is that such circumstances are unlikely to occur, but the defence has been included as an additional safeguard against unintended criminalisation. A standard of "reasonable person" is not uncommon in criminal law; indeed, reasonableness is found in a number of branches of law.

Clause 1(3) makes it clear that there can be no defence that the victim consented to the conversion therapy. Again, none of the three new offences has a defence of consent. The EFM explains:

them, the Bill sponsor does not believe that consent is a relevant factor in a person's defence.

Finally, clause 1(4) deals with the penalty aspect of the offence, which is 12 months, a fine or both for a summary conviction and two years, a fine or both on indictment. The penalties are the same for all three offences, so I will not repeat them.

The penalty for conviction on indictment in the Bill is similar to that in the Isle of Man but considerably lower than that proposed in Scotland and in the draft Bill for England and Wales, apart from the removal of a person from Northern Ireland, where the Scottish proposals are for three years on indictment. Members may wish to consider the maximum sentences and whether they are satisfied with the proposals.

Clause 2 deals with a separate offence. It is similar in nature, in that three parts are required. Clause 2(2), (3) and (4) mirror clause 1 around reasonableness, consent and the penalties. A definition of what constitutes coercive behaviour is included in clause 5, and we will come to that.

Clause 3(1) covers a third offence that will be created under the Bill, and that is the offence of removing a person from Northern Ireland.

Clause 4 provides a definition of conversion therapy. It would not matter whether the therapy was paid for or provided free of charge. A protection included in clause 4(3) means that the Bill, if enacted, would not apply to therapy provided or carried out by individuals registered to or regulated by four specific bodies, as long as it was provided in line with the standards and code of ethics that apply to the relevant bodies. The bodies are the General Medical Council, the Health and Care Professions Council, the General Pharmaceutical Council and the Pharmaceutical Society of Northern Ireland. The Bill would allow the Department of Health to amend the list through an order, but that order would need to be approved by the Assembly, as detailed in clause 4(4) and (5).

Again, in the Second Stage debate, I noted that the wording in clause 4(1) about "coaching or instruction" was of concern to Members. It might be worth noting some avoidance-of-doubt provisions used elsewhere in other legislation that may be of interest to the Committee. The Isle of Man's legislation includes a safeguard that certain services would not be considered, and those are services that allow a person to:

That may allow for more exploratory conversations to take place, and members may see that as an additional safeguard.

In New South Wales, which is slightly further from home, the Conversion Practices Ban Act 2024 contains additional safeguards through an avoidance-of-doubt clause that the Committee may wish to consider. A clause lists four examples that are not considered to be conversion practices. The first three are religious teaching, general requirements for religious orders and general rules in educational institutions. The fourth is:

The four safeguards are specifically mentioned in that Act.

Members may wish to consider whether the definition of conversion therapy in the Bill as introduced is too broad, particularly in relation to "coaching and instruction", and whether any wording could be added to ensure that it targets more therapeutic practices or whether they are content as it stands. Members may also wish to consider whether an avoidance-of-doubt clause similar to that in New South Wales may provide additional safeguards, as members feel appropriate.

Clause 5 sets out a definition of coercive behaviour for the purposes of the Bill. As per the EFM, the definition is based on the one used in the Domestic Abuse and Civil Proceedings Act (Northern Ireland) 2021. The Bill also makes it clear that coercive behaviour does not include a failure to do a thing and that it is not behaviour on just one occasion. Some concerns were raised at Second Stage about how some of those behaviours might be involved in parenting, particularly around controlling and monitoring someone's day-to-day activities. While the Bill includes some safeguards, there are, as I said, three parts required for the offence. There would have to be an intent to "change or suppress", as well as that type of behaviour. Again, the safeguards in place in New South Wales, which specifically mention parents, might, if members feel that it is necessary, act as an additional safeguard.

Clause 6 contains a definition of sexual orientation and gender identity. In correspondence with RaISe, the Bill sponsor outlined the reasoning behind the clause. Clause 6(1) is intended to address a potential defence whereby a person states that they genuinely believed a person to be, for example, heterosexual or cisgender and were not therefore trying to change or suppress the victim but, instead, to reveal what they believed their true identity to be. In other words, the Bill prevents a defence that there is no such thing as gay or trans.

The paper outlines the definitions used in other legislation and legislative proposals. The Scottish Government's proposals are similar to those in the Bill, but they use the word "presumes" rather than "considers" when referring to the person undertaking the conversion practice.

In the Westminster proposals, sexual orientation has the same meaning as in the Equality Act 2010, while transgender identity is defined as follows:

The Isle of Man legislation does not define sexual orientation or gender identity in the Bill. Instead, it allows for guidance to be issued by the Department of Home Affairs that must be laid before Tynwald, but I could not identify any guidance that has so far been put together.

In New South Wales, the legislation defines sexual orientation in a similar way to the UK Government's proposal. In that Act, gender identity is defined as:

In the state of Victoria, Australia, the Change or Suppression (Conversion) Practices Prohibition Act amends the wider Equal Opportunity Act 2010 in respect of the definition of gender identity, which takes it beyond solely legislation and conversion practices. It sets it out in the Bill without amending gender identity on a wider footing.

Members may wish to consider definitions used in other legislatures in respect of sexual orientation and gender identity, and you may wish to have a discussion with officials or representatives in those jurisdictions to understand how they work in practice, particularly where they are already in legislation.

You will be glad to know that I am almost finished.

Clause 7 relates to the intent to change or suppress. Clause 7(1) sets out a few areas where there would be no attempt to change or suppress. Concerns were raised by Members at Second Stage that the Bill could criminalise preaching, for example. The Bill sponsor, in response, noted that clause 7 protects the expression of belief or opinions and that the offences that would be created by the Bill require a specific individual victim. As mentioned, the avoidance-of-doubt clause in the New South Wales legislation covers some of the areas around religion. Again, that might be a consideration for members. You may wish to consider whether the protections in the Bill for expression of belief are sufficient or whether any additional avoidance-of-doubt clauses could be added.

There is a bit in the Bill on the human rights aspects, but I know that you have somebody more qualified than I am to discuss the convention rights, so I will leave that there and pass to my colleague to discuss the finances.

NIA Research Officer 2 (RaISe): I will be brief, Chair. My paper focuses on the costs to the public purse that could arise if the Bill were to be enacted and implemented. The overall conclusion of the paper is that some additional public expenditure is reasonably foreseeable, but the scale of any cost remains highly uncertain and cannot currently be estimated with any confidence.

The Bill's EFM suggests that the legislation is a likely to create a "low volume offence" and would not therefore be expected to generate significant expenditure. The Bill sponsor made similar points at Second Stage, arguing that relatively few cases would likely progress to prosecution. However, concerns were raised in the same debate that costs could arise for supporting vulnerable individuals through the criminal justice system, including the costs of advocacy and counselling. The Committee may also wish to consider costs against the backdrop of the current challenging public finance environment. I will not really go through or dwell on that, as members will be well aware of the budgetary position that we are all in.

Evidence that we reviewed for the paper suggests that costs would likely arise in a few areas. First, costs would be associated with police investigations, safeguarding activity and enforcement. The PSNI advised RaISe that investigations could involve witness interviews, safeguarding assessments, digital evidence gathering, specialist support, multi-agency working and potential cross-border enquiries. Secondly, costs could arise through prosecutions, court proceedings and legal aid. The Public Prosecution Service indicated that it has not yet undertaken a detailed costing and cannot estimate the likely volume of referrals, as the Bill represents a new area of law. Similarly, the Department of Justice highlighted the point that legal aid costs could be influenced by factors such as trial length, the use of counsel and the complexity of individual cases. Thirdly, there may be implications for prisons, probation and offender management. The Northern Ireland Prison Service and Probation Board noted that the scale of any effect would depend on future case volumes and the final legislation. Finally, additional expenditure may arise from implementation activity, including staff training, operational guidance, changes to recording systems, data collection and ongoing monitoring arrangements.

A further consideration for the Committee is the potential impact on support services. The paper notes that demand could rise for counselling, mental health support, therapeutic interventions and trauma-informed services. Additional resources may also be required to support referral pathways, staff training and coordination between statutory and voluntary sector organisations.

A recurring theme throughout the paper is the lack of evidence to enable us to produce any baseline data. The PSNI advised RaISe that it cannot robustly estimate future demand because conversion practices are not currently recorded as a stand-alone offence category. Similarly, the Public Prosecution Service stated that it cannot estimate future referral volumes at this stage. As a result, key variables such as reporting rates, case complexity, safeguarding requirements and prosecution volumes remain unknown. That means that any attempt to place an overall cost on the Bill at present would be highly speculative.

The available evidence suggests that the Bill is likely to generate some additional costs across policing, prosecution, legal aid, offender management, implementation activities and, potentially, victim support services. However, the evidence also indicates that neither the scale of future demand nor the associated public expenditure can currently be quantified with any confidence. Much will depend on the final form of the legislation, reporting behaviour, enforcement activity and the volume and complexity of cases that arise in practice.

Chair, that is all from me. We are happy to take any questions that members may have.

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): OK. Thank you, both. There is one question from me, and then I will go to members, who may pick up on other questions.

When it comes to lessons from scrutiny, from what you have seen which findings from other jurisdictions are most transferable to our situation, and where are the evidence gaps that members should explore further with the Bill sponsor, practitioners or those with lived experience?

NIA Research Officer 1: In some ways, Chair, it is hard to answer the question on how effective the legislation has been. In the few places where legislation is in place, most of it is recent. A lot of it is less about criminalisation per se and more about being a deterrent and showing society that those practices are not welcome. Some of the legislation is new, and there are not huge numbers. If the Committee is interested in that, I could look at the Australian legislation, which is probably among the older ones, though I think that Belgium has something similar.

As for evidence gaps, the evidence can be difficult to get. There are issues with some of the research in respect of how many people were spoken to, but a lot of that is to do with the nature of the issue, as people do not always feel open to coming forward about it, and there is a lot of stigma.

It can be quite difficult to get that data, particularly in Northern Ireland. The Northern Ireland-specific research does not necessarily show the prevalence as much, but it shows that it has been ongoing. There are individuals who have been through conversion practices.

There is also some more up-to-date research in GB, which was done by Opinium, but that does not cover Northern Ireland. The UK-wide LGBT study showed that 12% of people in Northern Ireland — the highest number in the UK — had undertaken or been offered conversion therapy. There may be some specific dimensions to that to explain why that is the case, but it is a difficult area on which to find firm numbers and statistics.

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): OK; thank you.

Mrs Cameron: Thank you very much for the research that you have done. There is a lot of detail there, which is much appreciated.

I want to start with the existing legislation. In his opening remarks in the Assembly debate, the Bill sponsor cited several examples of conversion practices that are happening today as justification for introducing the Bill, including people being locked in cupboards until they reflected and repented or being threatened with rape if they did not change their identity. He said that those were real stories and that real abusers were getting away with that heinous abuse.

My understanding is that those offences can be prosecuted under existing law. Under existing NI law, a parent who confines a child or young person in a cupboard or a small space would be liable under criminal common law for the offence of false imprisonment. That offence applies generally and includes private dwellings. Any parent who did that would be liable to a sentence, the maximum for which is life imprisonment. Existing NI law also treats that as a serious or specified offence, which grants the court enhanced sentencing power in the worst cases. Furthermore, under existing NI law, a parent who confines a child or young person in a cupboard or a small space may also potentially be liable for prosecution for the offence of child cruelty, contrary to section 20 of the Children and Young Persons Act (Northern Ireland) 1968, or for wilful ill-treatment of that child. Any parent who did that would be liable to a sentence where the maximum is 10 years. Does that not demonstrate that a child or teenager is better protected under existing law than they would be under the law proposed in the Bill?

NIA Research Officer 1: I would not pretend to know every piece of legislation under which somebody could be prosecuted. Certainly, in the case of more violent acts, there is existing legislation to deal with, for example, corrective rape, whereas you mentioned someone being locked away. When it comes to more coercive aspects, there are some gaps. There is domestic abuse legislation already in place, but that covers only certain relationships of people. There are potentially some gaps there when it comes to people who are not related or do not live together. There is legislation that covers some conversion practices already, but the Bill could potentially fill some of the gaps.

As is the case in other legislatures, the Bill sponsor set out in the Bill's EFM that it is less about criminalising people. It can do that, but it is more about showing that those practices are not welcome in society, rather than just the criminalisation aspect. You are right: there are certainly some conversion practices that would fall under existing legislation, especially around their more violent aspects.

Mrs Cameron: Those specific examples were given in the debate by the Bill sponsor. I am concerned because surely you would not use the provisions in this Bill when there is existing law with much greater penalties. That does not make any sense to me. I get that you are talking about a deterrent, but would that deterrent not also have a chilling effect across society, parents and churches in particular?

NIA Research Officer 1: I am not sure whether I can comment on the chilling effect other than to say that the Bill sets it out that there would be three requirements for an offence. It would not be just parents having a conversation; there would need to be an intent there as well. It would have to hit those three aspects of the Bill.

Mrs Cameron: I appreciate that.

You mentioned New South Wales as a useful example of how an avoidance-of-doubt clause can provide additional safeguards. However, your paper states that, under that Act:

is not a conversion practice. Church teaching is not just about explaining what religious beliefs are but about encouraging people to live in accordance with them and embrace them as vital to their well-being because they believe that those things are true rather than being just historical artefacts. I would be concerned about that, because just stating what the religion is or what it says would not be enough of a protection. What assessment has been made of why an avoidance-of-doubt clause similar to that in New South Wales is necessary, if the Bill sponsor claims that the Bill would not capture ordinary parental behaviour or pastoral care? If there is no risk of ordinary behaviour being caught, why would you need a safeguard? Is that safeguard not an admission that the offence is much broader than the sponsor claims?

NIA Research Officer 1: All that I can really say is that I am not saying that an avoidance-of-doubt requirement is necessary; it is just that other legislation contains that and it can sometimes be used to help where people may consider that there might be a chilling effect or just to be absolutely explicit about what is covered. Clause 7(1)(a) states that the expression of:

would not be considered change or suppression. The paper just points out that there are other ways of dealing with the avoidance of doubt, but I do not express an opinion on whether that is necessary.

Mrs Cameron: You touched on the strength of the evidence base. The briefing acknowledges that research on the prevalence of conversion practices in Northern Ireland is limited and refers to research commissioned in 2022 by the Rainbow Project and others that involved a small sample of just 10 participants. The paper refers to:

Can you evidence that?

NIA Research Officer 1: In what way, sorry?

Mrs Cameron: The paper refers to:

Where is the evidence of what is actually happening when it comes to conversion practices?

NIA Research Officer 1: I think that that bit came from that research report. Northern Ireland is potentially a more religious society than other parts of the UK, and it has a small population, so, potentially, the number of people whom you are looking at is small. A very small number of people were involved in that research — 10 participants — but, in the absence of better alternative data sources, it represents the best data available, which is why it is included in the paper. As I said, that research showed that those practices were being undertaken, rather than saying how widespread they were. I think that four people dropped out during that research or after the start of it, because of concerns about being stigmatised or the trauma around discussing it. Some of the researchers pointed to the specific Northern Ireland context, but I cannot really comment more on that.

Mrs Cameron: What assessment has been made of the quality of the available evidence, and what conclusions can be reliably drawn about the prevalence of conversion practices in Northern Ireland?

NIA Research Officer 1: As I said, it is the best evidence available. There is the research that the UK Government established in 2017. The impact assessment for the Westminster Bill mentions that research and mentions the more recent Opinium research that, I think, is done annually and tracks prevalence more. That was mentioned as being the best evidence that they had, but it is less relevant for here, because it covers only GB, so I did not specifically mention it much in the paper. The prevalence is difficult to determine. I do not think that there will be perfect research on it, given the nature of conversion practice and the people involved in it.

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): I will have to move on.

Mrs Cameron: May I have a final question?

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): OK. A final one.

Mrs Cameron: I appreciate that. It is such an important subject, and there is so much that I want to ask. I am aware that I will not get through it all.

In April 2025, the Christian Institute — I do not know whether you are aware of this — published the results of a freedom of information request that it had sent to every agency in Northern Ireland that can receive patient complaints about medical or clinical practice. Nine out of 10 had received zero complaints about conversion practices. One, the Belfast Health and Social Care Trust, said that it had had fewer than five complaints. It had looked into them and had concluded that there were no concerns. Has RaISe considered that real-world data? If so, why is it not in the briefing?

NIA Research Officer 1: I was not aware of that. I am happy to look at it. As I said, I looked at the wider research that had been used by the legislatures in Scotland and Westminster when they were developing their legislation. I am not aware of that specific study, but I am happy to look at it.

Mrs Cameron: You could look into that.

NIA Research Officer 1: Yes, if the Committee is interested in it.

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): OK. Sian, Paul and Maurice have indicated. Go ahead, Sian. I ask everyone to be as brief as possible, please.

Ms Mulholland: Thank you so much for the work that you have put into this so far.

My first question is on the threshold of harm. You mentioned that other legislatures have worded that differently and have a clear outline of significant harm. If we were to amend or rewrite that to be similar to the UK Government's draft Bill, which would potentially exclude the transient harm piece and move to significant harm in line with other legislatures, would that require maximum sentences to be increased? Others have different maximum sentences from what we have in front of us.

NIA Research Officer 1: That might be a consideration. As I said, the proposed legislation in Scotland and Wales has a higher penalty for those offences, albeit the harm level in Scotland is the same as the proposed level here. It is the UK Government's Bill, which covers only England and Wales, that includes "serious harm" and "serious alarm or distress". Their explanatory notes go into a bit more detail on how that would be quantified. The harm:

Ms Mulholland: Scotland has the same definition or level of harm but with a higher maximum penalty.

NIA Research Officer 1: Yes.

Ms Mulholland: It is the draft England and Wales Bill that has —

NIA Research Officer 1: — a higher threshold for harm. Yes.

Ms Mulholland: OK. Did RaISe have any engagement with any of those working on the draft conversion practices Bill in the Joint Committee over there?

NIA Research Officer 1: I had a brief conversation with a few of the researchers and Committee staff there. They were very interested in what was happening here. Obviously, there is no legislation so far in these islands, apart from that in the Isle of Man, so they are taking an interest. Beyond that, a lot of the issues that came up during the Second Stage debate were issues that they were also aware of, but they are just getting into that work in the Joint Committee. The Joint Committee will seek to publish that in January, and the Government will need to respond to it. After that, it is very much in the Government's hands because it is pre-legislative scrutiny in Westminster and the Bill has not yet been introduced.

Ms Mulholland: Following on from your conversation with the Joint Committee, it could be worthwhile for the Committee to see those deliberations even though it will not report until mid-January. Do you see any worth in the Committee having the same sort of conversation?

NIA Research Officer 1: There may be value, particularly as the harm threshold is different and some of the framing is a bit different. It might be interesting to see whether similar issues come up. As I said in the paper and earlier, having some of those discussions with other legislatures, where they already have legislation in place, might be of interest to see how it has impacted and landed and whether there are unforeseen consequences.

Ms Mulholland: The Isle of Man's concept is interesting. When you looked at the Isle of Man's legislation, was there any demonstration of how bringing in the offence of a person practising or offering conversion therapy has worked? Is there any evidence of the practical outworkings of that legislation?

NIA Research Officer 1: I could not find anything. The Isle of Man's website is not easy to navigate, but we can get in touch with the researchers in Tynwald about that, if the Committee is interested, and can pass some of those details on. There was nothing specific from the Isle of Man. The Isle of Man has a similar Act to the Human Rights Act 1998, and its legislation also has to comply with the convention. I could see no challenges to the legislation on the convention rights, but I could look further into that. The Isle of Man's legislation needs to abide by the convention in the same way as legislation here does.

Ms Mulholland: On human rights, you said that there will be others who are better placed to comment, but does the research tell you that there are enough protections in place in the Bill to ensure that there is a balance of rights with the human rights that may intersect with this legislation, as recommended by the Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe and the special rapporteur?

NIA Research Officer 1: It would not be for me to say whether the provisions of the Bill are adequate, because it is a legal question. As you said, religious freedom and freedom of expression are not absolute rights: they are qualified and can be interfered with — as they often are, as are a number of other rights — provided that the interference is legal, pursues a legitimate aim and is necessary in a democratic society. It is a legal question whether the content of the Bill would do that.

Ms Mulholland: I have a final question on clause 6. You said that Scotland used the term "presumed" instead of "considered": what difference would that make?

NIA Research Officer 1: Again, that might be more of a legal question. The Bill sponsor considered using the term "presumed", because it had been used in Scotland. However, during the drafting process, it was changed, because both the victim and the perpetrator would be considered. It was to avoid any confusion about what was meant. The specific drafting of the Bill might be a question for the Bill sponsor.

Ms Mulholland: Thank you very much.

Mr Boggs: Thank you for your presentations.

You said that, on the basis of the research that is available, the North has the highest percentage of people who have been offered or are engaged in conversion practices. A number of participants dropped out of the research because of trauma or the stigma around conversion practices or even their sexuality or gender identity. I will go back to the point that Pam raised about what the Christian Institute published, getting at prevalence. Pam asked whether RaISe had looked at real-world data. Can you say from a research perspective whether the reality of why so few people come forward to open up about being exposed to conversion practices is the same as the reasons why people drop out of research? It is because of stigma, the way they have been made to feel, the adverse trauma or other feelings. Is it fair to say that that may be why huge numbers do not participate in research?

NIA Research Officer 1: I will touch on your first point about where has the highest percentage. The UK Government's 2017 LGBT survey showed that Northern Ireland had the highest percentage of anywhere in the UK. Other research has shown that that might not always be the case. There tends not to be huge variation. That research showed that that was the case, but it has not been shown to be the case in every piece of research.

Mr Boggs: OK.

NIA Research Officer 1: One thing that is shown in a lot of the research that has been undertaken is the stigma that people feel and the fact that they have not necessarily felt able to come forward to explain what has happened because of the particular setting in which it occurred. That may have been a faith setting, where that person's community is — the people with whom they associate — or a family setting, where there would also be issues. Stigma is an aspect that comes out in the research. I cannot say for sure that that is the only reason why people do not come forward — some of the research is quite difficult — but the issue of stigma and the feeling of not wanting to be excluded has certainly come up in the research that has been undertaken.

Mr Boggs: OK. Thank you. I understand that you cannot say that it is the absolute cause for low participation in research or engagement with agencies by people who have experienced conversion practices, but it can certainly be inferred from the fact that people have dropped out of other research studies that that is one of the contributing factors.

You said that the current legislation in the North would not cover all aspects of conversion therapy. Your useful paper refers to the limitations of the Domestic Abuse and Civil Proceedings Act 2021 in particular. The current legislation is limited in that it would not cover health professionals and faith groups, whereas this Bill proposes to cover those groups. Will you reiterate that that is the case? Will you confirm for me that it is not accurate to say that the existing legislation can deal with such issues?

NIA Research Officer 1: I appreciate your saying that it was useful; thank you. I would caveat the table on page 13 by saying that it might not include every piece of relevant legislation; it includes some of the main ones. I just wanted to provide that caveat. We can look at that, if you were interested.

The domestic abuse legislation around the coercive aspect covers specific relationships — intimate relationships or relationships in the home — but does not necessarily cover any other relationship with people whom a person might know or come into contact with.

Mr Boggs: This is my final question, Chair, as I know that we are under time pressure. Like Pam, I could keep on asking.

I do not know whether you will be able to comment at all on adequacy or to put a limit on the adequacy of it, but do you feel that the three aspects of the Bill that need to be met for a criminal case to be taken against somebody provides balanced protection and that it would not apply to a simple, loving and supportive conversation with a parent, because those three tests have to be met, including coercion and a repeated action of coercion?

Page 13 of your paper also refers to the Protection from Stalking Act 2022, which includes reference to "fear, alarm or substantial distress". At Second Stage, a ridiculous example was given of a child being distressed when a parent tells them that they cannot have a bottle of Lucozade. Would you say that, because that wording is included in the Stalking Act, fear, alarm or substantial distress is a fair enough measure against which to test in any legislation?

NIA Research Officer 1: Fear, alarm and distress — substantial distress in that case — are not new concepts in legislation; they already exist in legislation, as you pointed out. I think that they are also in the Domestic Abuse and Civil Proceedings Act (Northern Ireland) 2021. The Bill sponsor has said that the three parts that would be necessary would act as a balance. It is not for me to say whether that balance is adequate. It has three tests, however, so it would not just be a case of a conversation being had and that is it. There is a requirement for the intent and the harm suffered. The Bill has been through a process, as with any legislation, before it is introduced regarding the balance of rights and convention rights. The Speaker deemed that it could be introduced, so there have been those considerations. I am not a lawyer, so I do not want to comment too much on that.

Mr Boggs: That is useful, thank you. I do not have any other questions, because it is hard to balance cost against something so sensitive, but thank you very much for your paper nonetheless.

Mr Bradley: Thanks for your presentation. I have a lot of concerns about the Bill in general, its ambiguity and its lack of clarity. Why does the Bill not expressly protect exploratory counselling and ordinary discussions between parents and children? That is failing, as it does not give protection to normal practice.

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): I just remind members that the officials are giving evidence on their research. It is not necessary for them to answer for the Bill sponsor.

Mr Bradley: My question is based on their research paper.

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): OK.

NIA Research Officer 1: Why that is not in the Bill is a question for the Bill sponsor. I cannot tell you why he has or has not included anything specific.

Mr Bradley: I picked that up from your paper, but I will leave it at that, Chair. Thank you.

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): Thank you very much. No doubt we will be seeing you again. We appreciate your evidence today and your answering questions from members. Thank you.