Official Report: Tuesday 15 September 2026

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): John O'Dowd has been given leave to make a statement on the failure of the RUC in the sectarian murder of Robert Hamill that fulfils the criteria set out in Standing Order 24. If other Members wish to be called to speak, they should rise in their place and continue to do so. All Members who are called will have up to three minutes to speak on the subject. I remind Members that interventions are not permitted and that I will take no points of order on this or any other matter until the item of business has finished.

Mr O'Dowd: Go raibh maith agat, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

I start by paying tribute to Diane Hamill, her sisters, her mother and father and their family, who have courageously campaigned for truth and justice for nearly 30 years after the murder of Robert. When I was looking at the report and doing some research, I came across an article in which Diane talked about how they placed a floral tribute to Robert in Portadown town centre every year, taping it to a lamp post near where he was kicked to death. Every year, that floral tribute was removed. Not only the floral tribute but the very Sellotape with which it was put up was removed, such is the hatred of some people in our society and the failure to recognise the wrong that was done to Robert Hamill and his family.

Who was Robert Hamill? Robert Hamill was a 25-year-old father of three who was on a night out with his girlfriend and their two friends. They were coming home from a dance, walking through Portadown town centre, which was practically a no-go area for Catholics at that time. When Robert and his friends were walking through and saw the RUC Land Rover, they perhaps thought that they were safe: what a mistake that proved to be. There was another group in the town centre that night: a group of thugs who also felt safe, in the presence of an RUC Land Rover, to kick a young man to death and attack his three friends.

Such was the noise created that night that people in a local bar and in local houses heard the ruckus, but I, as a political representative of Portadown, and the nationalist and Catholic community of Portadown are asked to believe that four RUC officers sitting in a Land Rover heard nothing. For at least one of them, that is most likely a lie. RUC Reserve Constable Atkinson, who was on duty that night and was supposed to be there to protect the peace and protect people like Robert, was involved in a cover-up. He phoned one of the main suspects and told them, "Burn your clothes, or you may be brought to justice". Am I, along with the Catholic and nationalist community of Portadown, being asked to believe that that reserve constable was there protecting the community? He was not.

It did not end there, however. There were failures in the investigation. Why would you not search a suspect's home properly? Why would you tell deliberate lies to the Public Prosecution Service? Why would you not follow up leads? The RUC did all those things.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Your time is up.

Mr O'Dowd: That is why the RUC had to be disbanded.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): OK.

Mr O'Dowd: That is why those who look to return to Drumcree should stop in their tracks —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Your time is up. I have to stop you. Your time is up.

Mr O'Dowd: — and consider what they are doing.

Mr Buckley: I am mindful of the sensitivities today, because a family has been mourning the loss of a son and brother, an individual — Robert Hamill — who lost his life in the most brutal and appalling fashion. For that, I remember them today, as I do the many victims across Northern Ireland whose families have empty seats in their homes.

We have to be clear. The report deals categorically with the claim of collusion. That slur has been placed on good, honourable RUC officers for the past 30 years. The report is clear: it did not happen.

Mr O'Dowd: It did happen.

Mr Buckley: It did not happen. Paragraph 21 states:

Paragraph 75 states:

That is the fact, Mr O'Dowd. That is in the report.

We can talk about the failures of investigation, where there needs to be full transparency. I accept that entirely, but please do not come to the House to mislead and place a slur on good, honourable, decent individuals who went around to protect life and livelihood in this country. My constituents are asking how it took £33 million to reach the conclusion that there was no collusion in Mr Hamill's death. They ask where the multimillion-pound investigations are into the deaths of close to 300 members of the RUC that were caused predominantly by the Provisional IRA.

Mr O'Dowd wants to paint the picture that Portadown was a no-go zone for Catholics: that could not be further from the truth. Let me be clear, Mr O'Dowd: those who removed the floral tribute for Mr Hamill in Portadown town centre were wrong to do so, but let me tell you about your party's deeds. On the anniversary of the deaths of the innocent victims of Kingsmills, Barry McElduff, then a sitting MP, paraded a loaf of Kingsmill bread on the top of his head. Where was the multimillion-pound inquiry into their deaths, the deaths at Teebane, La Mon and Ballygawley or the deaths caused by the Shankill bomb? You see, while the report puts an end to the accusation of collusion —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): OK. Your time is up.

Mr Buckley: — it can never be a licence to rewrite history.

Mr Tennyson: The publication of the Robert Hamill inquiry report marks another deeply painful chapter in our troubled past. Importantly, it is a moment of reflection for all of us on the suffering endured by Robert's family over almost three decades in their dedicated and dignified pursuit of truth, justice and accountability for Robert.

Robert was murdered in what can be described only as a heinous, sectarian, violent and brutal attack steeped in hate as he walked through Portadown town centre, enjoying a night out with his friends. The inquiry has identified serious and unacceptable failings in the subsequent investigation of Robert's murder, including deliberate actions that obstructed the pursuit of justice. All of us in the Chamber should take that finding incredibly seriously, because it underlines the devastating consequences when public institutions fail in the standards expected of them. Confidence in the rule of law depends on every investigation being rigorous, transparent and free from any interference whatsoever.

Reference has been made to the cost of the inquiry. That is fairly callous. A price cannot be put on any human life. A price cannot be put on the pain or anguish suffered by a family. Nor is it helpful to engage in whataboutery and pit victims in our society against one another. I believe passionately that every victim in our society deserves truth, justice and accountability. It is to the shame of the Assembly and successive UK Governments that the comprehensive legacy process has not yet been delivered. In fact, I would argue that some in the Chamber would attempt to frustrate that process.

Above all else, my thoughts are with Diane Hamill and the wider Hamill family. No report can undo their loss or make up for the years that they have invested into seeking answers. The least that we owe to that family is that we learn lessons and ensure that wrongdoing is never minimised and that all victims and survivors remain at the centre of our efforts to deal with the legacy of the past. We must recommit ourselves to building a shared and reconciled future, to being sensitive to and respectful of the needs of victims, and to ensuring that that history never repeats itself.

Mrs Dillon: I did not intend to speak in the debate, because I felt that it was well and truly sufficient for John to speak on the issue as the representative for that area. However, I feel that some of the commentary has been totally unacceptable. There is no call for that today. This is a day for the Hamill family; let them have it. Just let them have this day, because they did not have much else. You can go through Hansard and see that I have said this repeatedly, and I will place it on the record again: every single family deserves truth and justice. That is why we had the Stormont House Agreement. It was not a perfect agreement, but it was the best opportunity for every single family to have truth and justice, which they all deserve. Every single one — Kingsmills and everybody else. There is no equivocation on that, but today is about Robert Hamill, and his siblings, parents and children: the people who loved him. Let him have that.

John is right that Portadown was a no-go area for Catholics, as I can recall. I remember getting off a train in Portadown when I was a 15-year-old child — I was only a child — and being questioned by somebody who worked in the train station as to why I was wearing a miraculous medal. I did not even think that it was an issue. I had my school uniform on and was questioned, by somebody who worked in the train station, on what I was doing with that medal round my neck. That put the fear of God in me. I thought, "I will never get the train to Portadown again to see my sister", because I was terrified, right? Do not tell us that it was not a no-go area for Catholics. John grew up there, so he knows it. I went on many occasions to visit my family, so I know it. We lived through it. Do you know who lived through it and suffered the most? Robert Hamill's family. If they cannot have a floral tribute to their brother — the person they love — once a year and be left alone to do so, that is a shame and a disgrace on those —. [Inaudible.]

Mrs Dillon: I accept that you accept that, OK? But how can you stand here and say that all those RUC officers, the people who were meant to go out to protect our community, did nothing wrong? Reserve Constable Atkinson was found guilty of doing something wrong.

Mr Buckley: And jailed.

Mrs Dillon: He was found guilty.

Mr Buckley: Correctly.

Mrs Dillon: And jailed, correctly. Do not tell us, however, that they went out to protect the community.

Mr Buckley: No collusion.

Mrs Dillon: They did not go out to protect the community.

Mr Buckley: No collusion.

Mrs Dillon: What is it if not collusion to ring somebody and tell them, "Burn your clothes. Keep yourself safe. Don't worry that you killed that wee lad in the town tonight. You make sure to protect yourself"?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Comments through the Chair, please.

Mrs Dillon: That is collusion.

Mr O'Toole: Thank you to the Member for Upper Bann for bringing this Matter of the Day. The inquiry findings on the brutal, disgusting, sectarian murder of Robert Hamill call to mind the dark society in which we lived in the 1990s. They call to mind the fact that, at times, it was deeply unsafe in that period for people from a Catholic/nationalist background, in part because of the sectarian frenzy that was created around the Drumcree dispute. I find it deeply regrettable that, on the day that should be about, as the previous Member to speak said, respect for the Hamill family, who have, for the past three decades, pursued justice for their brother, father and son with dignity and resilience, that has been immediately conflated into a whataboutery shouting match. That serves only to demean the other victims of the atrocities who were mentioned, who themselves deserve dignity, respect and justice and who, in many cases, have not got it.

In 1997, 25-year-old Robert Hamill was a young Catholic man on the streets of Portadown with his friends. He was brutally beaten to death while an RUC Land Rover waited nearby. The findings of the inquiry report are scathing about multiple failings of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. There were Royal Ulster Constabulary members who served with decency, but it is clear that there were many, many who did not, including instances where there are proven allegations of collusion throughout the history of our conflict. That is why we required a new start in policing at the beginning of this century. That is why we required fundamental change.

Let me also say that so many other victims have been failed by our politics and by our justice system because of, first, collusion and then cover-up and, secondly, a justice system that has denied them truth for so long, the reasons for that including the fact that state agencies and paramilitaries have been incentivised to withhold the truth. We stand with those victims today and every day, but today is fundamentally about the family of Robert Hamill, an innocent 25-year-old man who had his life ahead of him. The epitome of being 25 should be going out for a few drinks with your mates and enjoying life and youth. The society that was created in Portadown in the mid-1990s meant that that young Catholic man's life was in danger purely because of who he was and the accident of birth. That is a shameful reflection of the context that was created 30 years ago. Those who want to drag us back to that because of online, hard-line rabble-rousers really should think again.

Once again, let me thank the Member for bringing the Matter of the Day. Let me stand with the family of Robert Hamill. Let me say that we deserve justice and dignity for all our victims.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Time is up.

Mr O'Toole: Thank you.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Before we proceed, Members, you are reminded that all comments should be directed through the Chair and — you should not need to be told this — should be respectful, in good temper and moderate.

Mr Clarke: As others have said, obviously, today is about Robert Hamill and his death, and we all remember him. Others may disagree, but, whilst we are remembering him, we cannot forget all the others who lost their lives in Northern Ireland having been brutally murdered.

The inquiry report has not given to Sinn Féin the grounds for triumphalism that it wished for, because it did not come out with a finding of collusion. That is the problem with such inquiries costing £33 million. Already, we have a sense today that the Members opposite are not happy with the content. On the one hand, they are talking about the death of this young, innocent man, which, as we all agree, was wrong. On the other hand, they are not happy with the findings. Of course, we have seen that before with Sinn Féin in the inquiries in Londonderry, one of which it did not take part in.

The Member for Mid Ulster said that every victim deserves justice, and I agree. Every victim does deserve justice. The only way that we will get justice in this country is if everyone plays their part, but, of course, Sinn Féin and those whom it has been involved with have failed to play their part for many, many years. I will not be lectured by Sinn Féin about a one-sided justice system, and I am not here today to listen to the rewriting of history, but I will speak about the failings of the police. It is clear from the report that there were failings in the investigation. As other members of the Policing Board will find, those are not the first failings to be revealed, and I am sure that they will not be the last. That is not an excuse; the police need to get better. As I said at the outset, however, it is clear that there was no collusion.

I go back to what the proposer of the Matter of the Day said about the police officers in the Land Rover. One has to ask why they were in Portadown in an armoured Land Rover. Why was there a need for the armoured Land Rover and for the police officers to have to stay inside the vehicle? Of course, it would be nothing to do with the fact that the organisation linked to Sinn Féin — the IRA — was targeting members of the security forces. They were in the vehicle for their own safety. However, key in this — never forget — is that there was no collusion whatsoever.

Mr Tennyson said that every family deserves truth and justice. He criticised my colleague for talking about the cost. Is the Member for Upper Bann suggesting that every death in Northern Ireland deserves a £33 million inquiry? Clearly, as we can see from this inquiry, if Sinn Féin do not get the answers that they want, they are never going to be satisfied.

Mr Gaston: You will not find anyone on this side of the Chamber defending the killing of Robert Hamill. I preface my remarks by saying that he was an innocent man whose death was completely unjustified and unjustifiable. My thoughts are with the entire Hamill family, but the central fact that was established yesterday, which no one can get away from, is this: for years, the story was pushed that RUC officers sat in a Land Rover while Mr Hamill was killed a short distance away, but that was untrue. The report conclusively finds that there was no collusion in the murder. In the Hamill case, collusion was an illusion.

Some £33 million of public money is a lot to spend to disprove that allegation. Today, I think of the countless families across Ulster who have never had a public inquiry: the families whose loved ones do not occupy the headlines for political convenience, who are told to move on for the sake of our future and who are told by the First Minister for all that there was no alternative to the murder of their loved ones.

It would cost a great deal less than £33 million to discover the links between Sinn Féin and the cases that fill graves across this Province. While this place is based on the premise that we must ignore that reality for the sake of the process, there is at least one voice in the Chamber, soon to be joined by others, that will not allow the bodies of innocent victims to be swept under the carpet. We have heard here, this morning, that every family deserves justice. I have only to look at the Sinn Féin Benches to see that they are occupied by people such as Gerry Kelly and the cash-and-carry bomber, Pat Sheehan. If everybody deserves justice, when are you going to start to tell the stories and to tell what you know about the numerous murders that were carried out in the name of freeing Ireland? It is hypocritical and a shame that this Matter of the Day was brought forward by a Member from Sinn Féin/IRA.

Mr Chambers: I was not planning to speak on the Matter of the Day, but I have heard a lot of criticism — general, broad-brush criticism — of the RUC. The impression that I get is that it is a criticism that is borne from pure hatred for those who served in the RUC during what we call the Troubles.

I was proud to wear the uniform of the RUC. I may be the only one in the Chamber today who did that; I do not know. I served for 15 years in the RUC Reserve. It affected my whole life. For my business, there were places that I could not go. I slept with a loaded firearm at the side of my bed every night. There were children in the house, but it was something that I had to do. I answered the front door at night with the gun in my hand, maybe covered with a copy of the 'Belfast Telegraph'.

What happened to Robert Hamill was disgraceful. The police officer who made that phone call was a disgrace to the uniform that I wore and that every other member of the RUC wore. He served time in jail for doing what he did. He was more than a rotten apple, but people seem to feel that everybody who was in the RUC was a rotten apple. I did not know any police officer who came into work in the morning with the intention of colluding to organise the murder of someone; they came in to protect the public. They held the line for 30 years, yet I never hear one word of credit given in the Chamber to the RUC for that fact. It protected people from bombers whose bombs did not discriminate in whom they killed. Police officers put their lives on the line to protect us. They suffered mental health issues and family health issues, and 300 of my colleagues died serving and protecting the public.

Just like Robert Hamill, who was out for a quiet night, two of my direct friends in the RUC were out for a quiet night, and a gunman crept up behind them and put bullets through the backs of their heads. That gunman did not care about how many children or what family those two police officers had. Disgraceful. Let us therefore not use such a broad brush —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Time is up.

Mr Chambers: — to demonise the RUC, which protected —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Your time is up.

Mr Chambers: — us for 30 years.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Members, before I call the next Member, I will refer to a comment that Mr Gaston made. This applies to all Members. Members are aware of a previous ruling that, in the Chamber, parties will be called only by their proper name. The name of the party referred to by Mr Gaston is "Sinn Féin", and neither I nor anyone else in the Speaker's Chair expect to hear any variation from that.

Mr Carroll: I thank the Member for bringing the Matter of the Day to the House. It is an important matter for us to discuss. I join others in paying tribute to Robert Hamill's sister Diane, his other sisters and the wider family for their continued brave stance for truth and justice. They stood strong in the face of opposition and foot-dragging for almost 30 years, so I hope that they can be proud of the role that they have played in getting some of the information that they got yesterday.

In a general historical sense, official narratives do not always indicate what happened. The official report found that the RUC did not collude, but anyone who has looked back at that dark period will know that the RUC did not intervene when somebody was being kicked to death. That is unquestionable, and it has been papered over by some in the House and by some in the media in their coverage of the report and the inquiry. If somebody were to come into the House with a knife that I did not give them and stab somebody in front of me and I did not intervene, would I not be held culpable in part for their death? Any reasonable person would say that I absolutely should, so we should look at the tragic killing of Robert Hamill in the same vein.

Despite what the previous Member said, there has been a whitewashing of the RUC. Officers in that case were found to have submitted incorrect and wrong information to the inquiry. The DUP Member for Upper Bann said that he was mindful of Robert Hamill's family, but it has to be said that he went on to be very unmindful and inconsiderate of them and of the pain and grief that they are going through.

There has been some talk today and previously, mainly from the unionist parties, about the price of inquiries and justice.

I agree in a general sense with the Alliance Member for Upper Bann, that there should not be a price on justice. The second thing to say on that is this: if Members are really concerned about the price of justice and truly hold to that point, there is a simple solution. Open the books, release the files and let the public know who knew what and who did what and when. Let the victims and survivors see what was done and who did it. Let us have a full account of what was done.

The state was the main purveyor of violence in this place. Let people know what was done. Let people know who killed whom, who colluded, who was involved in shoot to kill and who was involved in funding and organising the sectarian killing gangs. Not only would you save a bit of money, if you really believe in doing that, but you would let victims and survivors know what was done.

We should remember that it was a dangerous period. As well as the Robert Hamill murder, there was violence and sectarianism against the Quinn brothers. Parties in the House —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Time is up, Gerry.

Mr Carroll: — should be mindful of that when it comes to the Garvaghy Road.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: If Members wish to be called, they should continually rise in their place. I will not take any points of order until this item has finished.

Mrs Mason: DUP Education Minister Paul Givan's U-turn on girls' right to wear trousers to school, while really embarrassing for him, is an important win for girls and for all those who campaigned for that simple choice. Remember that this is the same Minister who told everyone that his guidance and legislation were enough to give girls that choice. We knew that the Minister was wrong, and he has now been forced to concede.

Girls should always have had the right to wear trousers to school if that is what they choose to do. It should never have been controversial, and it definitely should not have taken this long to put in place. The Minister had the opportunity to guarantee that right in his school uniforms legislation, but he failed to do so. It should not have required more resources, more time, more energy and further legislation from the Education Committee to force his hand and to embarrass him into movement on something so basic.

The Minister needs to take his head out of the sand and listen to all the voices in our education system, be they on teacher workload, SEN reform, school transport, TransformED — his pet project — or girls having the right to wear trousers. If the Minister would listen, he could avoid more embarrassing U-turns by standing up and supporting school leaders and staff — our teachers and classroom assistants — families and, most important, our pupils.

We welcome the fact that the Minister has finally given girls the choice, but rest assured: we will watch the Minister closely to ensure that he follows through and that our girls are not let down again.

Mr K Buchanan: In our society, too many people now treat the police with open contempt, and that culture has been allowed to grow unchecked. We have seen 850 assaults on officers recorded in just 12 months. Assault on a police officer is not part of a police officer's job; it is a crime. At the Policing Board two weeks ago, in answer to a question from me, the Chief Constable made it crystal clear:

He went further, stating that PSNI officers here are more likely to wait to be assaulted before taking action, while officers in other UK forces take a proactive stance when faced with a threat. Why do we think that is? It is not a policing problem; it is a societal problem.

A lot has been said in the past week about Tasers. We need to protect our police officers when they are doing their job. Some have hyped the new T10 Taser, but the facts matter: it is not yet in operational use. Currently, only armed response teams carry Tasers. While assaults on officers are at a record level, some people are arguing about equipment that most front-line officers do not have. That is not good enough.

If we expect officers to protect the public, we must protect our officers with proper resources, clear guidance and real consequences for anyone who attacks them. Anything less is failing in our duty. A society that asks officers to stand between danger and the public but denies them the tools to defend themselves is failing in its responsibility.

Some Members in the Chamber do not seem to care about such assaults; indeed, some previously actively supported the campaign to murder officers, and, according to others, "There was no alternative". Others expect officers to hand out sweets — hand out sweets — when they are being attacked. You are now crafting a society that has no respect for the law and no respect for others.

There must be consequences for attacks on police officers. I say to the PSNI, "Give your officers what they need to defend themselves. Do what is right. Defend your officers. Play your part in building a respectful society". Our officers deserve better. Our communities deserve better.

Mr Mathison: I, too, want to speak to the ministerial U-turn on the right of all pupils to wear trousers as part of their school uniform. There is no doubt that the change that will be brought in is welcome. I open my remarks by paying tribute to the pupil campaigners who worked so hard to profile the issue. Rhea and Astrid in particular, whom many of you will have seen presenting evidence to the Education Committee, deserve immense credit for the work that they put in.

While it was entertaining to listen to the Education Minister making jokes in the Chamber yesterday about the fact that we all needed to cheer up and should not feel disappointed, we should not overlook the seriousness of the issue, because the fact that the change has come so late represents a failure on the part of the Minister. He stood on the sidelines and watched while the Education Committee took forward an issue that young people clearly wanted to see delivery on: the option of wearing trousers as part of their school uniform. He sat on his hands, allowed public money to be spent and allowed officials' time in the Assembly to be wasted on delivering a Bill on a issue that, as we have said repeatedly throughout the process, he could have sorted with the stroke of a pen. While it is all very entertaining to be urged to cheer up by the Minister, it is not appropriate to take such a laissez-faire attitude to using Assembly resources in that way.

It is clear that the Minister found himself unable to defend his position of denying girls the right to have that choice because it was not being offered in all schools. Simply requiring schools to consult on their school uniform policy is not the same. Let us be clear: they could consult all they like, but they did not have to act on what the consultation fed back. The ministerial promises that he had already delivered that choice and we just had not realised it do not stand up to scrutiny.

The delay from the Minister has also meant that pupils in this academic year — girls who, in their evidence to the Committee, said that one of the biggest issues is that they just want to be warm in the winter months — may be in a school that does not afford them that opportunity. Again, the Minister can crack jokes in the Chamber about everybody needing to cheer up, but there are real-world consequences of his delay.

We need to be clear about the precise detail of what the Minister has brought in. I want to assure myself that the changes go far enough and do not leave wriggle room for schools. It is vital that the right that is delivered is clear and unequivocal.

Finally, there is much work to be done on school uniform policy beyond the issue of the right to wear trousers. Costs continue to be unacceptably high. We really need to see clear and serious action to address the issue of cost. We were promised that the Minister's Bill would deliver that. Right now, I am not hearing from parents that they are feeling it in their pockets.

Ms McLaughlin: A few weeks ago, during the féile, I sat in a room in Creggan with the brilliant Sure Start team and listened to Dr Claire Sinton talk about smartphones and what they are doing to our children. I will be honest: it really shook me. Dr Sinton is not a campaigner looking for headlines; she is a talented and wonderful paediatrician at the Royal. She is seeing a generation of children whose brains are developing differently, not because of anything they have done but because of what we have handed them.

Here is what the evidence now tells us. A major longitudinal survey published by eBioMedicine in December 2025 followed children for over a decade. It found that high screen exposure before the age of two was linked to brain networks maturing far too fast and before they had built the flexibility that children need for reasoning, adaptability and coping. The consequences showed years later as slower decision-making, high levels of anxiety and a brain that specialised too early and paid for it.

It is not a small number of children. The 2025 'Common Sense Media Census’ found that children aged five to eight now average three and a half hours of screen time a day. Parents think that nine hours a week is healthy: children are living through more than double that. Attention spans are shrinking, sleep is disrupted, blue light delays melatonin production, young brains stay wired long past bedtime and sleep-deprived children start showing symptoms that look exactly like ADHD.

It is not only what screens do to developing brains; it is what those brains are being exposed to. Children as young as eight are encountering pornography online, often without looking for it, and often through the same apps they use to talk to their friends or watch videos. Predatory adults are contacting children directly through the same platforms. That is not a fringe risk; it is built into how those apps work, and it happens at a scale that most parents cannot fully grasp.

We would never accept that exposure in the classroom, a playground or a youth club. We police those areas and spaces carefully because children are in them, yet we have allowed every child with a smartphone to carry an unregulated, unsupervised space in their pocket all day, every day. It is not a story about bad parents, and it is not a story about lazy children; it is a story about technology that has arrived faster than our understanding of it. It is a technology built to capture attention, deployed on brains that are still being built themselves.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Time is up, Sinéad. Thank you.

Mr Kearney: The nearly 70-year US blockade against the Republic of Cuba is a collective punishment against the people of Cuba. It has been a silent genocide, illegally carried out, that is morally wrong and politically indefensible. The intention of the illegal US blockade is clear: to starve the Cuban people into submission and undermine the Republic of Cuba. Cuba poses no military threat to the US or any other nation. On the contrary, it is internationally renowned for its selfless commitment to global humanitarianism and medical internationalism.

The economic, financial and commercial embargoes on Cuba have caused, and are causing, suffering for millions of Cuban people. They are being denied access to the basic resources of life. Water, electricity, healthcare and other essential services are being decimated because of serious fuel shortages. Since early 2026, the US Administration has tightened the blockade with a complete embargo against Cuba's energy and finance sectors, causing a deep humanitarian crisis. The US Administration is now intimidating the wider international community with threats of tariffs against countries that continue to supply oil to Cuba. The targeted embargo on all oil imports into the country is exacerbating the human suffering.

That US aggression is a clear violation of the United Nations charter, and successive resolutions adopted by the United Nations call for the blockade to end. International solidarity with Cuba is now urgently required. At the forthcoming UN General Assembly in October, the voice of the international community will again reassert that principled moral position. The US should return to multilateralism and diplomacy. Humanitarian aid must now be allowed to enter Cuba unhindered and not blocked from any quarter or source.

Miss McIlveen: On 15 September 1976, the Provisional IRA drove a van packed with explosives into the loading bay of the Belfast Telegraph building in Little Donegall Street. It was a bomb that risked many lives, including those of schoolchildren who had to be evacuated from the nearby Central Library just minutes before the bomb went off. The explosion caused enormous damage to the newspaper's premises and injured 14 people. One man would die from his injuries on 19 September 1976. For his family, the consequences of that tragic loss were devastating and permanent. When we speak about the Troubles, it can sometimes be easy, after half a century, to reduce individual lives to statistics, but behind every name was a family, a home, a community and a future that was taken away.

Joseph Paton was 63 years of age. A married man, he was a father and grandfather. He worked as a stereotyper at the 'Belfast Telegraph' and lived on the Drumalig Road in Temple. Joe was a working man going about his daily life. He had a family who loved them, a home and a job. He had grandchildren who grew up knowing him only through the memories, stories and photographs passed down by the family. He played bowls, and, in his younger days, he boxed, and he ran with Willowfield Harriers. He supported the Glens. He also ran a shop in east Belfast.

The 'Belfast Telegraph', its journalists and staff were engaged in the ordinary work of a free society: reporting events, informing the public and giving people a voice. The bomb that day was designed to silence that voice. The response from the newspaper staff was remarkable. Despite the destruction, they produced an emergency edition that became known as the 'Penny Marvel', with the editorial message, "Our Answer".

Today, the 'Belfast Telegraph' is marking 50 years since that bomb, and it is telling the story of Joe Paton. Joe's granddaughter is present today to hear this statement and to hear Joe's name and story being recorded into the Official Report of the Assembly. To her and the wider Paton family, I say that Joe is remembered not as a statistic from the Troubles but as a father, husband, grandfather and colleague.

At noon this Saturday, 19 September, which is the 50th anniversary of Joe's death, his family will gather at St Anne's Cathedral for a special service of acknowledgement, remembering a man whose life was cut short and the years of loss that followed. It will also be an opportunity for everyone to remember the courage of families such as the Patons who have carried the same grief.

There is no justification for what was done to Joe Paton. There is no excuse for the deliberate use —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Time is up, Michelle.

Miss McIlveen: — of violence against innocent people. Today, as —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Time is up.

Miss McIlveen: — we mark 50 years since his death —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Time is up.

Miss McIlveen: — we remember Joe as a person, a family man who went to work one day and a man who should have returned home.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I gave you some latitude, given the subject matter, but I remind Members who are waiting to make a statement that, if they take three minutes, others will not get in.

Mr Honeyford: I have raised the cost-of-living crisis many times, but, once again, families across Northern Ireland are being absolutely hammered by the cost of energy. This time last September, 500 litres of home heating oil was £270. Today, it is more than £540, which is double. One electricity supplier has announced a 12·6% increase, which will add about £130 to a typical bill. Gas customers are also being hit and face increases of close to 20% from October. How are families here supposed to budget for that? Hard-working families who are already stretched do not have hundreds of pounds sitting waiting for the rises to come, yet they are expected to pay for that. They need help now, and they need price security into the future.

The UK Government should look again at temporarily removing VAT on home heating oil, particularly for Northern Ireland, as we are dependent on it for our source of heat. When energy companies are making exceptional profits, and ordinary people are struggling to pay their bills, we should strengthen the windfall tax and make sure that it hits people and their homes.

We also need to look to the future, and we need to fix the reason why it keeps happening here. We need to produce more of our own energy here; reduce the costs to the homeowner and business customers; have the ability to store it and use it when we need it; and reduce the absolute reliance on imported oil and gas. We have had years of delay in that transition, but it needs to stop, and we need to see delivery. Every time that there is another international crisis, the public here should not pay the price. People need help now, and we need delivery of that energy system to ensure that such cost increases do not happen in the future.

Mr Stewart: I pass on my thoughts to the individual in Greenisland who was struck by a train today. My thoughts are with them, their family, the driver and all the emergency services that are responding. I pray that everything is OK with them.

The phone and data reception in my constituency, East Antrim, and across Northern Ireland is absolutely disgraceful. We are assured continuously by network providers that it is being improved and that they are investing in infrastructure. However, the outworkings on the ground show that that is clearly not the case. They are not isolated incidents. I am being told by constituents in Greenisland, Whitehead, Ballycarry, Islandmagee and Carrickfergus — major population areas of my constituency — that they simply cannot get access to basic data or phone service even though their phones are telling them that they have full 4G or 5G coverage. It is simply unsustainable. That is having a massive impact on them. They are paying their bills in good faith but are unable to access a basic level of service.

I have raised the matter continually with the network providers. They have assured me that upgrades are being done. However, clearly, that is not being seen by those who are paying their bills. I am told by NHS staff that it is also having an impact on them when they call out on visits and are unable to access the basic tech services that they require. They are unable to get the data to access the information that they need when they meet individuals on the ground. Something really must be done about it. As I said, I have raised it with the network providers, which, I might add, make billions of pounds every year from the bills that people pay in good faith. We really need to see those upgrades.

I have also raised it with the Infrastructure Minister. I have written to the Economy Minister to see what she can do. I have now taken the step of raising it with Ofcom because the problem is so significant that it must do whatever it can to step in and take action against the providers. It is simply unsustainable.

I want to make a plea to people and thank everyone who has already reached out to me. Hundreds have done so already. For those affected, it is important that we all, as elected representatives, get a picture of which areas are particularly affected. If anybody is affected, please, reach out to me. I will raise that directly with the providers. Between us all, hopefully, we can get the action that is needed to ensure that coverage is full, comprehensive and provides what people pay their bills for in good faith.

Mr McNulty: Today, 15 September, is World Lymphoma Awareness Day. Two years ago, Catherine Sherry was diagnosed with lymphoma. She fought her illness bravely for nine months until her passing on 12 May 2025. On the day of her funeral, Armagh flags fluttered in the breeze as mourners stood in glorious sunshine in the graveyard of St Teresa's Church, Tullyherron. Hundreds gathered in the packed chapel to pay their respects to a young mother who had touched so many hearts. Catherine was a beautiful person in every way, and she will be sorely missed by all who knew and loved her. In St Killian's GAA club, after her funeral, her mother came to me and said that Catherine's last text message to her was, "Come on, Armagh". Catherine's husband, Fergal, and their three young sons, Manus, Tomás and Donal, are courageously and busily getting on with life, work, school, sport and music.

Sadly, Catherine passed away at King's College Hospital, London, where she was being treated for lymphoma. Catherine's treatment in London worked — she defeated the cancer — but the travel took its toll, and she was unable to fight the infection that ultimately led to her passing. The clinical guidelines advise against travel when undergoing chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy, yet Catherine Sherry had no option but to get on a plane and travel to London. Where was the emphasis on patient safety?

Catherine did not want to travel to England and leave her young sons and wider family support at a time when their love and support was needed most, but she had no option. When she asked why she could not have the specialist CAR T-cell therapy that she needed closer to home, she was told that it would not be available until 2031 at the earliest and that there was no arrangement in place for patients from the North to be treated in Dublin or Galway. I say it again: that inequality of treatment just is not good enough. We are already five years behind having the treatment that is available in the South and in hospitals throughout England, Scotland and Wales. We cannot wait another five years-plus to have it available here.

Catherine Sherry did not want other patients and their families to face the same circumstances. She said that no other mother should have to leave her children behind to fight for her life far from home. Help to bring life-saving CAR T-cell therapy closer to home by signing and sharing the petition that her family have created in her honour. It is free to sign and share. We need names on the board in support of that important campaign and a big push during September, which is Blood Cancer Awareness Month. Please sign and share the petition.

Mr Baker: I pay tribute today to a giant of the soccer community: "Mr Glendowan" — Eddie Mulligan — who sadly passed away at the start of the week. The impact that Eddie had on my community — the Colin community — and the influence that he had on our young people for over 25 years cannot be measured. He changed lives and futures and saved lives, and he even had an influence on my children, who play for Glendowan FC. My thoughts and prayers are with his family, who are going through a difficult time, as they have also just lost their mother; with the Glendowan family; and with Eddie's friends. Eddie will be forever loved and missed, and he will not be forgotten by the people of the Colin area and by Glendowan FC family.

Mr Gaston: Yesterday, at Question Time, the Minister of Education informed the House that, of the £361·2 million provided to the Northern Ireland Executive through Barnett consequentials for special educational needs provision, only £115·8 million, which equates to a measly 32%, will find its way to the Department of Education. The Minister described that as "remarkable", but I describe it as "shameful". At a time when our special schools are, in many cases, operating beyond capacity, when parents wait far too long for statutory assessments for their children and when too many young people with additional needs face a cliff edge in getting support at the age of 19, the Executive have chosen to divert hundreds of millions of pounds that was clearly intended to help some of the most vulnerable children in our society. That surely cannot be right.

Families across Northern Ireland do not see budgets, Departments and bureaucratic structures; they see children struggling to access support. They see children waiting for much-needed assessments for months and, in some cases, years. They see exhausted teachers, classroom assistants and school leaders doing their absolute best with finite resources. They see opportunities slipping away because the system simply cannot keep pace with demand. Despite all of that and despite the fact that improving SEN provision is stated as a priority in the Programme for Government, our most vulnerable children have once again found themselves caught in the crossfire of an interdepartmental tug of war.

The SEN sector does not need warm words or expressions of sympathy; it needs planning and investment, and it desperately needs delivery. We need sufficient funding to expand capacity in special schools. We need a statutory assessment system that works in a timely manner. We need meaningful post-19 pathways that allow young people with additional needs to continue to learn and develop. Above all, we need an Executive who treat SEN not as a competing departmental interest but as a burden for which there is a duty to help. Our most vulnerable —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Time is up, Timothy.

Mr Gaston: — and their families and support networks —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Timothy, time is up.

Mr Gaston: — deserve better than what the Executive are giving them.

Mr Carroll: I will speak about the proposed Translink transport cuts. Across Belfast tonight, if workers are cleaning offices, closing bars or coming off hospital wards, they may finish their shift at 10.00 pm or later. Depending on tonight's proceedings, people may be leaving this Building at 10.00 pm as well. Under the current proposals, there will be no buses or trains at the start of the week to take them home safely after 10.00 pm. We are talking about whether working-class people in this part of the world can get home safely from work, after a night out or after visiting a relative in hospital.

That is a damning indictment of the Executive's inability to deliver for ordinary people.

Translink is proposing to stop almost every train and take almost every bus off the road after 10.00 pm on Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays. It is proposing to cut the yLink discount for young people from 50% to 33%; to scrap off-peak day returns entirely; and to hike the price of family and day-out tickets. That will isolate families and young people in the process. The only services that will survive under the proposals are the likes of the 212 route and the airport buses, which are the ones that turn a profit. Profitability is now deciding what counts as a public service, and the routes that serve ordinary communities are on the chopping board.

Translink's own equality impact assessment concedes that the proposals fall hardest on section 75 groups, women, disabled passengers, older people, young people and low-income families. That should be reason alone to stop those proposals. We have been told that the cuts are regrettable and unavoidable, but that is simply not true. Grand Central station cost £340 million — that was up from the original projection of £200 million — and £11 million of that went on management and consultancy fees. Meanwhile, this place continues to spend £44·50 per person on public transport, which is less than half the figure in the South, Scotland or Wales. The Department for Infrastructure has not funded public transport properly for decades. We are not short of money in this society; we are short of political will. If the cuts go ahead, Translink will lose fare revenue and people will be pushed back into cars. That is completely indefensible for an Executive who are, supposedly, focused on tackling climate change.

We should stand with Unite, GMB, the Transport Salaried Staffs' Association and SIPTU, which have been calling, for years, for sustained investment in public transport and better pay and terms and conditions for workers. I met their representatives last week, and I will be hosting an event in this Building in the coming days. Public transport should not be a profit-making enterprise; it belongs to all of us and should be a properly funded public service. The people who depend on public transport should not be made to pay for the failures of those at the top.

Ms Sugden: I, too, want to talk about the extraordinary cost of putting fuel in our cars and heating our homes, because the figures are becoming really alarming. Last week, across Northern Ireland, we averaged £1·57 a litre for petrol and £1·78 a litre for diesel. When I left Coleraine this morning, diesel was £1·84 a litre. For many people in Northern Ireland, driving is not a lifestyle choice, as public transport does not provide a realistic alternative. People need their cars to get to work, to take their children to school, to attend hospital appointments, to care for relatives and, simply, to lead their day-to-day lives. Every increase at the pump is, effectively, another tax on people going to work and living their life.

When people go home, they have to heat their house. On 1 September in Northern Ireland, the average cost of 900 litres of heating oil was around £800. Ten days later, that had increased to almost £928. Gas customers also face increases, with a 19·2% regulated tariff increase taking effect from next month, and winter is coming. I appreciate that much of the price increases are being driven by international events and volatile wholesale energy markets and that no one in this Chamber can dictate global oil prices. However, that cannot become an excuse for political helplessness. We elect Ministers, MPs and other representatives precisely because they have access and influence that ordinary people do not have. Where is the sustained pressure on the UK Government? How is it acceptable that executives in large global fuel companies earn multi-million-pound bonuses while the people who buy their products are struggling?

Where is the collective case for Northern Ireland about the particular impact here? We are heavily dependent on home heating oil, while our wages are lower and so many people cannot substitute their car with reliable public transport. The £100 home heating oil scheme will be welcome for those who qualify, but it should have come much sooner than it did. Further, when the average price of a tank of oil has increased by more than that in 10 days, we should be honest about what £100 will achieve: it will barely skim the surface. I need to know what the Executive are doing now, not what they will do in December when the crisis is upon us. What discussions are taking place at Westminster? What assessment is being made of further intervention? Is there any more that the Utility Regulator can do within its powers? Are Ministers examining every lever that is available to them?

Many families are not sitting around the kitchen table discussing our political strategies, Members. They are looking at the oil tank. They are watching the numbers climb on the petrol pump. They are opening their gas bill and wondering how expensive this winter will be. That deserves more of our attention than the political nonsense that we will hear in the weeks leading up to the election.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you. That ends Members' statements. I gave a few minutes' grace to facilitate the smaller parties. I appeal to many others that, if you use your three minutes up, it means to say that others cannot get in. That decision rests with you.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Members, before we proceed to the next item of business, I take this opportunity to remind Members of our standards of debate.

Some Members: Hear. Hear.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Conversion Practices (Criminalisation) Bill deals with issues that are strongly held opinions across the House, and Members will be able to express their views. In any Assembly, on diverse political views, Members have to respect freedom of expression and accept points that will be made by others that they certainly do not agree with themselves and, sometimes, in terms that they would not use themselves. However, Members are still expected to observe the standards of debate towards each other of good temper, courtesy, moderation and respect.

Some Members: Hear. Hear.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Members should be mindful that they can express political differences in robust debate without needing to be deliberately provocative or, indeed, offensive to others.

The Bill deals with complex and sensitive issues, and Members should be aware that all those who will be watching the debate will see and hear what is said. There will be full opportunities to scrutinise the Bill, but, as the Speaker has said previously, Members are expected to do so with good manners and in good temper.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I moved on more quickly than expected. I have to deal with another Committee motion. This is from the DUP.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: For the Second Stage of the Conversion Practices (Criminalisation) Bill, I have already given the warning, or plea, should I say, to Members. Without further ado, I call Eóin Tennyson to move the Second Stage of the Bill.

Mr Tennyson: I beg to move

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: In accordance with convention, the Business Committee has not allocated a time limit to the debate. I call Eóin Tennyson to open the debate on the Bill.

Mr Tennyson: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. No one in our society should be abused, harmed or coerced simply because of who they are or who they love, but, right now, gaps in existing law are allowing a specific and pernicious form of abuse to persist in our society. Conversion practices are driven by a belief that LGBTQ+ people are ill and in need of a cure, that they can be forcibly changed and that subjecting someone to just enough psychological pressure will somehow stop them from being who they authentically are. Many people assume that conversion practices are a relic of a very distant past, but, sadly, these cruel and archaic acts persist in our society today. People are shamed, humiliated and told that they are broken. Their own adverse childhood experiences are weaponised and used against them. People are locked in cupboards until they reflect and repent, or are threatened with rape if they do not change their identity. Those are real stories that involve real people in our communities and real abusers who are getting away with that heinous abuse. With this Bill, that changes.

Those discredited, damaging and deeply destructive acts have no place in Northern Ireland, and they must end. The Conversion Practices (Criminalisation) Bill seeks to fill those gaps in existing law in order to ban conversion practices and protect LGBTQ+ people from the harm and trauma that they cause. It gives victims and authorities a clear legal framework by which to identify and tackle that insidious abuse and sets boundaries about what is and is not acceptable behaviour. The Bill seeks to protect and respect the rights and dignity of every person in our society, protecting LGBT people from torture and degrading treatment whilst upholding the fundamental freedoms of religion and expression.

Throughout the development of the Bill, we took a rights-based, victim-centred and trauma-informed approach, always focused on the needs of victims and survivors of conversion therapy. I thank those victims and survivors who have courageously spoken out publicly and shared their experiences, be that with me during our public consultation or in the course of research into conversion therapy in Northern Ireland. One respondent told our public consultation:

Another survivor

Apologies, Deputy Speaker.

Another survivor told those undertaking a study of conversion practices —.

Ms Mulholland: Will the Member take an intervention?

Mr Tennyson: I will, thank you.

Ms Mulholland: No problem. The Member's emotion shows that this is a very real concept. The Bill, at its heart, aims to prevent that harm. It does not necessarily need to be a "faith versus legislation" issue. It is about preventing real, lived harm.

Mr Tennyson: I agree, and I thank the Member for making an intervention to allow me to regain my composure, because these are difficult issues. I have spent time speaking to people who have been affected by them. The way that we approach the debate today really matters.

Mr Brett: I appreciate the Member's giving way, and I note the emotion that he displayed, which makes clear his sincerity on the issue. I come back to some remarks that he made in his opening statement. He said that the Bill will deal with issues that have not been criminalised. He outlined disgraceful practices, including threats of rape, locking people in cupboards and physical violence. Obviously, those things are, rightly, criminal offences already. Clearly, threatening to rape someone is already on the statute book. Locking someone in a cupboard is clearly false imprisonment. Those things are, rightly, on the statute book already. Will the Member articulate how the Bill is different from current legislation that the House has passed? I appreciate the emotion with which he has articulated his position.

Mr Tennyson: I thank the Member for that intervention. I will come to the gaps in the law later in my remarks.

Another survivor told a study of conversion practices of their experiences, outlining how the perpetrator asked them:

The survivor said:

Those quotations demonstrate exactly why new offences dealing with conversion practice are needed.

The evidence on the harms associated with conversion practices is extensive and remarkably clear. The impact can be lifelong, with victims reporting anxiety, depression, suicidal ideation, post-traumatic stress disorder, feelings of shame, guilt and self-loathing and a crisis of identity. Survivors have also reported impacts on relationships, work and vocations. In 2017, 25 major health, counselling and psychotherapy organisations, including the British Psychological Society and NHS England, came together to condemn conversion therapy as unethical and not supported by evidence. The evidence on prevalence is equally clear. The UK Government's 2018 LGBT survey found that Northern Ireland had the highest prevalence of LGBT people being offered or undergoing conversion therapy of any UK region.

Across the globe, countries are acting to ban conversion practices. Twenty-seven countries, including Malta, Germany, France, Spain, New Zealand and Canada, already have bans in place, and the sky has not fallen in. We have learned from their experiences. We have also considered draft legislation from the Scottish and UK Governments as well as the approach to stalking, harassment and domestic abuse law in Northern Ireland. We have drawn on the framework set out by the Council of Europe, the recommendations of the UN independent expert on sexual orientation and gender identity and the experience of our local expert panel on the LGBTQI+ strategy.

We have carefully studied the evidence on prevalence and types of conversion practice, and we are clear about where gaps remain in the law. I come to Mr Brett's point: there are two obvious gaps in the law. At the moment, the provision of an unregulated and unscientific therapy would not ordinarily fit within existing criminal offences. We have laws covering coercive and controlling behaviour, but they apply only where the individuals in question are personally connected. For example, were a parent or a sibling to engage in conversion therapy against a member of their family, that could be prosecuted under domestic abuse law, but, if the person who engages in that coercive and controlling behaviour is not a relative — if it is a counsellor or a member of their faith community — that may not be prosecutable under existing law. Conversion practices, as with domestic abuse, can take a variety of forms, which is why stand-alone legislation is needed.

The argument was once made that we did not need stand-alone legislation to address domestic abuse because threatening behaviour, physical abuse and violence could be captured. However, the truth is that having stand-alone legislation sends a signal to society that such acts are not permissible and not acceptable. It also sends a clear message to victims that there is a legislative framework to support them, which is not clear at the moment. With respect, the examples that I have given make it clear that we have a problem with conversion practices continuing in our community and that the current legislative framework is not adequate to capture them.

Mr Brett: Will the Member give way?

Mr Tennyson: I will in a moment. I want to make some progress.

The Bill provides a comprehensive ban with no loopholes but with clarity so that we will not inadvertently impinge on freedom of expression, religion, legitimate healthcare or parental rights.

I turn to the detail of the Bill. The Bill creates two new criminal offences of providing conversion therapy and engaging in coercive conversion behaviour. They have been treated as separate offences so as to recognise the distinction between more formal provision of therapy and coercive and controlling behaviour that is more similar in nature to domestic abuse. Both offences are constructed around key legislative requirements and tests, all of which must be satisfied for an offence to have been committed. It is therefore essential that, when we consider the legislation, we consider the tests in the round. First, there must be intention to suppress or change a person's sexual orientation or gender identity. Secondly, there must be provision of therapy or a coercive course of behaviour conducted with that intent. Thirdly, the therapy or coercive behaviour must be directed towards a specific, identified individual. Fourthly —.

Mr Frew: Will the Member give way?

Mr Tennyson: Yes, I will.

Mr Frew: I thank the Member for outlining the clauses and offences. Will he provide a list of sexual orientations and gender identities?

Mr Tennyson: Thank you. Look, I will not be drawn down a rabbit hole on sexual orientation and gender identity. I am happy to address that matter through interventions when the Member speaks, if he wants to discuss it in his contribution to the debate.

Mr Buckley: Will the Member give way?

Mr Tennyson: I will make some progress. I will give way to the Member shortly.

Fourthly, the conduct must result in physical or psychological harm to the victim. Fifthly, it will be a defence that the behaviour was reasonable in the particular circumstances.

The first offence deals with conversion therapy that is conducted with intent and results in actual harm. It deals with therapy that would normally be provided outside the family environment with a level of formality or structure by someone who claims to have a level of professionalism, knowledge or skill. Such practices are often inherently coercive because they exploit positions of trust and authority, with victims being more likely to place their confidence in someone who claims to possess a healing or reparative ability. The offence would capture, for example, services that claim to offer a remedy for unwanted same-sex attraction despite clear evidence and medical consensus that such outcomes are not achievable and that attempts to achieve them can result in harm. A court would need to demonstrate, among other things, that the behaviour constituted therapy. That would require a highly fact-specific assessment of the case, and it would be a defence that the accused's conduct was "reasonable in the particular circumstances" of the case.

I have always stated that it is not my intention to interfere with the provision of legitimate healthcare. To ensure that there is no chilling effect, an exclusion for healthcare professionals who are members of regulated bodies has been provided, where the professionals act in accordance with the standards and code of ethics of that relevant body.

The second offence covers practices that take the form of a course of coercive conversion behaviour. That type of conversion practice is, as I have said, much more similar in nature to domestic abuse and typically occurs in more informal or family settings. The offence will make it illegal to subject an individual to a course of conversion behaviour — on at least two occasions — with the intention of suppressing or changing their sexual orientation or gender identity, where that behaviour results in actual harm. As with the first offence, there will be a reasonableness defence that the behaviour in question was "reasonable in the particular circumstances". The Bill clearly sets out what amounts to coercive conversion behaviour and draws from the framework in the Domestic Abuse and Civil Proceedings Act (Northern Ireland) 2021 for defining coercive and controlling behaviour. The Assembly has previously adopted that approach, which has already been interpreted and applied by the courts in a range of contexts and successfully distinguishes between difficult conversations and coercion in a range of contexts.

We must not underestimate the devastating impact that familial abuse can have on victims. The Bill does not, however, criminalise ordinary parental behaviour such as the removal of a child's privileges as part of their discipline. Equally, ordinary pastoral care or religious teaching would not be captured. For example, advice and guidance from a religious leader that includes statements of traditional faith beliefs and sexual ethics would have to be demonstrably coercive, through evidence of emphatic directives accompanied by forceful or threatening statements to force an individual to change or suppress their orientation or identity.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for giving way. I note that he said that it should not impact on church leaders or, indeed, parents. That leads me to a point that my colleague Mr Frew raised. Clause 6 — "Sexual orientation and gender identity" — states:

The Member will know that I firmly believe that there are but two genders: male and female. For the purposes of the legislation, will the Member outline the number of gender identities that, he believes, the Bill will apply to —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr Buckley: — and whether that would come —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr Buckley: — to a conclusion in this?

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Order. To pre-empt a raft of questions, let me be clear: it is clear from clause 6 that:

It is self-determined, so it is not for Eóin Tennyson or anyone else to talk about how many genders there are.

Mr Brett: On a point of order, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I am not finished.

Mr Brett: It is not your job to give your view.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Excuse me. I am pointing out what is in the Bill. Do not tell me how to do my job. OK?

I ask Members to be mindful of my earlier remarks. I am not stopping political debate or trying to censor anyone, but, when clause 6 is being referenced, it is important that all Members have clause 6 in front of them to understand exactly what is being said.

Mr Buckley: On a point of order, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I hope that you appreciate that I asked that question genuinely. I have the Bill in front of me, but I am not clear from clause 6 exactly what is entailed. If the Member could outline the number of gender identities that, he believes, the Bill entails, I would perhaps have more clarity as to who would fall under the auspices of this private Member's legislation. The Member may provide clarification, but, from what he has said so far and from your intervention from the Chair, I am not any clearer. It is incumbent on me as an elected representative to ensure that the Member's words meet the expectations of what is in the Bill, and I am not clear at this stage whether they do.

Mr Brett: On a point of order, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. Obviously, your role as Chair is to facilitate debate and discussion, and, obviously, if Members who hold the office of Speaker or Principal Deputy Speaker wish to contribute to a debate, they can do so from the Back Benches and not from the Chair.

The point on which I seek clarity is this: "gender identity" is in the Bill, but it is not defined in the Bill or the explanatory and financial memorandum (EFM), so are you saying, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, that you are ruling it out of order for Members to ask questions on legislation on which they will be asked to vote? We are being asked to legalise a term called "gender identity" that the Member has not defined in his legislation. When he was asked to define it, he refused to do so, and you, as Principal Deputy Speaker, then ruled it out of order for us to ask that question. I need clarity from you on that before we are asked to vote on the Bill.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I have heard your point of order, which is not a point of order, frankly. You are close to challenging the ruling of the Chair, Phillip, so I ask you to be respectful. I am trying to be sensitive. I am reading out what is said. If Members want to make political points, they can do so, and, indeed, if the Bill sponsor wants to provide any clarification, he can do so.

I know that, if I want to contribute to the debate, I can remove myself from the Chair; I do not need you to tell me that. If you want to continue pointing out the obvious, Phillip, I advise you to use your time a lot more wisely. Honestly, you are coming very close to being rude. It is up to you.

Mr Brett: On a point of order, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: There will be no more points of order.

Mr Brett: You cannot do that.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Well, I am doing it.

Go ahead, Eóin.

Mr Brett: On a point of order, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Is it on the same issue?

Mr Brett: No, it is not.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: OK. Go ahead.

Mr Brett: May I ask, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, that your ruling and your remarks directed at me be referred to the Speaker? I believe that you have breached your role to chair proceedings impartially and have personally attacked me, which you are entitled to do. You are here, however, as Principal Deputy Speaker to discharge the duties of the Speaker in his absence, to be fair and equitable in your comments and to facilitate debate, not to give your personal opinion, which, in my opinion, you have done. I therefore ask that your remarks be referred to the Speaker's Office.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I will refer my remarks. I will refer a copy of Hansard, and I will advise the Speaker to watch this clip; in fact, I will do that myself. I did not give my personal opinion at all. Let me be clear that I did not. I read out what is in the clause. That is not a personal opinion.

Eóin, are you ready to move on?

Mr Tennyson: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker.

Mr Burrows: Will the Member give way?

Mr Tennyson: I will briefly give way to the Member.

Mr Burrows: Thank you. It is important, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, that we conduct the debate with compassion and tact but also with precision. They are criminal offences that we are looking to create.

Will the Member accept — rightly or wrongly and acknowledging that we can have different views — that the definition of gender identity in clause 6(1) is an entirely subjective one as opposed to an objective one? It is defined as:

By definition, therefore, it is entirely subjective, not objective.

Mr Tennyson: Mr Burrows is right about clause 6: there is reference to the court having regard both to what the victim considers it to be and to what the alleged perpetrator reasonably considered it to be. That is essential. The alleged perpetrator has to be knowledgeable that the person with whom they are dealing is gay or transgender and has to act with intent to suppress or change that. That is an important protection, and the court would have to consider both perspectives when coming to a view. That framework is set out.

On the question of gender identity, the question before us today is not whether a term is contested or whether every phrase is accompanied by an exhaustive statutory definition. The UK Bill includes a statutory definition, and we can have a conversation at this Bill's Consideration Stage about whether Members would like to adopt that. The question is whether a court would be able to understand that concept and apply it consistently, and I have heard nothing in the debate so far that suggests that that would not be the case.

The Bill includes a harm-based, not belief-based, set of offences. It is not about our opinions about particular gender identities. It is not about whether we agree or disagree with the concept of gender identity as a whole.

It is about ensuring that no one is subjected to a coercive course of behaviour or pseudoscientific therapy that results in actual harm, and which is motivated by suppressing that individual's identity.

Mr Carroll: Will the Member give way?

Mr Lyons (The Minister for Communities): Will the Member give way?

Mr Tennyson: To focus on gender identity without looking at the other key tests in the Bill completely misses the point of the draft legislation. I am going to make some progress before taking further interventions.

Some Members: Will the Member give way?

Mr Tennyson: I will not be giving way at this point; I want to make some progress in my remarks.

I have also listened to the concerns that the legislation must not create a loophole that pushes abuse abroad. As such, the Bill includes a third offence of removing a person from Northern Ireland for the purpose of conversion practice. I have no doubt that some will seek to frame the debate as a zero-sum game, pitting LGBTQ+ people against people of faith. That reductive approach fails to recognise the plurality of our society, the fact that many LGBTQ+ people are people of faith and the fact that an even greater number of people of faith respect the dignity and rights of their LGBTQ+ brothers and sisters. The Methodist Church in Ireland, the Church of England, Quakers in Britain and the Hindu Council UK have all publicly opposed conversion therapy. In 2020, 370 religious leaders from 35 countries signed a declaration calling for a ban. As a liberal, I passionately believe in the right to freedom of religion and freedom from religion. I am determined to deliver legislation that strikes the right balance and respects and protects the rights of everyone. However, religious freedom ceases to be freedom at the point at which it is weaponised and used to cause harm and deprive others of their individual freedoms. The practices that we are debating today, and the harms that they cause, cannot possibly be justified or excused by religious or cultural sensitivities.

At its heart, this is a safeguarding issue. Recent scandals involving faith-based counselling and pastoral practice, including issues raised by the victims in the Jeffrey Donaldson case, have exposed the consequences that can arise when vulnerable people are subjected to unregulated interventions without proper safeguards, oversight or accountability. Many faith leaders play a vital role in supporting and protecting people in our community. That will be protected, but no individual, institution or organisation should be beyond scrutiny where harm is caused.

I will address some of the commentary that has been made on the Bill over the past week. It is right that a Bill of this significance be subject to public debate, but, frankly, some contributions have contributed more heat than light. The Minister himself has contributed to confusion surrounding the scope and effects of the draft legislation. For example, it was claimed that a parent who tells their child who is worried about their identity to slow down and think it through before making life-changing decisions would be captured by the legislation. That is not true, as such a scenario would not ordinarily be coercive, neither would it result in harm, and, in the vast majority of cases, parents are motivated by the welfare of their child in navigating complex decisions and not by an intention to suppress or change a sexual orientation or gender identity.

Mrs Erskine: Will the Member give way?

Mr Frew: Will the Member give way?

Mr Tennyson: Not only is the Bill explicit that the failure to do a thing is not a coercive conversion behaviour, but the harm test applied in the draft legislation is more rigorous than it is for existing offences relating to threatening and abusive behaviour and cruelty to a child. Unlike those offences, the actual harm must be proven beyond reasonable doubt rather than it simply being likely that harm would be caused in the eyes of a reasonable person, or that the perpetrator was reckless as to harm caused.

I will give way to Miss Erskine.

Mrs Erskine: Mrs Erskine, thank you.

Mr Tennyson: Mrs Erskine; apologies. [Laughter.]

Mrs Erskine: I thank the Member for giving way. The legislation will capture parents. I am a parent. My daughter might come to me when she is older and want to talk things through. Clause 4 includes:

Talking with your child is therapy. Clause 4 also includes "coaching or instruction". I see no exemption in the Bill for parents. The only exemption that I see is for health trusts and health bodies; there is none for parents, ministers or your hairdresser, if you want to have a conversation with them. It includes any "talking therapy" and "coaching or instruction".

Mr Tennyson: I thank the Member for her intervention. That is to misunderstand the structure of the Bill, which, as I have said multiple times, needs to be considered in the round. The first offence deals with formal therapies. The use of the word "therapy" is deliberate, so if there is coaching and instructing, if there is counselling, treatment or purported treatment, that would have to be therapeutic in nature, and there would have to be a facts-specific assessment of the individual providing that. I do not think that any reasonable person would determine that a parent with no background, claiming no skill or therapeutic ability, would fall into that category.

I will say before the Minister intervenes, because this is a point that he has raised publicly, that the structure is clear. We have gone through a process with the drafter, deliberately setting out our clear intent about which offences those scenarios would be tested against. If it is the Member's view that she would like additional clarity — for example, that parents or people with parental responsibility would be excluded from the first offence and tested against the second — that is a conversation that we can have with the Committee, and it is one that I am open to because it is simply making explicit what is already implicit in the Bill.

Mr Lyons: I very much appreciate the Member giving way. Not to go back to what we were discussing a few moments ago, but that is why definitions are so important, and should absolutely be part of the debate. What we say here does matter, and it is important that we talk about definitions. I think that the Member has said twice now that the offence would be taking place or someone could be accused of its taking place only within a therapeutic setting, but that is absolutely not what the Bill says.

Look at the tests that need to be engaged that the Member himself set out. There needs to be the instruction, the intent to suppress — "suppress" can be defined in many ways — and there needs to be harm suffered, and that only needs to be the person saying that they suffered harm, and that could be five or 10 years later. I have read the whole Bill, and I do understand how it all connects together, and there is nothing in the Bill that states that legitimate conversations between individuals or between a parent and a child are ruled out. It is simply not there.

Mr Tennyson: I think that every Member understands that legitimate conversations do not tend to be coercive or to result in harm. I have set out the clarification that could be offered if Members have a genuine concern about the interpretation of the first offence versus the second offence.

A Member: Will the Member give way?

Mr Tennyson: I will not at this stage.

In relation to definitions in the Bill, the definition of a coercive course of behaviour is lifted from the Domestic Abuse and Civil Proceedings Act (Northern Ireland) 2021. The Minister's own colleague Paul Givan, now the Minister of Education, called that the gold standard for defining coercive and controlling behaviour, and that is the definition that we have applied.

Mr Lyons: Will the Member give way?

Mr Tennyson: I will make some progress and come back to the Minister.

The Minister claimed that a preacher speaking from a pulpit on ordinary Church teaching on sexuality could be criminalised. That is also false. The behaviour in question has to be targeted at a specific identified individual, and general statements of opinion and belief are expressly excluded from the Bill. I wrote to the Minister's private office on 4 August offering a meeting to discuss the text of the Bill following its publication. It is regrettable that that offer has still not been taken up because I am confident that many of these concerns could have been reconciled had he taken the opportunity to speak to me in private before making public pronouncements.

Separately, there has been a public assertion that an equality impact assessment has been skipped in the preparation of the Bill. Again, that is misplaced. Formal equality impact assessments under section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 are processes that can be completed only in relation to policies proposed by public bodies, so they are not available to private Members. However, that does not mean that equality and human rights considerations have not been carefully considered. They have. Compliance with section 6 of the Northern Ireland Act has been tested through the Assembly's Legal Services, engagement with the Equality Commission, the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission and through public consultation. Many of those claims may make for striking headlines, but they bear little resemblance to the text of the Bill.

There has been broad consensus in the Assembly for a number of years on the importance of this ban. The Assembly first called for legislation in 2021, in a debate led by the Ulster Unionist Party. Former Sinn Féin Communities Ministers undertook policy development and committed to a ban. Indeed, the current Minister has referenced broad support across the Chamber for a ban. The strategy of caricature and fearmongering from some quarters calls that commitment into serious doubt. If Members are genuinely concerned about a chill factor, they would be careful not to create one themselves through inaccurate depictions of what the Bill does or does not do. There will, no doubt, be legitimate points of debate and scrutiny, which will be explored through Committee Stage.

Mr O'Toole: I appreciate the Member's giving way. Of course, it is right that there be scrutiny of all legislation, and I recognise the Member's acknowledgement of that. I wondered — it is something to reflect on — about the comparison that he drew between the coercive behaviour provisions in this Bill and the provisions in other legislation, here and elsewhere, about coercive control in marriages, civil partnerships or other intimate family relationships of one kind or another. I am checking this, and someone can correct me, but coercive control appears to have been on the statute book in England and Wales — your colleague the Justice Minister will be able to correct me — since 2015. Would it be fair to say that, if some of the questions about coercive control or coercive behaviour had led to, for example, the criminalisation of difficult conversations between husband and wife or, indeed, husband and husband or wife and wife — intimate partners — that would have been an example of that test having led to unintended consequences? I am not aware of that having happened, in the context of coercive control in intimate relationships or marriages having been put in statute. If that had been the case, we would have seen lots of instances of husbands, wives and intimate partners seeking the investigation or, indeed, the criminalisation of difficult conversations, which those of us who are in relationships know that there can often be, about life, finances and fundamental disagreements about things. Is that comparison worth exploring today and at Committee Stage, assuming the Bill proceeds?

Mr Tennyson: The Member is absolutely correct. As I said, we looked closely at the domestic abuse framework. The concepts of "coercion" and "harm" are already defined in law and are already successfully operated and interpreted by the courts, and there have been no examples of perverse or unintended consequences from the application of that framework. Day in, day out, courts, unfortunately, given the problem that we have with domestic abuse in our society, distinguish between difficult and uncomfortable conversations and coercive behaviour. I see no reason why that could not be applied in the case of the Bill. The fact that some Members who endorsed that framework and those definitions are now resiling from them in this debate raises questions, because the only thing that has changed in this context is the cohort of people whom we are talking about protecting, and that is regrettable.

As I said, there will no doubt be legitimate points of debate and scrutiny, which I am happy to explore in this debate and at the Committee. Members will find —.

Mr Lyons: Will the Member give way?

Mr Tennyson: I will in just a moment.

I hope that Members will find that, if they approach this debate in good faith and in the spirit of delivering balanced legislation that protects the rights of everyone in our society, they will have a pragmatic and constructive partner in me as the Bill sponsor. I will give way briefly to the Minister.

Mr Lyons: I appreciate the Member's giving way. There are good, key issues of debate here, and I would have hoped that he would engage. I feel that we have gone through this very quickly, and there are lots of things that I want to ask him. I will ask this question now. I draw the attention of the House to clause 5, which states:

but it also:

Why does the Member think that violence should have to happen on two occasions before action is taken?

Mr Tennyson: As the Minister will be aware, as is the case in domestic abuse, because of the broad range of behaviour that could be captured, there is a significant harm threshold and a requirement that the behaviour be a course of behaviour. The Minister cannot say, on the one hand, that there is a risk of unintended consequences — a risk of criminalising ordinary parental behaviour; a risk of criminalising ordinary religious teaching — and, on the other, that it is unacceptable for a course of behaviour to be required. That is the reason. Some types of conversion practice — some types of physical violence — will be prosecutable under existing offences. We do not seek to duplicate those offences. We seek to close the gap in existing law.

I will briefly give way to the Minister one more time.

Mr Lyons: I appreciate the Member's giving way. I think that he fundamentally misunderstands my position, because I absolutely have an issue with some of the horrible, degrading treatments that have taken place in the past. There should be no place for violence in our society. Therefore, it is not contradictory to want to make sure that stuff that is clearly wrong is punished while making sure that stuff that should be legal can be legal. He also misunderstands what I am saying about making sure that there is clarity and that we actually close the gap by covering that which may be missing. My problem is that the Bill goes far too far the other way.

Mr Tennyson: The Second Stage debate is about the principles of the Bill. We have just heard from the Minister —

Mr Frew: Will the Member give way?

Mr Tennyson: I want to make this point.

— that, despite our political differences, every party in the Chamber has, at various points, recognised the need to protect people from coercion, harm and, indeed, pseudoscientific therapies. The Bill is the vehicle to end them. I hope that that principle can be agreed today. There is a legitimate debate to be had about where you draw the line on the harm threshold. There is a legitimate debate to be had about the definition of coercive behaviour. I think that we have struck the right balance, but Members may have different views on those issues. I am open to debating that.

Mr Frew: Will the Member give way?

Mr Tennyson: I will give way to Mr Frew in just a moment.

Every Bill that goes through the Assembly is subject to scrutiny and amendment. I have been very open. Although, in my view, the structure of the Bill is clear, Deborah Erskine made the point that a layperson reading the Bill may feel that parents would be tested against the first offence. I have offered a solution to how that can be managed. If we approach the debate in that spirit, we can build broad consensus and find a way forward. However, Members instead seem determined, in the media and in the Chamber, to create a caricature of the Bill. For many people, that will tally with the approach of DUP members. Nelson McCausland is on record as promoting conversion therapy. Iris Robinson employed someone in her office whom she encouraged gay men to see because he could "cure" them. If you are serious about ending that harm and coercion, show it with your actions today — show that the party has changed.

I will give way to Mr Frew.

Mr Frew: I thank the Member for giving way. I am sure that he noted my frustration when he gave way to the Minister but not me.

The Member will know that I am steeped in the coercive control legislation and that I have fought, as he and his party have, against controlling and coercive behaviours. We have championed that together, and we have done very well on it. However, his coercive control clause is particular to the act of conversion therapy. Although he uses the same framework, it is not the same. The coercive behaviour in this context is conversion therapy. The issue that I have is with his definition of conversion therapy.

Clause 4 states:

That is where my problem lies. You have used controlling, coercive behaviours and attached them to conversion therapies, and, in your definition, that includes, "coaching or instruction". That will bring in parents, pastors, preachers, medical professionals and teachers.

Mr Tennyson: I think that I have dealt with that point on a number of occasions, but I am willing to repeat it because it is really important. There are two offences. The first deals with the more formal provision of therapy, such as someone claiming to have specific knowledge or a specific skill or ability or someone providing therapy in a structured or formal way. The use of the word "therapy" in the legislation is deliberate.

Mr Frew: Will the Member give way?

Mr Burrows: Will the Member give way?

Mr Tennyson: I want to make this point, and then I may take some interventions before I conclude.

The use of the word "therapy" is essential because, when looking at coaching, instructing, counselling or a purported treatment, a court would have to be satisfied that that was conversion therapy — that it was therapeutic in nature. Informal coercive, controlling behaviour in a religious setting or a family setting — the kinds of conversations that people are worried about being inadvertently captured — would be tested against the definition of coercive control that already successfully operates in law.

Mr Burrows: Will the Member give way?

Mr Tennyson: That is precisely why we have taken the approach of having two separate offences. It is so that the framework on coercive control provides some comfort, is clear and deals with the precedent that has already been set in law.

I will give way to Mr Burrows briefly.

Mr Burrows: Thank you. The leader of the Opposition has inadvertently stumbled across one of the key flaws of the Bill. To conflate coercive control in a domestic abuse scenario with coercive control in this scenario is a fatal flaw in the Bill. It is quite appropriate that nobody is allowed to give their spouse instructions about what time to be home, what they can or cannot wear and what they can and cannot do. That is completely coercive in a domestic relationship. However, it is entirely appropriate when a parent is dealing with a child, and that is why coercive control cannot simply be lifted out as an instruction, guidance and coaching and supplanted into a conversion Bill about how parents deal with their children. It is entirely different from how two spouses communicate.

Mr Tennyson: I am not sure that Mr Burrows has read the Bill.

A Member: Wow. [Inaudible.]

Mr Tennyson: He is conflating coaching and instructing from the first offence with coercive control as per the second offence. They are two separate things, and they are dealt with very differently. As with domestic abuse, there is a reasonable person test. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that a legitimate exercise in parental rights will meet all the tests, including the intent to suppress or change and a coercive course of behaviour, which means threatening and abusive behaviour, such as humiliating, degrading and punishing the individual, that causes harm. That harm has to be proven beyond reasonable doubt to be actual harm. That is higher than the threshold that exists in law in respect of cruelty to the child or domestic abuse — higher, not lower — and there is then a reasonable person test. For example, I have seen this scenario talked about on social media and pushed from some quarters: a parent can legitimately restrict who their child sees or whether they go on dates at a relatively young age. If a parent restricts their child's access to material on the internet, that is not motivated by an attempt to suppress or change sexual orientation or gender identity; it is motivated by a concern for the welfare of the child.

Mr Buckley: Will the Member give way?

Mr Tennyson: I have much greater confidence than some Members in the Chamber about the ability of the police, the Public Prosecution Service and the courts to apply that framework in a proportionate and consistent way.

Miss McAllister: Will the Member give way?

Mr Tennyson: One of the reasons why the reasonableness defence is included in the legislation is to allow for circumstances where there would be an overriding motivation or where other convention rights are at play. That has been a complete conflation of two separate issues.

Someone indicated: Nuala McAllister.

Mr Buckley: Will the Member give way?

Miss McAllister: I thank the Member for giving way today. I have two points on reasonableness. It is a tried-and-tested method that has been used in criminal law for years, longer than all of us have been in the Chamber. It is not a new concept; it is something that every person who studies law is taught from their very first day, and it has existed in law for years. Furthermore, the very issue that Jon Burrows raised about instructing a young person has also been tested in law through the Children and Young Persons Act, which protects parents. The difference between conversation and coercive control is set out in statute.

Mr Tennyson: I thank the Member for that intervention. The point about cruelty to a child is important, because you can already be convicted under the existing law for causing psychological harm to a child. There is precedent in law about how those issues should be handled to balance the rights of the child with the rights of the parent. Crucially, even under child protection legislation, the requirement is that the behaviour only be "likely" to have caused harm to the child. In this legislation, it would have to be actual harm that can be proven beyond reasonable doubt in a court.

Mr Buckley: Will the Member give way?

Mr Tennyson: The threshold for an offence under this legislation would be higher.

Mr Buckley has been trying to get in for some time.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for giving way on that particular point. He has set out that, in a test of reasonableness, a parent could be seen to act from love, compassion and care towards their child. However, when it comes to the particular words in the Bill, such as "coercive behaviour", which was mentioned by the Minister, clause 5 refers to:

If the victim is the child, it is quite natural and right that a concerned parent would monitor their day-to-day activities.

When we look at psychological harm, the Member stated in his example that a parent could act in love. However, what if the child does not perceive it to be an act of love? That leads me to clause 8, "Psychological harm". The Bill states:

What if that child believes that they have been done psychological harm that has caused "fear, alarm or distress"? Under the legislation, would that place the parents under potential sanction?

Mr Tennyson: I reiterate the point that, first, all the tests would have to be met: intent; coercive behaviour against a victim; and harm. I have outlined how the harm test is higher and not lower than existing offences of domestic abuse and of cruelty to a child.

The definition of "psychological harm" that includes "fear, alarm or distress" is lifted directly from the concept of harm established in domestic abuse legislation that already operates successfully in law in setting a threshold, if you like, for the level of harm that the courts believe is prosecutable. Rather than invent my own definition of "harm", I have therefore chosen a definition that already operates successfully and is interpreted by the courts in the present tense. Similar concepts also underpin the Protection from Stalking Act (Northern Ireland) 2022 and the Protection from Harassment (Northern Ireland) Order 1997. They are therefore not new or novel.

I have no doubt that the Committee will want to look at the harm test, because, when we are talking about a balance of rights, the point at which that line is drawn for harm is important, and I do not deny that. We could, for example, look at excluding things such as trivial or transient harm. I do not think that doing so would change the outworkings of the Bill, but it would provide additional clarity and reassurance. If Members want to have that conversation at Consideration Stage, I will be more than happy to have it. I will give way one more time, and then I will conclude.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for giving way. I appreciate that it is important for him to have set out from where that definition comes, but I am trying to get to the nub of the question. If the parent believes that they are acting out of love, but the child believes that they are acting in a way that is causing them psychological harm, which, as defined by the Bill, "includes fear, alarm or distress", for the purposes of the Bill, who is right and who is wrong?

Mr Tennyson: As in every criminal case, be it domestic abuse, be it threatening and abusive behaviour or be it harassment, there will be two sides to every story. There will be the prosecution case and the defence case. Before even getting to that point, the PSNI and the Public Prosecution Service, in order to bring a prosecution, have to determine that an evidential test has been met and that the public interest test has been met.

The courts would approach that through a fact-specific test, which would determine whether intent was present or there was some other overriding motivation; whether there was a coercive course of behaviour, which, as I have already outlined, is well defined in the Bill and is consistent with existing law; whether the victim was degraded, humiliated or threatened; and whether there was controlling and monitoring of the victim's activities in an unreasonable way. It would then have to be determined whether that behaviour directly contributed to harm to the child, and that would have to be proven beyond all reasonable doubt. The test would be exactly the same as that for any other criminal offence in that space that is tested by the courts.

I want to make some progress and conclude my remarks.

Miss McAllister: Will the Member give way?

Mr Tennyson: I will briefly. I will make an exception for Miss McAllister.

Miss McAllister: I thank the Member for that. It is really important to put on the record that, where children are harmed in a way that is so distressing, in that they are showing signs of physical or mental harm, that it takes intervention from outside the family home, such as from their education setting or social services, they deserve to be protected. There are already safeguards in place, such as social services, but, ultimately, those children deserve to be protected no matter who they are.

Mr Tennyson: I completely agree. That is why I set out in my speech that no one should underestimate the devastating impact that familial abuse can have. It can be some of the most heinous and devastating abuse that anyone in our society can go through. That is why I have taken an approach that is about creating a structured framework for assessing the offences, rather than about having blanket carveouts for religious settings or for parents, because we know that, unfortunately, in our society, abuse can happen in the home and in religious settings, and it can be devastating when the person responsible is the person whom we believed we could trust most.

The other reason that the legislation is important is because many people who are brought to a conversion practitioner are brought there by their parents, who often do not realise or understand the level of harm to which they are exposing their young person. If they were aware of the lifelong impact that that so-called therapy will have on them, they would never, in good conscience, have brought them to that practitioner in the first place.

This is also about raising public awareness and setting boundaries so that parents know which services are legitimate, which services they can rely on to get non-directive ethical support and which services are quack therapies that will harm minors in our community. That boundary setting is really important.

I spoke to someone who works with young people in a religious setting. Contrary to the popular wisdom that has been expressed on the airwaves over the past number of days and weeks, he said that he would actually welcome greater clarity about just how far he can go with young people who come to him to seek guidance and advice because, as a Christian, he felt that he was not in a position to judge and he wished to do no harm towards anyone whom he deals with in the course of his work. Therefore, let us not fall into the trap of caricaturing people of faith and LGBT people as being against one another in the debate. There is much more common ground than, sometimes, debate in the Chamber would suggest.

Much hard work has gone into bringing us to this point. Discussion and engagement has been ongoing with a range of organisations, including the Rainbow Project, HERe NI, the General Medical Council (GMC), the mental health champion, the Professional Standards Authority (PSA), the PSNI, the Public Prosecution Service and many others. I am grateful to each and every one of those organisations for their time and engagement.

Northern Ireland's record on rights and equality for the LGBTQ+ community is not a proud one. For too much of our history, we have lagged behind the rest of these islands, with progress being secured in spite of these institutions rather than because of them. Decriminalisation was hard won through the courts. Civil partnerships and equal marriage had to be imposed by Westminster. Today, we can write a different story. With the Bill, we have an opportunity not only to pass the first major piece of equality legislation through the Assembly but to lead the way by becoming the first part of the UK or Ireland to ban conversion therapy. The place that was once synonymous with the "Save Ulster from Sodomy" campaign can become the place that sets the standard for equality, upholding human dignity and affirming the simple principle that every person has the right to live free from coercion, harm and torture and be free to be themselves regardless of who they are or whom they love. I commend the Bill to the Assembly.

Mr Gildernew (The Chairperson of the Committee for Communities): I rise to make a brief contribution on behalf of the Committee for Communities at the Second Stage of the Conversion Practices (Criminalisation) Bill. At Second Stage, our focus is, of course, on the principles of the Bill. Should the Assembly agree those principles today, the Committee will then have the important task of examining the detail of the draft legislation and the evidence surrounding it.

The Bill's stated purpose is to establish a legal framework to prohibit and criminalise conversion practices that are intended to:

The Committee received an initial briefing from the Bill sponsor, Mr Eóin Tennyson MLA, on 2 July, shortly after the Bill was introduced. During that session, the sponsor set out three proposed new criminal offences: providing conversion therapy, engaging in coercive conversion behaviour and removing a person from Northern Ireland for the purpose of subjecting them to conversion practices. A central argument that the sponsor put to the Committee was that, while some conduct that is associated with conversion practices may already constitute an offence — for example, physical abuse or conduct that is captured by domestic abuse legislation — gaps remain in existing law.

In particular, Mr Tennyson pointed to certain forms of talking therapy that is intended to change or suppress a person's sexual orientation or gender identity; coercive behaviour that occurs outside relationships and is already covered by domestic abuse legislation; and the potential removal of a person from the jurisdiction to undergo conversion practices elsewhere. Those are important propositions and, should the Bill proceed, the Committee will want to examine carefully the evidence as to the nature and extent of any gaps in existing law and whether the provisions of the Bill address them effectively and proportionately.

Equally important to the principles underlying the Bill is the question of where the boundaries of criminal liability should lie. The sponsor emphasised to the Committee that the Bill seeks to distinguish harmful conversion practices from legitimate conversations, healthcare, counselling, pastoral support and expressions of religious or other belief. The Bill therefore contains a number of safeguards and thresholds, including a defence of reasonableness; provisions relating to regulated healthcare; requirements concerning intent and harm; and protections concerning the expression of beliefs and opinions where there is no intention to direct an individual towards a particular sexual orientation or gender identity.

Those matters featured prominently in members' questions on 2 July. Members explored the potential implication of the proposals on freedom of expression and freedom of religion; parental and pastoral conversations; the distinction between exploratory or non-directive support and conduct intended to change or suppress a person's identity; the position of healthcare and therapeutic professionals; the relationship with existing criminal law; and how the proposed offences might operate and be enforced in practice. The Bill sponsor also explained that the definition of "coercive behaviour" draws upon the approach already used in domestic abuse legislation and that the proposed offence requires a course of behaviour rather than a single conversation.

Members who contributed to the discussion expressed support for protecting people from harmful and dangerous conversion practices. At the same time, the questions raised during that evidence session demonstrated the importance of ensuring that any criminal legislation in this area is clear, proportionate and sufficiently precise. That, in my view, captures one of the principal issues that will require careful consideration if the Bill progresses: how the Assembly can provide effective protection against harmful practices while ensuring that legitimate healthcare, therapeutic, pastoral, parental and other interactions are not inadvertently criminalised.

The Bill sponsor's consultation also demonstrates the range of views surrounding the issue. The 16-week consultation attracted 1,291 responses, including 38 organisational responses. The sponsor's consultation report identified both substantial support for legislation and concerns about definitions, unintended consequences, freedom of belief and expression and potential overcriminalisation. It is precisely those competing considerations that make detailed and evidence-based scrutiny important.

Recognising both the significance of the subject matter and the level of public interest in the Bill, the Committee agreed, before today's Second Stage debate, to begin preparatory work so that, should the Bill be referred to us, the available scrutiny period can be used as effectively as possible. A public call for evidence was therefore launched in July and will remain open until 1 October. The Committee has also commissioned Assembly Research and Information Service work to assist our consideration of the Bill. Should the Bill pass Second Stage today, the Committee will consider carefully the evidence submitted to it and will hear from a broad range of interests. That will include people with lived experience, representative organisations, legal and human rights experts, healthcare and therapeutic professionals, faith organisations and others who can assist the Committee in understanding both the intended and, potentially, unintended effects of the legislation.

We will want to examine whether the proposed offences are necessary and workable; whether the definitions and thresholds are sufficiently clear; how they interact with existing law; whether the safeguards operate effectively; what the enforcement and resource implications may be; and whether an appropriate balance has been achieved between the rights and protections engaged. I emphasise that the Committee has not prejudged those questions. Our responsibility at Committee Stage, if the Bill reaches us, will be to test the provisions against the evidence, identify where clarification or amendment may be required and report our conclusions and recommendations to the Assembly.

When Mr Tennyson appeared before the Committee on 2 July, the discussion was informative, thoughtful, considerate and respectful. Given the sensitive and deeply held views surrounding some of the issues that are engaged by the legislation, I hope that those same qualities will characterise the Committee's scrutiny, should the Assembly agree today that the Bill should proceed.

In summary, during our initial discussion, there was clear recognition of the importance of protecting individuals from harmful conversion practices. There was also recognition that criminal legislation must be carefully drawn, proportionate and sufficiently clear so that people understand the conduct that is prohibited and the legitimate conduct that remains protected. Those are matters that deserve rigorous scrutiny. Should the Assembly agree the principles of the Bill today, the Committee for Communities stands ready to undertake that scrutiny carefully, objectively and on the basis of the evidence presented to us.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I call Diane Dodds. Diane, I will probably have to break before 1.00 pm.

Mrs Dodds: OK. I will be longer than that.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I am not curtailing you. I am saying that you can come back and finish your speech after the question for urgent oral answer.

Mrs Dodds: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. The issue that is before us today is sensitive and emotive. Like you, I hope that the Bill can be discussed with genuine respect and, indeed, kindness. However, where I do disagree —. It is important that eminent KCs have described this legislation as being poorly defined and said that it introduces new concepts in law — particularly, for the first time in the United Kingdom, in relation to gender identity. Therefore, this Bill deserves our scrutiny. More than that, it demands our scrutiny. Curtailing or not allowing people to speak on particular aspects of the Bill is deeply damaging to this House.

I make it absolutely clear that no one on this side of the House condones mentally or physically abusive behaviour. We have criminal law that deals with coercion and abuse and some of the other issues that have been raised today. That should be used; it is important that it is used. I note that the Bill sponsor has indicated that there are some gaps in the criminal law that could be amended in order to deal with criminal, violent and abusive behaviour that should not be committed against anyone in our society.

We need to start with the title of the Bill, which is very important. The title tells us that it is a Conversion Practices (Criminalisation) Bill. That is the nature of what it sets out to do. It sets out to criminalise people for certain practices or behaviours, even though those practices and behaviours are not clearly defined in the Bill or in existing law. As we start to look at the Bill, remember that it is not about cosy consensus, nor is it about trying to get people to change their ways. It is about criminalisation, and that is very important. That is what makes it so important for us to consider the Bill line by line before we make a decision on it.

The Bill sponsor has said that it is not his intent to criminalise expression of moral or religious belief. He argues that freedom of speech is protected in the Bill. However, I argue that an important element of freedom of speech is the way in which an individual can express what they believe in an attempt to influence others. There is no point in debate, democracy —

Mr Tennyson: Will the Member give way?

Mrs Dodds: — I will in a moment — and scrutiny if we are not able to put forward a point of view in order to persuade and to have a particular viewpoint expressed. It is quite natural for us to express our views in the hope that others might agree and align with our views. I am therefore concerned about freedom of expression in the Bill, particularly where it relates to parents, teachers, ministers, pastors and youth leaders.

We can also argue that not only is freedom of speech about being able to persuade and lead people to a particular viewpoint but that, in fact, for the Churches, in particular, belief is not just about a nice feeling inside. It is directive: it urges us to live and be a particular way.

Mr Tennyson: I thank the Member for giving way. Again, this is where I think that, at times, common ground in the debate is lost in the heat of media commentary. I agree. People should be free to express views, to seek to influence others and to seek to persuade others. The problem that the Bill seeks to remedy is where people are coerced, where they are humiliated, where they are fearful that, if they do not bend to the will of the perpetrator, they will come to harm. That is what we seek to remedy in the Bill. It is important that we are really clear: the line has been drawn between what is expressing a view and what is coercing an individual to bend to your will. We draw that line already, for example, on female genital mutilation and child marriage, where some would claim that there are cultural and religious sensitivities. However, we as a society say that the harm associated with them is not acceptable.

Mrs Dodds: I thank the Member for his contribution. However, in my reading of the Bill, which I have spent many hours doing over the past weeks and days, I do not think that any of those things are particularly clear, set out or evident from what is actually in the Bill. In many ways, the Bill is quite draconian in its attitude to some parts of our society.

Mr Frew: I thank the Member for giving way. Whilst the Bill sponsor stated that this was about coercion, in his earlier utterances, he said that it was about not just coercion but suppression. Clause 1 is all about suppression, not coercion: It states:

Of course, that identity can be whatever the victim wants it to be. That is why the Member is right when she talks about "draconian" legislation.

Mrs Dodds: The Member is right. Part of the issue around the draconian legislation leads me to clause 9, where the Bill says that, in pursuit of those offences — I want to develop the point about the way in which this will be prosecuted — there is:

That is fairly draconian legislation.

Mr Tennyson: I thank the Member for giving way. I assumed that that would come up. It is based on engagement with the offences and penalties team in the Department of Justice. It is quite normal in cases of domestic abuse, stalking and harassment that there is no right to claim trial by jury in the Magistrates' Court — not the most serious offences in the Crown Court, but in the Magistrates' Court. The purpose of that exclusion from the Magistrates' Courts (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 is to ensure that the victim is not further traumatised. Again, we have applied the same standard in this Bill as is the case for domestic abuse.

The answer to the points about coercion and suppression is that it is both. Both suppression and coercion — and harm — have to be present for an offence to be found. It is not one or the other.

Mr Lyons: Will the Member give way on that point?

Mrs Dodds: I will, of course.

Mr Lyons: That is not the case, because it is not just coercive behaviour. I will have lots more to say on that later. This is how clause 4 states that an offence is committed:

That is my real difficulty with the Bill. That is the elephant in the room. I believe that the Member is trying to portray this as something that will take place only in a therapeutic or clinical setting, but it is not. There is nothing in the Bill that says that it cannot happen within a family environment, in any faith environment, or wherever else. That may well have been the Member's intention, but it is not what is in front of us in black and white.

Mrs Dodds: That is absolutely correct. The Bill leads us, as parents and, for me now, as a grandparent, into a situation where we could be subjected to legal proceedings by the police and courts for what many of us deem to be normal parenting of our children. That might not be the Member's intent in the Bill, but it is important that, when we legislate, we are clear about what it will lead us to. I do not think that that is in the Bill. I will have more to say on that as I go through the Bill in detail.

Mr Burrows: I thank the Member for giving way. This point is worth reiterating, because the Bill sponsor was slightly confusing. I want us to be absolutely clear that there is no requirement in clause 1 for the counselling, coaching or instruction to be coercive. There is absolutely no requirement for that. That is absent from clause 1. I wanted to make that absolutely clear.

Mrs Dodds: That goes to the heart of my point that legislation should be very clear about what it does and what it requires.

A Member: Will the Member give way?

Mrs Dodds: Let me proceed, because I have only a few minutes before the break. I promise that we can all discuss it in great detail thereafter.

I was also interested in the Member's explanation for the lack of an equality impact assessment of the Bill. Like the Member, I have been following some of the commentary on the Bill. Lest the Member think that there is a DUP gang-up on him, I will quote someone who might not normally be associated with DUP views. Writing in 'The Irish News', Newton Emerson commented on that very important aspect of the Bill, specifically the lack of comment or interrogation from the Equality Commission and the Human Rights Commission and the fact that no equality impact assessment has been undertaken. I accept that the Member said that that is not available for a Member's Bill and that such things should be for public bodies to do, but, when I last thought of the Equality Commission and the Human Rights Commission, it seemed that they are public bodies with considerable funding and high numbers of legally qualified people. They chose, however, neither to comment on the Bill nor to say that it was worthy of an equality impact assessment.

That is all the more extraordinary because the Bill poses an extraordinary imposition on free expression and association and freedom of belief. That is quite an extraordinary position for the Equality Commission and the Human Rights Commission to take. They are charged with protecting fundamental freedoms, yet, in this instance, they chose not to conduct an equality impact assessment. For many out there, including folks who are listening to the debate, that is about the cosy consensus of the liberal elite in our society, who do not really care about real-life impacts or real people when it comes to what they see or do. It is also about the fact that many of them declared themselves to be in favour of a conversion therapy ban, even before the Bill appeared.

Newton Emerson, who is, again, probably not that aligned with my thinking on some of those things, talks about "group-think" and the cosy "liberal consensus" on such issues. Honestly, it is time for a clear-out of some of those organisations, so that we can rely on them to interrogate controversial legislative proposals.

Mr Martin: I thank the Member for giving way. The Bill sponsor mentioned the Equality Commission in his remarks. I tried to make an intervention, but it was not given on that occasion. Perhaps my colleague Mrs Dodds will clarify whether, insofar as she is aware, the Equality Commission supports the Bill. The Bill sponsor may also offer some clarity, because it is not clear whether the Equality Commission has given a view on the Bill, was asked to give a view on it or supports it.

Ms K Armstrong: On a point of order, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I do not want to interfere with the debate, but will you clarify that any Bill that comes to the House under Standing Order 84 has been through preliminary scrutiny by the Speaker's Office? Some of the allegations and concerns that have been raised point to a concern with how the Speaker has dealt with the Bill.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The answer is that I am not sure. I assume that the Member is right, but I will double-check over the lunchtime break.

Diane, if you do not mind, I will stop you there and call you again after lunch.

Mrs Dodds: May I respond to the intervention before we break for lunch?

Ms K Armstrong: It was a point of order.

Mrs Dodds: I mean Peter's intervention.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: It was a point of order from Kellie, Diane. I will bring you back in after the question for urgent oral answer, when you will be able to deal with that issue and finish your speech, if that is fair enough.

The Business Committee has arranged to meet at 1.00 pm. I propose therefore, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the sitting until 2.00 pm. [Interruption.]

Order, please. To be clear, after the question for urgent oral answer, Diane Dodds will be the first Member to be called, in order to resume her speech.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Question 12 has been withdrawn.

Mr O'Dowd (The Minister of Finance): With your permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will group questions 1 and 6.

In May 2024, the Assembly supported amending the law on divorce and dissolution by adopting a no-fault system. The then Finance Minister, Dr Caoimhe Archibald MLA, began the process of amending the existing law. When I took over as Finance Minister in 2025, I undertook that process, initiating a public consultation. When the consultation closed last autumn, I circulated policy proposals for amending the current law to my Executive colleagues. I believe that those proposals reflect and respect the diversity of the consultation responses. The proposals that were circulated seek to reduce unnecessary conflict by removing the requirement to assign blame when a relationship has broken down. That can help couples to resolve matters more constructively; shorten what can otherwise be a lengthy and distressing process; and, most important, support better outcomes for children by encouraging cooperation rather than confrontation between parents.

The objective is not to diminish the importance of marriage or civil partnerships but to ensure that, where relationships have irretrievably broken down, the legal process is as fair, dignified and family-focused as possible. Unfortunately, despite repeated requests, I have been unable to obtain the Executive’s agreement to proceed. It is a matter of regret that it is now too late to progress legislation on this important issue in this mandate, but I will continue to advance the case for reform, and I hope that the process resumes early in the next mandate.

Ms K Armstrong: I thank the Minister for his answer. During the debate on the Second Stage of the Marriage and Civil Partnership Bill, the Minister stated that he had been trying to table a paper to the Executive on no-fault divorce and it was blocked. When did the Minister last attempt to bring the paper to the Executive?

Mr O'Dowd: It was several weeks ago — perhaps a couple of months ago. At that stage, we were up against the deadline to get legislation through the Assembly. I am not sure of the exact date, but it was within that time frame. The reason that I have not tried since is that it simply would not get through the legislative process in time.

Ms Egan: Minister, as you said, it is a simple legislative change that would benefit many families going through amicable divorce proceedings. Have the Ministers who are blocking it given you a reason for doing so?

Mr O'Dowd: I believe that, in my proposals on the way forward, I have accommodated the views that have been expressed without undermining anybody's principles or stated views on the matter. I believe that I have accommodated concerns that were raised to me by Ministers and in the consultation process, yet and all the process has not proceeded to the point that it would need to be at for legislation to be passed in this mandate.

Miss Hargey: Following on from the previous question, Minister, will you outline why you are committed to and believe that it is important to remove fault grounds from divorce and dissolution proceedings?

Mr O'Dowd: As I said, the objective is not to diminish the importance of marriage or civil partnerships but to ensure that, where relationships have broken down, the legal process is as fair, dignified and family-focused as possible. I want to see reform, just as, almost unanimously, the Assembly wanted to see reform in May 2024. I am mindful of the range of views expressed during the consultation, and I responded by tweaking the paper that I brought to the Executive to recognise some of those views without breaching any principle relating to the matter. I believe that there is a way forward whereby we can ensure that we have a divorce system that meets 21st-century needs and expectations and respects civil partnerships and marriages.

Mr O'Dowd: A Leas-Cheann Comhairle,

with your permission, I will answer questions 2, 3, 8 and 11 together. I request an additional minute in which to respond.

My priority remains securing a fair and sustainable multi-year Budget that provides certainty for Departments and enables long-term planning, investment and transformation of our public services and investment in our economy. However, as I have made clear, that is dependent on having sufficient and stable funding from the British Government to underpin those plans.

There has been extensive engagement with the Government over recent months, and we have made it clear that they need to step up urgently and deliver a fair funding settlement for here. The Executive collectively met the Secretary of State last Monday and Friday to reiterate the need for a fair funding settlement. While an offer of additional funding has been made, further negotiations are required to ensure that sufficient funding is secured on a sustainable basis to enable the Executive to deliver the public services that our citizens expect and deserve.

The independent Fiscal Council's latest analysis indicates that our relative funding has now fallen to 123%, which is below the 124% level of need. The council estimates that around £170 million will be required in 2026-27 to restore funding to the currently recognised level of need. That is in stark contrast to the need funding received by Scotland and Wales. If we were funded on similar terms, we would receive an additional £3 billion or £1 billion a year respectively in each year of the spending review. The Executive are united on the need for fairer funding, and we will do everything that we can to continue to make the case for the sustainable funding necessary to deliver our public services.

In the absence of an agreed Budget, my permanent secretary's powers under section 59 of the NI Act 1998 and section 7 of the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000 have been invoked. Those powers are limited to 95% of the 2025-26 final plan at block level. Those arrangements ensure the continued delivery of public services. While those measures provide short-term cover, they are not a substitute for a Budget, limiting Departments' ability to plan effectively and increasing the risk of short-term decision-making.

Ultimately, agreeing a Budget and securing fair funding are inseparable, and I remain committed to working with Executive colleagues and Westminster to deliver both as a matter of urgency.

Mr Gildernew: I thank the Minister for his answer. He touched on my supplementary question. Can he outline how the funding compares with that of Scotland and Wales and the impact on public services here?

Mr O'Dowd: Yes. As the Member said, I touched on that in my opening remarks. I want to put it on record that it is not a bid by me or any of my Executive colleagues to have funding in Scotland or Wales reduced. I recognise and respect the right of those two devolved institutions to be funded at a fair level. This is about fairness to ensure that citizens, workers, families and those who are opening businesses daily here are treated fairly as regards the returns they get on their taxes. Currently, we are not getting a fair return on our taxes.

Scotland and Wales are funded significantly above their recorded level of need. I have no doubt that my Scottish and Welsh counterparts will contest the calculation of their current level of need, because these things evolve and change. Currently, we are being underfunded by a figure between £1 billion and £3 billion. That is unfair, not to the Executive but to the public servants who deliver our public services; to our families and workers, who toil every day to make ends meet; and to our businesses. Let us have some fairness brought into the equation.

Mr Carroll: Minister, you said that you would not negotiate in public, but you need to not show contempt for the public. It is people's lives that we are talking about. There is some talk of £1·5 billion or £3 billion extra over the next period of years. When, in your assessment, will it be "Job complete" on proper funding and an adequate Budget? Nobody seems to know what figure you are fighting for.

Mr O'Dowd: I assure the Member that I have no intention of treating, nor have I treated, the public with contempt. I think that the public, especially our local public, are aware of how negotiations work and will respect the privacy of those as long as they are seen to be working towards a completion.

This could be dealt with very quickly. All the required facts and figures have been given to the British Government. They have the independent Fiscal Council report, and they are aware of all of the stats. No one from the British Government side has been able to refute our estimations on how they fund Scotland and Wales more fairly than they fund us. All of the decisions by the Government can be made quickly. I would like to see the matter resolved in a matter of days and weeks and no longer.

Mr McCrossan: The Minister has used the word "fairness" a number of times: there is no fairness in you or your Executive colleagues holding our people or public services to ransom while you play Russian roulette with the British Government. Can you provide any clarification on when this will be resolved? Simply throwing loose timescales into the air will not give our people or public services the certainty that they need.

Mr O'Dowd: Our public servants and the public who use the public services want to ensure that, one, the services are there, in place and sustainable, and, two, that our public servants are properly paid and rewarded for the services that they deliver. That is at the core of my discussions and other Ministers' discussions with the British Government: ensuring that we have a sustainable funding package that secures public services, pays our public-sector workers and ensures that our economy is supported and developed as we move forward.

This is not a game by any standards. I think that everybody recognises the high stakes that we are playing for, but it is only right and proper that we get it right this time. We have been back and forth on such engagements with the British Government numerous times. You can name the buildings — Hillsborough Castle, Stormont House. Wherever we have been for negotiations with the British Government, baselining and ensuring that we are fairly funded have always been raised. Let us do it now and put it behind us and move forward.

Mr Buckley: Minister, I now accept that all Executive parties are fully committed to ensuring and fighting for a fairer funding settlement in Northern Ireland where we are funded to the point of need, but, if the Minister is honest, he will admit that that was not always the case. On mature reflection, does he believe that it was a mistake to pressurise other political parties to sign up to a diabolical draft Budget, produced by him, that would have seen devastating cuts in education, health, roads and many other front-line services?

Mr O'Dowd: To get a process started, you need a starting point. I published a draft Budget. I am on record as saying, when I published that draft Budget, "I am in listening mode". Without the draft Budget, there was no starting point. What would we have talked to the British Government about in terms of the pressures that face the Executive? There was no document, reference point, research or responses to be brought to the British Government to enable us to say, "We're currently facing pressures of £1·6 billion". Did the Member want me to go to the Treasury and say, "We haven't got any clue yet, but, if you stick with me, I'll have a chat with the lads and come back to you"? That is not how it works. I published a draft Budget. No one was under any pressure to do anything. I was in listening mode — [Interruption.]

You should try it some time. You would learn a lot if you went into listening mode for a wee while every day.

I had bilaterals with the Executive, I had Executive meetings and I met sectors. We came back and agreed that we could not achieve our objectives with the amount of money that we had. Collectively, we went to the British Government and started the process with the information at hand, not a guessing game, which is what you would have had us doing.

Mr O'Toole: This point is important. You have set out a strong argument in relation to some of the Fiscal Council's findings around differentials between Scotland and Wales and pressing for more funding, but, in January of this year, when you published the draft Budget, you did not say that it was a document to enable a negotiation; you said that it was a draft Budget document. It is not true to say that you could not have produced a document privately. At the minute, your Department is doing information-gathering privately with other Departments, as it does regularly in monitoring rounds. You then take it to the British Government for negotiation. You chose to publish a draft Budget —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Minister —.

Mr O'Toole: — in January.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Minister will reply now.

Mr O'Toole: You did not say at the time that that was for negotiation. What changed?

Mr O'Dowd: At no stage during the conversation or debate have I said that I did not publish a draft Budget. I published a draft Budget because a draft Budget needed to be published for the reasons that I set out to Mr Buckley and because of the consultation process that was required under legislation. All of those reasons are set out. Is Mr O'Toole suggesting that I should have followed Mr Buckley's strategy of going to the Treasury and saying, "Here, the lads haven't got back to me yet"? Is that the way to negotiate?

I went with a test case — a draft Budget published in listening mode — to test where all the sectors, Ministers and pressures were, and then published the draft Budget following consultation — the SDLP did not respond to that — and bilateral engagement around the Executive table. I then said to the Treasury, "Despite my best efforts as Finance Minister, we can't make these sums work". Was that not a sensible way forward? I think that it was. Was that the proper way forward? I think that it was.

In the meantime, we have been successful up to a point, but there is further to go. I will continue to press the Treasury, on behalf of the Executive, for more funding on the basis of an evidence base that goes back to the draft Budget.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Carál Ní Chuilín is not in her place. I call Nicola Brogan.

Mr O'Dowd: Since the launch of the scheme on 22 June 2026, the General Register Office has had almost 6,500 applications to the baby loss certificate scheme and has processed and issued nearly 8,000 certificates. The response has been overwhelmingly positive, demonstrating that the time spent during the scheme's development to engage with stakeholders and the public to shape it was time well spent. As I stated several times during the process, I am hugely grateful to everyone who engaged with that process of developing and delivering the scheme. I am proud of what we have achieved and what we have delivered for parents who have endured such heartbreaking loss, to ensure that they can now receive the recognition that they deserve.

Miss Brogan: Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire.

The Minister will understand that the loss of a baby is devastating for mothers, fathers and families. This recognition of life and loss is meaningful for many. What impact has the scheme had since its introduction?

Mr O'Dowd: Each person who received a certificate will have their own story to tell about the impact that it has had on them and their family. I have had testimony from a number of people who have been through the process and who found great comfort in receiving the certificate. I also have to say that they were very complimentary, commending the engagement and the process in which they had been involved to receive the certificate.

It is a voluntary scheme. People decide whether they wish to apply to it, and people will have different views on that. People may decide to apply to the scheme at different times in their lives. For those who have applied thus far, it has been a positive experience. It has also been a heartbreaking experience, but it brings some recognition of the loss that they suffered.

Ms Forsythe: Minister, we on the Finance Committee were pleased to work closely with you to bring forward this important scheme. As you say, the impact of the baby loss certificates has been profound. A lot of people have been in touch with me to talk about their certificates and what they mean. We are approaching Baby Loss Awareness Week in October, and there will be a number of events at the Assembly. You spoke about feedback and what people said to you about the certificates. Will the Department take forward an exercise to capture that feedback and what the certificates mean to mothers, fathers and families in Northern Ireland? Northern Ireland has led the way in how the scheme has been rolled out through legislation, and it is important to capture what that has meant as a key delivery point of the Assembly.

Mr O'Dowd: I will certainly take that under consideration. That might be a good project. I welcome the work of the Finance Committee on the matter. Despite there sometimes being a bit of friction between a Minister and a Committee, which is often healthy, on this occasion, everybody worked well together. I also commend the previous Health Minister for his work on this. If we can capture in a sensitive way the storytelling and the recognition of how the scheme has helped with the grief that so many people feel, we should do that.

Mr O'Dowd: Casement Park is an Executive flagship commitment, as reaffirmed in our Programme for Government. The Executive, the Irish Government and the GAA have committed to funding the development. I have also successfully ensured that the British Government lived up to their commitment to make a £50 million contribution towards the cost of the stadium.

I understand that the GAA has taken forward initial work on site clearance, demolition and associated planning implementation activities. While it is welcome to see a start to the work, it is vital that the Communities Minister brings forward the implementation of the project as a matter of urgency.

The draft Budget proposals that I made included an Executive contribution of £101 million to the project. That included an uplift to take account of inflation since the project was originally proposed. I am committed to doing all that I can, with others, to make sure that a stadium at Casement is delivered.

Mr McNulty: I thank the Minister for his answer. Minister, the announcement in the summer about the scaling back of the Casement Park project left many people wondering what the point was of the past decade of turmoil. Antrim Gaels, Ulster Gaels and the people of west Belfast have been left in no man's land. What engagement have you had with the GAA and what support have you offered it to make up for the failure of your Executive to support that key project, which is, after all, an Executive flagship project?

Mr O'Dowd: As I understand it, the publicity centring on the project over the summer was not about an official announcement. The GAA has yet to make its position clear on the matter. I will not speculate on what leaks there may or may not have been or on who said what at a meeting. It is for the GAA to say what it requires of the new stadium that is to be built at Casement Park.

I have said — I have been clear on this — that a final Budget will contain a budgetary uplift for the Casement Park stadium. I have also looked at other stadia for other sports. As I have said in the Chamber on numerous occasions, I do not care what shape the ball is or who plays with it; I think that sport is a great thing. We, as an Executive, should be proud and willing to invest in sporting complexes across this place to ensure that all our athletes have first-class, world-class facilities to play in and that the spectators and the communities who thrive around sports stadia also benefit from them. I will continue to play my part, but it is vital that the Communities Minister is a willing partner in this.

Mr Kearney: Notwithstanding the misplaced commentary from my colleague, Minister, in reality, Casement must be seized as a flagship project on the part of our Executive and wider society, because, as you correctly say, sport should be celebrated in our community regardless of the discipline or the code. Will you therefore elaborate on the importance of Casement's being redeveloped and the benefits that the project will bring to wider society in the North?

Mr O'Dowd: As I said, the Casement Park project is a significant economic driver and a catalyst for regeneration, not just in west Belfast but across Belfast, the region and the island of Ireland. It will be a driver for economic growth, job creation and investment. With all those boxes ticked, it is everything that any Executive should prioritise in their Programme for Government and in the daily work of supporting their citizens.

Gaelic games will be the main occupant of the stadium, but it will have other uses, as we have seen with stadia across the island and elsewhere, which will bring economic potential to the region and the area. I cannot find one argument against delivering Casement Park. I can assure the Member and other Members that my party and I are fully behind it and will continue to drive it.

Mr O'Dowd: I wrote to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 24 July urging her to progress the necessary steps to secure European Commission agreement to extend the VAT reduction to here from 1 October. In parallel, my officials, working closely with colleagues in the Department for the Economy, have also engaged extensively with Treasury officials to make the case for equivalent VAT treatment here. Treasury advised, however, that the Executive should develop and implement an alternative scheme, as it considered it unlikely that approval from the European Commission to apply the 0% VAT rate here from 1 October would be secured in time. The Department for the Economy has developed and submitted alternative scheme proposals to Treasury. Annually managed expenditure will be provided by Treasury to fund that scheme.

Mr McMurray: Has your Department sought clarity on how much money the Executive may receive as part of the UK Government's decision to cut VAT on household electricity bills?

Mr O'Dowd: That matter is being dealt with by the Department for the Economy directly.

Mr O'Dowd: The total of £1·8 billion that is being invested through the city and growth deals represents a major opportunity to strengthen our economy, support regional balance, create employment opportunities and improve productivity. The Mid South West growth deal is progressing towards deal signing, with a current target for that of March 2027. Business cases are being finalised for projects across the deal, with five outline business cases now having been submitted to Departments for approval and one project already at full business case stage.

In July, I met the three chief executives from the council areas covered by the Mid South West growth deal to discuss progress, and I emphasised the importance of maintaining momentum. My officials and officials across Departments will continue to support the deal through development and approvals in order to meet the March target date.

Mrs Erskine: I thank the Minister for his answer. He will be aware of the A4 Enniskillen southern bypass project, which is a crucial infrastructure project that is part of the Mid South West growth deal. I was pleased that the Minister for Infrastructure recently indicated to me that she has now included it in her Department's draft Budget allocation. Will the Minister commit today to saying that that project will definitely get the go-ahead as soon as the Court of Appeal makes its final judgement on the A5?

Mr O'Dowd: There has been much misinformation about the project — loss of funding etc — from those on the Benches opposite in particular. Let me assure the Member, the people of Enniskillen and those further afield that the funding for the project is part of the funding for Executive flagship projects. In fact, it was one of the first actions that I took when I was infrastructure Minister. The project has been supported by the current Infrastructure Minister; it continues to be supported by me, and the funding for it has been secured.

Mrs Dillon: As a representative for Mid Ulster, I know that the Mid South West growth deal is vital. Can the Minister give us some sense of the benefits from the Mid South West growth deal and of when we might see them?

Mr O'Dowd: As I said, £1·8 billion is being invested here. That is a game changer, so it is one of the most significant pieces of investment that has ever taken place in the region. It is also a very good example of how the Executive, the British Government, councils, the private sector, further education institutions, universities and other sectors have worked together to deliver projects. They are local, organic projects that will bring about economic and social change in areas. That is a good model to replicate when we have significant amounts of funding to inject into the economy. The model should be looked at as a way of doing that.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Members, that takes us to topical questions.

Mr O'Dowd: I would say to them today that grandiose statements from you will not produce one penny extra for public services or the economy. The work that we are doing has the potential to make real and meaningful change not only to the quantum of funding that the Executive receive but to how that funding is assessed in the future, and to take off the table the crises that we run into periodically. Real work is being done behind the scenes. It can be resolved very quickly if the British Government have the will to do so. At the end of that, we want to inject huge amounts of money into our public services in order to stabilise them, pay our public sector workers and drive forward our economy.

Mr O'Toole: Minister, frankly, it is not fair for you to accuse me of making grandiose statements when I am not the one who is responsible for setting a Budget. My job, as the leader of the Opposition, is to hold you and the Executive to account. Public sector workers and the public want that. I contacted public sector workers, unions and others about the impact of there being no Budget. I am aware of many instances where people are being laid off, projects are being stalled and services are being cut because a Budget has not been set. I say that while agreeing with you that we want the best possible settlement and encouraging the British Government to properly fund this place. I agree with all of that. Do you agree that people are being failed? Do you, collectively with your Executive colleagues and, indeed, the British Government, accept any responsibility for that?

Mr O'Dowd: It would be best if you wrote to the Departments concerned about the stories and information that you have gathered, and asked them why those various scenarios have arisen. Departments are operating on a 95% Budget, which is far from ideal. However, I have had no reports of any Department running out of funds to carry forward the services that they are committed to delivering. I accept that that situation will not continue forever, but I urge you to engage with the relevant Departments to establish why those scenarios are arising and get the full facts behind them.

Mr O'Dowd: The position is that the questionnaires etc will have to go out for consultation. There will be engagement on what exactly will be in the questionnaire. I look forward to hearing the public's responses to the consultation and learning the best way forward.

Ms K Armstrong: I thank the Minister very much for that. If he has any idea of the date on which the consultation will open, it would be very helpful if he would share that with us. As we know, the second religion question is not mandatory. It would be good to hear the public's rationale for its removal.

Mr O'Dowd: I do not have any dates in front of me, but I will be happy to share such information with the Member in due course.

Mr O'Dowd: Land and Property Services (LPS) takes a very studious approach to rates collection. It will engage with those who owe rates money to try to understand each case and circumstance. LPS will work with those people right up to the point at which it feels that it is necessary to bring them to court to retrieve the funds. In some cases, the person is no longer able to pay the rates or the business is no longer in place in order to return the funds that they owe to the public purse. That has to be written off at a certain stage in the journey of the debt enquiry. Each case tells its own story, and it is only right and proper that LPS works on that basis. We do not want to punish those who are willing to pay, but we have to go after those who are unwilling to pay.

Mr Dunne: I thank the Minister for his answer. The Minister will hopefully be aware that more than £27 million was recorded in the "write off/write on" category last year alone, which is an increase of more than 50% on the previous year. At a time when our Executive are under significant financial pressures, does the Minister accept that those levels of write-offs are simply unsustainable? Will the figure keep rising year on year? Does he have a plan to fix it? Most importantly, is he content with those levels of unpaid rates?

Mr O'Dowd: I think that everybody should pay their rates in a fair and equitable manner. I believe in fair and equitable taxation, which is then used to provide public services and support the economy. That is my firm belief in all these matters.

To match one year against a previous year may not provide an accurate read of these things. It all depends on the values of the cases going through the system at a point in time. You may reach a lower figure one year and a higher figure the next year.

I receive letters from MLAs, urging me not to pursue businesses and citizens who owe rates, so you cannot have it both ways. I am not suggesting that the Member does this, but Members cannot come into the Chamber and challenge me over LPS's rates collection policy when they are writing to me saying, "Why are you pursuing this case or that case?". There is a fair and equitable way of dealing with those matters, and I believe that LPS carries that duty out with compassion and conviction and always with an eye on protecting the public purse.

Mr O'Dowd: We launched a public consultation on the business growth accelerator and non-domestic vacant rating in July. That will finish in September, and it relates to business rates. I have also included in my draft Budget a £10 million fund for the sole purpose of supporting our business sector, which is facing challenges of varying degrees. Therefore, I am mindful of the business pressures that exist, and I have a plan in place to assist the sector, but we have to reach a final Budget.

Mr Sheehan: Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as ucht a fhreagra.

Has the Minister had any engagement with the British Government on the issue?

Mr O'Dowd: I have, specifically in relation to a reduction in VAT and the pressures facing our hospitality sector, particularly along the border corridor. Along with others, I have pressed them to bring forward a pilot scheme that reduces VAT on the hospitality sector here and examine how that reduction assists business growth.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Carál Ní Chuilín is not in her place.

Mr O'Dowd: As I mentioned to your colleague, the public consultation on the business growth accelerator and non-domestic vacant rating launched on 1 July and will close on 23 September. The proposed business growth accelerator will provide temporary targeted relief for businesses that are making qualifying improvements to their properties. The suggested change to non-domestic vacant rating aims to encourage the productive use of vacant premises, reduce long-term vacancies, support high streets and town centres, and better align the tax system with wider economic regeneration objectives.

Mr Gildernew: Minister, is it still your intention to provide further support to small businesses through the rating system? If so, how might that look?

Mr O'Dowd: Yes. As I said, the business community faces a number of pressures with growing costs, rising inflation and other issues. We supply around a quarter of a billion pounds annually in rates relief to small businesses. We also have the Back in Business relief scheme, so there are other areas in which we can provide support.

Mr O'Dowd: That has been a long-running saga, as the Member will be aware. Work with the British Government on the matter has been a very disappointing experience. However, we are now in a position in which the Executive have approved a package of proposals for which departmental allocations of £27·4 million of capital funding are available this year. I have provided the Assembly with further detail on that though a written statement. The Department for the Economy, the Department for Communities, the Department for Infrastructure and the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs are now progressing with those proposals. That capital is in addition to the resource funding that is currently being delivered by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government in this financial year. From 2027-28 onwards, full responsibility for the delivery of the local growth fund will transfer to Executive Departments. Work in preparation for that transfer is already well advanced. I hope to bring a further update on that to the Assembly shortly.

Mr Harvey: I thank the Minister for that response. How will ongoing delivery be monitored throughout the roll-out of the local growth fund to ensure funding agility?

Mr O'Dowd: Those decisions have not been made yet and will finally be made by the Executive when we come to fulfil the process. However, we have a lot of experience of monitoring such projects, whether that is through Peace funding, the previous local growth fund or the Shared Prosperity Fund. There is a lot of experience there to ensure that the funding is spent wisely and that we see the outcomes that we expect.

Mr O'Dowd: I do not have a figure for the overall average time in front of me. However, it will depend on the availability of district valuers and the amount of work that each district valuer has.

Mr Clarke: Thank you, Minister, for that answer. I appreciate that it takes the valuers to do that. However, just like the write-offs, that money is important to the economy. Would it not be an investment to have LPS taking on more valuers to do that job? I could give you examples in my constituency where it has taken up to four years for valuers to arrive at those properties. That is four years' worth of revenue that may have been lost.

Mr O'Dowd: Investment in staff recruitment in LPS has to balanced against the resources that you have available. However, I agree with the Member: if we were able to recruit more staff, we would be able to turn those matters around more quickly. I will talk to LPS about the point that he has raised.

Mr O'Dowd: I have had many a discussion with my colleagues on that matter, both relating to my past experience and in trying to develop a Budget and engagement around that. It is quite clearly a huge challenge, but it is not unique to this place; other places are facing similar challenges, regardless of how they fund their waste water infrastructure. One has only to look at England or even down South to see that. Therefore, it is not a unique challenge. It is historical as well.

Miss McIlveen: Thank you. Of course, all politics is local, but there is a particular problem in Newtownards, where businesses are unable to get a connection due to closed catchment. Obviously, that has an impact on lost rates revenues. Will the Minister commit to a cross-departmental approach to resolving that issue and, perhaps, to looking at an economic assessment of the problems that it creates?

Mr O'Dowd: I am aware that the Economy Minister and the Infrastructure Minister meet regularly to see how they can assist each other on that matter. I also know that the Infrastructure Minister is keen to engage with other Ministers on how each Department can work with her Department to ensure that, wherever investment goes, it releases businesses, domestic properties etc for the benefit of the occupants, first and foremost, and supports our economy.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Members, time for questions is up.

Ms Ní Chuilín: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I apologise to the Minister and the House for missing not one but two questions. I am very, very sorry.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I thank the Member for that point of order and the apology. That will be noted at the Table.

I ask Members to take their ease before we move to the question for urgent oral answer. Thank you.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Trevor Clarke has given notice of a question for urgent oral answer to the Minister of Justice. I remind Members that, if they wish to ask a supplementary question, they should continually rise in their place. The Member who tabled the question will be called automatically to ask a supplementary question.

Mrs Long (The Minister of Justice): Gary Anderson absconded from a short period of leave under the Prison Service's compassionate temporary release scheme. All sentenced prisoners may apply for that kind of temporary release when a member of their immediate family has died or is critically ill. All applications made under the scheme are subject to a robust risk assessment that will consider the public safety risk posed by the prisoner together with their likelihood of absconding or reoffending. In the case of that prisoner, the Northern Ireland Prison Service considered and refused his application for compassionate temporary release. However, following an urgent judicial review, the court directed that a short period of release should be granted. Gary Anderson was subsequently released yesterday morning but absconded from his chaperone. That was a chaperone approved by the court and not a prison officer. The prisoner is currently unlawfully at large.

The absconding was not due to abuse or failure of the Northern Ireland Prison Service compassionate temporary release scheme. The Prison Service, having conducted all the necessary checks and assessments, concluded that the prisoner was not safe to be released on a temporary basis. However, that decision was subsequently set aside by the court. Given those circumstances, I do not believe that it is necessary or proportionate for me to take steps to review how temporary release schemes operate, nor would doing so prevent similar occurrences in the future.

Mr Clarke: I put on record my appreciation to the Minister for that response. Indeed, most of that detail was unavailable when the PSNI released its statement, which was, to say the least, very vague on detail and caused a lot of concern among the public, given that the PSNI told people not to approach the individual but to contact the police. That said, and having heard what the Minister said about the court's intervention, given that that person was involved in murder, is there an opportunity in the future, in cases such as that and others, to end the release scheme for everyone?

Mrs Long: First, there is no suggestion that the scheme is disproportionate. It is based on risk assessment, and such schemes have to exist because of people's article 8 rights. Secondly, it is incredibly rare for a court to proactively overturn a Prison Service decision and not simply refer it back to the service for reconsideration. However, I have asked my officials to consider how rulings of that nature can perhaps inform our thinking going forward, because, as I say, it is incredibly rare for a court to make the final decision to release. In most circumstances, where there is a judicial review and where the court is unhappy with the balance that has been struck by the Prison Service, the decision is referred back to the Prison Service for further consideration.

Ms Sheerin: I thank the Minister for the detail that she has provided, which, as has been said, was not available to the public this morning. How soon after the incident were the murder victim's family contacted and told about the situation, and what is the Department doing to reassure them?

Mrs Long: There are two registered victims and one registered contact in this case. They were contacted, first, to inform them of the court's decision, which was made on Sunday, and, secondly, of the absconding, about which they were informed thereafter. I do not have minutes or times as to when that happened, but that contact was made as soon as that information was made available to us. Understandably, the registered victims are upset, but they appreciate that the decision was not taken by the Northern Ireland Prison Service, and they welcomed the fact that they were notified. That does not, however, change the fact that they will be extremely upset by the decision for temporary release and particularly because the person has absconded.

Mr Frew: I thank the Minister for her informative answers, which are extremely helpful. I now have a certain sympathy for the Prison Service. What measures or countermeasures have been put in place by the Prison Service and, indeed, the PSNI, given the direction of the court?

Mrs Long: The direction of the court not only extended to the fact that the individual should be released but gave specific conditions under which he should be released. That included the name of the chaperone who would accompany him during the period of release. That person was a civilian chaperone and not a member of the Prison Service.

Ms Egan: I thank the Minister for her response. This is very concerning for the victims who are involved. Minister, are you able to clarify or confirm whether the conditions of this person's release were set by the Northern Ireland Prison Service or by the courts?

Mrs Long: The conditions under which the person was released to attend their father's funeral were set by the court. That is the unusual part of this. If, in other circumstances, a judge finds that they wish the Prison Service to reconsider a decision, the judge will often refer that back to the Northern Ireland Prison Service to look at it a second time. In this case, the judgement, which is available should Members wish to see it, goes further and sets out and stipulates conditions around the release. That is the unusual part of this, because it has happened only twice in the memory of those who currently work in the Prison Service.

Mr Burrows: I appreciate the update from the Justice Minister, but there still may be lessons to be learned. A judicial review is successful only if the original decision was viewed by the judge to be either irrational or unlawful. Are there lessons for the Prison Service to learn on how its decision was formulated, recorded or written down, so that it is more resilient to what was a bizarre and, frankly, very disturbing legal challenge?

Mrs Long: There is no suggestion that the Prison Service misjudged the case at hand. In fact, I would say that the evidence is to the contrary: that its decision was correctly taken and was right. The way in which these things are done is standard; there is a multidisciplinary review of the individual prisoner. There are particular concerns about the individual prisoner, which I cannot discuss in public. The Prison Service rightly felt that it could not be confident that that person would be able to be returned to prison or that it would be able to do so while maintaining public safety. I do not believe that the Prison Service was at fault in that judgement. It strongly resisted the release, even at the judicial review.

We will have to look at the situation. Judicial processes and approaches will change over time, and this was a highly unusual situation. As I said, it has, perhaps, occurred only twice in the past 20 years. We will have to look at how we approach such decisions and appeals in future, where we believe that there is a high risk, having worked with that prisoner over a period of time, and where the judge may take a different view.

Mr McGlone: I thank the Minister for going into quite a bit of detail. There is one thing that puzzles me. In making its decision, did the court fully examine the concerns that the Prison Service had and give any reason for overturning its decision?

Mrs Long: What I have in front of me is not a verbatim record of the discussions in court, but the court was fully aware of the Prison Service's reservations and of the challenges that it foresaw in ensuring that that prisoner could be managed during a period of compassionate temporary release and safely brought back into custody at the end of that period. The court then ordered that the Prison Service's decision be quashed and that the person be released under the supervision of a civilian chaperone. That was the decision that the court made in that case.

It has to be said that such decisions are often finely balanced. We need to bear that in mind. None of us has the capacity to see the future, so everyone is balancing risk, and every person's assessment of risk may be slightly different. That is the reality of the situation. On this occasion, however, the Prison Service felt that granting compassionate temporary release was neither safe nor appropriate, and, unfortunately, so it has proven.

Ms Ferguson: Minister, you mentioned that the individual was accompanied on day release by a civilian chaperone. Is that normal? Given that the PSNI has said that there is a danger to the public, can you assure us that the police are doing all that they can to ensure that the individual comes back into custody?

Mrs Long: The first thing to say is that none of this is normal. As I said, it is quite exceptional for the court to set conditions. Were the Prison Service to grant someone compassionate temporary release, the individual would normally be accompanied by prison officers. That is the normal run of things, so none of this is routine. It is, however, the decision that was made. The Prison Service, in considering whether it was safe to release the individual and whether he could be safely returned to custody, would consider its own capacity for ensuring that that happened. It decided that, even with its skills, it would not be in a position to do so.

The PSNI is right to warn the public not to approach a person who has absconded from prison and is unlawfully at large, particularly when that person is a violent offender. I have no doubt that the PSNI will make every effort to ensure that the individual is returned to custody, not least because of the seriousness of his original offences. I appeal to people that if they see that individual, not to approach him but to contact the PSNI with any information that they have. This is not someone who is safe to be living in their community, and the more cooperation that we can get from the public in order to return him to custody, the better.

Mr K Buchanan: Following on from the previous question, I would like a bit more clarity. The Prison Service was not happy that that individual be released, but the court overturned its decision. Who made the decision that the individual would be accompanied by a civilian chaperone and not by someone from the Prison Service? Was the chaperone physically handcuffed to the prisoner?

Mrs Long: The use of handcuffs and restraints would not be possible unless the chaperone was trained to use them, so the use of handcuffs by a civilian would not be appropriate. In addition, the decision on the conditions that surrounded the period of temporary release was issued as part of the court order.

Mr Durkan: First and foremost, my thoughts are with the Kelly family, whom I know well and who have been re-traumatised by this unfortunate incident. I have performed the role of civilian chaperone on several occasions in the past. Is it the case that a wider security concern exists in certain areas, including certain areas in my constituency, where there is a fear of a security incident arising should a prisoner be granted release under police chaperone?

Mrs Long: Whether it is a police chaperone or a Prison Service chaperone, the safety of the staff involved is also a consideration when determining whether it is safe to release a prisoner and whether that prisoner can safely be returned to custody. It is one of the factors that is considered, but it is not the only factor. In this case, the court ruled that a civilian chaperone would accompany the individual on release. The time at which he was released, where he was allowed to go and all of that is set out clearly in the order that was made. He was not, however, under Prison Service supervision.

Mr Beattie: Minister, thank you for that information. Getting those answers from you has really helped, but, I have to say, it is a sad indictment of our courts that they have overruled our Prison Service and put public safety in jeopardy. As the Minister knows, I have engaged with her on that type of thing on many occasions, including in relation to James Meehan and Thomas McEntee, as has Charles Little. The Minister said that she would undertake a review of the pre-release scheme, which, while not completely related to this situation, incorporates it. Will she update us on where we are with that, so that we can aim to avoid such issues in the future?

Mrs Long: It is not related to compassionate temporary release. There is a separate scheme for pre-release testing, and that review is under way. We will look at the outcomes and at what we intend to do with that information. Our recommendations and actions will come to the Assembly in due course.

This is a separate matter, which is about compassionate temporary release. Therefore, it relates only to short periods to allow someone to visit a dying relative, attend a funeral or do something of that nature. I will not criticise the courts for taking their decision. A balance has to be struck, and people's risk appetite and approach may be different in different circumstances. I can speak only for the parts of the system that are under my control. I believe that Prison Service staff, who work with individuals and observe their conduct in custody and their stability in the prison estate, are best placed in such circumstances to make rational judgements.

The Member mentioned other cases in which people without approved leave absconded from custody. Those cases are incredibly rare. In the vast majority of cases concerning, for example, pre-release testing or other forms of short-term release, it is very unusual for people to abscond. Often, in cases in which someone is listed as being at large without approved release, it has been for a matter of hours because someone has been late back to custody, rather than someone literally absconding. It is about striking a balance, but, as the Member knows, the other kinds of periods of leave that he talked about caused us to look again at the system.

This case is slightly distinct, in that the decisions were taken and the risk was assessed. However, at the end of the day, every prisoner has the right to seek judicial review of such a decision, and the courts have the right to overturn it, should they feel that it is inappropriate.

Mrs Dillon: I concur with Mark Durkan's comments about our thoughts being with the victims in this case, because it is they who will be most traumatised.

Minister, you are right not to criticise the court's decision, because we have to keep the two things separate, and we should never interfere. However, could you have a conversation with the Lady Chief Justice about the particular issues in order to get an understanding of how the decision was reached and whether things could be done differently by both sides to make sure that the potential for it to happen again is minimal? I know that it is difficult to get that balance —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: OK, Linda. That is fine.

Mrs Dillon: — but it is important.

Mrs Long: Part of the challenge is that that would fly fairly close to interfering in individual decisions, because these are such unique circumstances. It is not a routine matter that happens regularly. Therefore, it would look like a response to this specific case. I have told officials that we will look at the potential implications for how we would manage it in the system, were such occurrences to become more routine.

Ultimately, the goal of all that we do is to ensure that the public are safe. As I stand here, I cannot say that that is the case, given the nature of the offending and the fact that the offender is now unlawfully at large in the community. I hope that he will be returned to custody quickly and that we will be able to reassure the public and, crucially, the Kelly family, because, as Mark Durkan rightly said, it is traumatic for any family members who have suffered loss. It is hard enough to accept that compassionate release happens at all, but it is particularly difficult for families if it ends up with a prisoner absconding from custody. We are conscious of that.

Mr Kingston: There are serious questions for the Court Service to answer and a need for serious reflection and review in this case, which has gone so badly wrong. I thank the Minister for her answers. What role will she and her Department play in reviewing the case with the Court Service to ensure that the chances of such a thing happening again are minimised, given that the views of the Prison Service, which knew most about the prisoner, were overruled?

Mrs Long: First of all, there are no questions for the Court Service, which is the administrative arm of the Department and simply implements the decisions taken by the judiciary. A judge made the decision, not the Court Service, so the issue is not for the Court Service but for the judiciary, which is independent of my office.

As the Member would expect, I can and will seek to better understand why it happened. As I said, it has not happened for a long time. It is, I think, more than 20 years since a court last imposed conditions and overturned a decision on release. The more normal process is for a judge to refer a case back to the Prison Service to reconsider. To be clear, it is not the Court Service that decides. The Court Service comprises civil servants who run the administration of the court system. The decision is taken by the judiciary.

It is important to say that, as Justice Minister, I respect the independence of our judiciary. It is not for me to lean in and try to influence the decisions that judges make or the way in which they go about their business. Every case that comes before them will be different, and the weight of evidence in every case will be different. The circumstances will be unique. We should therefore not assume that, because something happened on this occasion, it will happen in the same way for ever. It is not necessarily about a change in court processes; it is simply the fact that the circumstances surrounding the case led to this outcome. I have to be careful, because it is not for me to criticise a decision made by a judge who is in full knowledge of the facts and has weighed up all the evidence. It is also important that I do not seek to interfere with decision-making on such matters when they are under judicial review.

Ms Brownlee: I thank the Minister. The information provided today has given us a clearer understanding of what happened, even if it has not alleviated concerns.

The decision was made by the judge. Was there any opportunity for the Prison Service to appeal it, if it was so concerned? With regard to the chaperone in particular, to me, it is absolute madness that we are in this situation, with that decision having been made. It genuinely concerns me that, when such decisions are made, there is no right of appeal or opportunity to appeal them.

Mrs Long: In this case, the challenge is that the decision was made on a Sunday about a release on the Monday, which meant that the opportunity for any form of challenge or appeal was constrained. A judicial review found that, had the judge referred the case back to the Prison Service, the Prison Service would have retaken the decision, reached a conclusion and proceeded in that direction. That did not happen in this case. The original decision was quashed, and the judge made a different decision. Once an action has been ordered by the court, Prison Service can do little other than comply with the court ruling. That is what happened in these circumstances.

As I said, it is highly unusual. It is not the norm. I do not expect it to become the norm because it happened in this case. However, we will reflect on what our options are in circumstances where we have such serious concerns. Bear in mind, however, that our original decision, the rationale behind it and Prison Service's concerns were not only available to the judge but were reiterated at the time that the decision was made. In balancing that information against the judicial review that was taken, the judge reached a different decision. That is often the case when things go to court.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: That is all in relation to the question for urgent oral answer to the Minister of Justice.

Mr Burrows: On a point of order, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. it is entirely open to the Prison Service in such a case to appeal a decision, even if the decision cannot be remedied.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: OK.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: This is in relation to the point of order that you raised, Kellie.

Ms Armstrong raised an issue in relation to whether the Speaker had given consideration to equality and human rights matters relating to the Bill: is that correct? OK. I want the House to be clear that the Speaker has a statutory duty to consider any Bill in order to certify that it is within the legislative competence of the Assembly before it can be introduced. That includes consideration of whether a Bill is incompatible with convention rights and other matters that are specified in section 6 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. However, Members should be clear that the Speaker's consideration is purely of whether the Assembly has the ability to legislate on the matter. The Speaker does not give a view on the wider contents or approach of any Bill; it is for Members to do that when they go through the process of scrutinising legislation. In relation to the earlier discussion, equality impact assessments and related matters are not issues that the Speaker needs to consider but issues for Members to debate. Hopefully, that clarifies the question that Kellie asked. Let me check Hansard to get the wording exactly right and to go back on that.

I will go back to two other points of order that were raised by Phillip Brett and Jonathan Buckley. I looked at that issue. I was completely in keeping. I am very careful about what I say up here and how I say it, and I am completely clear that I did not give a personal opinion. I clearly pointed out the clause that Members should have been making reference to when they were talking. Other than that, while the debate on the Conversion Practices (Criminalisation) Bill is not a discussion of gender identity, I accepted then that the issue would be raised. Please do so in relation to whatever clause you are referring to. I appreciate that it is the Second Stage of the Bill, which is a general discussion. I anticipate that Members will be considering whether to table amendments. To be clear, everything that I examined and said was in keeping with my position as Speaker. Hopefully that clarifies the matter.

Mr Brett: On a point of order, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I appreciate that clarity. My recollection is that you stated that it was not for the Bill sponsor to answer questions on how many genders there were. The point that my colleagues and I were making is that the Bill defines "gender identity" in law but does not provide a meaning or explanation for that definition. Are you now stating, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, that we can raise that concern with the Bill sponsor, given that it is included in the Bill?

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I am still clear on that, Phillip. It is not for the Bill sponsor to outline how many gender identities there are. That is not the case, and I am clear on that. The principle of the Second Stage debate on any legislation is that Members can talk in a general sense. I ask Members to keep to the clauses that they are referring to — there are 11 clauses — so that the whole process does not become unruly, untidy or disrespectful. I do not think that any Member wants to be disrespectful on this issue. I hope that that clarifies the issue.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: From memory, Mrs Dodds was interrupted for Question Time. Diane Dodds, you may continue.

Mrs Dodds: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. If I recall correctly, just before the break for Question Time, we had been talking about the issue of the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland (ECNI) and the lack of an equality impact assessment (EQIA). It may be useful at this stage if I give way to the sponsor of the Bill to advise why, in the explanatory and financial memorandum (EFM), it says that the engagement:

Can he outline his engagement with the Equality Commission, what its view was on the Bill, whether it took a position on it and maybe even why it chose not to do an equality impact assessment?

Mr Tennyson: I thank the Member for the opportunity to respond, and it is important that we clarify this once again. The Equality Commission and the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission are able to undertake equality screening only of policy change that they themselves are introducing. It is not their role to equality screen or conduct equality impact assessments of other policies and legislation. They may be able to advise and engage, and we have engaged with the Equality Commission and the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission. I have correspondence from and notes of meetings with both bodies. I am more than happy to share those with the Member to give her the reassurance that she is looking for that these issues have been considered in full.

Mrs Dodds: I thank the Member. It is really important, on a day when we are all being lectured about equality, that equality is not just for those who take a particular view on conversion therapy or gender identity but for the parents who have brought up their children in a Christian home, who want to live by those values and who find themselves quite distressed by the potential impact of the legislation. Equality is an important concept, and it is not a one-way street. It is about the very fundamental liberties and freedoms that the Bill, I think, endangers.

I want to go on to another general piece that is important to the Bill. When researching this, I discovered that there has been only one Northern Ireland-based study on this particular matter. That research was commissioned by the Department for Communities under the Sinn Féin Minister Deirdre Hargey. It was funded by Minister Hargey, but it was commissioned by LGBT organisations, including the Rainbow Project. I presume that that organisation had the job of determining the parameters of the research and how the research was commissioned. There is one thing that is really instructive in how parties in the Assembly approach this type of legislation. The recruitment call for the study said that the research:

We have just been talking about the importance of equality and freedoms, but, in this case, the research was commissioned to inform people about a ban, but it did not inform people about any alternatives. That is not an objective view. That is the view — I use these words advisedly — of the liberal consensus, but it is not a view that I hear expressed in the circles that I move in. Many ordinary parents, teachers, pastors and church ministers are really concerned about the implications of the legislation. It becomes worse when we discover that the researcher based the research on the answers of 10 people, two of whom Professor Ashe, as she has said, recruited for the project from her own circles. I do not know Professor Ashe, but I am sure that she wants to conduct a fairly objective piece of research within the parameters that she has been set. In the article that I read, however, she is quoted as saying that criminal legislation, which this Bill is:

She goes on to say that the Bill sponsor has confirmed that that is the case.

Mr Martin: I thank the Member for taking an intervention. My understanding is that they set out to get 15 people to be part of the research that she refers to, which was commissioned by the Rainbow Project and others and paid for by the Department for Communities. They wanted to get 15 people from across Northern Ireland who had been affected by this. They could not get 15 and ended up with 10. Is that the Member's understanding?

Mrs Dodds: That is my understanding. It is worse when we conclude that the professor had to recruit two from her own circles, as she said. We will get on to the detail of the legislation, shortly, but we are basing legislation that will criminalise people on a limited piece of research and a base that is not reflective of the Northern Ireland population.

The Assembly should take heed. The Bill — a Bill about the criminalisation of people and practices, which many in church and counselling services, including parents, pastors and youth workers, conduct as part of their work — has no equality impact assessment and one very limited piece of research.

One of Scotland's leading human rights lawyers has produced a commentary on the Bill. Aidan O'Neill KC describes the Bill as fundamentally illiberal, poorly drafted and posing a severe threat to basic civil liberties. He characterises the proposals as "jellyfish legislation".

Mr Tennyson: Will the Member give way?

Mrs Dodds: I want to finish this piece; it is very important.

I thought that that was quite an interesting analogy. He said that the concepts used are "impossible to grasp" and the drafting is vague but the offences carry "a sting in the tail" in the form of severe criminal penalties of up to two years in prison. Indeed, he goes further, reflecting something that was said earlier, and questions whether the Bill is within the legislative competence of the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Mr Tennyson: I thank the Member for giving way. The fact that the legislation has passed the competence checks and is on the Floor for debate is evidence of how flawed that legal opinion is, and "legal opinion" is putting it strongly. I met the Christian Institute, which commissioned the advice. I note that the Member was keen to point out that the study of conversion practice had the involvement of the Rainbow Project, so it is important to be fair and point out that the Christian Institute paid for this advice. I met it, last year. Its representatives arrived at that meeting, armed with a ring binder full of headlines from 'The Sun' and the 'Daily Mail', and said, "You don't want to do this, because this is the kind of negative publicity that can be generated". That opinion has been bought and paid for by the Christian Institute in an attempt to create negative headlines. We should treat that with the scepticism that it deserves.

Mrs Dodds: I presume that Aidan O'Neill KC, one of Scotland's leading lawyers — lawyer of the year, last year, I think — would not produce a brief for anybody that he did not believe reflected what was in the legislation.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Mrs Dodds: The Member might want to take that up with him. It is hard to hear some of the issues that are being raised about the Bill. I know the Bill sponsor well, and he knows me. He knows that I am not out to hurt, destroy or demean anyone, but we must tell the truth about the legislation. We must discuss what is in the Bill, not what people think is in the Bill. That is very, very important. I am sure that Mr O'Neill would be very interested to hear your view of his legal opinion.

Mr Brett: I appreciate the Member's giving way. Does she agree that Mr O'Neill is perhaps eminently more qualified than me but also the sponsor of the Bill when it comes to the law? Is the Member aware of whether the Bill sponsor has any law qualifications, given that he is challenging the opinion of a practising KC?

Mrs Dodds: I am not aware, but I am happy to take a clarification from the Bill sponsor. It is in poor taste to query such an eminent person and his opinion of the Bill.

Mr O'Neill further says that the Bill would establish landmark "gender self-identification" in law in Northern Ireland and that that self-declared identity would then become the benchmark for criminal law: not just this law but criminal law. He says that anyone attempting to "change" or "suppress" that identity could face prosecution.

He is particularly concerned about parents and the role that loving families, and loving parental guidance, play in our society. For me, they are the bedrock of society. He goes on to say:

I was reading through some of the information provided, and, in discussing the Bill, there are real-life situations to consider. I will give one example. Suppose that a 15-year-old daughter has secretly obtained cross-sex hormones online. Her parents confiscate them, restrict her internet access and say that they will not allow her to medically transition. She becomes distressed and accuses them of conversion therapy. Clause 8 includes very wide definitions of "psychological harm", stating that it "includes fear, alarm or distress." In that instance, the parents may well fall foul of the law. They may defend themselves under the Bill's reasonableness clause, but are we content in the Assembly to have parental decisions and parenting be taken forward by the courts in Northern Ireland?

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for giving way. That is an example of a situation in which many parents may well find themselves under the Bill. Will the Member agree that that example would fall not just under clause 8 but under the coercive behaviour provision in clause 5, which at subsection (1)(c) refers to "monitoring the ... day-to-day activities" of what the Bill calls the "victim"?

Mrs Dodds: It could well do, but, of course, monitoring our teenage children— our children, rather —

is part of normal parenting. Even I end up monitoring my grown-up children. It is what we do.

Mr Martin: Will the Member give way?

Mrs Dodds: We want to lovingly look after them, guide them and lead them. Perhaps I move in a strange circle of friends, but I do not know many people who want to be abusive, controlling or coercive towards their children. Generally, the home is a loving and settled environment. I know that harm can happen. I have no time for harming people, but there are issues that we must consider before we vote on the Bill.

My friend was eagerly trying to intervene.

Mr Martin: I thank my colleague for taking an intervention, which is on the defence in the Bill that we are now calling the "reasonableness defence". She touched on an interesting point that is worth widening a little. I do not think that parents would want to find themselves in a criminal court, using a defence of reasonableness to defend themselves in the very situation that she described. Think about that for a second. The Bill sponsor is relying on that reasonableness defence to say, "It's all going to be OK. You can use this defence in a criminal court". The fact of the matter is that most parents who are listening to the debate and most parents who might find themselves in the situation that my colleague described would not want to find themselves in a criminal court, facing two years in prison if they were to be found guilty, having to go through that trauma and, perhaps, that of the person who brought them there, with the emotionality that that would bring to the proceedings, just to end up using a defence of reasonableness in order to defend themselves. Does my colleague agree?

Mrs Dodds: I absolutely agree. When we think of the trauma of such a situation, we have to think of the trauma of the young person. All sides will have difficult emotions to face.

The question that the Assembly must ask itself, when we consider the role of parents and the impact of this legislation, is this: are we willing to criminalise a parent for setting boundaries?

Mr Boggs: Will the Member give way?

Ms Sheerin: Will the Member give way?

Mrs Dodds: No: I will in a moment, but I want to finish.

Are we willing to criminalise a parent for setting boundaries or a church pastor for having conversations about faith and biblical living? Those are fundamental issues.

Ms Sheerin: I thank the Member for giving way. I appreciate that she is trying to give some sense of the practical realities of what she sees as dangers to parenting. I am not a parent, and I have a degree of sympathy for somebody who is trying to parent teenagers. However, she is talking in generalisations. The Bill criminalises somebody who tries to suppress a child's sexual identity. Does the Member accept that nobody would be criminalised unless they tried to implement homophobia? What rationale could there be for a parent's trying to change their child's identity other than their thinking that there is something wrong with being gay?

Mrs Dodds: I do not agree, and I do not agree for a very specific reason. Look at clause 1, which states that a person commits an offence if that person:

— or —

We do not know what "intent" or "suppressing" means; we do not know how that is qualified; and we do not know what the threshold is.

Ms Sheerin: Will the Member give way?

Mrs Dodds: Yes.

Ms Sheerin: I appreciate what you are saying about practicalities, and I would understand it if those practicalities were the concern, but none of that is of concern if nobody wants to suppress or change someone's gender identity. Only if it is your intention to change a person's sexuality or gender identity would this come into play. If there is no homophobia or transphobia, it is not a live concern. You could have a million definitions of what it means to try to "suppress" or "change", but, if you do not want to suppress or change somebody else's identity or sexual orientation, it is not an issue.

Mrs Dodds: The Bill is very clear, or, rather, it is unclear on where parents will be caught in relation to that.

Mr Tennyson: Will the Member give way?

Mrs Dodds: No; not for a minute. I need to make a bit of progress.

The Bill leaves an enormous amount of room for that to happen. Parents could be caught by any of those things in the Bill. Does the intent of "changing or suppressing" relate to "counselling", "talking therapy" and "coaching or instruction"? Those are important issues for us to consider. The Member may shake her head, because she is not concerned about the impact on parents and children.

Ms Sheerin: Will the Member give way?

Mrs Dodds: No. Sorry, I was going to sit down, but no.

Further commentary on the Bill is provided by the Women's Rights Network. The Women's Rights Network is well known for its views on safe spaces for women and on the fact that sex is immutable and unchangeable, so I am a woman and will always be one. That is important to remember. It is also important that, when we consider legislation, we consider all the views in the round.

The Women's Rights Network and one of the solicitors who works with it, Ruth Paterson, said:

— power —

That is really important, and it relates to clause 6. The KC also pointed that out in his analysis of the Bill.

Clause 6 states that a person's

It further states:

That is a first in law in Northern Ireland.

We are writing law in Bills that do not have equality impact assessments, that are based on very limited research and that do not have clear definitions but that have very stringent criminal penalties.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for giving way, because that is a very important point that a lot of Members in the Chamber have sought to dismiss and ignore. Does the Member think that it is disappointing in the extreme that the Bill sponsor is unable to put on the record of the House which gender identities he feels that the Bill applies to. It is very clear from this side of the House — the Member has been clear in her speech that she believes that there are two genders, male and female. We know from public utterances that that is not the view of the Alliance Party and others, but they will not put on the record of the House how many gender identities are associated with the Bill. Why not?

Ms Sheerin: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Principal Deputy Speaker gave guidance on the fact that gender identity is not to be discussed in terms of this legislation. [Interruption.]

This is — [Interruption.]

Continue sneering, jeering and showing yourselves up as the bigots you are if you want to, but this is not what we are discussing here.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Members —.

Mr Buckley: Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I will deal with the first point of order first, Mr Buckley, if I may. This might apply to further requests: Members should not be — they know that they should not be doing this — using points of order to make comments about a contribution from a Member a moment or two ago or even further back. That is the first thing. Such an enquiry is not a point of order, but I am sure that the Speaker's Office will note that the enquiry was made. Mr Buckley.

Mr Buckley: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for that ruling, because I have not been hostile in asking that question.

Can I ask for clarity in relation to that point of order? Is it the ruling from the Speaker's Chair that Members cannot debate what gender identity encompasses in the mind of the Bill sponsor? Clause 6 is clearly entitled:

The Bill is all about gender identity. Therefore, I would like a ruling from the Chair. Surely we are allowed to discuss it.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Mr Buckley, I ruled that the previous point of order was not a point of order, and I am sure that you picked up on that. So that has absolutely been clarified. What Members can discuss has already been made clear today. I am happy to give some clarity about the scope of the debate. There is a Bill in front of us with 11 clauses, and the debate should relate to the principles of the Bill. That is what the Second Stage debate is. The Bill does include reference to gender identity, and discussion of gender identity is, therefore, permissible within the context of the Bill.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): This is not a general debate on gender identity, and Members should keep that in mind. I would also be grateful if they kept in mind — I am happy to remind them if I need to — that I will manage the debate and that the debate will not be managed through points of order about comments that have previously been made or any other matter. I will manage the debate from the Chair, and comments will be addressed to and through the Chair.

Mrs Dodds: Thank you for the clarification. In my remarks, I was referring to clause 6, which is very important and embeds in law concepts that we have not had before. It is important, and it is worthy of our exploration and our debate.

Mr Brett: Will the Member give way?

Mrs Dodds: Before I give way, the proposer of the Bill has been asked a question about the issue of gender identity and how many genders he considers there to be. I am happy to give way to the proposer of the Bill if he wants to answer that question and have it on the record.

Mr Tennyson: It is a question that was posed during my opening speech, and I answered it. The answer is that it is not a question of whether a term used in the Bill is contested; the question is whether the courts will be capable of applying that concept, not to criminalise a belief about a particular gender identity but to criminalise the coercion of someone to change their gender identity in a way that causes harm. The Member outlined a scenario in which a 15-year-old was accessing cross-sex hormones via the internet. That is clearly a risk to the welfare of that child, and the overriding motivation of any parent in that instance would be to safeguard the welfare of their child. They would not be motivated by a desire to undertake conversion practice, and therefore that scenario would not be captured by the legislation. I may have to keep repeating that, but it is important to nip these suggestions in the bud early.

Mrs Dodds: Given that a lot of the information I have read refers to multiple genders and changing genders etc, that is a non-answer and evasion by proposer of the Bill. When we consider legislation that will potentially criminalise parents, teachers, pastors, youth leaders, football team coaches — everybody and anybody; even Deborah's hairdresser — it is really important that we are clear and understand what we are talking about.

The Member wanted in.

Mr Brett: I appreciate the Member's giving way. The Member gets right to the crux of the issue that is at the heart of the Bill. These Benches are very clear that people are free to describe themselves however they wish. However, subjective self-description by a person based on how they feel cannot become part of the basis for a law on which another citizen is investigated, prosecuted and potentially imprisoned without a jury trial, as proposed in the Bill.

Mrs Dodds: That is a really important point, and it is at the heart of what we are doing here. We are debating legislation, and the Member is proposing clauses to a Bill that will criminalise people on the basis of something that is subjective and changing. That is no basis for legislation.

Mr Frew: Will the Member give way?

Mrs Dodds: I will, of course.

Mr Frew: That point is important in showing that what Emma Sheerin said was totally wrong. This is not about homophobia or transgender identity. The reason why it is not about those two aspects is that the Bill uses the terminology "gender identity", not "transgender identity", which is completely different. That opens it up, and I suspect that the Bill sponsor did that on purpose for that reason.

Mrs Dodds: I thank the Member for his intervention and for expanding the point, which is really important. I think that the Sinn Féin Member opposite, who is no longer in her seat, just wanted to shout the word "homophobia" and nothing else. That is a pity because I have tried my best to make my contribution to the debate with respect and kindness. Those are guidelines that I will rigidly stick to.

Another piece of information that I read about the Bill comes from Stella O'Malley, who is a psychotherapist and the founder of Genspect, which is an international organisation that advocates a psychological approach to gender distress. She fears that the chilling effect of the legislation will lead to therapists shunning this important work because, while there are exemptions in clause 4 for certain health professionals and clauses that allow the Health Minister to expand those exemptions, there are no exemptions for psychotherapists or for those who engage in talking therapies with children and young people. She talked about the chilling effect of the legislation on her colleagues and the absolute importance of allowing distressed young people to have conversations around their identity and what is going on in their lives as they go through puberty. She posed some interesting questions for the debate to consider. She went on to say:

If young people are distressed and think that they are not in the right body, she is absolutely adamant that we must be able to ask them questions and ensure that they take everything into account as they talk about it. That is why she is worried about the chilling effect of the Bill. She said that you must be able to ask:

She said that you must ask whether there is anything else happening in their life that could have led to those emotions, thoughts etc. She also said that you must ask:

She concludes that such questions, which could catch therapists within the scope of the Bill and criminalise them, is not conversion therapy; it is conventional therapy, and talking is very important.

Mr Lyons (The Minister for Communities): I thank the Member for giving way. Does that not set out clearly why we need to have proper definitions in the Bill? What she has just mentioned could be interpreted by a young person as an attempt to suppress. As we do not have the word "suppression" defined in the legislation, we have to go to the dictionary definition, which is anything that includes a holding back. Asking those questions could be viewed as holding someone back in that way. At that time or later, someone could say, "This is causing me harm". It would engage all the tests that Mr Tennyson set out. That is why it is so important that we get it right. The Bill, as it stands, does not do that.

Mrs Dodds: That is why it is really important to have the debate and look at the Bill as a whole, so that we understand what the Bill could impose on families in Northern Ireland.

I was thinking about legislation when thinking about the Bill. In examining any Bill, it is important to ask whether the draft legislation is sufficiently clear. I do not believe that the sponsor can say that his draft legislation is sufficiently clear. Where is the evidence of the need for new criminal offences? Does the legislation adequately balance protection from genuine abuse with freedom of speech, religious liberty and legitimate therapeutic practice? Mr Tennyson has said that he believes that the Bill is balanced, but, when you look at the detail of the Bill, you see that there is a plethora of ways in which many people can be caught within its clauses.

If we want to have a bit of a look at the Bill, it is important to move on to some of the clauses. First, I will go back to Mr O'Neill's critique or legal opinion on the Bill. He says:

Therefore, in his view, the Bill does not give that adequate balance and the way in which the Bill is constructed equates harmful criminal behaviours with behaviours that are more conventional, such as talking therapies.

Let us look at clause 1. We have not really heard a huge level of detail on clause 1 so far. The Bill sets it out that a person commits an offence when they provide conversion therapy to another person. Clause 1(1)(b) is not clear when it says:

— "intent" is subjective in anyone's language —

As the Minister has just asked: what does that mean? Does it mean dampening down? What is the threshold? Where are the bars for the kind of language that is used in the Bill?

Clause 1(1)(c) states:

No one wants anyone to suffer harm. However, the definition of "psychological harm" at clause 8 is incredibly wide; indeed, it is a catch-all. We have to read the clauses together, and the definition at clause 8 states:

For any young person who is suffering a crisis of identity and going through puberty, all those things could be present at any one time. Therefore, we have a Bill that will criminalise people that does not clearly define the harms that it is trying to prevent.

We then have the burden of proof, which is on the accused to show that their actions were "reasonable in the particular circumstances". It will be left up to the courts, the Public Prosecution Service (PPS) and the PSNI to determine how that is worked through. Again, as I said previously, that leads us to a situation in which we may well have parenting by the courts, because parents will be afraid of the legislation's implications.

Mr Buckley: Will the Member give way?

Mrs Dodds: I will, of course.

Mr Buckley: Will the Member perhaps try to explain how the courts would determine the threshold for "fear", "alarm" and "distress", given that those are inherently subjective terms? What is distress to one person may not be the same as it is to another. Does the Member agree that, if the Bill becomes law, we will see a lot of litigation when courts rule on such matters?

Mrs Dodds: We will undoubtedly see litigation. Unfortunately, parents will find themselves the subject of that litigation. That is not a desirable place for our community to be led to. The Assembly should think very carefully about the Bill and the wide-ranging terms in it.

Mr Lyons: I thank the Member for giving way. This is a key point. The terms "fear", "alarm" and "distress" exist in other legislation, with one example being the Public Order Act 1986, which applies in England and Wales. How those terms are treated is important. Where there has been intent to cause "fear", "alarm" or "distress", that can carry a custodial sentence, but, where there is no intent, the person will be subject to a fine only. Does that not intersect with this Bill and give us a great example of how the issues to do with intent are not properly dealt with? In the circumstances that the Member is talking about — a parent speaking to a child or a person speaking in front of a congregation — the intent may not be there, but the punishment still can be.

Mrs Dodds: That is absolutely correct. As I said, clause 2(1)(b) states:

— how is that to be measured? —

Again, how is that to be measured? How do we measure "fear", "alarm" and "distress"? It is important that we know the answer to that, because that will be the threshold for a criminal conviction at some stage for some parent, pastor or teacher.

I will whizz on through. In clause 2, the second offence in the Bill is that of "engaging in coercive conversion behaviour", while, in clause 3, the next offence is:

It is significant that the clauses that deal with those offences talk not only about "sexual orientation" but about "gender identity". I noted that Ruth Paterson, a solicitor, said that the Bill introduces:

It is important that we are introducing terms into law that we cannot define. I gave the Member the opportunity to define "gender identity", but he failed to do so.

Mr Buckley: Repeatedly.

Mrs Dodds: He repeatedly failed to do so.

It is really important that, when we are introducing legislation that contains significant criminal sanctions, we know what those sanctions will be used for.

There are other issues with the Bill, but I want to conclude my remarks about "intent" and "suppress" and the idea of "psychological harm" and how it is measured and whether it can be self-defined. It will be good to reflect on a piece that I read recently, which states:

Mr Brett: Read the Bill.

Mrs Dodds: That is significant. We are all sitting here puzzled —.

Mr Brett: Read the Bill.

Mrs Dodds: I know; read the Bill. We cannot sit here as if the Bill has dropped out of the skies. The Bill has been produced by the Alliance Party, and we need to read it.

Mr Tennyson: Will the Member give way?

Mrs Dodds: Honestly, I have given way a lot. I would like to continue. [Laughter.]

For you, Eóin, yes, I will.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Mr Tennyson: I thank the Member for generously giving way. If she reads clause 7 of the Bill, she will see that it expressly states:

and if —

When it comes to the question of legislating for self-ID, that is wrong; it is false. The Bill has no bearing on matters such as access to single-sex spaces, nor does it have any impact on the legal process for gender recognition in Northern Ireland. The phrase "gender identity" is used rather than "transgender identity" so that it is universal. If somebody has transitioned and wants to de-transition, they cannot be harmed or coerced away from that course of action either. This is about universal protection, and that is why that language has been used.

Mrs Dodds: I now declare that I need to make some progress on the Bill. The Member talks about clause 7, which is a particularly difficult clause for counsellors, therapists, parents of faith, pastors and teachers. Faith is about embracing faith, but it is also about directional living. It is very difficult to see how, in certain circumstances, people can adhere to the dictum that:

I move on to clause 4, which is very loose and very broad. It is potentially a catch-all for a number of people who engage in the instruction of young people. Clause 4 states:

Clause 4 goes on to outline the exceptions. There are many ways in which harm can be done to young people and those who are in significant distress. Genspect is an organisation that has supported more than 600 people who have detransitioned. According to Genspect, almost all those people say that they regretted their decision and wished that someone had counselled them not to take the action that they were taking. If that were the case and the Bill were law, those counsellors would fall foul of the law. It is really troubling that we are in a situation where people, in an attempt to do good, may ask hard questions but will fall foul of the law. That is absolutely awful.

There is also the situation — of course, there are people across the House who believe and want it to happen, but I believe that it should not — where some Members want to advance the harm that puberty blockers do to our young people. That is also a form of harm. We are not allowed, in the Bill, to direct them or talk about faith or guidance or counselling, but we can give them pills that will chemically change their bodies and their outlook on life. That is very, very disturbing.

Mr Martin: Will the Member give way on that point?

Mrs Dodds: I will, yes. I have given way on everything.

Mr Martin: Well, I will give you a chance to reorganise your papers there. Just as you reference puberty blockers, in clause 7(1)(c):

In that instance — the Member may agree with me — actually affirming puberty blockers in that situation would be affirming the gender identity of, for example, a trans young person, despite the actual danger that those puberty blockers could have for that young person. Cass covered the inherent and long-lasting dangers of puberty blockers very nicely. However, in this legislation, that is a defence. The defence is to affirm a gender identity that the victim considers he or she may be, so the actual provision of puberty blockers would be an offence in the Bill.

Mrs Dodds: The Member mentions Dr Hilary Cass. There are good things in her review; there are other things that I disagree with. However, regarding puberty blockers, in her review, she said that medical intervention has taken over in treatment provision and that exploration has been made synonymous with conversion therapy when good psychological care is about getting young people the help and the treatment that they need and deserve. That is hugely important.

Those who think that the Bill is limited should read the legal opinion, because it is sobering. In it, we are given a long, two-page list of those people who will be caught by the Bill. To Members' relief, I will not read it here this afternoon, but it covers all those things.

In summary, what are we dealing with in the Bill? It is a Bill that will be used against ordinary parents, teachers, pastors and leaders. It is a wide-ranging Bill, but, unfortunately, the key terms in it, such as:

are relatively undefined. The issue of the intent to harm required and the issue of suppressing, again, are undefined. Some of this is very subjective, and we are basing law on subjective ideas and some people's changing ideas about gender identity. The Bill also equates advice with abuse, which is an important point.

Every good parent should exercise boundaries, teach their child principles and have caution around the things that they may not want their child exposed to, but the Bill potentially criminalises that discipline. Good pastoral care is the bedrock of our schools and our education system, and it should be in our youth groups and wherever we engage with young people, but those who engage with and talk to young people solely with the idea of pastoral care in mind are at risk under the terms of the Bill.

I urge the House to consider the Bill carefully. I will vote against it, as I cannot see enough in it to entice me to ever vote for it. I urge Members who flirt with the ideas of gender self-identification etc to carefully consider how they are using the criminal law to install that in our statute book.

Mr Gaston: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Can the House get urgent clarification on when, if ever, a Bill containing a term that is not defined has been debated in the House and, furthermore, when the discussion of said term's definition has been ruled out of order? In these circumstances, we are debating a criminal sanction. How will the courts interpret the term "gender identity" in clause 6? On many occasions, the judiciary has consulted the Hansard reports of debates to gain a clear understanding of what legislation was to mean. Who does the Deputy Speaker believe will provide such a definition? Will it be Stonewall or the Bill sponsor?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I think that we have covered that, Mr Gaston. I think that you were here when I gave a ruling on that point earlier, but I will repeat it. There is a Bill in front of us with 11 clauses, and the debate should relate to the principles of the Bill. By and large, that has been adhered to. The Bill includes reference to gender identity, and discussion of gender identity within the context of the Bill is permissible. However, it is not a general debate on gender identity. In that regard, the point that you made is null and void. That is the ruling.

Mr Gaston: Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Thank you very much, but we need clarity from the Bill sponsor on how many genders he believes there to be, because it is pertinent to —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Mr Gaston —

Mr Gaston: — the debate. How can we —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Mr Gaston, resume your seat.

Mr Gaston: — consider legislation —.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I am on my feet, Mr Gaston. When I am on my feet, you resume your seat. You know that. It would serve you well in future to resume your seat more quickly when I get to my feet. You know the point that I am making, should it happen again. I suggest that you do not test it this evening. The ruling has been made. Seeking a view from a Member is not a point of order. It is what I just described.

Mr Burrows: I begin with what should unite every Member of the House: abuse, degrading behaviour, humiliation and coercion are always wrong. The issue at hand, however, is not whether those things are wrong but whether the Bill is right. Supporting the objective does not require us to support the Bill. We are here to decide not whether abuse is wrong but whether the Bill is —.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Mr Burrows, this intervention will be helpful. You may need to use your mic. From this end of the Chamber, it appears that it is not working or that something is obstructing it.

Mr Burrows: Apologies. Is that clearer now?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Yes.

Mr Burrows: I will maybe start from the beginning again. [Laughter.]

I know that you are all desperate to hear my contribution.

I will return to that point briefly. We are not here to decide whether abuse, coercive behaviour, humiliation and degrading treatment are right or wrong: they are clearly wrong. We are here to look at the Bill and decide whether it is fit to pass into criminal law. It is not. We should remember that criminal law is the sharpest law available to the state. It has consequences for individuals that mean that they can be deprived of their liberty, and it can require and result in a chill effect on daily behaviour, because it creates a deterrent. It should not be used simply to send a message or make a point. It should be drafted and passed only when it is necessary.

There are so many flaws in the Bill that it does not withstand any penetrating or forensic scrutiny. One of its outcomes would be that a parent would, in effect, need a KC at the kitchen table before having conversations with their child. I will come on to why that would be necessary. It is cold comfort to say that there are defences in the Bill, because defences apply only when a complaint has been made and investigated and a file has gone to the Public Prosecution Service. The damage that can be done before then is significant. That is why other criminal offences have a certain threshold before the criminal law is engaged. The offences in this Bill have some of the lowest thresholds that I have ever seen for what is the most litigious part of the United Kingdom. That is a recipe for disaster. I will go through the flaws one by one.

First, the Bill is built on undefined concepts. Clauses 1 to 3 criminalise attempts to change or suppress a person's gender identity. That has been well litigated already. Nowhere in the Bill is there a definition of "gender identity"; in fact, clause 6 makes it precisely clear that gender identity is entirely subjective. I once read on the BBC that it was claimed that there were over 100 gender identities. Some of them are so far removed from what we ordinarily understand to be issues of gender identity that the Bill presents the risk that parents saying to their child, "What you are thinking and saying is simply nonsense. It can't be true" could be litigated and could be an offence.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for giving way. My intervention refers to a point that I made earlier. Does the Member find it concerning that the Bill sponsor cannot put on record the gender identities that fall within the scope of the Bill?

Mr Burrows: With any legislation, particularly criminal legislation, the scope is the crux of the issue. Law, particularly criminal law, should be clear so that the public know the boundaries that we are setting in this place for what they can and cannot do. The Bill is not.

Mr Tennyson: I thank the Member for giving way. I intervene genuinely to be helpful. In my opening remarks, I referenced the fact that the UK Government's Bill includes a more explicit statutory definition than the one that we have employed, and I said that I was open to replicating that definition at Consideration Stage. If clarity is the issue, clarity can be addressed through scrutiny and amendment. Is it the case, however, that the Member is ideologically opposed to harm and coercion on the basis of gender identity being included at all? That is a different question, and it is a different position from the one that the Ulster Unionist Party took in 2021 when it tabled a motion in the Assembly calling for change.

Mr Burrows: Let me make it really clear: the Ulster Unionist Party remains of the view that it is wrong to engage in harmful, abusive and coercive practices on the basis of whatever identity, gender identity or sexual orientation people have. That is not the issue with the Bill, however. Frankly, this is not a motion. It could result in people in our country being arrested, charged and imprisoned. It is serious business that needs a serious Bill, and, even though there are some noble objectives in it, this is an unserious Bill.

Equally important is the fact that the word "suppress" is left undefined. A key operating term in the Bill is not defined. What does "suppress" mean? Does it mean, for example, encouraging someone not to engage in some sexual activity at a certain age or encouraging them to think again? The Member says no to that, but it is not in the letter of the law.

I will come to some stark examples of gaps and contradictions. Clause 8 states:

To start equating fear, alarm or distress with psychological harm is dangerous in law. In fact, in criminal law, there was a case that allowed psychological distress to be included in the criminal law for a physical injury. The threshold was set at grievous bodily harm, which is very high. The Bill simply refers to "fear, alarm or distress". A child who is alarmed, afeared or distressed is not necessarily psychologically damaged. There is not a child in the country who is not fearful, alarmed or distressed at going to the dentist, but they are not psychologically harmed by going to the dentist. There are children who are frightened of the dark, but they will not necessarily be harmed psychologically by the dark. The Bill sponsor has equated psychological harm with fear, alarm and distress, and there is no requirement that that distress be serious, substantial or permanent.

There is another striking contradiction. Paragraph 33 of the explanatory and financial memorandum is clear that:

After the full stop, the next sentence states that the Bill sponsor, Mr Tennyson, intends that:

I will read that again, because I know that a lot of people are listening at home: "serious and sufficiently harmful conduct". That is in the memorandum and is apparently the intent of the Bill sponsor, but it is absent from the black-letter law. That is the stuff that the Police Service, the Public Prosecution Service —

Mr Tennyson: Will the Member give way?

Mr Burrows: — and a judge will have to interpret. I will give way in a second.

That is a striking anomaly in that it is clear in the memorandum that serious harm is being referred to, but the legislation refers simply to alarm, distress or fear.

I will give way to the Bill sponsor.

Mr Tennyson: I am genuinely grateful to the Member for giving way, because these are important issues that are worthy of debate. As I said in my opening remarks, there is a policy judgement to be made by the Assembly on whether to go with the wording "fear, alarm or distress", "fear, alarm or distress, excluding trivial and transient harm" or some other measure of harm such as "serious harm". We can address that in Committee and in the Assembly through amendment; it is not an argument against the Bill at its Second Stage.

I have not plucked the definition from thin air. Judges, the Police Service and the Public Prosecution Service already interpret that concept in the context of domestic abuse, as, I hope, the Member knows well from his former career. That is exactly the concept of harm that applies in cases of domestic abuse. If that is sufficient to distinguish between coercive behaviour and non-coercive behaviour or harmful behaviour and non-harmful behaviour in the context of domestic abuse, I see no reason why it would not be sufficient in this context.

Mr Burrows: That again speaks of a conflation that we have here. There is an important distinction, against which the Member protested earlier in the debate, between domestic violence and abuse and what is proposed in the Bill. It is never OK to put your partner in fear, alarm or distress. In the case of two adults in a relationship, that is abuse, with a perpetrator, whereas a parent may very often put their child in fear. The child may be distressed by a genuine intervention by the parent, such as, "You are not to do that again. That is wrong". The child may end up being distressed because the parent has had to take them to the dentist or because the parent had a difficult conversation with them. The role of a parent in bringing up a child involves thousands of interactions in which the parent may be acting in the best interests of the child but the child still feels, in their childhood, fearful. Those are the realities of bringing up a child. Parents have to say, "That can't be done. The reason that you cannot do that, son, is x,y or z. There are risks to what you are doing there". That is entirely different from a similar conversation that one has with a partner, which would be coercive control. The two should not be conflated. There are differences between interactions with your children and interactions with a partner, and the law has to reflect that. The Bill does not.

Mr Lyons: Will the Member give way?

Mr Burrows: I will.

Mr Lyons: There has been literal rolling of the eyes and huffing and puffing coming from some corners of the Chamber about a number of issues that have been raised on this side of the House during the debate. Has the Member noted that what those Members have not done in response is go to the text of the Bill? That is the difficulty here: we are dealing with legislation that is in front of us in black and white.

It is wrong for a number of reasons to conflate this Bill and the Domestic Abuse and Civil Proceedings Act (Northern Ireland) 2021. One of those reasons is to do with intent: when it is a person's intent to cause a course of behaviour that results in someone intentionally suffering physical or psychological harm or that person is reckless in causing that harm. There is an important distinction to be made, both on intent and on the other point that I made about Members not being able to point to the Bill to substantiate claims that they have made or to debunk claims that have been made on this side of the House.

Mr Burrows: I absolutely agree with the Member. When we compare this Bill with the draft Bill in Westminster, the differences on the threshold for serious harm become even more notable. That Bill proposes that the conduct has to be abusive and requires serious harm, serious alarm or distress that substantially affects someone's day-to-day activities. That is a clear threshold that is relatively robust versus a threshold in this Bill that is entirely subjective. Westminster's Bill includes the words "abusive" and "serious", but the Member has left them out of his. There is no requirement — none whatever — that someone's conduct has to be abusive for them to fall foul of this legislation. There is no requirement that any serious harm has to be done, just that a child may feel distressed. That is a serious flaw that leaves parents the length and breadth of this country open to litigation and criminal investigation.

Mr Tennyson, as Ms Bradshaw did yesterday, keeps saying that he is up for amending the Bill. By the time that we amend it to make it fit for purpose, it will be unrecognisable. That is why doing such cross-cutting, controversial and difficult things in private Members' Bills is lunacy. We should sit down and do them properly through Executive Bills and not do them through private Members' Bills that are atrociously drafted. I will move on.

Ms Bradshaw: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I have sat listening to Mr Burrows's contribution. First, Mr Deputy Speaker, can you confirm that private Members' Bills are produced with the support of the Bill Office by professional drafters who are paid for out of public money? Secondly, Mr Burrows, we would not have to introduce our private Members' Bills if our Executive were able to work on progressive issues that move our society forward. As I said yesterday, I would much prefer that the Executive Office had picked up on the Commission on Flags, Identity, Culture and Tradition (FICT) report and dealt with the flags issue itself.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): To be clear again, a point of order should be a point of order. [Interruption.]

Members, as I indicated earlier, I will manage the debate from here. A Member who raises a point of order probably should not illustrate the fact that it is not a point of order by answering their question as soon as they have asked it. I say that respectfully and appeal to Members, in the interests of good order, to stick to raising points of order that are points of order.

Mr Burrows: They are not minor drafting differences. There is genuinely abusive conduct, which is wrong, and there is the ordinary distress and discomfort that can come from everyday conversation.

The former is clearly wrong; the latter happens every day around our country, particularly with people who have parental responsibility. I repeat: a parent who wants to speak freely and in the best interests of their children, in this world where children are fed a diet of nonsense on social media and other things that are damaging to them, would require a KC at the kitchen table. That is wrong. They do not have access to the professional draftspeople that Ms Bradshaw interjected about.

The average citizen, parent, carer, guardian and coach in this country does not have access to the KC advice of the Christian Institute or the drafters in the Assembly. They are trying to navigate life's challenges the best they can and in the best interests of their children. This Bill puts them at genuine risk of investigation, at least — a knock on the door. What happens in those cases? A marker is put against them for vetting, social services get involved and they are told, "You've been investigated for misgendering your child". This is serious stuff. Simply rolling your eyes, objecting and saying, "It's not my intent" does not cut it.

Clause 4 defines "conversion therapy" as:

The problem is that coaching and instruction are the bedrock of parenting and pastoral work. They are a far cry from some of the behaviours that are being described, such as electric shock treatment, imprisonment, putting someone in a broom cupboard, berating someone or sending someone to a boot camp to be converted. Those behaviours are clearly wrong and are already criminal offences. One lobby group said to me, "Jon, do you not realise that, in parts of the world, there are people who are subjected to corrective rape? That is why this is important". I do not know whether that happens in Northern Ireland, but that is astonishing. If someone was subjected to false imprisonment or corrective rape, the perpetrator would not be prosecuted under this Bill; they would be prosecuted under serious existing legislation that has sentences of up to life imprisonment.

When we say that the legislation is needed to deal with such cases as false imprisonment, corrective rape or electric shock treatment, there is always a danger that the public will think that, unless we pass the Bill, there will remain an existing gap in the law that is not being catered for. Those things are already criminal offences. It is important that everybody who is listening to the debate knows that they are not awaiting protections from those offences through the Bill — that they have those protections through the existing justice system. This is dangerous drafting and messaging.

Under clause 1, there is no requirement that counselling, coaching or instruction be coercive or abusive — none. The prosecution would have to establish an intention to change or suppress and to establish the psychological harm that resulted, even though it is at a low level. However, it would not have to establish any intention to cause harm or any recklessness as to whether harm was caused. No intent whatsoever is required to cause harm. Even someone acting in what they believe to be the best interests of their child or friend would be liable for prosecution under the Bill. I say it again — it is unchallengeable, and I note that the Member is not jumping up to intervene: there is no necessity to establish any intention to cause harm or even recklessness around causing harm.

Mr Tennyson: Will the Member give way?

Mr Burrows: If you can find it, please point it out.

Mr Tennyson: No, because the mens rea in the Bill relates to intent to suppress or change sexual orientation or gender identity. The Member would struggle to point to a piece of criminal legislation that includes two mental elements rather than one. Typically, in such cases as domestic abuse, where the test is recklessness as to harm caused or likelihood of harm being caused, there is no requirement that harm need to have been caused. That is the test in this Bill, and it is more robust and to a higher standard.

Mr Burrows: No. The majority of such legislation refers to the intent to cause the harm or the recklessness to do so. Under this Bill, you could be acting with absolute nobility of intent — in the best interests of your child and to try to intervene to protect, support, help, nurture and guide — and you would be liable for prosecution. Even if the prosecution were to accept that you were trying to do what was in the best interests of your child, you would still be liable to receive a knock on the door and a conviction. The Member cannot airbrush that away with his rather weak intervention. He cannot point to a single part of the Bill that contradicts what I am saying.

Of course, we could amend it again and again, but it gets to the point of there being so many amendments that the Bill should be disposed of, and we should start again. As I said yesterday, I will work on the flags Bill. I am open to working with the Alliance Party to get Bills that are workable and commonsensical.

Mr Frew: I thank the Member for giving way. It annoys me, at times, when Members talk about a Bill being badly drafted. The intervention that the Member just took from the Bill sponsor explains and illustrates perfectly that the instructions that were given to the Bill Office and the drafters were right. It is not the drafters' fault. They follow the instructions of the Bill sponsor, and this is very clearly Eóin Tennyson's Bill. Just like yesterday, Ms Paula Bradshaw's Bill was her Bill with regard to the display of flags. It is not fair on the Bill Office and anyone who works in the drafting of legislation when we say that things are badly drafted just because we do not agree with the content.

Mr Burrows: That is a fair point, well made.

One of the gravest dangers in the Bill is in regard to parenting and the hazards for parenting. Clause 5, "Coercive behaviour", refers to "regulating or monitoring" someone's "day-to-day activities", "restricting" their "freedom of action" or making them feel "punished". The "behaviour" must occur "on two or more occasions". We see the stark difference between legislation that is designed to deal with a domestic setting and domestic abuse and coercive control and legislation that affects how you deal with children. The very behaviours that the Bill describes as coercive behaviours are actually the bread and butter of parenting — regulating or monitoring someone's day-to-day activities. Not only can a parent do those things, but under children's legislation, a parent is under an absolute duty to regulate and monitor their children's day-to-day activity, because if they do not, they are liable to the offence of child abandonment, exposure to unnecessary danger and a range of other offences.

The Bill seems to turn on its head the positive obligation that a parent has to monitor their child's everyday activity. Not enough parents monitoring the day-to-day activities of their children means we have a world where children are going into school years behind their milestones, their minds affected permanently by the impact of screens and increasingly using American language at the age of four or five such as "trunk" or "garbage" because they are listening to and watching so much online.

Mr Tennyson: Will the Member give way?

Mr Burrows: I will.

Mr Tennyson: Can the Member help me with the point that he is trying to make? In what circumstances or in what world would a parent disciplining their child in a reasonable way, restricting their access to their phone or social media, preventing the child from being exposed to inappropriate material, be deemed to be motivated by an intent to change or suppress the sexual orientation or gender identity of that child? Again, we are falling into the trap of looking at individual lines in the Bill and not at the Bill in its totality, which are the tests that need to be met.

Mr Burrows: I make no apology for line-by-line, forensic, penetrating scrutiny of the Member's Bill, which could result in my constituents and the people of this country being prosecuted.

Mr Brett: I thank the Member for giving way. It is important to be accurate with the legislation that is before us. In clause 5(1)(c), coercive behaviour means:

and that is the very point that the Member just articulated, and an issue that he has read into the record.

Clause 8 states:

— none of which is defined anywhere, so the Member is completely correct in the points that he has just read into the record.

Mr Burrows: This Bill makes honest, honourable parenting hazardous; it is as simple as that. It leaves to the discretion of the police, the prosecutorial system and the courts whether the case should be brought to court. It is absolutely astonishing. It is also, I am afraid, a missed opportunity to deal with the real issues that the Bill sponsor could have dealt with.

If a parent were to advise a gender-distressed child to wait, to think again, to not watch certain things online and to not keep certain company, would that parent now be liable, no matter the age of the child, to criminal investigation and prosecution merely on the basis that, in response to the advice, the child is distressed? Every day of term, there are children in schools who become dysregulated. I see them: when a teacher takes an iPad from them, they are distressed; that is not a crime. Ms Mulholland rolled her eyes when I said that good parenting or good teaching —

Ms Ennis: Will the Member give way?

Mr Burrows: — I will in a second — sometimes leads to someone being distressed. She looked at me in horror. Children sometimes become distressed by legitimate interventions such as taking an iPad off them. That is why the test should be about abusiveness and serious harm, not just distress, which children grow up feeling.

I will give way to the Member.

Ms Ennis: Thank you, Mr Burrows. You said that you did line-by-line scrutiny of the Bill. Why do you keep conflating — deliberately, in my opinion — normal parenting practices with an attempt to change the child's sexuality? You keep bringing up normal, everyday situations that a parent will be in as part of their parenting and conflating them with an attempt to change their child's sexuality. When you are disciplining a child for spending too much time on their iPad, the intent is not to change their sexuality. Other Members are slightly aghast at that, coming from somebody who claims to have done so much line-by-line scrutiny of the Bill.

Mr Burrows: I have done that scrutiny. The loose language, the low thresholds and the absolute subjectivity of many of the definitions would create grave uncertainty and would leave people liable to criminal investigation. Criminal law should be precise and clear; the Bill is not. I make no apology for testing the criminal law.

I will make this point: day in, day out, I speak to people in the Catholic/nationalist/republican community who say, "Who in that Chamber" — from the other side of the House — "is speaking for me about the real concerns with these issues?" It is almost as though nobody wants to represent them. I am happy to represent them, because, frankly, I do not care what their religion is. I am happy to stand for them today — those who, with the best of intentions, might want to give their children some upbringing without fearing a knock on the door.

Ms Ennis: You know what you are at.

Mr Burrows: Thank you for that.

Clause 7 protects the expression of beliefs or opinions only when someone is not seeking to direct the other person towards a particular orientation or identity, yet guidance is precisely what parents, counsellors and religious leaders often provide. Guidance. The Bill has zero protections. Again, I wait for the Bill sponsor — I am always happy to be corrected when I am wrong — to point out to me the protections and exemptions for parents, for pastoral care or for any faith-based organisation. I invite the Member to intervene.

Mr Tennyson: I am happy to repeat myself.

The safeguards in the Bill are these: the individual must be operating with intent; there must be either a formal course of therapy or a coercive course of behaviour consistent with the definition employed in domestic abuse law; there must be a specific, identified victim; and the behaviour must result in actual harm — not recklessness as to causing harm or the likelihood that harm will be caused, but actual harm. The "harm" concept is consistent with that employed in respect of domestic abuse and similar to that employed in respect of stalking and harassment. Those concepts operate successfully in the courts today. The courts are able to distinguish between reasonable interaction and unreasonable and unsafe interaction.

There is an additional safeguard in the form of a reasonable person test. Again, that test in law is almost as old as criminal law itself. It is present in domestic abuse, stalking and harassment legislation, in the Justice (Sexual Offences and Trafficking Victims) Act 2022 and in civil law. A reasonable person test is a well-established concept and can be used in the unlikely scenario that some circumstance that we have not considered in the Chamber today meets all four tests in the legislation. That is extremely unlikely. There are, therefore, robust safeguards, if Mr Burrows would like to take the time to acquaint himself with them.

Mr Burrows: I give way to Mr Lyons.

Mr Lyons: I appreciate the Member's giving way. I want to come back on that point because the Bill sponsor is fundamentally wrong on two of the issues that he has just addressed. He said that there needs to be a formal course of therapy. That exists nowhere in the legislation. Read what it says in clause 4. It does not say that there needs to be a formal course of therapy. That is why private conversations and parental rights issues are invoked here. Secondly, he says that it needs to be a specific, identifiable individual. Again, nowhere in the legislation does it say that. It does not matter how often he puts his hands up in the air; it does not say that in the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Mr Burrows, before you come back on that, I remind Members — in the interests of making progress, I might come back to this as we go through the evening — for everyone's benefit, that the Second Stage is not line-by-line scrutiny of the Bill. The Second Stage, as Members should know, is about the general principles of the Bill. I ask Members to be mindful of that as we move through this evening so that I do not have to remind them and to leave the line-by-line scrutiny to Consideration Stage.

Mr Burrows: I respect the Deputy Speaker's judgement on that.

The totality of the fatal flaws, line by line, means that the principles are upended. On the face of it, the Bill looks to protect people, but it actually exposes them to harm.

Mr Brett: I appreciate the Member's giving way. In response to the Bill sponsor's remarks that an alleged defendant would need to have intended to cause harm, I cannot find a line anywhere in clause 1 that states that the alleged defendant would, as Mr Tennyson claims, need to have intended to cause harm. Can Mr Burrows find that, because I certainly cannot?

Mr Burrows: I thank the Member for the intervention. For absolute clarity for Hansard, for the people watching and for everyone in the Chamber, there is absolutely no requirement in the Bill — none whatsoever — for an intention to cause harm or even recklessness that caused harm. It does not exist — nada, nil, zilch. [Inaudible.]

Mr Burrows: That is a fundamental principle, but there is zero requirement; it does not exist.

The Member is chuntering, but does he want to make an intervention?

Mr Tennyson: I am happy to intervene if the Member wants to take an intervention. To be clear, when we were developing the Bill, we looked at having two intent tests: an intent to change and suppress sexual orientation or gender identity; and an intent to cause harm. The problem is that mens rea — a person's mental state when they are undertaking an offence — is so difficult to prove that proving it for two offences would be nigh on impossible, so there is one intent test in the Bill. However, that is why we have included a harm threshold, which is that actual harm has been caused. Whether the perpetrator intended to cause harm is irrelevant. They intended to undertake conversion practice, and they caused harm to the victim, which is a higher, not lower test than the one to which the Member is referring.

In relation to the Minister's remarks, the use of the word "therapy" is very deliberate. Again, we consulted on the use of the words "provision of a service". The word "therapy" was selected because it added clarity to the Bill on the nature of the services that we were referring to. "Therapy", "counselling", "coaching or instructing" and "purported treatment" all come under the banner of the term "therapy", and there would have to be an assessment. I have said that, if Members want clarity on those issues, I am open to engaging with them. However, none of that touches on the principles of the Bill, which are what we should be discussing at Second Stage today.

Mr Burrows: We now turn to consent, which is a very important principle. Consent is an issue that is complex and contested. For example, there are things in law that you can consent to and things that you cannot. This will upset some Members, but criminal law sets a threshold that means that you can consent to a very minor assault. You can have a slapping-the-hand competition, and there is protection in law that you can consent to minor assaults. However, there is a degree of assault that you are not allowed to consent to; +t free and fairly given consent. All kinds of vulnerable people are unable to give free and fair consent. The Bill provides no defence whatsoever for the competent adult who seeks support. Consent is expressly not a defence. The competent adult who seeks counselling, support, prayer and pastoral assistance or reverts to a parent for guidance or help cannot provide the consent that would enable the pastoral support, parenting or guidance to be given.

The Member has talked a lot about suppression. The unintended consequence of the Bill is that for someone seeking help with something that they are confused or conflicted about — their morals, beliefs or sense of being are completely conflicted, and they need help to deal with that — there is a chill factor to seeking that help and a chill factor to giving the help. There is zero exemption for a competent adult to engage in any form of support, even if they give their express consent. If the Bill passes, my advice would be that anybody who is asked to give that help — pastoral assistance, prayer, teaching or parenting — should say that they cannot give it or make sure that they have the best legal insurance because they might need a KC to give it. If they are a parent, they should record it. Let us think about that. Parents would have to record a conversation at the kitchen table in case it ended up in litigation. Nobody can consent to having a conversation about things that are deeply challenging to them. That is not good law; it is bad law. There is that fatally flawed principle running through the Bill.

The professional exemptions are exceptionally narrow, and they are listed. Furthermore, the Bill is not in any sense ready, given the qualitative engagement that has taken place. Only 10 people were interviewed, albeit they are 10 people who should be heard. The PSNI was unable to give costings, and the costings could be vast. The equality assessment has not been conducted.

I come to the conclusion of my speech. Rejecting the Bill does not mean rejecting compassion or protection. It does not mean that you are close-minded, bigoted or intolerant; it might actually mean quite the opposite. The Bill regulates the day-to-day activities of parents. It makes acting even in the best interests of your child, with the most noble intent to safeguard your child, liable to criminal prosecution. It makes good parenting something that risks a knock on the door and having to rely on a defence. It has absolutely no requirement, at any stage, for any intent to cause harm or recklessness when the harm is caused. The thresholds for the impact on anyone are extremely low, some of the lowest that I have seen in any proposed criminal law: alarm, distress or fear. When you are talking in particular about children, those are normal emotions that a child will feel throughout the course of their childhood. The Bill sponsor has deliberately omitted the need for any abuse or serious harm, and it is, therefore, exceptionally different from the Westminster legislation.

The historical experience of people who have a gay orientation in our country has not always been good. I watched a film about Alan Turing, who was a hero to our country, and he was treated abysmally. Those who have persecuted, bullied and harassed people because of their sexual orientation are wrong, and I mean that from the bottom of my heart. There is no place for it. I have no time for hate crime in any shape or form, but this Bill is not the answer. It would make good parenting hazardous and freedom of expression dangerous, and I therefore urge everybody to vote against it at Second Stage.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The sitting will continue until 10.30 pm. I therefore propose, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the sitting until 6.00 pm. When we return, the next Member called to speak on the Bill will be Mark Durkan.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Good evening, Members. I have an announcement. I want to inform you that the Speaker has been notified by the nominating officer for Sinn Féin that Nicola Brogan has replaced Cathy Mason as Deputy Chairperson of the Committee for Communities with immediate effect.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I advise Members that there are probably at least 20 Members to speak before we even get to the Minister or the Bill sponsor. You can pass those sweets around, Stewart. [Laughter.]

I think that everybody will need them.

Mr Durkan: I rise to support the principles of the Conversion Practices (Criminalisation) Bill. I do so because there is a very simple principle at the heart of the debate, which is this: there is nothing wrong with being gay. There is nothing to cure and nothing to fix. You cannot pray the gay away. That last line may sound a bit blunt, but bluntness is necessary when we are talking about a practice that has caused real harm to real people.

The Bill creates offences around conversion therapy, coercive conversion behaviour and removing someone from Northern Ireland for conversion practices. Crucially, those offences are constructed around "intent" and "harm", not around what someone privately believes. That distinction matters enormously. Government cannot legislate for what a Church believes, and nor should it. It cannot legislate for what a person believes, and nor should it. The Assembly —.

Mr Brett: Will the Member give way on that point?

Mr Durkan: Certainly, I will give way.

Mr Brett: That is literally what the draft legislation is trying to do: to legislate for what a person believes. If you read the Bill, you see that it refers to the gender that a person believes themselves to be. You say that we cannot legislate for what someone believes, but that is literally what you have just stood up and said that you would support.

Mr Durkan: I thank the Member for his constructive intervention.

The Assembly should not attempt to police people's prayers, feelings or beliefs. I am a person of faith. I understand the importance that prayer, pastoral support and conversations about faith can have in people's lives. However, we need to distinguish between praying for someone and using prayer as an instrument by which to change them. The law cannot, and should not, look into the heart of a parent who is praying privately for their child. It should not criminalise a minister who is expressing a religious belief. It should not create a criminal offence when a young person goes to a priest, pastor or faith leader and asks to talk about their sexuality, identity or faith. Importantly, the Bill does not do that. Clause 7 specifically provides that there is no intent to change or suppress where somebody is simply expressing beliefs or opinions without directing another person towards a particular sexual orientation or gender identity.

Mr Lyons: Will the Member give way on that point?

Mr Durkan: Sorry, Minister. I am keen to make progress, and not just in the debate. Some people are opposed to the progress of this particular draft legislation and are, perhaps, opposed to progress full stop. Everyone will have ample opportunity to address points that I make, and I am sure that they will take that opportunity. We have 20 more Members who wish to speak, and there may be a few more added to the list.

The explanatory memorandum is equally explicit that the purpose of the Bill is not to criminalise moral or religious beliefs but to deal with conduct that crosses the line from expression into directive practices, so when people ask, "Will this criminalise prayer?", the answer is this: read the Bill. A mother who is praying for her child is not committing an offence because she is praying. A minister who is explaining the teaching of their Church is not committing an offence simply because someone disagrees with that teaching. A conversation about sexuality or gender identity is not automatically conversion therapy. The question is about what you are doing to that person, why you are doing it and whether you are deliberately trying to direct them away from who they are.

Mr Kingston: Will the Member take a point?

Mr Durkan: I am sorry; I will not take any further interventions from the DUP today.

That is the tightrope that we have to walk: protecting freedom of religion and expression while refusing to allow those freedoms to become a shield behind which coercion and harm can hide. Prayer does not become immune from scrutiny simply because we call it "prayer". If prayer is weaponised as part of a deliberate programme to shame, frighten, humiliate or coerce someone into changing or suppressing their sexuality, we are no longer talking about someone's private religious belief; we are talking about conduct directed at another human being.

The evidence is deeply uncomfortable. One survivor described one-to-one prayer, Bible study and teaching designed to persuade him that his homosexuality was wrong. He described the experience as reinforcing shame and leaving him isolated and completely destroyed in his faith. That is the difference. Have your beliefs — they are important — but do not use prayer to frighten another person, do not use scripture to humiliate them, do not use your faith to coerce them and do not tell me that protecting someone from harm is an attack on Christianity when scripture itself tells us:

You can hold and express a belief and you can pray, but you cannot pray the gay away, and you certainly should not be permitted to harm someone by trying.

None of this is new to the House. In a previous mandate, I questioned the then Communities Minister, Deirdre Hargey, about progress towards banning conversion therapy, and she committed to bringing forward draft legislation. I supported the Minister at the time and understood entirely when she said that she did not want to rush; that research was needed to establish how widespread the practice was; that up-to-date information was required; and, importantly, that she did not want loopholes that would allow the practice to continue. I responded that day by saying that Executives can sometimes be good at announcing strategies and intention to legislate but not so good when it comes to delivering them. I urged the Minister to move quickly while ensuring that those loopholes were closed. Here we are, five and a half years later, and we are fairly entitled to ask: what happened? Sinn Féin held the Communities Ministry then. Its Minister committed to introducing legislation and said that it would be ready to come before the House by the end of that mandate, but it never came.

In April 2021, the Ulster Unionist Party brought a debate — Mr Tennyson mentioned it earlier — on banning conversion therapy in all its forms. The motion noted that such therapy had been rejected by medical professionals and that it was fundamentally wrong. Again, what changed? Many of the Members who voted in favour of that motion still sit on the UUP Benches — not right now, right enough. [Laughter.]

I wonder whether they will do the right thing today and support the passage of this legislation to the next stage, or will they just follow the latest leader?

The SDLP did not just allow this issue to disappear. After we entered opposition in June 2024, we brought a motion to the Assembly deploring the fact that these harmful practices remained legal, reaffirming support for an effective ban and calling for legislation before the end of the mandate. During that debate, we were challenged directly about prayer and counselling. My answer then is my answer now: this is not about banning pastoral care or stopping an individual from praying with their religious leader.

Two years later, we finally have legislation before us, and I commend Mr Tennyson for bringing it forward. I do not pretend for a second that every clause is beyond scrutiny or incapable of being improved. That is precisely what Committee Stage is for. We should listen seriously to faith communities, LGBT people of course, parents, clinicians, lawyers and, above all, those who have experienced conversion practices.

Mr McGrath: Will the Member give way?

Mr Durkan: Certainly.

Mr McGrath: If you agree that the practice should be banned, as the DUP says that it does because it believes that it is unhelpful to people and inhibits their development, and if there is a Bill to introduce such a ban, the way to protect and change that Bill is to pass it tonight and to look at it at Committee Stage. It would be odd to vote it out so that there is nothing for us to scrutinise, change, influence and perfect so that, at the end of the process, we would have something that protects everybody. Everybody in the House has said, and contributor after contributor from the DUP in the debate, has said that they understand the need for the Bill. It would be odd for a legislature to kick it out, rather than let it go to Committee Stage where there can be an attempt to perfect it, change it and have your influence on it.

Mr Durkan: If you were asking me that about any other party, I would probably say that I found it odd. However, when it comes to the DUP, I am not quite sure that I find anything odd at all. [Interruption.]

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Order. The Member has a right to be heard.

Mr Durkan: There may well be areas in which the Bill can be strengthened or clarified. However, I will not accept the argument that, just because it is difficult to draw a line, we should draw no line at all. Freedom of religion and expression matter, as does family life, of course, but so too does the freedom of an LGBT young person to grow up without being told that they are in some way defective, disordered or something to be cured. We can protect both, and I believe that the Bill makes a serious attempt to do exactly that. Can it be improved? I am sure that the Bill sponsor himself will acknowledge that perhaps it can. I and the SDLP will support the passage of the Bill today, and we look forward to working constructively in order to ensure that the legislation that ultimately emerges from the House is clear, proportionate and effective. We have discussed the issue for years. We have researched and debated it and we have promised action, but now is the time to act.

Miss Hargey: This is an important issue of personal dignity and equality and the urgent, undeniable need to completely ban the cruel, discredited and deeply harmful practice known as conversion therapy. Conversion therapy is an archaic practice rooted in intolerance in the absence of any medical or scientific evidence. That is precisely why it is so dangerous. It is also why, across these islands and internationally, there are moves to ban it.

I thank Eóin Tennyson for bringing forward this Member's Bill. Sinn Féin has been working and leading with others to bring forward legislation in this area, and we will engage constructively with the Member's Bill in order to ensure that it is fit for purpose and has the protections and human rights standards that are needed. Our message to the LGBTQ+ community across this island has always been absolute: you do not need to be fixed, because you are not broken. Yet, for far too long, vulnerable individuals, particularly young people, have been subjected to pseudopsychological and coercive practices and control designed to change, suppress or erase who they are. The Bill is about correcting that.

These practices are not therapies but a form of emotional trauma, a violation of basic human rights and an archaic relic of bigotry that has no place in a modern and compassionate society. The days of calling our LGBTQ+ community an abomination are over, and so too should be the days of harmful conversion practices. Our commitment to ending that abuse is not new and is a matter of record. When Sinn Féin held the Department for Communities portfolio, we did not sit on our hands. Indeed, in 2020, when the Department of Health stalled on the issue, it was our then Minister, Carál Ní Chuilín, who proactively stepped forward and committed her Department at that time to taking the official policy lead on developing a ban. We carried that momentum forward and declared these practices to be cruel and inhumane.

In my capacity in the Department, I directed DFC officials to begin the rigorous work necessary to draft a legislative ban. That included research that would create a baseline to establish the impact of these practices. That was important for drafting any legislation that would come. The research included hearing the lived experiences of those who had been impacted by those practices, and the proposer touched on those lived experiences in his consultation process. That is why the research was developed with direct engagement with the LGBTQ+ community alongside academic experts at Queen's University and Ulster University.

That brings us to the present. We have the opportunity to progress that important work. We welcome the Bill because it aims to tackle the harms of conversion practices. It sets clear criminal thresholds for those who attempt to suppress or change an individual's sexual orientation or gender identity through coercive behaviour. Let us be clear: the Bill is not about targeting family conversations or legitimate healthcare; it is about preventing harm and targeting coercion.

Mr Lyons: Will the Member take an intervention?

Miss Hargey: It explicitly includes a defence of reasonableness — I will give way in two minutes — to prevent unintended criminalisation, and we recognise that this is a complex area to legislate in.

Mr Lyons: I thank the Member for giving way. I believe that she is sincere in saying that that is what she believes the intent of the Bill to be. However, can she answer the questions that have been posed by Members on this side of the House about how those family conversations or pastoral conversations — things that are said in a public faith arena — would not fall under the auspices of the Bill? Mr Durkan would not take any interventions. He said that he wanted to work constructively with us, but he was not prepared to engage in debate with us. Can the Member tell us how that would not be under the auspices of the Bill? Nobody, including the Bill's sponsor, has been able to tell us why that would not be the case.

Miss Hargey: The thresholds that have to be met for a criminal conviction or a case to proceed are clearly set out in the legislation. If you were sincere about getting the answers, Minister, you would have met the Bill's sponsor over the summer when you had the opportunity to do so. Why did you wait until this stage to raise those considerations? Why did you not meet with Eóin and sift through those issues?

Mr Lyons: Will the Member give way?

Miss Hargey: Why ignore the issue? Yes, I will give way to you.

Mr Lyons: I was happy to meet the Member; in fact, at Hillsborough Castle — I am sure that the Member will be happy to confirm this — I was the first to ask for a meeting. I have just heard from my private office that the Member had suggested that it happen after recess, but we are already straight into the debate. I apologise to the Member for that oversight. I would have been happy to meet him.

I am being sincere on these issues. That is why I am speaking not in generalities but on the specifics of the legislation that is in front of us, and nobody on that side of the House is able to give me an answer.

Miss Hargey: If you are sincere, we will see whether you follow through and vote to allow the Bill to go to Committee Stage, where those things can be debated and legislation can be improved. I think that your intent is to knock out the legislation completely because you do not want it to progress. That is in the absence of your having brought anything forward, and you have already indicated that you will not do so in this mandate either.

Mr Lyons: Will the Member give way?

Miss Hargey: I have let you in twice, to be fair, and I know that you will come back anyway when you summarise.

It is important that the Bill move to Committee Stage, that we allow the proper scrutiny to ensure that it is robust and fit for purpose and where time is given to understand the complexities of the issue, as the Bill's sponsor outlined. He has also said that he would be happy to look at different abbreviations or changes, but the answer that I hear from the Benches on that side of the House is no. You just want to kill the Bill at this point. I imagine that there will be the numbers to vote the Bill through next week, but, if there is going to be a petition of concern, at least have the guts, if you are going to kill it at some point, to come out and say that, rather than spending hours pretending that you will really engage in the issues. If you were serious about it, you would allow it to go to Committee Stage so that the issues could be debated genuinely.

We will also be firm. We cannot allow religious sessions or pseudo-consensual frameworks to be used as shields for abuse. Safeguarding against abuse and coercive control — we are talking about coercive control and the impact that that has — must be paramount, be that in legislation or across our society and our communities.

We in the Assembly have the chance to deliver a ban that protects people from harmful coercive practices and behaviours, which have been rightly condemned and highlighted by the Human Rights Commission, Amnesty International, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and, importantly, the victims themselves. Listening to the victims of those practices is key. It is not just those organisations and people; medical professionals, the World Psychiatric Association and the British Psychological Society all point to conversion therapy as fundamentally ineffective, highly dangerous and entirely unscientific.

I say this to the survivors who carry lifelong trauma from those practices and to the activists who have fought for years to see this day: we see you, we hear you, and we stand with you. Let us vote for the Bill to progress to Committee Stage and work to achieve legislation that ends that cruelty and helps to build a society that is rooted in safety, equality and, importantly, respect for everyone.

Mr Martin: As we get further into the debate, I concur with some of my colleagues on this side of the House. My colleague from Upper Bann said at the start of the debate that it should be respectful. I will add to that and say that it should be honest and brave.

Some of the crimes that Mr Tennyson, the Bill sponsor, highlighted at the start of his contribution are heinous, but I point out that they are covered by current law. I acknowledge the Bill sponsor's emotionality at the beginning of the debate. He clearly believes in the Bill very deeply. Of course, that does not make it right, but I wish to acknowledge it.

I will pick up on a few comments that Members have made. With the exception of Mr Tennyson, perhaps, there has not been a propensity to take interventions from those on this side of the House. The Sinn Féin Member for Mid Ulster, for example, said much earlier in the debate that an intent to suppress or change identity is transphobic. She then left the Chamber. Perhaps she is the last person to know that her party, Sinn Féin, is currently banned from all Pride protests because of Pride's view that banning puberty blockers is in itself transphobic. That applies to the SDLP and Alliance as well, I believe. Those three parties should perhaps reflect on that.

I was disappointed that the SDLP Member for Foyle did not take any interventions. At the start of his contribution, he said that same-sex relationships were fine and so forth. He then used the phrase "pray the gay away", saying that that idea was wrong and so forth. I am happy to give way to the Member if he can tell us whether he has ever heard the phrase, "transing the gay away". No? OK. It is useful to know this stuff before we come in. I will give the Member a quote. It is a common phrase among gay men and women who are gender-critical. The phrase "transing the gay away" is about people who went to, for example, the Tavistock Gender Identity Development Service (GIDS) in England. Dr Matt Bristow, a doctor who was a former clinician at Tavistock, came to believe that that gender reassignment clinic was providing "conversion therapy for gay kids". The Member used the phrase "pray the gay away", but the phrase "transing the gay away" is about the fact that a lot of gay people believe that some of the GIDS stuff that went on — it was stopped because of the Cass report — was about eradicating gay people, because it affirmed them as trans. That clinician called that "conversion therapy".

I will quote Stella O'Malley, whom my colleague from Upper Bann mentioned. She heads up an organisation called Genspect. She said:

Do not worry, Stella. Some of us have, certainly those of us on this side of the House.

I will also pick up on a comment from the Member for North Antrim, who referenced Alan Turing earlier. For those who are not aware, Alan Turing was a mathematician at the start of the Second World War and one of four people responsible for breaking the Enigma code. I apologise to any Polish folk who are watching for my pronunciation of the names of the three other heroes: Rejewski, Rózycki and Zygalski. They, along with Alan Turing, were responsible for ensuring that this country had food during the Second World War. Alan Turing was gay, but he was a hero. He was treated shamefully after the war. Thankfully, however, any crimes that he committed — in the view of the Government of the time — are no longer illegal, and rightly so.

I will speak about the initial research that was commissioned by LGBT-sector organisations and funded by former Minister Hargey of Sinn Féin. I will not go over all the stuff that my colleague from Upper Bann mentioned, as she covered it pretty well in her remarks. That study was fairly ambitious. It was supposed to establish how prevalent harmful practices were in Northern Ireland and examine the outcomes for the people affected. As my colleague mentioned, the researchers managed to find 10 people to interview. They had had a target of 15. By January 2023, there were no further interviews conducted. There are no research figures for the number of LGBT people in Northern Ireland, but, taking the figures for England and Wales and reading them across, there may be about 61,000 LGBTQI+ folks here. When we look at the sample on which the Bill is based — 10 — we see that we would be creating a new criminal offence based on a sample of 0·0167% of the Northern Ireland population. For academic research that is to be relied on to inform directly the creation of a new criminal offence, which is what we are talking about, that sample is incredibly thin. In fact, I suggest that it does not even meet the cigarette paper standard.

The accounts of some of those 10 people describe very distressing experiences. No one on this side of the House who opposes the Bill today would agree with the practices that they describe. Distressing is not synonymous with criminal, however, and nor is disagreement, religious teaching, poor professional practice or unwanted medical opinion. Criminal law requires clear definitions. We have talked at length about that today. A new offence must establish precisely what behaviour is prohibited. Otherwise, there is a risk of sweeping into the criminal sphere legitimate conversations, parental guidance, religious expression and professional disagreement. Based on my understanding, conducting 10 interviews does not establish such a prevalence.

There were 59,000 domestic abuse crimes from 2022 to 2025 in Northern Ireland. Some of the provisions in the Bill that its sponsor has talked about come from some of that law, and we have talked at length about that as well. For stalking, which has also been mentioned in the debate, the figure is 498 crimes. Given that number of crimes, it is completely legitimate to have legislation to deal with those offences. Is it legitimate to legislate for 10 that took place over a longer period?

I have a question for the Bill sponsor, and I am happy to give him the Floor. It is about his consultation. I am not sure whether he has it in front of him. On page 4, table 1 shows respondents by type. I am happy to read out the information so that he can give me an answer. It states that there were 1,291 responses to his consultation. How many of those individual respondents live in Northern Ireland?

Mr Tennyson: The Member will be aware, because he has read the consultation document, that we did not ask individual respondents for their address. That was intentional, because those with lived experience of conversion practice in particular find even talking about their experience to be so traumatic that they wanted to have guarantees of anonymity. It is not where the consultation respondents live that is important — we have the details of the organisations that responded. It is the themes and issues that were raised that are important, so that we can test those in the scrutiny of the Bill.

The study that the Member referenced in the arguments that he made about prevalence was intended to explore the nature of conversion practice, not identify prevalence. We know from the UK Government survey, which is a separate piece of research, that 9% of LGBT people in Northern Ireland have been offered conversion practice, that 3% have undergone conversion practice and that that pattern is consistent in the 16-to-65 age group, showing that it is not a small issue or a historical issue. Even if that were the case, the harm is so great that that would not mean that the Assembly should ignore it.

Mr Martin: I thank the Member for his response. To be absolutely clear, I accept his comments about people perhaps not wanting to be identified specifically, but let me develop that argument a little bit. He could have asked, for example, "Do you live in Northern Ireland, the Republic of Ireland, England, Scotland or Wales?" and identified how many people who responded to his consultation are from Northern Ireland. It is fair to say that we can now assume, from his response, that we have no way of knowing whether the vast majority of people who responded to the consultation actually live in Northern Ireland, which is where we are talking about the legislation taking effect.

I will stay on the supporting evidence for a moment.

Ms Mulholland: Will the Member give way?

Mr Martin: Yes, of course.

Ms Mulholland: I hear your point about the size of the dataset and the fact that it is such a small pool. Given that it is such a small pool, however, surely the Bill will not have as big an impact as the Member and his colleagues are saying it will. If the pool that might be impacted on is so small, how will the Bill have the ripple effect and reach that Members are catastrophising about and telling us it will?

Mr Martin: I thank the Member for her intervention. The Member is correct that the number that we are talking about is incredibly small — much too small, I think, to give cause for legislation, but I will park that for a second. However, I think that those who are listening to the debate today have understood — I have certainly understood it — that what we are talking about is the overreach that a piece of legislation that could well affect only a tiny number of people will have in this country.

Mr Brett: Will the Member give way?

Mr Martin: I will give way to my colleague in a second.

We have talked at length about the impact that this could have on parents, therapists, clinicians, ministers, pastors and so forth. We are talking about a piece of legislation that covers a very specific area — one that is way smaller than domestic abuse legislation or even stalking legislation — but that has massive overreach.

Mr Brett: I appreciate the Member's giving way. It is disappointing that that response was given to you, because it has been made abundantly clear, from these Benches, where the concerns come from. It is because, for the first time in the history of a Western democracy, we have an attempt to create primary legislation that creates the new term "gender identity", which has never been defined. The points that Members from these Benches continue to make is that people are free to describe themselves however they choose but that subjective self-description cannot become the basis on which another citizen is investigated, prosecuted and potentially jailed without a jury trial, as proposed by the Alliance Party.

Mr Martin: I completely agree with my colleague. I will come on to that later in my comments.

Mr Lyons: I am grateful to the Member for giving way. The point that the Member for North Antrim just made shows the merry-go-round that we are on today. The 10 people about whom we are talking do not represent the area of concern for us in how the legislation does what it should not intend to do. We want to make sure that, if people are mistreated, if they are abused or if they are coerced into behaviour that is clearly wrong, the people who have done that are prosecuted. However, our concern is not with that, and it is deeply concerning that someone who, to be fair to her, has been here for most of the debate still does not get that we are not talking about individuals who are facing real harm. It is the unintended consequences that we are worried about. I despair at the nature of this debate if that still has not been made clear to some Members in the Chamber.

Mr Martin: I agree with the Minister, and as I said, I will come on to those aspects later. There are some very specific points that I will deal with this evening, but it is the general overreach that I think is very concerning, as are some specific elements of it.

Mrs Cameron: I appreciate the Member's giving way in what is a really important debate. I do not know whether the Member is aware, but a statement has come from the Equality Commission during the debate. It is clear that the Bill needs scrutiny and that it must comply with human rights law. The Equality Commission says in its statement that actions on this:

That is exactly what the Bill, as it is, does. Therefore, is the Bill sponsor not wrong to suggest that the Equality Commission is content with the Bill?

Mr Martin: I think that the Member has answered her own question. What the Equality Commission has said is very interesting, especially in the context of what we are discussing. The timing is indeed very interesting.

I want to stay on the supporting evidence for the Member's Bill for a moment, and I promise that I will then get on to some of the clauses. I point the Bill sponsor to paragraph 15 of his EFM, where he refers to an Amnesty International report. That paragraph states:

The report was called 'A Growing Threat: the Anti-rights Movement in the UK.' It identified 117 dangerous organisations that Amnesty characterised as part of an anti-rights movement. It argued that those organisations were connected through campaigns and objectives that, in Amnesty's view and, I suspect, the Bill sponsor's view, sought to restrict rights relating to women, LGBT+ people and other groups. A particularly controversial section classified gender-critical organisations as part of the supposed anti-rights movement. Groups named or discussed included Children of Transitioners; Trans Widows’ Voices; For Women Scotland; the Gay Men’s Network; Genspect; The Lesbian Project; Lesbian Strength; the LGB Alliance; the LGB Alliance in Wales; Liberal Voice for Women; Safe Schools Alliance; Seen in Journalism, which is an excellent site, and if you are not following it on Twitter, you probably should; Sex Matters; Thoughtful Therapists; Transgender Trend; Women’s Workshop; the Women’s Rights Network; and Beira’s Place.

Beira’s Place is a sexual violence support centre for women, set up by J K Rowling. It supports women who have been sexually abused. The report that Mr Tennyson has cited in his EFM — that excellent report by Amnesty — put Beira’s Place on that list of 117 dangerous organisations that Amnesty and, I suppose, the Bill sponsor support as being characterised as part of an anti-rights movement. I think that it is appalling that Beira’s Place and others made the list. The report also included Christian organisations, including CARE, the Christian Institute, the Evangelical Alliance and others, which strongly objected to being characterised as anti-rights.

Mr Brett: Will the Member give way?

Mr Martin: I will indeed.

Mr Brett: Can the Member familiarise the House again with the work of CARE? It is my understanding that it helped to draft and pass landmark legislation in the House that focused on tackling human trafficking here in Northern Ireland. Any attempt to slur that organisation bears no resemblance to fact or reality.

Mr Martin: I thank the Member for his intervention. I am more than happy to speak for a moment on CARE. It was just one of the Christian organisations cited in the 117. I read out the others, some of which the Bill sponsor might identify as "progressive". However, CARE is a Christian lobbying organisation, which, as the Member rightly pointed out, pioneered the human trafficking legislation from about 10 years ago.

The list that Amnesty International came out with, and which the Bill sponsor has put in the EFM as supporting evidence, went up on 8 July. It was then removed within 48 hours. Amnesty was forced to apologise, was forced to apologise again, and, eventually, said that the document should never have been published. That document — widely discredited, widely disowned and widely disgraced — remains as evidence in the EFM, with a list that cites a sexual abuse support centre for women as one of the most dangerous organisations in the UK.

I will move on to the Bill. I will talk about competence in relation to clause 2(1)(b). Following the Supreme Court ruling in the case of For Women Scotland, the legal meaning and operation of "sex", "gender" and "gender reassignment", and some aspects that relate to Northern Ireland, are contested. I expect that the Member would accept that. The Equality Commission has sought some level of judicial clarification, because of the interaction between the Sex Discrimination (Northern Ireland) Order 1976 and article 2 of the Windsor framework. We are yet to see that, but it may, perhaps, emerge at some point. I think that the Bill sponsor clarified this earlier, so he will have to forgive me if I am drifting, but I do not believe that the Equality Commission has formally endorsed the Bill as drafted. I am happy to pose that as a question.

Mr Tennyson: No.

Mr Martin: He said no. That is fine; I will accept that. Will he accept written advice or a submission from the Equality Commission, if it publishes such advice?

Mr Tennyson: Yes.

Mr Martin: OK.

The Bill creates criminal offences based on — we have had this phrase a couple of times today when referring to the Bill — gender identity, especially regarding the Supreme Court ruling. What is the precise legal meaning of "gender identity" in the Bill? How many gender identities does it cover? I am not going to ask the sponsor to list them all or to interact in that way, because I think that we have covered that. I will move on. It would be fair to say that, in the area of gender identity, there are a range of views — in fact, there are a range of views in the House — but there is not a range of views from the Supreme Court. It has made it clear how it feels about that.

Mr Tennyson stated earlier that it is not about pitching LGBTQI+ people against Christians. On that, I firmly agree with him. In many ways, he has done the opposite, because a number of LGB groups have already come out in opposition to the drafting of the parallel Bill that is proceeding through Westminster. I have been inundated with correspondence and emails regarding the Bill. I could spend the next 45 minutes reading some of those out, but I am not going to — do not worry.

Mr Clarke: Go on.

Mr Martin: Do you want me to? I could read out emails from parents, teachers or ministers, all of whom are deeply concerned about the overreach in the Bill and what it could do. I am not going to cover again what colleagues have mentioned. However, I plan to read out a couple of emails.

These were sent to me by two gay men whom I know fairly well. I promised them that I would read them out, and I will do so because you will not hear these voices from Sinn Féin, the SDLP — only one SDLP Member is here — or Alliance today. They do not agree with them. I am illustrating that there are LGB people who completely oppose the Bill and what these folks are trying to push through. One of them wrote:

The second young man wrote:

Mr Tennyson: Will the Member give way?

Mr Martin: I will, once I have finished reading this out:

Mr Tennyson: I thank the Member for giving way. He has hit, perhaps not intentionally, on an important point, which is that the definitions and wording that we have employed in the legislation are deliberately universal in nature. So, just as someone would be criminalised if they were engaging in a course of conversion therapy against a gay person to turn them straight, equally, if you were coercing and forcing someone who is not transgender to become and identify as transgender, that course of coercion could well be captured if that is not the wish of the victim. I am not sure that that stacks up with the argument that the Member seems to be making and the accounts that he is reading into the record.

Mr Martin: "Transgender" does not appear in the Bill. The thoughts that I have just read out speak for themselves. I am glad to get those voices into the Chamber, because we will not hear them from the other side of the House, and those people exist.

I will give way to the Member.

Mr Frew: The Member has provoked an important intervention. Is the proposer of the Bill saying that a medical practitioner or someone else who gives a child puberty blockers is contravening this new law and committing the new offences? That should work both ways, even if the victim consented to the therapy. Is the proposer of the Bill saying that the person who gave a child puberty blockers would fall foul of the offence in clause 1 or maybe even clause 2?

Mr Martin: That is an excellent point from the Member for North Antrim.

I assure Members that I am not trying to push all the way through to 10.00 pm, but I will make a little progress. I want to move on to definitions and thresholds and to focus on young people and the education sector, which is probably the most crucial piece and the one that I am most concerned about regarding the Bill.

I take Members to clause 7, particularly on affirming that a pupil's self-identified gender identity is the only one that is protected, and I will expand on that. Exploring, for example, some level of social contagion, core morbidity, same-sex attraction or challenging or directing a child towards their biological sex could be framed as directing that child towards a particular gender identity and therefore, fall foul of the Bill. That engenders a range of individuals.

Clause 7 also states:

— the intent is to affirm the identity that the victim considers that they have or may have.

My question is this: why is that affirmation expressly safe, while exploratory therapy, watchful waiting or, perhaps, even assisting a distressed teenager would leave a person exposed? The affirmation referred to in clause 7(1)(c) can lead to a range of things. We have talked about it leading to puberty blockers, and it can lead to hormones and to surgery. Those things can cause irreversible, lifelong harm to individuals and their future.

Ruth Paterson, an eminent local solicitor, has already been mentioned. She said:

which is at clause 7(1)(c), would no doubt have:

There is a deep irony here. The affirming provision in clause 7(1)(c) is, in relation to puberty blockers and encouragement towards life-altering, destructive surgery — destroying the ability of young girls to have children in future — a defence in respect of the "intent to change or suppress" while opposing it is not. Did I read that wrong? Have I missed something? I will say it again for Members. Just let this sink in. The affirming provision in clause 7(1)(c) is, in relation to puberty blockers and encouragement towards life-altering, destructive surgery — destroying the ability of young girls to have children in future — a defence in the Bill, while opposing it is not. For that reason alone, I cannot see how the Bill will pass. If the SDLP Member for Foyle wants to know why Members on these Benches oppose it so vehemently, I have just explained it to him.

Under clause 2, would a parent commit an offence by grounding a 12-year-old who identified as transgender, where the purpose of that restriction was to prevent the child pursuing gender-affirming treatment? If not, which element of clause 2 excludes that conduct? Does the answer change if the parent says that their purpose is not to change a child's gender identity but to prevent them from accessing puberty blockers, because the parent considers the treatment inappropriate — I would agree with them — or, as things stand in Northern Ireland, illegal? That question remains unanswered. If the Bill progresses to Committee, perhaps it will be answered.

Mr Brett: Will the Member give way on that point?

Mr Martin: I will indeed.

Mr Brett: Clause 7 gets more concerning, because it specifies not just what the victim may consider their gender to be but what they consider it "is, or may be". The person does not even need to be certain, yet affirmation is expressly identified in the legislation. The sponsor's EFM describes it as somebody's:

Mr Martin: I completely agree with my colleague from North Belfast. That is exactly where the danger lies.

School counsellors and form tutors who took a cautious, exploratory approach with gender-distressed or gender-questioning pupils rather than affirming immediate social transition would risk being accused of conversion practices if the behaviour continued and they chose not to affirm or chose to challenge chosen gender.

The clause would no doubt have a chilling effect on relationships and sexuality education (RSE) in particular, and I can understand why. That may not be its intent, but it will. Teachers may choose to self-censor discussion about the Cass review findings, rapid-onset gender dysphoria, desistance rates — "desistance" refers to when kids who believe that they are trans realise that they are not — and sex-based rights in order to avoid complaints that they intended to suppress the victim's decided identity at that time.

Mrs Erskine: I thank the Member for giving way. He touches on the important point — one on which Miss McAllister made an intervention earlier — about children and young people seeking advice outside the home. He says that we are talking not just about criminalising parents and placing them in court but about criminalising teachers and pastoral support teachers in schools. That is concerning.

Kids who have mental health and well-being issues may want to sit down and talk to somebody about issues to do with their gender identity. Teachers may refuse those kids help and support if the Bill becomes law. It should concern every one of us in the Chamber that the Bill would have a chilling effect on the availability of pastoral support to children in schools.

Mr Martin: I agree completely with my colleague. It is that chilling effect about which I am worried. When children in particular present with some level of gender questioning or gender dysphoria, they need talking therapies. That is exactly what they need. The last thing that they need is puberty blockers and life-changing surgery.

Mr Carroll: I thank the Member for giving way. To go back to his earlier point, does he agree that teachers are already under a lot of pressure, given their huge workload, which is growing by the day? Does he also agree that teachers, although great educators, are not best placed to give advice or guidance on gender or sexuality and that clause 4 provides an exemption for certain therapists to give advice? Is he not talking in circles a bit on that point?

Mr Martin: I am always interested in what the Member says. I will try to go through his points as best I can. On teacher workload, I agree — I think that everyone agrees — that teachers do an amazing job and have a very considerable workload. As far as I am aware, teachers are not mentioned in the Bill — I wait to be corrected on that — so they have no protection in that regard.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Peter.

Mr Martin: Pardon me. Yes, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker?

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I have given a lot of latitude. There are things being discussed that are not even mentioned in the Bill. I appreciate that we are trying to get through the generalities. You have referenced different clauses, which is fine, but I am asking you to talk about what is in the Bill in as general a way as you can. I appreciate that everybody has views, but your contribution is starting to sound as though it is a bit all over the place.

Mr Martin: Moi?

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: You are referencing things that are not even in the Bill. I am asking everybody to refer to the Bill. You have been on your feet since 6.20 pm, and I think that I have given you a lot of latitude. You can continue [Interruption.]

I know that there is no time limit on the debate — there absolutely is not — but each Member needs to be heard, and I ask every Member who speaks to refer to the Bill where possible. Thank you.

Mr Martin: Thank you very much, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker.

Mr Brett: Will the Member give way?

Mr Martin: I will give way, but, first, I will tie up my response to what Mr Carroll said about teachers. He led me into it, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. To answer Mr Carroll, they are not referenced in the Bill. I will give way to my colleague.

Mr Brett: Mr Carroll inadvertently highlighted one of the major concerns with the Bill, which, I think, my colleague was going to articulate. It has been borne out by the consultation responses that a lot of professionals, including teachers, who are governed by different professional standards authorities and who are required to be on professional registers are not listed in the Bill.

Mr Carroll has helped make the DUP's argument for us.

Mr Martin: I thank my colleague. I will make reference to the various aspects of the Bill.

I will tie this section off. I will quote Ruth Paterson again, because she sums it up very well:

The Westminster draft requires abusive conduct that causes serious harm with a substantial effect on day-to-day life. However, the Northern Ireland Bill's significantly different threshold leaves school settings more exposed, and that will have a chilling effect.

Clause 5,"Coercive behaviour", includes controlling and monitoring day-to-day activities or making someone feel humiliated or punished on more than two occasions. I will not repeat what my Upper Bann colleague said. She gave a range of examples for that. However, rules about, for example, losing your phone — that happens in my house weekly: sometimes it is me; sometimes it is my kids — clothing, social media and sleepovers all form part of a contagion where the Bill could have overreach. It can be extremely distressing for any teenager to talk about their sexual orientation. If a well-meaning but not-up-to-speed therapist cannot identify their sexual orientation, specifically to affirm it, we risk criminalising the therapist, and ignorance will be no defence. I am sure that many parents and therapists are listening to the debate.

My colleague referenced it, but it is ultimately worth taking another piece of Aidan O'Neill's evidence. I know that the Bill sponsor does not like his evidence, but I am going to read it out. He offered an expert legal opinion on the issue, and he said that parents could be criminalised under the terms of the legislation:

A parent could, in all good conscience, refuse puberty blockers or affirmative counselling to affirm the child in their chosen gender and fall foul of the legislation, and that could be anyone in the Chamber or anyone listening to the debate, and that is expert legal opinion.

Mr Tennyson: Will the Member give way?

Mr Martin: Of course.

Mr Tennyson: The Member has overlooked, again, that the Bill is explicit that failure to do a thing is not a conversion practice; that is in the Bill. Therefore, not acting in a particular way would not be captured; it has to be proactive coercive behaviour. Aidan O'Neill is one KC. He is a KC who also said that equal marriage would pose serious human rights challenges in Scotland. As far as I know, the sky has not fallen in since equal marriage was introduced in Scotland. He is an ideological actor, and if Members are relying solely on his advice, I question the quality of their contributions to the debate.

Mr Martin: I thank the Bill sponsor.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Sorry.

Mr Martin: Sorry, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Anyone can quote whoever they want, as the Bill sponsor knows. We might not like what they have to say, and there will be lots of quotes and things said that we all disagree with, but Members have a right to quote, even if it is ad nauseam. Continue.

Mr Martin: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for giving way. The Bill sponsor has used strong language. Does the Member agree that the Bill sponsor, Mr Tennyson, is an ideological actor when it comes to this particular school of thought?

Mr Martin: Mr Tennyson has strong views on the issue.

However, as my colleague pointed out, if we are looking for expert legal opinions, I do not think that there is anyone in the Chamber as well qualified as Aidan O'Neill KC to proffer said opinions.

Miss Hargey: Will the Member give way?

Mr Martin: I want to make a wee bit of progress. No, I will take an intervention from the Member opposite. She does not always take them from me, but I am more than happy to.

Miss Hargey: I took an intervention from your colleague twice, so fair is fair.

Mr Martin: You did.

Miss Hargey: People have a right to use or reference whomever they want, as the Principal Deputy Speaker said, but it is important to provide balance. When you look at legal or medical experts, it is also important to point to international best practice. International best practice across all the experts points to a ban on those regressive practices. UNESCO and UNICEF brought forward pillars that the Department of Education has pushed back on. That creates a toxic and fearful environment around those issues.

You touched on Genspect. Its core assertions on the issues have been rejected by two medical associations — the British Psychological Society and the American Psychological Association. They have criticised Genspect and its assertions and have said that the harmful practices need to be banned, as have the UN human rights office, the European Parliament and our own human rights organisations here. It is important to identify best practice locally, from a legal and medical perspective as well as from a human rights perspective, and internationally.

Mr Martin: I thank the Member opposite. I will pick up on some of her points. Some of the bodies that she mentioned — the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) and UNESCO — have been waxing lyrical about affirmative practice and affirmative counselling in some of these areas for a long time. The Member is within her rights to have her own opinion, but, for the past 15 years, some of those bodies have been affirming kids as, perhaps, being trans and turning a blind eye to puberty blockers. Therefore, while they have their opinions — they certainly do — they do not have a great track record on some of this stuff.

Some of those bodies seemingly did not know what was going on or did not really care about the stuff that we are learning about today regarding the longer-term effects of puberty blockers. I have my doubts about the veracity of some of their views. Anyway, I want to make a wee bit of progress.

Clause 2(2) relates to the reasonable defence. I have had a couple of interventions on that. I cannot remember who those were from, but I am grateful to whomever made them. The Bill states that:

I made this point earlier, but, honestly, how many parents want to end up in a criminal court using a defence of reasonableness under those circumstances? I suggest not many, but some could be forced into it. They might just be able to mount that defence, they might just win their case and they might not end up with a criminal record. I suspect that is why the Bill sponsor put reasonable defence in the Bill. However, I make this point, which I made earlier: how many parents want to be in that position with their child? How many parents want to be in court with a solicitor and a barrister mounting a defence of reasonableness with their child? I would not want to see a situation where that was the case.

Ms Sheerin: I thank the Member for giving way. He referred again to whether or not parents want to be in court, and, of course, they do not. However, I would argue that we would like to see a society where, when a parent is told by their son or daughter that they are questioning their sexuality or think that they might be gay, or they are questioning their gender identity or want to have that conversation, they are met with love and acceptance and not given a lesson telling them that they are wrong or trying to change who they are. Is that not a society that we should strive to have? Then there would be no risk of parents being criminalised.

Mr Martin: I thank the Member for her intervention. She mentioned the concept of a parent showing love and acceptance if their child presented, in the example that she used, as a different gender. We will all have views on that in the Chamber. What a parent should not do, however, is say, "Yes, that is fine", just because the child has come to them and said x. Any parent in the Chamber will know that that goes for a whole range of things. Sometimes it seems as though I spend my life saying no to my children. For example, "No, you cannot have a Lucozade, because it has a lot of sugar in it", or "No, you cannot stay up till 11.00 pm, because you need sleep".

Mr Frew: Will the Member give way?

Mr Martin: I will finish the point and then I will give way to the Member for North Antrim.

As parents, we say no to some things because we are acting in the best interests of our children. Therefore, when a child comes and presents, as the Member opposite suggested, as someone who is questioning their own gender, is showing signs of gender dysphoria or says, "I think that I might be —", the way in which we show love and acceptance is not just to affirm what that child has just presented to us. If we did that in every instance, parenting would be a nightmare, and children would be worse off for it. We show love and acceptance by actually, sometimes, saying no.

Ms Sheerin: Will the Member give way?

Mr Martin: I will give way after I have given way to my colleague.

We tell the child, "No, because that is not in your best interests". Parents do that. I imagine that parents will do that when a child comes to them saying that they want to get puberty blockers from Singapore. The parent will say, "No. You are not having those puberty blockers, because you know what they will do. If you take them for long enough, you may not be able to have any children when you are 25. I want you, as a young woman, when you have, perhaps, passed through this phase and, perhaps, to a level, de-transitioned, to experience the joy of having children when you are older".

I will give way to my colleague for North Antrim.

Mr Frew: I thank the Member for giving way. Emma Sheerin raises a really important question about the Bill. It is so important that we have this debate so that her question is answered. The Bill claims that a person "carries out conversion therapy" if they give "instruction". That is exactly what a parent does day and daily. If a child says what their sexual orientation or gender identity is, as they consider it to be, that parental instruction could "suppress" that child's gender identity or sexual orientation. That is where parents will fall foul of that offence.

Mr Martin: I agree. The Member makes the point, perhaps, more eloquently than I do.

I am conscious that the Member opposite wanted an intervention. I am more than happy to give her the Floor if she wants in.

Ms Sheerin: I appreciate the Member's being so generous with his time.

I am not a member of the LGBTQ+ community, but I am proud to say that I am an ally, so I know how that community feels about your party. You have proven it time and again. In an attempt to trivialise a conversation between a child and their parent about their sexual orientation or gender identity, you made a childish remark comparing that conversation to denying your children Lucozade because it is bad for their teeth. There are people watching this who belong to a community that has been discriminated against for generations and dehumanised time and time again. If you want to make jokes, go ahead, but what you are doing is disgusting. The record of it is there.

Mr Brett: Will the Member give way?

Mr Martin: I will, but I will address that intervention first. I am genuinely disappointed by the Member opposite, because she — [Interruption.]

No, I am. I would not speak to another Member of the House in the way that she just spoke to me, but that is up to her. She gave me a clear example of how, when it comes to gender identity, parents show love and acceptance. I gave her a crystal clear example of how I, as a parent, show love and acceptance by not always saying yes to my children.

Ms Sheerin: Will the Member give way?

Mr Martin: No, I will not take another intervention.

I gave a clear example of how parents across Northern Ireland — there will be people in the Chamber thinking this; perhaps she is not, but some people will be — show love to our children by saying no. That is how we demonstrate love, because, ultimately, in many cases, we perhaps know better than they do, and we show love to them by saying no. I used the example of Lucozade. I say, "No, because there is too much sugar in that" —

A Member: Will the Member give way?

Mr Martin: No, I will not.

— "and that will have a bad effect on your health". I was not trivialising it, and it is unfair of the Member opposite to characterise me in that way. The debate has, for the most part, been respectful, and I believe that the Member opposite has let herself down. I genuinely do.

Mr Brett: Will the Member give way?

Mr Martin: I will give way to my colleague.

Mr Brett: It is clear that the Member opposite has not been in the Chamber for the whole debate. She came in earlier, made an intervention and then showed huge discourtesy by leaving, and then she came back. If she had been in the Chamber for your remarks, she would know that you read out comments from members of the gay community.

Ms Sheerin shows her utter ignorance when she claims that Sinn Féin speaks for an entire community. Sinn Féin does not. I will give news to Ms Sheerin and others: I am proud of the fact that there are members of the gay community who are members of the Democratic Unionist Party. I am proud that there are DUP elected representatives who are gay. I am happy that I was an election agent at the last election for a councillor who is proudly gay and is married to her wife. She is a proud unionist and a proud member of the Democratic Unionist Party. You and your party do not speak for the entire gay community. Stop pretending that you do.

Mr Martin: I will continue. I do not know whether anyone else wanted to make an intervention there.

Ms Sheerin: Will the Member give way?

Mr Martin: No, I will not; I am sorry. I am genuinely disappointed. Perhaps she has not been in the Chamber for the entire debate and did not hear my speech, but I say to the Member opposite that I have done my best to be respectful and honest and to bravely reflect the views that my party and I have on the issue. I hope that I have done that with respect to everyone in the Chamber and everyone watching. Your comments were unfair.

I turn to clause 3. Principal Deputy Speaker, you will be glad to hear that I will not get into a debate about gender identity. I have a range of identities that I was going to present to the Bill sponsor to clarify exactly what he means by the phrase "gender identity", but I will not bother with that. I will simply make this absolutely crucial point. The Bill seeks to introduce the concept of "gender identity" into law at clause 2(1)(b) and clause 3(1)(b), and it will become a legal minefield, perhaps a criminal minefield, for a range of people, particularly those who support the concept of the Supreme Court ruling that the words "sex", "man" and "woman" in the Equality Act 2010 relate to biological sex. I remind Members of the House that a clear majority of people in Northern Ireland agree with that, but I suspect that the Members opposite do not.

Clause 8 states:

The Bill, however, as other Members have mentioned, does not include any diagnosed injury in that regard or any threshold. I am not sure whether that is standard practice in law, and I am happy to give the Floor to the sponsor — it is an honest question — to explain why that is not the case. Perhaps that can be picked up again if the Bill progresses to Committee Stage. I view that as a gap in terms of how that is measured.

The relevance of that is that clauses 1 and 2 create offences that carry up to two years' imprisonment on indictment. Obviously, consent is no defence. I do not agree with that, but I understand why that is. I ask this question, however: why is clause 8, with its relatively broad concept, as has been touched on today, of fear, alarm or distress, presented without the qualifier "substantial" and without a requirement for some level of evidence to be presented of a sufficiently certain and appropriate threshold for a criminal offence?

The Protection from Stalking Act (Northern Ireland) 2022 refers to "fear, alarm or substantial distress". The word "substantial" is included in that legislation, but the Conversion Practices (Criminalisation) Bill does not include that word, but references "fear, alarm or distress".

Mr Tennyson: I thank the Member for giving way. As I discussed in my opening remarks and in other interventions, the "fear, alarm or distress" formulation was selected in order to be consistent with domestic abuse law. However, I have already indicated to Members that the harm threshold is a policy choice for the Assembly. If Members are telling me that they want to have a debate about where to draw the line on the harm threshold, I am open to that debate. It is not a principled argument with which to oppose the Bill at this stage. I am not ideological, contrary to what some might say; I am willing to be pragmatic and to work to build consensus, if that is what is required.

Mr Martin: I appreciate the Bill sponsor's honest answer, and I do not doubt his sincerity in that regard. To a degree, he is right in that some of the Bill could be worked through, but I have spent time highlighting the bits of the Bill that are so dangerous — I will use that word — and, certainly, distressing to me that I will not support it. However, I accept his point on that issue.

On policy design and precedent, we have talked about the fact that Northern Ireland already has extensive criminal offences that cover many of the underlying forces behind serious misconduct that accompany abusive conversion practices, including assault, sexual offences, coercive or controlling behaviour — the Bill sponsor made reference to that being part of domestic abuse legislation — and cruelty to children. The question, therefore, is this: what additional harmful conduct does the Bill criminalise that cannot be prosecuted under existing law? He has made some references to that during the debate, and I appreciate that. Notwithstanding that, what we have here today is a private Member's Bill that has no departmental EQIA, nor does it have any published human rights memorandum beyond the sponsor's own satisfaction. It has what I would call an "extremely dubious" research base, and I have gone into why that is.

What the Bill does is introduce a wide-ranging criminal offence that includes no defence of consent and a 12-month commencement order. I ask the Assembly this question: is it right that we should pass an unprecedented gender identity criminal code into Northern Ireland law on that timetable, rather than wait, as has been mentioned already today, for a government Bill that has been stress-tested against Cass-era clinical evidence? There is a body of that evidence. I have tried to reflect some of it today and would like to have gone into more detail, but I suspect that the Principal Deputy Speaker would have pulled me in. There is also the For Women Scotland judgement, article 2 and a full section 75 assessment.

My fear is not just about what I have mentioned today. My real fear is for parents and teachers, who do not know how dangerous the Bill could be and how they might be affected.

Lots of people have contacted my office about the Bill. I have already read into the record what some folk have said, but I want to reflect the views of some Christian organisations as well, because a lot of them have contacted me. The Christian Institute said:

I know that the Bill sponsor will not agree with that, but it is important that all views be heard. That is what a Christian organisation is saying.

The Christian Institute continued:

That could be suppressing sexual orientation.

On the issue of gender identity, in clause 6, the institute said, "Defining gender identity —.

Mr Frew: Will the Member give way?

Mr Martin: I will indeed give way to the Member for North Antrim.

Mr Frew: The Member raises an important point. Does suppressing sexual orientation also refer to suppressing heterosexuality? If parents have someone at home who is heterosexual and has displayed that through his or her behaviour, and the parents suppress that, would they fall foul of the Bill?

Mr Martin: The Bill sponsor looks quizzical, but that is one for him to scribble down.

Finally, on the issue of gender self-identification, the Christian Institute said:

I agree with the institute on that.

The Evangelical Alliance made the argument that it supports protecting people, as does this party, from coercive and abusive practices. Importantly, however, it also argued:

It is fair to say that, in the Chamber today, there is a range of views on that matter.

I have done my best to outline my concerns and to elucidate my party's concerns about the Bill. I will now conclude. To be fair, I have spent a lot of time on the Bill, as have some of my colleagues. I have read it in detail. I have spoken to a lot of people about it. I have spoken to a lot of experts about it. Despite some of the assurances given today, I remain deeply concerned about the Bill, to the level that, in complete opposition to the SDLP Member for Foyle, I believe that it is not the sort of Bill that we should allow to pass Second Stage. This is a place of scrutiny, and we are providing that today. It would be an absolute mistake for the Bill to be waved through to Committee Stage just so that the Committee for Communities can tidy it up. There are so many holes in the Bill that it is unrepairable. As such, I will be opposing its passage.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: It is just as well that you said that at the end, Peter, because I was not too sure what your position was. [Laughter.]

Thank you very much.

Miss McAllister: We all thought that using the single transferable voting system took long to count votes. The single transferable speeching system also has us here all night, but, yes, debate is important.

Some Members: Hear. Hear.

Miss McAllister: There is a definition that came from Einstein, I believe:

The same can be said about asking the same thing over and over again and expecting a different answer. Just because it does not suit Members' narrative does not mean that the question has not been answered.

Mrs Erskine: Will the Member give way?

Miss McAllister: No. [Laughter.]

Miss McAllister: I support the legislation that Eóin introduced. I congratulate him on bringing forward such significant legislation, which, for once, will put Northern Ireland at the forefront of LGBT rights. We should be proud of that in the Assembly. Well, those of us who support the Bill should be.

Such quack practices are the practising of archaic beliefs.

Those beliefs impose on LGBT people the idea that they are unnatural or in need of a cure, and they have been widespread for a long time. They perpetuate stigma and discrimination. Not only are they deeply offensive, but they are unscientific and objectively false. They might be archaic, but it is a mark of shame that they still exist and have not been banished to a bygone era.

We are calling for legislative action. I appreciate that some steps were taken in the past, but it is important that, where there has not been action, we now do it through this Member's Bill. Of course, it is right that we scrutinise everything that is in front of us, but if Members are truly against conversion practices and believe that such harm is wrong, they should allow the Bill to go forward to Committee Stage.

Mr Frew: Will the Member give way?

Miss McAllister: I will give way later but not at this time. I am open to taking interventions later, though not millions of them.

Alliance believes in a progressive and shared society in which members of our community can be free to be themselves without that discrimination or harm. Eóin has introduced the Bill because that harm still happens today. The notion that the issue is about 10 or 15 people is simply untrue. That harm exists today. The LGBT community in Northern Ireland continues to experience harm through conversion therapy, harassment and marginalisation.

It seemed for a while that things were starting to get better for the LGBT+ community. Same-sex marriage was legalised across the UK, in Ireland and further afield. Of course, it took longer for that to happen in Northern Ireland. The ban on gay and lesbian couples adopting was finally lifted in 2013, and the lifetime ban on gay men donating blood was also overturned. Society was slowly becoming a more welcoming and safer place for the LGBT community. That progress appears to have come at a cost, however, as it is beginning to be framed almost as a negative, as though improving the rights of some people somehow detracts from the rights of others. We are now living through an age of increased homophobia and transphobia. It is clear that the people who wish that that progress had never occurred in the first place now feel emboldened enough to stoke tensions and pit groups against each other. Make no mistake: what we have heard from many in the Chamber today is just another manifestation of that.

Those growing tensions in our society are exactly why the Bill is needed. It is about closing gaps in existing legislation that allow those harmful practices to continue through talking therapies and coercive control. The Bill does that whilst protecting fundamental freedoms that are already enshrined in law, enabling the freedom to express, hold and preach one's faith by establishing clear legal thresholds based on other legislation that is already in force. Protection for the LGBT community does not in any way take away from religious freedoms, despite how some may want to frame it.

The Bill ensures that an already marginalised community can be protected from the impact of those discredited practices, including anxiety, depression, social isolation, shame, self-harm and suicide. Conversion practices continue too regularly in Northern Ireland. Likewise, the LGBT community already experiences increased levels of mental ill health. According to a survey by LGBT+ youth charity Just Like Us in 2021, 82% of young LGBT people aged between 11 and 18 in Northern Ireland had experienced suicidal thoughts and feelings, compared with 23% of their non-LGBT+ counterparts. That was the highest rate of all the UK nations. Another report, in 2013, found that a quarter of LGBT people in Northern Ireland had attempted suicide at least once. Perpetuating the idea that members of the LGBT community have something wrong with them that must be fixed through a course of quack therapies and conversion practices most likely acts only to increase mental health issues in that community, and that cannot continue.

Mr Frew: I thank the Member for giving way. I really appreciate it. What she has said is very clear, but what she told us at the start of her contribution was that, if we truly wanted to ban harmful practices, we should support the Bill to ban conversion therapy. The problem is that, in the Bill's definition, conversion therapy is simply counselling or any form of talking therapy. It is coaching or instruction. Nowhere does the Bill refer to strapping a person to a chair, plugging someone into electrodes or locking somebody in a room. It says none of that. That is why we are so perplexed about the Bill. It is about its definitions and wide scope. That is the argument that we are having. It is not about whether we agree with bad practice in therapies but about the definitions of conversion therapy.

Miss McAllister: That is not why you are perplexed about it. Let us be honest: you are not perplexed. You do not support the Bill in its entirety. Do you even support banning conversion therapy? Not one DUP Member has said what they would change in the Bill to enable them to support banning conversion therapy.

Mr Frew: I just gave you three examples.

Miss McAllister: You are telling me that those are not contained in the Bill, which is explicit about the intent to suppress, about coercive control and about the reasonable test of harm. If you had read the Bill, you would see that those definitions exist. You are contradicting yourself.

Mr Frew: No.

Miss McAllister: You are contradicting yourself.

Mr Tennyson: I thank the Member for giving way. The Chair of the Justice Committee is well versed in this process and has been through it with a number of Bills. He knows that, when dealing with a potentially broad range of behaviours, the approach that is taken in criminal law is to outline the intent, the act and the consequences. If every possible manifestation is named, a loophole will inevitably be created that excludes behaviour and allows abuse to continue.

Miss McAllister: I thank the Member for his intervention. I will move on to my next point.

Before I took the intervention, I discussed mental health in the LGBT community and said that conversion therapy cannot continue to exist. That is not just my view, my colleague's view or the Alliance Party's view; it is the view of multiple health bodies across the UK and further afield. The Member for South Belfast mentioned a number of international bodies as well. A memorandum of understanding was signed by 25 health bodies, including NHS England, the British Psychological Society, the Association of Christians in Counselling and Linked Professions, the Royal College of Psychiatrists and the Royal College of General Practitioners, which condemned conversion practices as unethical, potentially harmful and not supported by evidence. Other bodies, including the British Medical Association, the Royal College of Nursing, the Association of Child Psychotherapists and the British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy responded positively to the Bill's public consultation.

Some arguments were made, and no doubt there will be interventions, perhaps even from you, Paul, which I am trying to pre-empt, on legitimate counselling and talking therapies as opposed to exploratory therapy. Legitimate, regulated counselling is excluded from the Bill. If you read it, you will know that exploratory therapy is also not included. We recognise that that support is important and that many young people come forward and want to talk, whether about their gender identity or their sexual orientation. They can have those exploratory conversations. Those therapies are not in the Bill. Despite what many Members of the DUP — maybe all of them — have said, if you read the Bill, you will see that those therapies are excluded. We must also recognise that regulated therapists and counselling services are bound by their own ethical standards.

It is no surprise that there are Members in the Chamber who are for and against the legislation, and it is important that we scrutinise it, but opposing it at Second Stage highlights the DUP's actions rather than its words. That is a reflection on its track record: the history of the DUP and the LGBT community in Northern Ireland. No person who is listening to the debate buys what it is saying when it comes to supporting elements in the Bill and perhaps opposing conversion therapy, because the DUP's track record speaks for itself.

Mrs Erskine: I thank the Member for giving way. The Member is allowing her prejudice to cloud her judgement here. Set aside your prejudice against the DUP and what you think. Think about the people and about the unintended consequences that the legislation will have outside these doors. That is what scrutiny is about, and that is what the Members on these Benches are trying to do. We are trying to scrutinise the Bill so that it is appropriate. We do not think that it is appropriate, because we have not been able to get the proper definitions from the questions that we have asked.

Miss McAllister: I thank the Member —.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: On a wee procedural issue, once you give way to someone, you have given way to them. You cannot stand and wait for them to stop. I appreciate that that may not be fully understood by Members. Go ahead, Nuala. Thank you.

Miss McAllister: Fair enough. I will maybe take fewer interventions, then.

The Member referred to prejudice against the DUP. I am not a member of the DUP, and I fundamentally oppose much of what the DUP stands for when it comes to the LGBT community. How can I set aside my, as you say, so-called prejudice against the DUP when I fundamentally oppose what it stands for with regard to the LGBT community. No one who is watching would believe otherwise. Its Members are perfectly entitled — in fact, it is their job to do this, and, quite frankly, we all must do it — to scrutinise every clause and element of the Bill, but they cannot hide behind their history and true actions in the LGBT community. They are not just on record as opposing it; they try actively to stop it. I think about the gay blood ban that I mentioned before. The DUP Minister Edwin Poots tried to challenge the ruling on it. To be fair to the Member, not only —.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Nuala, there is nothing in the Bill about the ban on blood donations from gay men, or puberty blockers, or loads of the other stuff that is being discussed, in fairness. I know that people think that they can do my job 10 times better than me, but I am trying to be consistent across the board. If you would return to the generalities of the Bill rather than discussing the DUP, I would really appreciate it. Thank you.

Miss McAllister: I will move on.

The fact that some are choosing, wilfully or accidentally, to misunderstand and misinterpret the provisions of the Bill speaks volumes. Members are entitled to state their belief, whether they oppose the Bill or support it, but they also have to take into account the fact that the Bill has gone through levels of legal advice. It has gone through a lot of effort and work within the LGBT sector and the medical profession. It is not simply a desire or ideology that is being put forward. It will fundamentally change for the better some of the harm that is experienced by the LGBT community. I will touch on the issue of legal advice, which other Members have mentioned. Legal advice is legal advice for the people who pay for and commission it. It would suit everyone well to remember that.

I will turn to specific points about the Bill — I will keep it general where possible — that many Members have been misreading or perhaps not quite understanding. It is a complex Bill, and perhaps some things are more difficult to understand for some, despite the sponsor's answering a lot of the questions that have been put to him.

First, we have heard from some people on the issue of consent. I, too, want to look at that issue, particularly when it comes to under-18s, but not limited to that age group. We have heard from some people that you cannot use consent as a reasonable defence.

I am proud that it is included in the Bill that you cannot use consent as a defence, because we know that many who undergo conversion practices are young, vulnerable and struggling at times with internalised homophobia. They also might consent because of the power imbalance. If you are approached by your parent, by someone in a faith-based setting or by a therapist, you will not always say no, because you are afraid. You will not always have the voice —.

Mr Givan: Will the Member give way?

Miss McAllister: No, I will not, because I am going on to the previous points that I made.

Informed consent is another issue. There was discussion around whether informed consent could be included in the Bill, but I do not doubt that that would not matter when it comes to opposing the Bill. Let us be honest: people are often misled into giving consent and saying that something is not harmful when it is. You cannot consent to harm, just as you cannot consent to harm when it comes to domestic violence, and that is contained in the Domestic Abuse and Civil Proceedings Act. Consent is not possible in the context of conversion practices. I have highlighted the issues of people being misled and the power imbalance. Also, people are often not aware of the risks and the damage that can be caused much later in life. I know that some of my colleagues will touch on the personal experiences of people who have been harmed decades into their life by conversion practices.

Reasonableness is an argument that has been thrown about in the Chamber by both sides, and it is important that we discuss that. The reasonableness test is a tried and trusted test in criminal law. It is not something that my colleague has suddenly come up with and stuck into the Bill. It is tried and tested. Thousands of precedents have been set in court in case law. It is right there. It has been tested in court, and it has been tested in the Children and Young Persons Act and in domestic abuse proceedings.

There is also the question of suppression, coercion and harm. I get that many Members were asking about balance and where the line is between suppression and coercion and stating your beliefs. I understand, and I respect the fact that people are concerned about where the line is and are afraid that talking about their belief is included. However, it is not simply a test of one thing. It is not simply a test of what exactly is said; it is also about the intent behind that. Did you intend to convert that person to a different sexual orientation or gender identity? We know that the coercive element of that has stood up, and there is much case law that can speak to that.

I have mentioned in my interventions the Children and Young Persons Act. The Member for Upper Bann Diane Dodds is not here, but she will be aware that, in scrutinising the Adult Protection Bill in Committee — I am making this relevant — we discussed at length the issue of harm. We discussed how you might include different levels of harm, because that is really important. That is why you look to other legislation, including the threshold in the Children and Young Persons Act. I highlight that Act because of the parental aspect. The threshold in that Act is much higher because of the parental responsibilities there and what is acceptable when it comes to parents, how they teach their children and the views that they express to them.

Mr Givan: I appreciate the Member's giving way. She has referenced parents on a number of occasions. So that I can understand this, can the Member tell me whether there are any circumstances in which the Member or the Bill sponsor believes that a parent can say to their child, "I do not agree with you. I do not agree with how you are identifying in terms of sexual identification"? Parents may say that repeatedly and never change their position, because that is a sincerely held belief of many people of different religious beliefs. Out of love, they will feel that that is the right instruction and the right coaching to provide to their child. Does the Member believe that, in those circumstances, a parent will be protected from the legislation and will always have the right to say, "I do not agree with how you have decided to identify"?

Miss McAllister: I thank the Member for the intervention. The answer is yes. That parent is protected and will be protected, because they have not met the harm threshold and do not have the intent of coercive control. However, morally, there is an argument that, as a parent, you have to ask yourself, "Am I doing harm?". It might not meet the threshold and would not in the Bill, but are you harming your family when you consistently say that to your child? We are past the legal argument on that. That is a moral argument, and you ought to take a look at yourself.

Ms Mulholland: Will the Member give way?

Miss McAllister: Yes.

Mr Givan: Will the Member give way?

Miss McAllister: No.

Ms Mulholland: Thank you very much. Further to her response, does the Member agree that clause 7(1)(b):

falls into that category, because it is an opinion? You are expressing a belief, but there is no coercive element to that without the harm that we are talking about in the Bill. Therefore clause 7(1)(b) would cover the matter raised in the previous intervention.

Miss McAllister: I thank the Member for that intervention. I will add, though, that, if you are intending to convert your child and you are doing so in a coercive way that results in harm that meets the threshold for the Bill, you should not be protected from it. You should be utterly ashamed. When your child comes to you, it will be you as a parent who will lose out on that child's life and future. To be frank, you do not deserve that child.

Mr Givan: Will the Member give way?

Miss McAllister: I will not give way, because I am not going to listen to moral arguments about why you should or should not have such beliefs. You are entitled to your beliefs — everyone is — but let us be clear: the DUP does not speak for the majority of parents in Northern Ireland or in any society. The majority of parents do not seek to impose their anti-LGBT views on their children. The fact that Members are leaning on that argument as a reason to oppose the Bill is pathetic, and everyone can see through it. It illustrates your weakness.

There are parents who have honestly held beliefs. I recognise that, in this society, most of those are based on Christian values. To them, I say this: you are entitled to those beliefs, but where you do not align yourself with your child's sexual orientation or gender identity, I ask you and many who have suffered ask you to have those conversations lightly, when you have them, because you are treading on the heart of your child. If you have no intention to convert, coerce or cause harm to your child, you have nothing to fear from the legislation. I ask you not to listen to the DUP. Read the Bill and listen to the facts.

Mr Frew: Will the Member give way?

Miss McAllister: I am moving on to my conclusion. The DUP has 20-odd Members listed to speak, so you have not been curtailed in your right to express your opinions in the Chamber. I am moving on to conclude.

I have set out the legal issues that many Members cannot understand in this complicated Bill. As I said, that is OK, because it is a complex Bill. That is why the sponsor has taken such time and diligence to go through it. Sometimes, it is difficult to see what is in front of you when it does not suit your narrative. We must accept, not only in this legislation but in our role of legislators, that there is also a moral argument before us. The very idea that anyone would seek to suppress or convert a person because of who they are is simply repugnant.

Many Members on the Benches across from me — Members from all sides of the debate — speak about the importance of protecting religious freedoms. Of course, I agree with that, as a libertarian.

Mr Tennyson: A liberal.

Miss McAllister: As a liberal; thanks. [Laughter.]

It is really important to highlight [Interruption.]

I will finish.

Many on the Benches across from me speak about the importance of protecting religious freedom. I have stood in the Chamber and said that I do not hold other Members' beliefs but that, as a liberal, it is important that I allow them to express their beliefs.

I was sent this by a friend who is a Christian and gay. I do not pretend to know all the Scriptures in the New Testament, but my friend said:

I will leave Members with Romans chapter 15, verse 7:

Ms Ennis: Before I get into my remarks, I will address some of what I deem to be the deliberate campaign of scaremongering that is being waged by the DUP and every one of its MLAs who has spoken in the debate so far. What we are hearing can be described only as weaponised incompetence and wilful misunderstanding of the Bill.

The Bill is not proposing to criminalise loving parents who are giving advice, expressing concern or having conversations with their children. To suggest otherwise is to mislead parents about the purpose of the Bill. It is an attempt to scare parents. In typical DUP fashion, it is fear before facts. The DUP has talked a great deal today about parents, but, of course, they are not its main concern. The DUP's main concern is how the Bill would restrict things in a faith-based setting. One would think that it would have learnt by now the harm that is caused when criminal matters are dealt with in-house in faith-based settings and deemed to be nothing more than family matters.

It also seems to be hung up on the issue of gender identity. The Bill does not ask anyone to adopt a particular ideological view on gender identity. It does not require Members to agree with every claim that is made about gender. It simply asks whether attempting to force, pressurise or coerce someone into changing or suppressing their identity is wrong. That is the simple question before us today. The Bill also does not legislate to police conversations, sermons or family relationships. Rather, it attempts to draw a line under coercive practice that is aimed at making people suppress or change who they are. That is the simple, core element of the Bill on which we should all be focusing.

It will come as no surprise to anybody that I support the Conversion Practices (Criminalisation) Bill at Second Stage. Like others, I am conscious that there are people outside the Chamber, and perhaps inside the Chamber, who have experienced the trauma of being subjected to that kind of pseudo practice, so I want to be as sensitive to that fact as I can.

It is hard to know where to start with a concept such as conversion practice or conversion therapy, a concept so obviously morally and ethically wrong that is it indefensible. It is hard for me to get my head around the fact that it is still happening, so I will start with the term "conversion practice" itself, or "conversion therapy", as it is sometimes called. The word "therapy" suggests something that is healing, holistic and restorative, so let us look at the therapeutic effects of attempts to change a person's sexual orientation or gender identity. In 2018, a UK-wide survey found that over half of those who had experienced attempts to change their sexual orientation suffered subsequent mental health issues and that one in five had attempted suicide. A United Nations expert reported to the UN Human Rights Council that conversion therapy inflicts "severe pain and suffering" on lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans and gender-diverse persons, often resulting in "psychological and physical damage" that is "long-lasting". Participants in that discredited practice said that they were made to feel so degraded and ashamed — that their self-loathing became so great as a result of what they were told by the people who delivered that therapy — that they wanted to end their life.

If organisations in this jurisdiction are exposing our citizens to behaviour that is so destructive that it makes them feel as though they want to end their life, the Assembly needs to come down on those organisations — and come down hard. We must use every tool available to us to protect our citizens and to eradicate that practice completely. I make it clear that Sinn Féin unequivocally condemns conversion practices and the harm that they indisputably cause. There is no denying that subjecting someone to that kind of coercive pseudoscience is deeply damaging to the mental health and emotional well-being of the person as well as inherently homophobic.

As republicans, we are resolute in our opposition to homophobia and discrimination in all their forms. That is why Sinn Féin supports the bringing forward of legislation to ban conversion practice in every form in which it masks itself. We will engage positively with the Bill and the Bill sponsor, and, of course, we will want, as others will, to ensure that there are no loopholes to allow that malpractice to continue by means of a change of name or definition. It is also important that those affected by conversion practices and those in the wider LGBTQI+ community have their say, and I am heartened to hear the Bill sponsor say that such individuals played a key role in the drafting and shaping of the Bill.

Critics will say that there are so many issues that we, as an Executive and an Assembly, must deliver — and there are; there are really big issues that affect all our constituents — and ask why we are talking about this issue tonight. I believe that issues of equality and human rights are equally important topics for the Assembly to champion, because how we treat people and how we protect our citizens — our minority groups — tells the tale of the kind of society that we want to live in and, ultimately, what kind of new Ireland we are building. Right now, it is even more important that we be the standard-bearers for equality and upholding the human rights and the dignity of our people, because it is a depressing reality that human rights and equality are under attack across the globe.

Trumpism, fascism and toxic right-wing ideologies are once again on the rise in Governments and societies around the world. We have seen attempts to roll back LGBTQI+ rights, women's rights, racial equality, disability rights, migrant rights, indigenous rights and language rights. It is not happening just in places such as the United States. Nearly a quarter of voters in Europe now back far right parties. How depressing is that? Those parties have made it clear that attacking hard-won LGBTQI rights is their goal.

However, we do not need to look beyond the Chamber to find ideologies that are inherently homophobic or those who have always had a hard time with the notion of equality. The toxic mix of heteronormative conservatism and the religious fundamentalism that permeates the DUP is demonstrated by the actions of the Communities Minister, Gordon Lyons, who refuses to support Pride, and has been given voice in the contributions of DUP MLAs who still seek to provide cover for quacks and clerics to continue to damage and harm —

Mr Givan: Will the Member give way?

Ms Ennis: I am nearly finished.

— our LGBTQI+ citizens. Quite frankly, that kind of fossilised thinking belongs in the dustbin of history.

Mr Kingston: Will the Member give way?

Ms Ennis: I will finish with this.

Mr Kingston: You attacked one of our Ministers.

Ms Ennis: I am on my feet.

Mr Kingston: Are you not going to give way?

Ms Ennis: I am on my feet. I have not given way [Interruption.]

I am on my feet. Thank you.

Mr Givan: You are talking about tolerance. There is your tolerance and respect.

Ms Ennis: All your names are down: you will have plenty of opportunity.

Mr Givan: You do not want a debate; that is OK

Ms Ennis: You can speak after me.

There are many eyes and ears on us today. There may be people listening to the debate who are coming to terms with their sexuality. Maybe they do not have the right support system around them. Maybe they are not getting meaningful and appropriate sex education in school that reflects their feelings, their sexual orientation or their gender identity. If you are that person, and you take nothing else from this debate, please know this: you are normal. Homosexuality is normal and natural. You cannot change your sexuality any more than you can change the colour of your skin, and anybody who tells you otherwise is nothing more than a snake oil salesman. No cure is required for being yourself. Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer and intersex people do not need to be fixed, because — here is the bottom line in all of this — they are not broken. Sin é.

Mr Harvey: I rise to highlight my fundamental and serious concerns about the Bill's spirit and drafting. I also want to encourage the public to engage with the consultation on the proposals, particularly those for whom the legislation, if passed, will have the greatest impact, such as parents and individuals who work in faith-based settings.

Whatever our individual views on the underlying questions of sexuality and gender, when the criminal law is being extended, we should all demand that it is clear, precise and proportionate. It is very clear that the Bill before us, despite the protestations of its sponsor, is none of those things. Given that abuse, coercion and harmful practices are already illegal, it is very clear that the fundamental undercurrent here is an attempt by those behind the Bill to target people of faith, particularly those with a Christian world view. The fact that acts of prayer, preaching and mere conversations, even those requested by an individual at the time, will all be activities caught by the legislation is proof of that.

It is abundantly clear that this illiberal and poorly drafted Bill poses a severe threat to basic civil liberties. Ambiguity pervades the Bill. Clauses 1(2) and 2(2) reference a statutory defence to both therapy and coercive behaviour if it was:

What does a subjective statement like that even mean? I suspect that what might appear reasonable to me—

Mr Tennyson: Will the Member give way?

Mr Harvey: — will be very different to that deemed to be reasonable by the proposer of the Bill.

Did someone ask me to give way?

Mr Tennyson: Yes.

Mr Harvey: I will at the end.

Similarly, if consent is not a defence, one wonders what particular circumstances would be catered for by the reasonableness defence outlined in clauses 1 and 2. I suspect that, in practice, such a defence would prove to have no effect whatsoever.

In addition, the Bill relies dangerously on feelings. Clause 5(1)(e) states that coercive behaviour means:

The scope of the clause is what I, and anyone who values free speech, find frightening. One person's offence is another person's humiliation. No one should have the right not to be offended, regardless of the nature of the discussion or debate. Under the Bill, that would no longer be the case, even in circumstances where conversations are carried out with the express consent of both adult parties. Such conversations would essentially be criminalised, with the removal of that element of individual liberty. The Alliance Party is of the view that individual liberty should be done away with when it does not correspond with its ideological view, even when an individual proactively seeks to exercise that liberty.

Most concerningly, there is no particular dispensation for parents who seek to counsel or guide their children. Parents could be criminalised for advising their child against social or medical transition, or for imposing restrictions connected to how the child presents themself, who they associate with or what material they access online. Such a move would profoundly and unreasonably impact on the article 8 right of individuals to a private and family life. Contrary to what some in the House may think, the parent is best placed to provide, nurture and raise their child. It is the parent, not the state and certainly not the Alliance Party, who knows their child best and knows what is best for them.

I trust that the House will appreciate the gravity of this PMB, and the inherent danger within it. I trust that the House will reject the Bill, which is a prime example of censorship and state overreach dressed up as progressive compassion. I will now give way to the Member.

Mr Tennyson: I thank the Member for giving way. He questioned the use of a defence of reasonableness in the legislation. Correct me if I am wrong, but did the DUP object to the use of a reasonableness defence in any of the Bills that have passed through the Assembly, or does a different standard apply to this Bill?

Mr Harvey: I give way to Mr Givan.

Mr Givan: I appreciate the Member's giving way. Yes, we did. The Alliance Party introduced integrated education legislation in 2022, which said "a reasonable number".

Mr Tennyson: It is not the same thing.

Mr Givan: It is. It is entirely the same thing. Here is the problem, Members: "reasonable" is undefined. There is no definition in the Bill as to what is deemed to be "reasonable", just as Kellie Armstrong's Bill did not define "reasonable". I was tested in court on those decisions as to what is "reasonable", and here we have it in this Bill undefined. There is no definition. Clause 1(2) states:

No definition. That will be tested in court, just as Kellie Armstrong's flawed legislation was tested. So my answer to the proposer is yes. When it comes to your test of reasonableness, we opposed your legislation then and we oppose it this time as well.

Mr Harvey: I thank both Members for their interventions, and thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Mr Brett: Will the Member give way?

Mr Harvey: Yes.

Mr Brett: I appreciate the Member's giving way. Members on these Benches have articulated our concerns in relation to reasonableness. The Bill proposes to create a ridiculous position in which citizens potentially enter the criminal process and then have to rely on showing that their behaviour was "reasonable". That is not the same thing, as the Minister has clearly outlined, as the drafting of an offence and tightening up the legitimate conduct outside of it from the outset. The Bill as drafted automatically assumes that a criminal process will take place, and you then have to justify before the courts why you did something.

Mr Harvey: I give way to Mr Frew.

Mr Frew: I thank the Member for giving way. Add to that the very fact that the police will be forced to act and go into people's living rooms. That means that the process of a criminal conviction, or at least an investigation, will commence, and it will be to the detriment of the parent, teacher, pastor or preacher.

Ms K Armstrong: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr Harvey had already finished, and then a number of DUP MLAs stood up. Is it appropriate for a Member to still take interventions after they have finished?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): It is my perception, and I think that I am about to be proved right, that Mr Harvey was coming back again. I am sure that you will agree that I had no way of knowing for sure whether he was going to or not. However, I will request — and I think that I am being reasonable — that Members do not use interventions to question other Members in other parts of the House. I do not think that that is the proper use of an intervention, and it becomes a separate speech rather than an intervention. If it happens again, I will ask the original Member who was speaking to resume their speech.

Mr Gaston: Will the Member give way?

Mr Harvey: May I give way?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Yes.

Mr Harvey: OK. Go ahead.

Mr Gaston: I thank Mr Harvey for giving way. Christians in the House have a moral duty to stand up for their biblical beliefs. What we have heard here tonight from the Alliance Party is the liberal elite thinking that they know better. I am proud to stand in this House with other Christians who will challenge and call out your liberal eliteness. Your attack is quite clear. All you want to do is attack the Church and attack the home. That is what the Bill is all about.

Mr Harvey, as a parent, do you think that the Alliance Party, in its legislation, should interfere in any Christian home and in how a parent feels that they should be bringing up their child?

Mr Harvey: OK. I thank everyone, including Mr Gaston, for their interventions. That is me.

A Member: Will the Member give way? [Laughter.]

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Members, can I have a bit of order, please? As this is Paul Boggs's first opportunity to speak as a private Member, I remind the Assembly that it is the convention of the House that an inaugural speech from a Member is made without interruption. I should point out that, if the Member expresses views that would provoke an interruption, he might forfeit that protection. Paul, we wish you well.

Mr Boggs: Go raibh maith agat, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I am sure that what everybody needs at this hour is a maiden speech, but here we go.

I am deeply honoured to take up my seat as a Sinn Féin MLA for West Tyrone. As this is my first time to speak in the Chamber, I send my best wishes to my predecessor and good friend, Maolíosa McHugh. Over many years, Maolíosa served his constituents well as a councillor for Derg district electoral area (DEA), mayor of Derry City and Strabane District Council and MLA for West Tyrone. It is a privilege for me to follow on from Maolíosa and a long list of first-class republican representatives, including Pat Doherty, the late Claire McGill and Michaela Boyle, who all served in the House. I intend to serve the people of West Tyrone with the same energy, enthusiasm and determination as they did, while playing my part in the journey towards a better, fairer and more inclusive Ireland.

I got involved in politics having been inspired by our chieftain and former deputy First Minister, the late Martin McGuinness. Martin's contribution to creating peace on the island, his commitment to the communities and people whom he represented and his determination to ensure that the rights of all citizens were available, upheld and respected has led us to the much better place that we are in today.

Having been born after the signing of the Good Friday Agreement, I recognise the huge progress that has been made in our society. We have people living in peace, more children being educated together than ever before and communities leading the change that they want to see. The election of Michelle O'Neill as First Minister has proven that times have changed and that there is a huge shift towards a more progressive, inclusive and welcoming present and future. The Bill reflects the desire for even more progress.

At home in West Tyrone, we have seen massive progress too, including in education. In recent years, we have had new school builds at Strabane Academy, Holy Cross College and, most recently, Gaelscoil Uí Dhochartaigh, which has gone from strength to strength, enabling the Irish language to thrive across our district.

I am also excited about the progress being made on our city deal projects, which will totally transform Strabane town, providing a new health hub, a new North West Regional College building, an active travel footbridge, the long-awaited town leisure centre and the recent investment in the town centre public realm scheme.

In other areas, we have seen much-needed investment in community spaces, such as the castle site and Mitchell Park in Castlederg. Recently, Lidl has announced its confidence in investing in that growing and thriving community. In rural areas such as Newtownstewart, Glenmornan, Clady and Aghyaran, community spirit is at the heart of everything that people do. They, in particular, need our support to continue to grow.

Looking forward, I remain fully committed to the building of the A5. Too many in my constituency have had devastation visited on their families, workplaces and communities. That road must be built, most importantly to improve road safety and save lives but also to ensure that we improve connectivity across the island. The message from Sinn Féin and me could not be clearer: the A5 road must be built. I look forward to working with Members across the Assembly to deliver the real change that our communities want.

The Bill is hugely important because, despite the clear progress that we have seen in many areas, the struggle for full LGBTQIA+ equality is far from over. Sadly, many areas of inequality continue to exist and require more work to ensure that true equality is achieved. In 2021 and 2024, the issue of conversion practices was debated in the Chamber. At every stage, Sinn Féin has been clear on where we stand: harmful practices that emanate from a time when gay people were seen to be sick, sinful or shameful should never have had a place in society. They certainly do not have a place now. However, when we talk about the progress that has been made, the Bill reminds us, as I said, that there is still much to do. Conversion practices and anti-equality views should be consigned to the past.

Through my teens and early twenties, I struggled with my sexuality. It is my experience that blatant homophobia in some sections of society inflicts even more fear, anxiety and distress on a person, no more so than in rural areas such as those that I represent across West Tyrone, where, for too long, people held conservative views. Thankfully, that, too, is changing for the better.

Conversion practices clearly legitimise homophobia, and, therefore, so that every person, regardless of their sexual orientation, experiences compassion, we must ensure that further progress is made and that conversion practices are brought to an end. That would work towards the achievement of full LGBTQIA+ equality and the greater protection of vulnerable people.

There is a need to bring the legislation forward at this stage, and some of the commentary around it in the lead-up to today's debate shows that there are still some in society and in politics, more often than not on the opposite Benches, who hold anti-equality views. Sad as that is, it comes as no surprise. It was the same political parties and representatives who, for years, blocked marriage equality and objected to gay men donating blood, and some of them, in the lead-up to today's debate, again showed that they wish to stall progress on the outlawing of practices that have the sole aim of suppressing somebody's sexuality. The positions and stances that some have taken over the years on LGBT rights have had an impact on vulnerable people, and the fact that conversion practices still exist today is a signal to some that who they are is not who they should be. People do not need to be fixed. However, society does. In my view, progress on LGBTQIA+ rights has been slowed down and stalled by some who do not want to see equality and basic human rights.

The issues of rights and equality are at the heart of our efforts to end division and the conflicts of the past and to build a new future and a new Ireland for all our people. Equality and rights are not up for negotiation. They belong to everyone and are the foundation of a truly shared future. None of us has anything to fear from equality and compassion. No section of this society, regardless of politics, creed, class, colour, cultural tradition or sexual orientation, will be put to the back of the bus again. Twenty-eight years on from the Good Friday Agreement, there are still crucial elements that have not been implemented by the British and Irish Governments, including a bill of rights for the North, the Civic Forum and a charter of rights for the island of Ireland, and the British Government have refused to fulfil their commitments and obligations to deal with the legacy of the past and the concerns of families who were bereaved during the conflict. There is an onus on us to put in place strategies that promote understanding and an internationally compliant human rights system of laws and governance that incorporates rights, freedoms and responsibilities and guarantees civil and political rights. What is needed is the full implementation of the Good Friday Agreement, including the setting of a date and planning for a referendum on Irish reunification.

I will finish on this. To the people who joined us in the Public Gallery this morning and those whom we met at the bottom of the steps and to those across West Tyrone whom I am now so proud to represent, I say this: whoever you are, whatever your sexuality and whatever the colour of your skin, Sinn Féin's message is clear. We see you, we hear you and we are committed to establishing a society built on rights and a society where everyone can live free from harassment. I urge Members to support the Bill's passage to the next stage.

Mr Frew: I wish Paul all the best in his political career here and his journey. I hope that he realised that, even though he tended to go into a wee bit of controversy, we on these Benches listened intently to what he had to say. I hope that he will understand and respect that and respect the etiquette in the House. I wish him all the best for the future and look forward to working with him.

Mr Carroll: Will the Member give way?

Mr Frew: Already?

Mr Carroll: Yes. I also wish the Member well and congratulate him on his maiden speech.

The Member for North Antrim is known to give quite long speeches, which he is entitled to do. Can he maybe condense it a wee bit today so that some on this side of the House can, hopefully, get our speeches in tonight? [Laughter.]

I know that he is a reasonable man, so I am sure that he will consider that.

Mr Frew: Some Members in the House paint me in a very bad light. [Laughter.]

They are wrong in that regard.

Before I forget, I will pay tribute to Maolíosa McHugh, with whom I served on the Finance Committee in the previous Assembly term. Do not get me wrong: we had many a row and rough spot, but he was always good-natured and well mannered, and I respected that, as I do of all Committee members. I wish him all the best in his retirement.

I also pay tribute to the Bill sponsor. Earlier today, I congratulated him privately, because it is not easy to bring forward a private Member's Bill. A massive amount of work is required to get it to this stage of the process. Again, publicly this time, I congratulate him for that. Of course, Mr Deputy Speaker, you will allow me to say that I disagree with probably everything in the private Member's Bill and believe that it is really dangerous; in fact, I believe that the Bill could create a dystopian nightmare.

Having said that, I will explain what I mean. It could be the case that the Bill sponsor's intentions are good, but I believe that he is cleverer than that. I believe that he knows what every word in the Bill means. That is why I hope that he will not mind if I ask him some questions about his Bill. I do not expect him to be on his feet every time with an intervention. He will be comfortable doing that when he sees fit to do so or needs to do so. I do, however, expect him to provide a summary at the end of the debate in which he can answer some, if not all, of the questions that I will pose to him, and I will thank him for that.

I also pay tribute to the Member's conduct during the debate. He has made interventions and taken notes, for which I am grateful, because that will add to the debate. It will also add to his understanding of our fears and concerns. In many ways, I hope that, if the Bill passes Second Stage — I hope that it does not — the Bill sponsor will be able to address some of our concerns. It is why we are here: to discuss the principles of the Bill.

The Conversion Practices (Criminalisation) Bill is a dangerous Bill. We have heard it asked time and time again, "Why will you not support the Bill if it is going to ban conversion therapies?". Had the Bill been titled the "Conversion Therapies (Criminalisation) Bill", I would maybe understand where Members' arguments are coming from, but it is not; it is about conversion practices. At least the Alliance Party Members opposite know what they are. Well, most of them do: Nuala did not know. She thought that she was a libertarian for one brief second, but, of course, nothing could be further from the truth. They are liberals, and at least we know what we are dealing with when we are dealing with liberals. I thank them for that. There are parties in the House that are populist, however, and that is the wrong way to be. It is hard to negotiate with populists. At least we know what the Alliance Party is and what it stands for, even though we are totally and utterly opposed to what it stands for.

If passed, the Bill would be an attack on freedom of thought, conscience and religion, in contravention of article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights. It would be an attack on the right to family life, in contravention of article 8. It would be an attack on freedom of expression and freedom of speech, in contravention of article 10. I believe that it would ban or, at least, criminalise private conversations between parents and children conducted in their own home. I wish that I were not having to say that, but I fear that the legislation would create that situation, because it represents an extraordinary imposition on free expression, free association and freedom of belief not only in the family home but in the classroom, in the schoolyard and in Church settings and everywhere else for that matter. That is why the Bill is so dangerous.

In my time in the House — I have been here since 2010 — I have not scrutinised a Bill as dangerous as this. Given that I have been here for 16 years, that must stand for something.

I fear this Bill more than I have feared any other Bill that I have scrutinised. I worry — I worry deeply.

The Bill creates three offences. When offences are created, we must take notice. We have a responsibility in this place to make sure that we govern appropriately and that the laws that we pass are measured and considered. I do not believe that any of those three offences are that; in fact, they are quite the opposite. The first offence is the offence of providing "conversion therapy", We are now back in "conversion therapy" land instead of "conversion practices" land, which is good. Let me read the offence:

OK, that sounds good —

That is quite weighty. I will go on to the other offences later, but let me take the first part of clause 1:

I am thinking, then, that "conversion therapy" must be being locked in a room, having white noise played, being strapped to a bed and having electrodes plugged into your body. Those are all things that have happened, and I would never, ever condone them. In fact, I support the banning of them. If the Member were to bring forward a ban on those practices, most which are now banned in law anyway, I would support him. However, that is not what the Bill does. The Bill sponsor, helpfully, gives us this definition of "conversion therapy", and it is very wide:

— any form of talking therapy —

I could probably live with "treatment, or purported treatment", but his definition of "conversion therapy" as "counselling or any form of talking therapy" or "coaching or instruction" is really, really wide — especially "coaching or instruction".

Mr Lyons: I appreciate the Member giving way on that point because, for me, it is one of the single biggest issues in the Bill that is yet to be resolved. The Bill sponsor was very clear earlier: in his view, there must be "a formal course of therapy". That is not what is in the Bill. Maybe it was the Member's intention for the Bill to read:

Had that language been used, what the Member said earlier would have been correct. However, in the absence of that language, he is wrong in saying that that only applies to "a formal course of therapy", because nowhere in the Bill is that found.

Mr Frew: The Minister makes an excellent point. It would have been easy to include that in the clause that defines "conversion therapy".

Mr Tennyson: I thank the Member for giving way. In response to the Minister: to be clear, in respect of the first offence of "conversion therapy", that can be one occasion — that is the intent. Apologies, Minister, if I misspoke earlier in the debate, but the course of behaviour relates to the second offence. The question before us, though, is how you define "conversion therapy". The use of the word "therapy" is instructive, because that coaching or instructing, that conversation or that talking therapy would have to be deemed to be therapeutic in nature.

I am not opposed to listing other factors that you might consider in relation to saying what that therapy looks like, although, based on the advice that I received when drafting the Bill, I did not believe that doing so was necessary. I am not opposed to excluding parents from it explicitly, because that is the intent of how the offence is structured. However, that is not a fatal flaw. Members are raising concerns about, and seeking clarifications on, things that can be addressed.

Mr Frew: I thank the Minister for his prior intervention, and I thank the Member for that point, because that is the nub of the debate on the Member's intent. He has gone a long way to clarify that with his intervention. He has been on his feet quite a bit today, but that was probably the most helpful intervention that he has made, and I thank him for it.

The Member defines conversion therapy as those things, but he could have easily defined it as some of the other things that we know have been harmful practices in the past.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for giving way. He is absolutely right to be concerned about the broad definition of "conversion therapy". As has been outlined extensively in the debate, such a definition can intersect with parental rights in the home and, indeed, genuine, heartfelt religious expression. I acknowledge that the Member outlined some extreme examples of conversion therapy that were practices in the past that caused real harm and, indeed, are outlawed, but we also see a problem with the legislation, as outlined by Mr Aidan O'Neill KC, relating to the use of the word "suppress". The Member knows that those harmful therapy practices, which are already outlawed, are not happening, but, by using the word "suppress", he seeks to encompass other genuine religious teachings. That in itself is why the Bill is dangerous.

Mr Frew: I thank the Member for his intervention. I will certainly get onto the suppression piece, because it alarms me, too. We could walk through the Bill tonight and be given some assurances and safeguards by the Bill sponsor as we do so, but the fundamental shape of the Bill means that it is beyond rescue. I will get into that in a moment.

When the Bill talks about "conversion therapy", it is not talking about conversion therapy as we would have talked about it a week, month or year ago. We are talking about "conversion therapy" as defined by the Bill sponsor. By his own admission, he thinks that "conversion therapy" really means things that are "therapeutic". I accept that. Let me tell the House that I believe that all talking is therapeutic and all coaching is therapeutic, including sports coaching. Young people grow up, and it is a good thing that they go into sport. It is therapeutic. It gives them exercise and helps their mental health. It could be boxing, football, GAA, netball or anything. I believe that the Bill sponsor's definition of "conversion therapy" encapsulates sports coaches. I also think that, when it comes to "instruction", a parent or grandparent's advice is therapeutic.

Mr Carroll: Will the Member give way?

Mr Frew: I will.

Mr Carroll: Will the Member elaborate on why he thinks that it is the business of a sports coach, regardless of whether it is GAA, football or rugby, to change a member of a club's sexuality?

Mr Frew: It might not be, and the coach might not acknowledge that he is doing that, but it is about what the victim considers it to be. It will be what the person considers it to be. There are real harms and dangers to do with that.

Mr Buckley: Will the Member give way on that point?

Mr Frew: Yes.

Mr Buckley: That is a very interesting point, because gender identity ideology has infected the sports arena. There are live examples in Northern Ireland of females, whether they are GAA or football coaches, who want to protect their sporting spaces and traditions, and they feel that gender identity politics is affecting the field of sport. That very relevant example shows that they could fall within the scope of the Bill.

Mr Frew: I thank both Members for their interventions, which have added to the debate. Throughout the world, we have seen campaigners and actors going into the other gender's sports fields, and there has been massive controversy around that. I would add health matters to that. That is where "coaching" comes in. If a coach tries to suppress someone by preventing them from playing a sport, they will fall foul of the Bill.

Ms Bradshaw: Will the Member give way?

Mr Frew: Yes, I will.

Ms Bradshaw: I am sitting here in disbelief. I coach a young girls' hockey team. It is so foreign to me to think that we would, in any way, have such a conversation or entertain it. It just would not happen. I do not know where you are plucking that theory from. It is so far from what actually happens on a Sunday or Monday evening, or whenever the training session takes place.

Mr Frew: I thank the Member for her intervention, but the Bill says "coaching". That is what it says.

Mr Tennyson: Will the Member give way?

Mr Frew: I will in a wee minute. If someone were to approach the Member as a coach, how would she deal with that?

Ms Bradshaw: We all have to undergo safeguarding and child protection training. We know that we should never enter that space or entertain that conversation at all. There are ways in which we can refer people, and we can provide them with reassurance, but we certainly would not get into a conversation of anywhere near that depth.

Mr Frew: The Bill sponsor wanted to come in.

Mr Tennyson: I thank the Member for giving way. We are at risk of straying into reductio ad absurdum at this point of the debate. The simple fact that someone is a football coach does not mean that, if they had a conversation about sexuality or gender, they would be found guilty of coaching or instructing an individual as part of conversion therapy. However, the Member raises a concern that I have heard before, which is about how the Bill intersects with the Supreme Court judgement around access to single-sex spaces and the debate around gender recognition. The answer is that it does not. It does not afford transgender people any additional rights. It does not change their status in law. It simply says that people must not be exposed to a conversion therapy or a course of coercive behaviour that results in harm to those individuals. Those considerations are therefore really not relevant at all when it comes to what we are debating.

Mr Frew: I thank the Member for his intervention, but his own Bill says:

which is

in relation to another person. That is what his Bill states. If the wording were "coaching in a treatment centre" or "coaching in a therapeutic setting", that would be different.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for giving way. It is an interesting discussion. We have not really covered this specific point, and it is important that we do, because we need to think out every connotation. The Member explained specifically that the definition of conversion therapy in clause 4 includes coaching and that he believes that that definition is too broad and therefore open to different interpretations. The Bill sponsor, if I am right — I do not want to misquote him — suggested that the Bill would not prevent any coach of a sports team having a conversation about gender identity or gender persuasions when it comes to sports. I think that that is what he said; I will be corrected if it was not. The point is that, when it comes to the offences as defined, when we look at clause 8, we see that "psychological harm" includes "fear, alarm or distress". If an individual claims to have experienced any of the harms set out in clause 8, of course they will fall under the scope of the Bill. I can be corrected by the Bill sponsor if my interpretation of what he said is not correct, but that is pretty worrying.

Mr Frew: I thank the Member for his intervention. This is really important. If someone in the team, whether it is a female team or a male team, goes to the coach, who does not have the conversation with them or maybe even dismisses them because they cannot talk to the matter, referring them instead to a safeguarding officer, which might be their policy, and that victim subsequently feels that they have been caused psychological harm as a result of that approach — harm includes "fear, alarm or distress" — the coach could well, I believe, because of the definition of "conversion therapy", be caught by this law.

Mr Tennyson: I thank the Member for giving way and promise that this will be my last intervention for a while. I am genuinely at a loss as to the point that the Member is trying to make. Do I understand him correctly? Is he concerned about a scenario in which, for example, a transgender athlete is playing sport, and the coach says, "You can't play on the team"? That would not be captured by the Bill. That is not "intent to change or suppress"; it is an acknowledgement of that person's identity and enforcement of a rule on participation. That is not conversion therapy. I struggle to see a scenario in which the sporting/coaching analogy is at all relevant.

Mr Frew: I thank the Member for his intervention. If he does not see that as being relevant, why is "coaching" in his Bill?

Mr Gaston: Will the Member give way?

Mr Frew: Yes, I will.

Mr Gaston: I will give him examples from across Northern Ireland of a couple of organisations that use football to spread the message of the gospel. I can think of one in Ballymena and another in Portadown where the children come together to play sport, after which a biblical message is relayed to them. That is an obvious scenario in which football organisations would be caught by the Bill. That is counselling. It is coaching.

Mr Frew: I thank the Member for his intervention. I was going to go further than that, because that covers not only the coaching aspect but the religious instruction aspect, so it covers the two elements of clause 4(b).

Let me go on to "instruction". Who is it that gives instruction? A parent. Any parent who does not positively affirm their child's claim to be transgender, whatever that means with regard to "gender identity", will fall foul of this law. It is not just the coach who falls foul of it, therefore, but the parent, and maybe even the grandparent. I will make another point on "instruction". There is a real danger in clause 4 of attacking freedom of thought, conscience and religion. Using the terminology "coaching or instruction" in such a wide sphere brings in the church, pastoral care, preachers and biblical instruction. What if someone comes to you and you say, "This is what the Bible says"? That is instruction, and I believe that you would be caught by the Bill.

Acts chapter 3, verse —. I am glad to say that I am not the first person to quote scripture tonight; the Alliance Party, I believe, did so first.

Ms McLaughlin: Will the Member take an intervention?

Mr Frew: Yes, I will.

Ms McLaughlin: Does the Member not agree that Second Stage is about discussing the principles of a Bill? Everything that we have heard from nearly every Member on his side of the House has gone into the minutiae of the Bill. It is for the Committee to do that, if those Members could release the Bill and let it go to Committee. The Bill sponsor has indicated that there may be things that can be improved and terms that could be defined further. Things that you are not happy about could be discussed in detail. Nothing can happen, however, unless the Bill goes to the Committee and we afford it its due duty to scrutinise the Bill, make it more robust and maybe address some of the definitions and problems that have been raised on the Member's side of the House. As it stands, those Members are absolutely filibustering.

Mr Frew: No, we are not.

Ms McLaughlin: You are. Everybody on that side of the House is. You are getting into the Bill as if you were on the scrutiny Committee. If you were not happy with the range of evidence that was taken during the consultation, that was the time to widen it out according to the way in which you perceive that the Bill should have been written and the definitions arrived at. It is just minutiae after minutiae. Let the Bill go to the Committee for scrutiny and due diligence, and I am sure that all of your team will be all over the submission of amendments for Consideration Stage. Let the Bill go and get the work done.

Mr Frew: I thank the Member for her intervention. Why not do away with Second Stage for all Bills? I am standing because it is really important to define the principles of the Bill by the definitions in the Bill. That is really important. How can you debate the principles of the Bill if you cannot be sure of the definitions of the clauses? That is the point. On the issue of filibustering, every Member of the House — all 90 of us — has a right to speak at the Second Stage of any Bill. I do not have the courtesy of being on the scrutiny Committee that will deal with the Bill at Committee Stage, so the Member should afford me and other Members our democratic right to speak at this stage to define what the principles are and to engage in debate on the Bill.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for giving way. After that interesting distraction from the Opposition, I want to get back to the point that he raised. I know that he was moving on from it, but it is important to me. It is the issue around sports and coaching. The Bill sponsor gave the example, and I was interested in hearing his explanation. It is a circumstance where somebody who identifies as transsexual turns up to a single-sex sporting event, whether that is a female or a male event, and they are not allowed to take part in the team on the basis of their sexual orientation as defined by the Bill. Clause 6 states that the:

Given that we have talked about the broad definition of suppression, how, still, can we not conclude that that particular issue and that particular circumstance would not fall under conversion therapy as defined in the Bill?

Mr Frew: I do not think that we can be sure that it will not fall within that because of the very wide definition of conversion therapy, which includes "coaching or instruction". Remember, the Bill talks about "a person" who commits an offence. It is not a therapist or a doctor but "a person". That includes everyone, no matter what they do. The fact is that conversion therapy is defined as including "coaching or instruction".

I want to move on to instruction. There are parents and grandparents who deliver instruction every day to their children and grandchildren.

Mr Brett: I thank the Member for giving way. I know that some Members seem perplexed that Members from these Benches dare to articulate the concerns of our constituents, whom we are here to serve. It is on that point that my mailbox has been heavily inundated by parents and grandparents who are extremely concerned about the Bill. Does the Member agree that it is our democratic duty, having been elected by those people, to take as long as needs to be taken to ensure that their views are heard in the Assembly?

Mr Frew: Yes, I agree with that. I fear for some Members here who want to rush through legislation, even at this point in the mandate. It does not bode well for the future, let me tell you. If a Bill goes through the House to become an Act and the media and the papers pick up on it in a year's time or in two years' time, doing a big job in saying how bad the Act is and how frightfully it was scrutinised —

Mr Lyons: Will the Member give way?

Mr Frew: — that will be on the Members opposite, who just want to rush things through. I will give way to the Minister.

Mr Lyons: I think that we also need to have a proper understanding of what Second Stage is. Yes, it is about the general principles of the Bill, but it does not just mean that we are being asked whether we are all agreed that we should have a Bill to ban conversion practices, conversion therapy or whatever it may be. The fundamental impact that this Bill will have is dependent on those definitions. I think that we have had a good exchange of views today, and I hope that the Member can see that we are being genuine. I say this regretfully, but I think that Nuala McAllister's contribution was ill-judged, because, I think, there are sincere concerns that we have on this side of the House.

This is where we should be debating those concerns. I hope that the Bill does not progress to Committee Stage, because I do not believe that it is workable, but the issues that we are raising at Second Stage will at least be on the radar of any Committee, whatever it may be, to look at, should the Bill progress.

Mr Frew: I thank the Minister for his intervention. Do we know what the definition of "conversion therapy" is and whether it includes a definition of "instruction"? I will read clause 4(1) again. A person commits an offence:

of another person. That is how wide the offence is. What does "instruction" mean? The only person who can answer that is the Bill sponsor. Does it mean biblical instruction or religious instruction? Will someone fall foul of the offence if they tell somebody, "This is what the Bible says" and quote scripture? Acts chapter 3, verse 19 states:

That is nothing to do with sexuality, but the victim may perceive it to be, and if the victim perceives it to be, it will be part of the offence, because of the alarm and distress caused.

Matthew chapter 18, verse 3 states:

That may get closer to the knuckle. Pastors and preachers could be susceptible of causing offence in our land because of the wide definition in the Bill. Although it is not directly linked to conversion therapy, as we thought it was yesterday before reading the Bill, it is at the heart of the Christian faith to be converted: unless you are born again, you will never see the kingdom of heaven. It is about conversion. That is what the Christian faith is about. Although it is not talking directly about conversion through conversion therapy, there is a link that people will confuse. That is why preachers would also fall foul of the law.

As Christians, we are told in James chapter 5, verses 19 and 20:

That is massive for the Christian faith and for everyone who pertains to be Christian and who loves the Lord Jesus Christ. There will be times when campaigners and actors will try to merge belief with gender identity. Indeed, it has already happened. I fear that the Bill would provide people with a campaigning arm.

Mr Givan: I appreciate the Member's giving way. He has spent the past number of minutes referencing the concerns of the Christian community from a biblical perspective, which is right. He has quoted verses that some Members perversely misinterpreted when quoting them earlier in support of the Bill. That was an affront to those in the Christian community. There is a much higher authority than Nuala McAllister when it comes to moral integrity on the issue, and that is the authority to which we will subscribe. We will certainly not subscribe to Nuala McAllister's authority.

On instruction, setting aside any consideration from a Christian perspective, the UK Supreme Court ruled on biological sex. I issued a clear direction and policy that all schools have to reflect biological sex. The Bill references:

It references "coercive behaviour" and speaks about it being:

Clause 5 references being "humiliated".

Are we in any way assured that, if a school, which has to follow the law and my clear guidance, prevents, on repeated occasions, a boy who wants to be a girl from entering the girls' toilets or participating in girls' sports and that school rightly complies with the law and consistently applies its policy on more than two occasions, the individuals involved will be protected? The Bill is so vague and broad in its definitions that it will stand in conflict with one of the most basic policies that schools now have to comply with on the basis of the UK Supreme Court ruling. Irrespective of one's religious beliefs, where are the protections for schools in the Bill?

Mr Frew: The Member makes a good point. It was well rehearsed, so I will not have to repeat it. He is absolutely right, and that is just one of our concerns.

Before I finish on religious practices and why I think that the Bill would do massive damage to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, I will say that any preacher, pastor, minister or priest will tell you that, when they give instruction or provide sermon or pastoral care to their flock, their congregation or their people, it is meant to be testing. Many times, you can come out of church distressed. I know that it is not the same definition, because the Bill sponsor picked that from other legislation. However, we are not talking about people who could be deemed reasonable people — that is the reasonable people test — we are talking about people who are struggling with their sexuality and their identity. It was said earlier that those people could be suicidal, depressed or anxious. Those people will be in a state of distress even before they come into contact or interface or interact with a coach or someone who is administering instruction — even their parents, a pastor or a minister. Real harm could be caused to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. Those are mighty issues.

Mr Brett: I appreciate the Member's giving way. On clause 8 and the issue of "distress", I do not know about him, but, when I read the sponsor's consultation document, I saw that it spoke about the threshold being "substantial distress". At clause 8 of the Bill that is before us, the word "substantial", as proposed in the consultation, has been removed, and it is simply "distress". That is a much lower bar, and, indeed, it has not been defined. Has the Member had any assurances or heard any rationale articulated in the House today? I know that the Members on the Benches opposite have not read the Bill that they have stood up and spoken in support of, but has any Member from the Alliance Party articulated why that important distinction of "substantial" distress was dropped from the Bill?

Mr Frew: I thank the Member for his contribution. The Bill sponsor tried to address that earlier, but I am not sure that he actually —.

Mr Tennyson: I thank the Member for giving way. Mr Brett is correct in that we consulted on a definition of "harm" that was "fear, alarm or substantial distress". At consultation stage, there was significant opposition to any firm harm requirement. People pointed to domestic abuse and other offences where harm need not be proven and where it need only appear likely that harm would be caused. We felt that that was the wrong approach. The middle way was a lower definition but a stronger requirement in that harm must be caused, because I did not think that likelihood to cause harm was robust enough, given the scope of behaviour that could have been captured.

This is about setting a threshold that strikes the correct balance between competing rights but does not place an undue burden on victims. The argument that we heard in consultation, which is an important one for Members to reflect on, is that the harm associated with conversion practice is not always immediately understood or known. Therefore, if you set the threshold too high, you create a barrier to successful prosecution where conversion practices have happened. I have said this before and I will say it again: the harm threshold is an issue that I am prepared to work on with others.

Mr Frew: I thank the Bill sponsor for that, but when he talks about conversion therapies in that regard, he is talking about coaching, instruction, counselling and any form of talking therapy. If that is deemed to have caused "fear, alarm or distress" to the victim, that person will be in trouble with the law. Here is the thing: any person who is already confused about their identity or their sexuality will already be in a state of fear and alarm and be in distress. That is where clause 8 on "Psychological harm", which is in offence number one and offence number two, is really dangerous.

I will keep with clause 1 and read on:

Let me first talk about gender identity. That term has never been used in law in this jurisdiction. In GB, the term that is used is "transgender identity". I do not know whether the Member wants to take that up now, but perhaps the Member could, at some point in the future, tell me the difference between "gender identity" and "transgender identity". I think that, with "gender identity", he has widened the scope of what it is.

Mr Brett: I appreciate the Member's giving way. He rightly articulates that it is the first time that the term "gender identity" is proposed to be used in Northern Ireland legislation. From my perspective, that is why it was all the more alarming that, when Members on these Benches tried to raise concerns about the issue, not only were we shouted down from the Benches opposite but there was an attempt from the Speaker's Chair to stop us raising the issues.

Mr Frew: The Member raises a valid point.

Given the Bill's use of the undefined "gender identity" rather than the elsewhere-defined, at least in devolved Scottish legislation and Westminster sentencing legislation, "transgender identity", it may reasonably be presumed that the proposed Northern Ireland legislation in the Bill is intended to go wider and to criminalise the attempt to "change or suppress" not only an individual's claim to have a transgender identity but any claim not to be transgender, be that an assertion that one is non-gendered, which is to say that one's gender identity is neither male nor female; a declaration that one is non-binary, which is to say that one's gender identity is not solely male and not solely female; or even a confirmation that one is just cisgender, which is to say that there is no asserted mismatch or disjunction between one's sex and one's gender identity. By using the term "gender identity", is the Bill sponsor's intent to widen its scope to take in not only transgender identity but all the other — non-gendered, non-binary and cisgender — aspects of identity?

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for giving way on that point, which is important. As was said, we had an attempt to censor the debate on gender identity. I know where the Member stands but not where the Bill sponsor stands. Unfortunately, in the wokery-pokery world of the Alliance Party, there are 136 genders, as identified online. I believe that there are two — male and female — but I am no clearer on what the position of the Bill sponsor is —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Mr Buckley.

Mr Buckley: — on legislation that refers —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Mr Buckley.

Mr Buckley: — to "gender identity".

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I am on my feet, Mr Buckley; I am surprised that that had to be pointed out to you.

I have clarified more than once today where the debate sits in relation to gender identity, so I will not repeat that. You were told. I will just stop you if you do it again. On that point, interventions to ask the Member who is speaking about their views of a political party or of comments made earlier in the debate by Members from that party are not relevant to the debate, which is about the principles of the Bill.

Those interventions, from this moment on, will be stopped as well. The Member will be instructed not to respond to them. If you are intervening to ask the Member something about the Bill, that is one thing; asking the Member to reflect on comments from hours or minutes ago is, quite frankly, not appropriate. Neither is an attempt to rehash the debate on gender identity, because it is not going to happen, and any comments on that subject must relate to clauses or aspects of the Bill. Is that clear?

Mr Buckley: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am now unclear, because my understanding was that an earlier ruling by yourself, which contradicted what the Principal Deputy Speaker said before you, was that, yes, we were entitled to debate and ask questions around gender identity. You said — I do not want to quote you word for word, but I will paraphrase — that because clause 6 of the Bill specifically mentions gender identity — the fact that this is the first time that we will legislate in those terms in Northern Ireland, or indeed further afield, has been referenced — we are entitled to debate it. Am I now led to believe that the Deputy Speaker is going to suppress my ability, or that of other Members, to debate just that?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I am on my feet. You are challenging the Chair. You have had the instruction, and no one needs to chunter from the sidelines that you are not challenging the Chair. I have declared that you are challenging the Chair. The instruction was read out. You referenced other political parties in your intervention, Mr Buckley, and that is the bit on which I stopped you. Just moments ago, I made it clear that, if Members asked the person who was originally speaking about their views on comments made earlier by members of a political party, I would stop that also. Let me make it clear: that stands. You have challenged the Chair. I will say it again for clarification. I am happy to give Members some clarity about the scope of the debate. There is a Bill in front of us with 11 clauses, and the debate should relate to the principles of the Bill. The Bill does include reference to gender identity, and discussion of gender identity within the context of the Bill is permissible. However, it is not a general debate on gender identity, and Members should keep that in mind.

Mr Buckley: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. My understanding of your ruling is that, in the context of the Bill, where gender identity is raised, I am entitled to raise that point because it is within the scope of the Bill. Can you please point out where I did not follow that advice?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I already have, but I will repeat it. My understanding is that you were referencing the views of other political parties, which is not relevant to the context of the Bill. We are now moving on. Mr Frew.

Mr Brett: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I do not seek to challenge you in any way. Given that gender identity comes under clause 6, and the Bill sponsor has refused to define "gender identity" on repeated occasions, and he has refused to define it in his explanatory and financial memorandum, and given the historic nature of the issue because the terminology has never been used in legislation, is it not in order for Mr Buckley to presume, given that there has been a refusal to answer the question, and in light of previous remarks that have been made by the Alliance Party, that there are 100 or 1,000 different genders in Northern Ireland, and that a person can wake up one day and decide what gender they are?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): That was not a point of order, Mr Brett. That was a challenge to the Chair, mixed with your views and the comments of other Members. On that point, like the previous point, I am not going to consider it. We are moving on. Mr Frew.

Mr Frew: The definition given by the Bill sponsor for sexual orientation and gender identity is at clause 6:

That is the only definition of sexual orientation and gender identity in the Bill. It is the first time in the history of the Northern Ireland state that, in law, we are going to use the terminology "gender identity", and we know from the Bill sponsor that it can be whatever the person considers it to be.

Mr Gaston: Will the Member give way?

Mr Frew: Yes.

Mr Gaston: What hope has the judiciary of making any ruling on the legislation when we cannot get a clear definition, whether it is in clause 6 or any of the other clauses, of gender identity? What hope does it have when it considers the Hansard report of the debate, when it is unclear throughout the debate what gender identity means?

What if somebody says that they are the 137th gender and that gender has not been recognised? What hope has the judiciary of making an appropriate ruling based on the legislation? It leaves it wide open. Anybody can be what they want to be. It takes away boundaries. It does not matter. Anything is allowed with the liberal elite.

Mr Frew: I thank the Member for his intervention. I agree with that. How would the judiciary do that? How would the ordinary individual who could fall foul of those offences know what a victim considers their gender identity to be? How then can they measure or assess whether they are suppressing it?

Mr Lyons: Will the Member give way?

Mr Frew: Yes, I will.

Mr Lyons: Or how can they decide whether or not a course may be reasonable?

Mr Frew: There may well be genders out there that, the vast majority of people in this country think, are unreasonable. That is why the unreasonableness test or the "reasonable persons" test in this regard is highly problematic. It is not what the reasonable person thinks; it may be someone who is suffering in fear, alarm and distress.

The Bill sponsor does not have to answer immediately — he can research his Bill — but does that include heterosexual persons? Does that mean that, if someone tries to suppress that person's heterosexual gender identity, provides drugs to teenagers who are confused or performs irreversible surgery on young adults, that is seen by some reasonable people as coercive, abusive and degrading? Does it work both ways?

If a parent bullies their children into being something different, does the Bill capture that parent? I would be really interested to know. That is how it is defined. It is what the victim considers it to be and what the person considers it to be, so how do you know if you are suppressing somebody's gender identity or sexual orientation if you do not know what their sexual orientation or gender identity is? There is no defence for that. There is no defence of ignorance in that regard.

We talked about the heterosexual person, but what about the xenogender? What if someone came home and told their parents that they wanted to be identified as an animal, nature, a colour, an object, a fictional or abstract concept or a particular sensation or emotion? I see people smirking, but there are people in our society who live in fear, distress or alarm because they have those tendencies.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for giving way. It is easy for people to laugh at some of the situations that some people may find themselves in. I think particularly of some of the distressing states that some young people find themselves in. The world today is complex. Things are being thrown at young people in a severe and fast fashion, but we have a circumstance in Northern Ireland — I do not say this out of ridicule or laughter; I say it out of concern — where children in our schools have identified as cats. Teachers have been asked to provide litter trays. In the Chamber, that may feel so far removed from reality, but it is the truth.

Under the definitions of "gender identity" — you have talked about the issue of individuals identifying as animals — if they were to be rebuked by their parent, a teacher or any other individual, would they fall under the auspices of the Bill?

Mr Frew: That is a very important point that has not yet been addressed. Not only is gender —.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Mr Frew, I am not going to stand here. Just to be helpful: I think that the microphone that is closest to you is lying quite flat. There is a risk that we will not hear you. We would not want that

and I know that you would not want that.

Mr Frew: When did you not hear me, Mr Deputy Speaker, so that I can go back? [Laughter.]

I jest. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for that intervention and instruction.

The subject is very important because there are people out there who are hurting. What we find with the Bill is that we are in danger of not helping that hurt or rescuing or helping those people but instead penalising their parents, loved ones, pastor or minister. At the very least, it will mean that parents will not engage with their children or that their pastor, minister or counsellor will not engage with that child. That is really dangerous.

Mrs Erskine: I thank the Member for giving way. There is an irony with the Bill in that the intention, I am guessing, of the sponsor is around the frightening nature, humiliation, intimidation, fear, alarm and distress, but, in fact, by not allowing conversation around that, that actually increases that fear, alarm and distress and increases the mental health aspect to that, which could have a knock-on impact on our health service. We already know that our mental health services are crippled at this time. The waiting lists for CAMHS in Northern Ireland are through the roof. Over the summer, I found out that children as young as five are presenting at A&E with mental health crises. Does the Member agree that, by not enabling talking therapy and allowing parents to have that ability, we will actually see another issue arise as a result?

Mr Frew: I believe that that danger is real — I really do — and it is purely down to the definitions in the Bill. Clause 6(2) specifies:

That goes to the point that I raised earlier.

Mr O'Neill states:

That is also groundbreaking. Not only is "gender identity" being used for the first time in law in this country's history but the definition of "sexual orientation" is being changed. Subsection 2(2) of the Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2003 and subsection 2(2) the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2006 provide:

Therefore, what we are doing with the Bill is changing the definitions in law not only of "gender identity" but of "sexual orientation". I am confused. How is any person out there who is not studying the law meant to stay on the right side of it when the definition of "conversion therapy" is so wide that it includes counselling, talking, coaching and instruction?

That is the danger with the Bill.

I will return to clause 4, which is titled "Conversion therapy". The Bill sponsor has applied some caveats. Clause 4(3) states:

that is doctors —

that is nurses and physiotherapists —

which I do not think regulates in Northern Ireland, but perhaps the Bill sponsor can clarify whether it does —

Are therapists or theorists not covered at all? Why not? Clause 4(3)(b) states:

Nowhere in the Bill is it recognised that professional views on transgender care are divided and that there are massive debates taking place in the medical field about how we deal with and care for people who are fearful, alarmed and distressed.

Mr Tennyson: Will the Member give way?

Mr Frew: Yes, I will.

Mr Tennyson: There is clearly a public debate taking place on trans healthcare and what the pathway should look like, and I do not dispute that different views have been expressed. There is, however, broad consensus among medical and psychotherapy organisations that conversion therapy is not acceptable. For example, Professor Cass herself has supported the UK Government's proposed ban on conversion therapy, because there is broad recognition of the harm that it can cause.

Mr Frew: Will the Member therefore help me understand what a doctor, nurse or physiotherapist who is not comfortable with the current code of practice or code of ethics of a regulatory body could do if they were to be confronted with the offences in the Bill? How should they react?

Mr Tennyson: Will the Member give way?

Mr Frew: Yes, I will.

Mr Tennyson: At the moment, if a professional is not acting in line with their code of ethics or their professional standards, their regulatory and professional bodies will launch an investigation, which could result in their being struck off and not permitted to practise. The Bill explicitly excludes health professionals who are regulated, because they are already subject to scrutiny by professionals who know what is and is not acceptable in the healthcare space.

Mr Frew: OK. Thank you. The Member has answered that question fully.

As I have said, "conversion therapy" is defined in the Bill as "counselling", "talking therapy" and "coaching" and "instruction", but what if it is conversion therapy that provides drugs such as puberty blockers to teenagers to convert their body into something that it was not? Would those people fall foul of this law? Would they be guilty of that offence? If someone who was confused were to go through irreversible surgery that changes their body forever, would the person who performed that surgery fall foul of the Bill? Perhaps they would not, because of the caveats in the Bill that apply to those working in the medical field.

Mr Brooks: Will the Member give way?

Mr Frew: Yes, I will.

Mr Brooks: In a lot of those situations, the people who are giving counselling on that matter and supplying such drugs have based themselves in places such as Singapore and are therefore out of the reach of the UK justice system and outside of UK control and regulation. Is it right that such people can insidiously influence our young people in that way when the Bill would not allow young people who are being targeted to have a discussion with their parents or their pastor — the people who love them — about how they might be protected from that kind of thing?

Mr Frew: Clause 7 is "Intent to change or suppress". Where does that start and finish, and can it work both ways? It is not clear in the Bill that it can. Is this about bringing in a one-way ideological trip, whereby people cannot engage properly with their loved ones — their children or other family members — their practitioners, their constituents or their congregation? Those are all important issues.

Mr Brett: I appreciate the Member's giving way, and I hope that I will not incur the wrath of the Deputy Speaker. In rebutting your point earlier, the Bill sponsor quoted Dr Cass's support for the Westminster legislation. Will the Member come to the clear differences between the proposed Westminster legislation and the Bill that is before us? That highlights some of the major concerns that we, as a party, and others have with this Bill.

The Westminster Bill refers to "abusive conversion practice" and "a substantial adverse effect" on normal "day-to-day activities", which is a much higher threshold than is proposed in Mr Tennyson's Bill. The Westminster legislation uses language around abuse, while this Bill uses a general element, and that is not included in clause 1. The Westminster Bill talks about "serious harm", which is not in the Bill before us. If we are going to quote Dr Cass's support for the Westminster Bill, which Mr Tennyson has done, it is important to make it clear that there are clear distinctions between the Westminster Bill and what Mr Tennyson has proposed in the House.

Mr Frew: The Member makes a valid point. I am sure that the Bill sponsor will clarify that in good time. There is that concern.

Miss McAllister: I thank the Member for giving way, and I will be brief. It sounds as though a bit of common ground is emerging tonight. Will the DUP support the proposed Westminster Bill?

Mr Brett: Certainly not. [Laughter.]

Mr Frew: I thank the Member for her intervention. That is what we are striving for: we are trying to get common ground to see exactly where we can go with regard to the Bill. However, if we do not like a Bill, we do not like a Bill, and we will explain why we do not like it. My colleague was highlighting the differences between the Westminster Bill and this Bill and asking what the Bill sponsor's intent is on those differences. They are really important.

Mr Lyons: Will the Member give way?

Mr Frew: Yes, I will.

Mr Lyons: Does the Member agree that there is a difference between a bad Bill and a very, very bad Bill? [Laughter.]

Mr Frew: Yes — a very, very, very, very bad Bill and a very dangerous Bill, as I have outlined.

I move on to suppression. Clauses 1 and 2 include references to "suppressing". What is it to "suppress" someone's "sexual orientation or gender identity"? Is it a parent saying, "You cannot do that", "You cannot view that", "You cannot put those posters on your bedroom wall", "You cannot wear those clothes", "You cannot cut your hair" or, "You cannot grow your hair long"? What is it to "suppress" someone's "sexual orientation or gender identity"? Those are meaty questions that are at the heart of the offences connected to the Bill. Yet, I have no reassurance that a parent will not fall foul of it and that ordinary parenting will not become an offence. That is how stark this is. That is how dystopian it is. That is why, at the start, I said that I believed that this was the most dangerous Bill that I had read in my 16-year career in the Assembly since 2010. It is really important that the Bill sponsor clarifies all of that not only for my benefit and that of my party and other Members who are worried but for the population, because it is people who will fall foul of all those laws.

Mr Martin: I thank my colleague for taking an intervention. I believe that he is referring to clause 2(1):

Is it the Member's view that a parent withholding the right to a child of ordering puberty blockers should they wish to, would fall within the remit of suppressing the gender identity or perceived gender identity of the victim?

Mr Frew: To help the Member, I believe so, because, if the victim can state that they suffered physical or psychological harm as a consequence of their parent's behaviour — psychological harm includes, of course, "fear, alarm or distress" — I believe that that parent will fall foul of the law. It is not only puberty blockers; it could be anything. The sponsor of the Bill will say, "But it has to be reasonable". What is reasonable about someone coming home and — serious as the matter is — saying to a parent that they want to identify as an animal or a colour? The sponsor has not defined the terms in his Bill, so how do you put a "reasonable person" test in the Bill when the Bill is so loosely defined as to capture all genders, not just transgender? The Bill's sponsor has not clarified that in any of his interventions. Maybe it will come at the end of the debate; I do not know.

I really worry about the Bill. It is the most dangerous Bill that I have ever come across. Parents may routinely set boundaries, challenge their children's decisions and refuse requests that, they believe, are not in their child's best interests, but that goes out the window if the child thinks that there has been psychological harm because of a disagreement over what they deem their gender to be. The Bill is so wide-reaching. The scope is so hard for a parent to define. If a parent refuses to facilitate social transition and encourages a child to wait, that is suppression. If your child comes to you and says, "I think that I am transgender" or "I think that I am in the wrong body", and that parent says, "No, you should wait. Give it a few years. See how you feel when you turn 16", that is suppression, and it is suppression if the victim deems it to be, even if they have consented to waiting a while.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for giving way. Much reference has been made to the potential for an individual who objects to life-changing, life-altering medical treatment, be that puberty blockers or medical procedures, and how they may fall under the Bill by refusing that. However, another section of individuals, who have not been mentioned in the debate so far and are sometimes cast aside, sadly, are those who want to detransition. We often find with those individuals that they are almost cast aside by the people who encouraged them, prodded them and pushed them into those life-altering circumstances. Does the Member agree that, under the definition of "conversion therapy" in clause 4, any individual who counsels an individual on detransitioning, coaches them, gives them instruction falls under the scope of "conversion therapy" and, by means of the Bill, risks prosecution and therefore a maximum penalty of two years in prison?

Mr Frew: I think that it does, but I will give way to the Bill's sponsor.

Mr Tennyson: Mr Buckley is wrong, and I have already addressed that issue in the debate. We have employed universal definitions, so, just as it would be deemed illegal to act with intent to coerce, to harm or to offer someone therapy that harms them, to forcibly change them and force them to change their identity away from being transgender, if a person who has gone through a process of medical transition comes to the view, without coercion, that that was a mistake, that they are cisgender and they want to detransition, if a therapist said to that person, "Well, you only feel this way because of your relationship with your parent", and if they were to threaten or shame them through a course of coercive behaviour, that would be captured.

The definitions are universal, and they cut both ways.

Coercion in any direction is wrong, and we have been deliberate in the language that we have used for that purpose. That is why we chose to use the term "gender identity" rather than "transgender". It is a universal definition that cuts in both directions.

Mr Frew: That was a helpful intervention by the Member. I teased out the question that I asked earlier about what is encapsulated by clause 6 and what the victim considers their sexual orientation or gender identity to be. It could be everything and anything. That is telling. I thank the Member for that intervention.

A parent who refuses to facilitate social transition, encourages the child to wait, restricts access to particular online material or strongly advises against transition may cause distress without behaving abusively, but — here is the thing — it is not even about transition; it is just about sexual orientation. I ask the Bill sponsor this: if a young person is addicted to porn, is that not their sexual orientation? If they watch porn and spread pictures and posters of naked women or men around their room and are told by their parents to take them down, is that suppressing their sexual orientation? If not, will the Bill sponsor explain why not? I will give way to the Bill sponsor if he wants.

Mr Tennyson: Sex addiction and addiction to pornography are classified as sexual disorders, not sexual orientations. That issue is distinct from a person's sexual orientation. In fact, the motivation in that circumstance is not to suppress sexual orientation but to suppress the disorder that the person is struggling with, which is a completely legitimate thing for a counsellor, therapist or other medical professional to be involved in. It also does no harm to the individual, because what you are dissuading the individual from doing is engaging in harmful behaviour.

Mr Frew: That, too, was a very interesting intervention. We have now heard about someone who has a disorder. When someone has a disorder, they need treatment, because they are sick with something, whatever that might be. Here we have the flip: for so long, we have been accused of calling people "ill" or "sick" or saying that they need to be fixed, but, when I talked about addiction to porn, the Bill sponsor spoke of "sexual disorders". What if some young person or some old person, for that matter, likes porn? How does that affect the Bill?

Mr Tennyson: Will the Member give way?

Mr Frew: Yes.

Mr Tennyson: We are in danger of straying into pretty dangerous and offensive territory. There is a difference between a sexual orientation, which is innate, and an impulsive sexual disorder, which people of any sexual orientation can experience. I encourage the Member to look at the World Health Organization's classification of the issues, which has informed some of our local legislation, because it is clear on what is a pathologised disorder and what is an innate characteristic. People are watching the debate, so we need to be conscious that we are getting into the territory in which Members, perhaps unintentionally — I am not saying that the Member is doing it intentionally — start to conflate the terminology on sexual disorders with terminology on sexual orientation. That could be offensive territory, and we need to tread very lightly. We must be clear that those are two separate issues and that the courts would interpret them as such.

Mr Frew: I agree about respect. We must be mindful of the hurt that is out there. I hope that the Member and the House will agree that I have been respectful the whole way through my contribution. However, he has already agreed that heterosexuality is a sexual orientation. That adds to that definition.

I also want to address how the Bill will catch a parent who bullies a child into transitioning. What does the Member think about a bullying parent who forces their child to transition? He does not have to answer that question now — I get that it has been a long night — but there is an issue there that needs to be covered in the Bill.

Mr Brooks: I thank the Member for giving way. I realise that I am drawing him back a little here, but Mr Buckley gave an example earlier about someone who has transitioned but changes their mind and seeks to detransition in that regard.

We talked about how someone might risk prosecution by talking to that person and saying, "Stop. Think about that". That shows the Bill's unreasonableness. Surely anyone in this place, even those of us who feel that such a person should not have gone through transition in the first place, would think that, if someone has taken the huge decision to transition and has then changed their mind and wants to transition back, those are two huge and potentially traumatic decisions to make and show that that person is struggling with something. Surely we should all want that person to be able to seek help and talk to someone and have someone to counsel them and provide therapy for them in a way that helps them without the person who is trying to help them facing the chilling effect of possibly facing prosecution for stepping into that space.

Mr Frew: One hundred per cent. The Member is correct.

The issue is also clause 9, which is:

I understand exactly where the Bill sponsor is coming from here. In the raft of legislation that we have passed in this House, there is no right to claim trial by jury, simply because of the trauma that that could cause to the victim in stalking or domestic violence cases. I get that, but the Bill is so new when it comes to definitions that I wonder whether the Bill sponsor would consider removing clause 9 and allowing people to be tried by their peers in such cases, because they could involve teachers, preachers or parents. It might not be the same as the perpetrator being a stalker. It might not be the same as someone who perpetrates domestic violence. The Bill will capture parents who have tried their best for their children who are living in a confused and distressed state, and criminalising those parents will only make that worse and heighten the pain and suffering for the whole family. That is my fear with the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank you for my time, and I thank Members for listening. I hope that I have added something to the debate. I am deeply concerned by the Bill. I know that the Bill sponsor will not hear or warrant my appeal, but I ask him to pull back from proceeding with it because of the danger that I perceive to be in it.

Ms K Armstrong: I was not expecting that. I was expecting Mr Frew to go on until 10.30 pm. Thank you very much.

Before I start my contribution, I say to Members: I apologise in advance if you call for an intervention and I do not hear you. My hearing has got a lot worse, and I have difficulty picking up Members speaking, especially if what they say is not picked up by a microphone. You will all be pleased to hear that my contribution will, hopefully, be relatively short, because I am exhausted and my head is busting, but it is important to add a contribution to the debate.

I support the Bill. Why would I not? The Bill sponsor is a colleague of mine, Eóin Tennyson, who is my deputy leader, but, on top of that, I believe that nobody in Northern Ireland should be subjected to practices that are designed to change or suppress who they are. It does me no harm in my life for somebody to have their sexual orientation or gender. I have no problem with that. It does not affect me from day to day. I am a Christian. I know that some do not believe that anybody in the Alliance Party is a Christian. I may not be the same flavour of Christian as some DUP Members or other Members of the House, but I am a Christian, and I have no problem with people being who they are. I have lived my life with the view that we are made in God's image, and I have lived it through the lens of not doing someone else harm.

Mr Brett: I appreciate the Member's giving way. I know that she is sincere in what she says, but would she not equally accept that no one on this side of the House raised objections to the Bill because of someone's sexual orientation? The concerns of those of us on these Benches have been around the Bill's being so expansive and lacking definitions. I know that it can be easy to try to belittle, ridicule or rebuke DUP Members based on that perception, but, had the Member listened to the contributions that have been made, she would know that at no time did any Member on these Benches say that the reason for our opposing the Bill is based on anyone's sexual orientation.

Ms K Armstrong: I thank the Member for that contribution. I do not think that I need to respond to it, because it was a viewpoint, but I will say that the debate has generated strong opinions, which is understandable because it touches on issues of identity, faith, family life, personal liberty and safeguarding.

When we cut through the rhetoric, the question that is before us is simple: should anyone be subjected to harmful practices that are intended to change their sexual orientation or gender identity? I believe that the answer to that is no. The evidence that has been presented in support of the legislation is deeply concerning. Survivors have described experiences that left them feeling ashamed, isolated, frightened and damaged. I would like to take Members back to the start of the debate, when Mr Tennyson — I do not want to embarrass him — got emotional. I can understand why that happened. Some people who have been through such practices have spoken about being subjected to degrading interventions disguised as therapy. Others described coercive behaviour within their family or community or in faith settings. Those are not accounts that any of us can simply dismiss. What struck me most when reading the evidence was that many of those who were affected were vulnerable people seeking support, guidance or acceptance who instead encountered attempts to convince them that a fundamental part of who they are was wrong and needed to be fixed. That is terrible.

Mr Tennyson has been very clear, throughout the Bill, that the offences of providing conversion therapy and engaging in coercive therapy are based on intent. That is important. If a person says that they are gay, lesbian, bisexual or whatever, and another person says, "No you're not", that is one thing. If yet another person has the intent to change the person and make them not what they are, however, that is different. Sadly, some parents do that. I have been involved in many different situations in my time with parents and with the wave of different families. Members have to remember that, when children are subjected to abuse, including physical abuse, within a family, it is most usually carried out by their parents or siblings. We cannot say that all families are perfect, and that is why, when the Bill sponsor talks about protecting parents, a simple conversation is not a problem; it is a problem whenever the intent is clear.

Broader studies have shown that LGBTQ+ individuals experience higher rates of suicidal thoughts and self-harm than the general population due to minority stress, discrimination, coercion and social stigma. That does not come from just one report. If anybody wants to, they can go on to their phone now and look up the Samaritans' website, on which there is a particular page for people with LGBTQ+ backgrounds to consider seeking support and help. It is very sad to know that people are forced into a situation where they would rather kill themselves than live in a society that does not want them to be there or that does not respect them.

Mr Martin talked about Alan Turing. What an incredibly intelligent man he was, and thank goodness for him, because his cracking the code led us to a successful outcome in the Second World War. Let us not forget, however, that Alan Turing was not just prosecuted: he took chemical castration to avoid jail because he was homosexual and ended up dying by suicide. That is what some of our young people, and our not so young people, go through.

Mr Martin: Will the Member give way on that point?

Ms K Armstrong: I am moving on from that point now, if the Member does not mind.

Mrs Dodds talked about this being draconian legislation. I do not think that it is.

What is more draconian is for people to be forced to live a life that is not them and to be forced to live a life where they have to deny who they are, thus denying themselves.

There has been talk that the Bill is poorly drafted. I have said it before and will say it again, having been down this road with my own private Member's Bill: the House owes an apology to the Bill Office and to whomever drafted the Bill, because those people are qualified professionals. They do not produce bad work. Members can sponsor private Members' Bills. We put forward our proposals, do our research and undertake our consultation. We then present everything to the Bill Office and its drafters, who come up with the wording in the Bill. There is meaning behind every single word. I put it on the record that I am not one of those Members who, with every private Member's Bill, slights the Bill Office.

Mr Brooks: Will the Member give way?

Ms K Armstrong: No. I am going to move on.

The fact that there is a minority population in Northern Ireland that has higher rates of suicidal thoughts and self-harm than the rest of the population should concern every single Member, regardless of their political or religious beliefs.

Mrs Erskine: Will the Member give way?

Ms K Armstrong: No. I will move on.

I welcome the fact that the Bill focuses not just on intent but on harm and coercion. The offences in clauses 1 and 2 require specific actions, a specific victim, an intention to:

and proof that harm has occurred. The legislation is not simply about disagreement or expression of beliefs. Those legal safeguards are important. Many people, however, will have genuine questions about where the boundaries lie, and it is important that those concerns be addressed openly and clearly. I will therefore ask Eóin, the Bill sponsor, questions for him to respond to in his winding-up speech. I ask him to consider being very clear in answering them in order to cut through some of the noise so that we have clear answers.

First, can he assure parents across Northern Ireland that ordinary conversations with their children about sexuality, relationships or gender identity would not of themselves be criminalised under the legislation? If a parent is seeking to guide, advise or support their child rather than coerce or harm them, can he explain why such conversations would fall outside the scope of the Bill?

Secondly, many faith communities will also be listening closely to the debate. Can he confirm that a priest, minister, imam, rabbi or other religious leader would not face prosecution simply for preaching, expressing religious doctrine or sharing traditional beliefs from the pulpit?

Mr Givan: Will the Member give way?

Ms K Armstrong: No, I will not. I will move on.

Can he explain how the requirement for there to be a specific victim, harmful conduct and intent would provide protection for freedom of religion and freedom of expression?

Thirdly, the Bill contains a defence of reasonableness, about which others have talked. Can he elaborate on why that safeguard has been included and how it is intended to operate in practice? Does he believe that it would provide an additional layer of protection against unintended consequences?

Finally, as the Bill progresses, can the Bill sponsor confirm whether he is open to further refinements that provide additional reassurance to parents, carers and faith communities while ensuring that the central objective of protecting people from conversion practices remains strong and effective?

At its core, the legislation is about dignity and protection. It is about ensuring that nobody is subjected to harmful practices because of who they are. It is about recognising that safeguarding should apply in every setting, be that in a professional environment, in a community organisation or, indeed, in a faith setting. We can support freedom of religion while also protecting people from harm. We can respect parents while also challenging coercive behaviour. We can have difficult conversations about identity while also drawing a clear line under practices that seek to damage, shame or correct.

We heard very clearly from some Members from the DUP that they will oppose the Bill at Second Stage. Mr Martin said very clearly that he is up for scrutiny. I am a member of the Committee for Communities. It was mentioned earlier that all voices should be heard.

That can happen at the Communities Committee as part of its consultation. However, if you vote against the Bill, you stop scrutiny, and you prevent the voices from being heard when they could be heard. I say this to the DUP: you can vote against the Bill tonight, but ask yourself the question, "Do I really want it to be scrutinised?". It does not sound like you do.

Mr Martin: I thank the Member for giving way. This is the Second Stage debate. We are debating the general principles of the Bill, and Members will understand that this is scrutiny. We have been scrutinising the Bill. Not only is it our job to do that, but it is important to note that, if we form an opinion at Second Stage that the Bill is so flawed that we should oppose it, that is the right thing to do.

Ms K Armstrong: I thank Mr Martin for that. I remind him that, not that long ago, the Minister, Gordon Lyons, chastised me for wanting to go into the detail of a Bill at Second Stage. It is interesting to see the difference at this Second Stage.

As a member of the Committee for Communities, and somebody who is passionate about, and an ally of, people across the LGBTQIA+ community, I am disappointed that the House has had to rely on Mr Tennyson to bring this forward and that the Department has not brought forward a Bill on the matter. It has been bubbling along in the House for a long time. We do not have gender equality or sexual orientation strategies.

Mr Lyons: I appreciate the Member giving way. Why is it so difficult to bring this forward? I have engaged in good faith. I have had many meetings with officials on the issue, and I have engaged with people from the outside. This is such a difficult issue to put into legislation, because, once you get beyond all the clearly harmful practices, you quickly move into an arena where rights bang up against each other. Look across other parts of the UK: for six years, the Conservative Government tried to bring something through but could not; and, for years, the Scottish Government tried to bring something through but could not. Why? They could not do it because a Bill like this inevitably leads to a clash of rights.

The Member has been so simplistic in her comments this evening. It is as if, "This is a good thing, and it has been brought forward by Eóin, so we should all support it and agree with its general principles". I say this to Kellie Armstrong: this is complex; this is about contrasting rights; this is about what a parent can say to their child. She listed a pile of questions that she gave to Eóin Tennyson on that, but she was not able to give the answers. She was not able to look into that and make a determination. The reason why this has not come forward is that it is so difficult to do. Experience elsewhere has shown that. If she thinks that doing it in the last six months of the mandate is the way to do it, she is living in cloud cuckoo land.

Ms K Armstrong: Minister, you have not brought forward a gender equality strategy, a sexual orientation strategy or a lot of other strategies. What have you been —?

Miss McAllister: Will the Member take an intervention?

Ms K Armstrong: I will.

Miss McAllister: Does the Member agree that just because something is complex and difficult does not mean that it should not be attempted, done, completed or followed through?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I ask Members to move beyond the actions of the Minister and back to the principles of the Bill.

Ms K Armstrong: Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I agree with the Member.

If the DUP goes ahead and votes against there being scrutiny at Committee Stage, an opportunity will be lost. I truly believe that the Committee Stage would provide an opportunity for further scrutiny and refinement. I am content to support the Bill at Second Stage, and I look forward to hearing Eóin's responses to the questions that I have asked.

Before I finish, I congratulate Paul Boggs on his maiden speech. I chose draft legislation as the subject of my maiden speech, because — thank goodness — there is no time limit. Well done for that. As Mr Frew has done, I pay tribute to Eóin Tennyson for bringing forward a Member's Bill. It is not easy and, as Members heard earlier, it does not matter how long it has been since you passed a Bill, people keep trying to goad you about things. It is a pity that they did not understand the legislation.

The stress and the PTSD that I am now remembering from that time is difficult, so congratulations, Eóin. I look forward to the Bill going through.

Mr O'Toole: I will attempt to speak relatively briefly about Mr Tennyson's Bill this evening, because people deserve to go home. I presume that we will not move to a Division tonight. I want to say some words in support of the Conversion Practices (Criminalisation) Bill at Second Stage, as my party colleague did earlier, and make it clear that the SDLP Opposition will support the Bill proceeding.

It is worth beginning a conversation by locating it with the people who are intended to be perhaps the beneficiaries of the Bill — that might be putting it in the wrong way — or the people who will accrue a benefit by being protected from deeply harmful practices. Those are people who are largely in the LGBTQIA+ community, people who are not like me. I am a straight man; I am cisgender. I have never experienced any of those practices and have not been at risk of experiencing any of those practices, so I am aware that I do not speak with the experience of someone who has had to confront their sexuality or gender identity being different from the majority. I have never had to navigate that, as Members in the Chamber have, or think about how I would tell my family, had I come from a family with a particular faith perspective or, indeed, a particular perspective on any of the other ways that my — [Interruption.]

There is chattering next to me, which makes it difficult to concentrate on the points I am making. I have never been in a situation in which I have had to confront those issues as others have. It is not easy, and I acknowledge and respect the fact that Eóin Tennyson has brought forward the Bill with those people in mind, and that is understood.

Harmful conversion practices and therapy — quack therapy — are real things. I do not think that anybody in the Chamber today has tried to dispute that they are real things. I profoundly respect people's faith, and the most fundamental of human rights is that people are entitled to pursue their faith. I will come to the potential tension in rights that has been mentioned by Members opposite, but freedom of faith is clearly a fundamental human right. All human rights frameworks and doctrines underpin that fact. It is true to say, however, that, in certain religious and faith communities, there has been encouragement and a facilitation of those harmful quack therapies, which have forced LGBT people into extreme harm, not just in the sense of feeling offended or hurt but into the most extreme behaviours, up to and including suicide.

There is nothing wrong with scrutinising the Bill. This is its Second Stage, and it is about the principles rather than line-by-line scrutiny. I would not curtail anybody's right to do line-by-line scrutiny at any stage, but it is important to locate first of all the people whom Mr Tennyson seeks to protect through his legislation.

Mr Buckley: Will the Member give way?

Mr O'Toole: I will give way, but I will not take a load of interventions, I am afraid. Members, including you, Mr Buckley, have had more than ample opportunity to put their views on the record. For the sake of argument, however, I am happy to give way on this occasion.

Mr Buckley: The Member says that we must principally look at whom a Bill sets out to protect, but would he agree that we should also look at whom the Bill potentially harms?

Mr O'Toole: The Bill is endeavouring to create three offences that prevent harmful conversion practices. If you agree with the principles of that and wish to see that proceed and be scrutinised at Committee with opportunity for further scrutiny and amendment, the thing to do is to vote for the Bill tonight at Second Reading. If you believe that this should not be legislated on at all, vote against it at Second Reading. That is your right.

It is important to say that, if Members genuinely think — noting what the Minister said earlier — that we should make some attempt to legislate to prevent the grotesquely harmful practices that have caused not just distress and alarm but loss of life and that we should make an attempt to ban them, the thing to do is to vote for the Bill tonight to enable it to be scrutinised in Committee. While I respect all the statements that have been made about scrutiny, it is also important to say, with the greatest respect, that the opportunity to scrutinise and improve the Bill is at its next stages. By voting against it tonight, you are removing the right to do that, but that is also your right.

A Member: Will the Member give way?

Mr O'Toole: I will not give way at this stage. There may be other opportunities to do so, although I will speak for only a few moments.

The Bill creates three offences — they have all been discussed in detail, and there will be more discussion — which are the offence of providing conversion therapy, the offence of engaging in coercive conversion behaviour and the offence of removing a person from Northern Ireland for the purposes of conversion practices. It is not that I have not read the Bill — I have read it more than once; I have read the explanatory memorandum; I have done significant background reading on the subject; and I strongly support the principles of the Bill — but it is legitimate to scrutinise it in detail, which is why I want it to go to Committee. I respect the fact that the Bill sponsor has said that he is open to further scrutiny and, if necessary, amendment of the Bill.

I did background research on this. Some of the arguments against the Bill have been made on the basis that there would be widespread criminalisation of particular groups, one of which is religious groupings. First, it is important to say, as I have said before, that people are entitled to freedom of religion, including doctrine that I might deem to be a wrongful interpretation and that I fundamentally disagree with and reject. If it is people's religion, they are absolutely entitled to preach it. The Bill draws a clear distinction between people expressing opinion, doctrine, ideology or philosophy and people using that in a specific attempt to suppress or alter somebody's sexuality or gender identity. That is dealt with and can be further dealt with at future stages. However, it is also true to say — it is with the greatest respect that I say this to people of faith — that there has been a pattern in certain parts of certain faiths of this not just being given a bye ball but being encouraged. We are kidding ourselves if we do not acknowledge that. Some of these quack practices have been particularly pursued in certain faith contexts, which is not to say that that is the case for all faith contexts, but we have to be honest about that as well.

Mr Brooks: Will the Member give way?

Mr O'Toole: I will not do so just now. I am not being rude; I just want us to get home tonight. In relation to — [Interruption.]

OK, I will give way. I do not think anybody in this place could accuse me of not having a debate, but yes, please go on.

Mr Brooks: I thank the Member for giving way. I think that we are going to be here until 10.30 pm regardless of whether he or other Members speak.

The Member spoke about faith practices and quackery. Frankly, I have not heard any Member on these Benches — I have not been here for the whole debate, but I have been listening intently from upstairs — defend that kind of quackery or pseudo-medical practice in any way. It is awful; I condemn it; and it has no place. What we are worried about is those who, within the tenets of their faith, set about trying to teach members of their church — those who attend their church — the right way to live, as they see it, through their scriptures.

Does the Member agree, as we talk about change, that the purpose of Christian teaching, as in other faiths, is to change the person, regardless of whether that is to do with what we are talking about today? It could be about any sort of sexual ethics. Christians have a particular belief system around the place of sex within marriage and so on that they wish to teach to the members of their church. We are worried that pastors and others in faith groups will be criminalised for simply trying to teach the basic tenets of their faith. People will be free to disagree with them, and I know that people will do so. We talk about different flavours, as Kellie said, of Christianity, and even those of us who proclaim ourselves to be Christians will have different views.

That is accepted. I do not deny the Christianity of people in the Alliance Party, but I will no doubt have differences with them on aspects of scripture, as I will with members in my party. In our churches and faith groups, people should have the right to teach what they believe is right.

Mr O'Toole: Without getting into the semantics — I do not say that in a pejorative sense — of particular scenarios, first, that is precisely the purpose of having a Committee Stage, during which such scenarios are discussed and people can give evidence. If the Bill were to proceed to Committee Stage, I have absolutely no doubt that the kinds of religious groups that you are talking about are the very ones that would send their representations and seek to give evidence to the Communities Committee.

On the points that you made, you talked about the broad gamut of people expressing their views. I am not a religious person any longer. I do not say that from a position of being antagonistic at all. Indeed, I was raised in a particular faith, and it is very much part of my moral grounding, but I do not pursue a religion now. However, in the context of what you just mentioned, do I think that somebody standing up in a church and expounding on faith or doctrine and saying something that might be deemed to be criticising a sexual or gender identity that is heard by someone who has walked into that church or church hall would lead to a prosecution? I think that that is unlikely to lead to a prosecution if it happens in a church or a church hall and if the person has walked into that church or church hall. I just do not see a plausible scenario in which that leads to the provisions of the Bill being —.

Mr Lyons: Will the Member give way?

Mr O'Toole: I will not give way. In a sense, I wish that I had not been drawn on a hypothetical, because it is now drawing people into individual hypotheticals. I personally do not think that it is plausible that, if a minister of religion is expounding upon broad doctrine or teaching in their church, as they are perfectly entitled to do, they are going to be caught by this legislation. That is clearly not the intention of the Bill.

I will give way in a little while, but I am going to make some progress, and then I will conclude my remarks. The point that I was going to make is that, in order to interrogate some of those things, we should allow the Bill to go to the Committee where they can be interrogated.

Some of the points that have been made about family contexts and parental relationships have been acknowledged already and dealt with by the Bill sponsor. Lots of people who are parents understand the distinction between ordinary parenting, including parenting when a child, for example, comes and talks to a parent about their gender identity and questions that gender identity. It is, of course, the job of any parent to engage with their child humanely and offer them the best guidance that they can. I do not think that the intent or outcome of the Bill when it gets to Final Stage will be or should be to in any way criminalise that. It is really important that we have the opportunity to discuss and unpack those things at Committee Stage. Simply refusing to proceed with the Bill is refusing to give us the opportunity to interrogate those things and, ultimately, to come to a good outcome for LGBTQIA people. Ultimately, that is the intent of the opposition at Second Stage: not to get to a good place.

As for some of the things that the Minister said about other potential consequences, there have been bans on conversion practice of one kind or another — the Bill sponsor can correct me — in Canada, France, Belgium and Germany. I have done some research, and, as far as I can see, there has not been a wave of prosecutions of parents. If there had been, we would have heard about it. People who are opposed to the Bill would have been saying, "Have you seen what has happened in all these places?". That has not happened yet. Yes, it is true to say that there is — you talked about rights — a tension to be navigated. The way to navigate that tension is for us to do our job properly as legislators and to interrogate it in a Committee context.

I will give way briefly and then, hopefully, let somebody else in.

Mr Lyons: I am grateful to the Member for giving way. He made an exceptionally revealing comment. He said, "I can't see that happening". That is why we need to read the legislation, because we are changing the law. I encourage the Member to look at all the tests that need to be met.

I can easily see a situation where a minister has spoken from the front of a church to a group of people and someone says that they felt fear, alarm or distress. You might say that clause 7 gives an exemption for someone who is stating their beliefs. However, in the church that I go to, we do not just get a summary of the Bible; we get instruction on that. I believe that what the Member has said is covered in the legislation and that it is not unlikely that you could see that. The Member makes a fair point; it is, perhaps, unlikely that something like that would follow through to a prosecution. However, there is a chilling effect. Parents or pastors or whoever it might be will have a concern and wonder, "Can I say this? Is it acceptable for me to say this? Do I have a reasonable defence for that?". It is not good enough for us to say, "I can't see that happening", when it is in black and white before us, and it is certainly not prohibited in what is in front of us.

Mr O'Toole: In that scenario, the pastor, priest, minister or whoever would have to be doing it with the specific intent of changing or suppressing the sexuality or gender identity of a specific person. It would be extremely unlikely, and that is why I said what I said.

The Bill is an important step forward in doing what has been recommended by a large range of professional medical bodies and the Council of Europe. Every other Government on these islands have promised to legislate on the issue, and it has been legislated for, in one form or another, by a large number of other countries. Clearly, it is not impossible to legislate in a way that protects the dignity of LGBTQIA people and balances the rights of others in society. I hope that the Bill will proceed to the Committee Stage at which it can be discussed and interrogated. Based on tonight's debate, I do not doubt that it will be. I commend the Bill sponsor for bringing it forward.

Mr Brett: Will the Member give way on that point?

Mr O'Toole: I do not have time, I am afraid. Thank you.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Members, the Business Committee agreed that we should sit no later than 10.30 pm and that this item, if not concluded, would resume on Tuesday 22 September. As we have not concluded the item tonight, the debate is suspended until then.