Northern Ireland Assembly, 15 September 2026

825 contributions from 58 members. The official report.

Matter of the Day

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

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.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

Go raibh maith agat, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

[Translation: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.]

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.

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

Your time is up.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

That is why the RUC had to be disbanded.

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

OK.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

That is why those who look to return to Drumcree should stop in their tracks —

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

Your time is up. I have to stop you. Your time is up.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

— and consider what they are doing.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

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.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

It did happen.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

It did not happen. Paragraph 21 states:

"they did not in any way condone or collude with attackers".

Paragraph 75 states:

"we have found no wrongful act or omission which facilitated Robert Hamill's death."

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 —

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

OK. Your time is up.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

— it can never be a licence to rewrite history.

Eóin Tennyson (Alliance, Upper Bann)

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.

Linda Dillon (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

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 —.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

[Inaudible.]

Linda Dillon (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

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.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

And jailed.

Linda Dillon (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

He was found guilty.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

Correctly.

Linda Dillon (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

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

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

No collusion.

Linda Dillon (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

They did not go out to protect the community.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

No collusion.

Linda Dillon (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

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"?

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

Comments through the Chair, please.

Linda Dillon (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

That is collusion.

Matthew O'Toole (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)

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.

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

Time is up.

Matthew O'Toole (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)

Thank you.

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

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.

Trevor Clarke (DUP, South Antrim)

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.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

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.

Alan Chambers (UUP, North Down)

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 —

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

Time is up.

Alan Chambers (UUP, North Down)

— to demonise the RUC, which protected —

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

Your time is up.

Alan Chambers (UUP, North Down)

— us for 30 years.

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

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.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

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.

(Madam Principal Deputy Speaker in the Chair)

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 —

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Time is up, Gerry.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

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

Members' Statements

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

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.

Cathy Mason (Sinn Féin, South Down)

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.

Keith Buchanan (DUP, Mid Ulster)

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:

"The level of assaults against officers in the PSNI is far and above what I’ve experienced elsewhere."

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.

Nick Mathison (Alliance, Strangford)

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.

Sinéad McLaughlin (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

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.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Time is up, Sinéad. Thank you.

Declan Kearney (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

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.

Michelle McIlveen (DUP, Strangford)

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 —

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Time is up, Michelle.

Michelle McIlveen (DUP, Strangford)

— of violence against innocent people. Today, as —

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Time is up.

Michelle McIlveen (DUP, Strangford)

— we mark 50 years since his death —

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Time is up.

Michelle McIlveen (DUP, Strangford)

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

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

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.

David Honeyford (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

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.

John Stewart (UUP, East Antrim)

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.

Justin McNulty (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Newry and Armagh)

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.

Danny Baker (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

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.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

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 —

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Time is up, Timothy.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

— and their families and support networks —

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Timothy, time is up.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

— deserve better than what the Executive are giving them.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

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.

Claire Sugden (Independent, East Londonderry)

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.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

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.

Assembly Business

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

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.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

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.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

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.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

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

Resolved:

That Mr Peter Martin replace Mr Jonathan Buckley as a member of the Committee for the Economy. — [Mr Clarke.]

Private Members' Business

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

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.

Eóin Tennyson (Alliance, Upper Bann)

I beg to move

That the Second Stage of the Conversion Practices (Criminalisation) Bill [NIA Bill 45/22-27] be agreed.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

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.

Eóin Tennyson (Alliance, Upper Bann)

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:

"I consented to a conversion therapy programme. I was faced with losing my family, my friends and the church that I loved... I suffer serious anxiety and depression, coupled with previous suicide attempts... They did not mean to harm me, but it almost cost me my life."

Another survivor

[Pause.]

Apologies, Deputy Speaker.

[Pause.]

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

Sian Mulholland (Alliance, North Antrim)

Will the Member take an intervention?

Eóin Tennyson (Alliance, Upper Bann)

I will, thank you.

Sian Mulholland (Alliance, North Antrim)

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.

Eóin Tennyson (Alliance, Upper Bann)

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.

Phillip Brett (DUP, Belfast North)

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.

Eóin Tennyson (Alliance, Upper Bann)

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:

"How do you feel about the fact that your father wasn’t there, and your mother was? Do you think that that is upsetting for you?"

The survivor said:

"he put a lot of things into my head… And he builds this case and then puts it back to you that, well, perhaps the reason why you’re attracted to men is that your father didn’t love you enough ... So, therefore, you’re trying to fill that hole by seeking out male affirmation".

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.

Phillip Brett (DUP, Belfast North)

Will the Member give way?

Eóin Tennyson (Alliance, Upper Bann)

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 —.

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

Eóin Tennyson (Alliance, Upper Bann)

Yes, I will.

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

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

Eóin Tennyson (Alliance, Upper Bann)

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.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

Will the Member give way?

Eóin Tennyson (Alliance, Upper Bann)

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.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

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:

"a reference to a victim’s sexual orientation or gender identity includes— (a) what the victim considers it to be".

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 —

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Order.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

— and whether that would come —

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Order.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

— to a conclusion in this?

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

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

"sexual orientation or gender identity includes— (a) what the victim considers it to be".

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

Phillip Brett (DUP, Belfast North)

On a point of order, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

I am not finished.

Phillip Brett (DUP, Belfast North)

It is not your job to give your view.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

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.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

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.

Phillip Brett (DUP, Belfast North)

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.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

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.

Phillip Brett (DUP, Belfast North)

On a point of order, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

There will be no more points of order.

Phillip Brett (DUP, Belfast North)

You cannot do that.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Well, I am doing it.

Go ahead, Eóin.

Phillip Brett (DUP, Belfast North)

On a point of order, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Is it on the same issue?

Phillip Brett (DUP, Belfast North)

No, it is not.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

OK. Go ahead.

Phillip Brett (DUP, Belfast North)

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.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

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?

Eóin Tennyson (Alliance, Upper Bann)

Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker.

Jon Burrows (UUP, North Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

Eóin Tennyson (Alliance, Upper Bann)

I will briefly give way to the Member.

Jon Burrows (UUP, North Antrim)

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:

"(a) what the victim considers it to be, and (b) what the person considers it to be."

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

Eóin Tennyson (Alliance, Upper Bann)

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.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

Will the Member give way?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

Eóin Tennyson (Alliance, Upper Bann)

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?

Eóin Tennyson (Alliance, Upper Bann)

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.

Deborah Erskine (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Will the Member give way?

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

Eóin Tennyson (Alliance, Upper Bann)

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.

Deborah Erskine (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Mrs Erskine, thank you.

Eóin Tennyson (Alliance, Upper Bann)

Mrs Erskine; apologies.

Deborah Erskine (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

[Laughter.]

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:

"counselling or any form of talking therapy".

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".

Eóin Tennyson (Alliance, Upper Bann)

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.

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

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.

Eóin Tennyson (Alliance, Upper Bann)

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?

Eóin Tennyson (Alliance, Upper Bann)

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.

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

Eóin Tennyson (Alliance, Upper Bann)

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.

Matthew O'Toole (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)

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?

Eóin Tennyson (Alliance, Upper Bann)

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 —.

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

Eóin Tennyson (Alliance, Upper Bann)

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.

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

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:

"In this Act, coercive behaviour means— (a) behaviour directed at the victim that is violent",

but it also:

"means behaviour on two or more occasions".

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

Eóin Tennyson (Alliance, Upper Bann)

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.

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

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.

Eóin Tennyson (Alliance, Upper Bann)

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

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

Eóin Tennyson (Alliance, Upper Bann)

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.

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

Eóin Tennyson (Alliance, Upper Bann)

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.

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

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:

"In this Act, a person provides or carries out conversion therapy if the person provides or carries out any of the following— (a) counselling or any form of talking therapy, (b) coaching or instruction,"

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.

Eóin Tennyson (Alliance, Upper Bann)

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.

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

Jon Burrows (UUP, North Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

Eóin Tennyson (Alliance, Upper Bann)

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.

Jon Burrows (UUP, North Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

Eóin Tennyson (Alliance, Upper Bann)

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.

Jon Burrows (UUP, North Antrim)

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.

Eóin Tennyson (Alliance, Upper Bann)

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

A Member

Wow.

Jon Burrows (UUP, North Antrim)

[Inaudible.]

Eóin Tennyson (Alliance, Upper Bann)

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.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

Will the Member give way?

Eóin Tennyson (Alliance, Upper Bann)

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.

Nuala McAllister (Alliance, Belfast North)

Will the Member give way?

Eóin Tennyson (Alliance, Upper Bann)

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.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

Will the Member give way?

Nuala McAllister (Alliance, Belfast North)

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.

Eóin Tennyson (Alliance, Upper Bann)

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.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

Will the Member give way?

Eóin Tennyson (Alliance, Upper Bann)

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

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

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

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:

"monitoring the victim’s day-to-day activities".

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:

"psychological harm includes fear, alarm or distress."

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?

Eóin Tennyson (Alliance, Upper Bann)

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.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

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?

Eóin Tennyson (Alliance, Upper Bann)

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.

Nuala McAllister (Alliance, Belfast North)

Will the Member give way?

Eóin Tennyson (Alliance, Upper Bann)

I will briefly. I will make an exception for Miss McAllister.

Nuala McAllister (Alliance, Belfast North)

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.

Eóin Tennyson (Alliance, Upper Bann)

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.

Colm Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

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:

"change or suppress sexual orientation or gender identity".

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.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

I call Diane Dodds. Diane, I will probably have to break before 1.00 pm.

Diane Dodds (DUP, Upper Bann)

OK. I will be longer than that.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

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

Diane Dodds (DUP, Upper Bann)

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 —

Eóin Tennyson (Alliance, Upper Bann)

Will the Member give way?

Diane Dodds (DUP, Upper Bann)

— 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.

Eóin Tennyson (Alliance, Upper Bann)

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.

Diane Dodds (DUP, Upper Bann)

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.

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

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:

"suppressing the sexual orientation or gender identity".

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.

Diane Dodds (DUP, Upper Bann)

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:

"No right to claim trial by jury".

That is fairly draconian legislation.

Eóin Tennyson (Alliance, Upper Bann)

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.

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

Will the Member give way on that point?

Diane Dodds (DUP, Upper Bann)

I will, of course.

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

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:

"a person provides or carries out conversion therapy if the person provides or carries out any of the following— (a) counselling or any form of talking therapy, (b) coaching or instruction".

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.

Diane Dodds (DUP, Upper Bann)

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.

Jon Burrows (UUP, North Antrim)

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.

Diane Dodds (DUP, Upper Bann)

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?

Diane Dodds (DUP, Upper Bann)

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.