Debate contribution: Conversion Practices (Criminalisation) Bill: Second Stage
Debate contribution by Mrs Diane Dodds on .
- MLA
- Mrs Diane Dodds
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 15 September 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Conversion Practices (Criminalisation) Bill: Second Stage
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5706323
Read the official Assembly record
Text
That is why it is really important to have the debate and look at the Bill as a whole, so that we understand what the Bill could impose on families in Northern Ireland. I was thinking about legislation when thinking about the Bill. In examining any Bill, it is important to ask whether the draft legislation is sufficiently clear. I do not believe that the sponsor can say that his draft legislation is sufficiently clear. Where is the evidence of the need for new criminal offences? Does the legislation adequately balance protection from genuine abuse with freedom of speech, religious liberty and legitimate therapeutic practice? Mr Tennyson has said that he believes that the Bill is balanced, but, when you look at the detail of the Bill, you see that there is a plethora of ways in which many people can be caught within its clauses. If we want to have a bit of a look at the Bill, it is important to move on to some of the clauses. First, I will go back to Mr O'Neill's critique or legal opinion on the Bill. He says:
"the drafting technique of the NI Conversion Practices (Criminalisation) Bill in employing a portmanteau of 'conversion practices' is consciously (and misleadingly) to lump together (and implicitly to equate) behaviours which are already criminal offences (such as threats of violence, physical abuse, sexual abuse, coercion and abusive control) with the heretofore non-criminal provision of therapies such as counselling or any form of talking therapy, coaching or instruction, or the provision of treatment including the prescription of medication."
Therefore, in his view, the Bill does not give that adequate balance and the way in which the Bill is constructed equates harmful criminal behaviours with behaviours that are more conventional, such as talking therapies. Let us look at clause 1. We have not really heard a huge level of detail on clause 1 so far. The Bill sets it out that a person commits an offence when they provide conversion therapy to another person. Clause 1(1)(b) is not clear when it says:
"the person has the intent"
— "intent" is subjective in anyone's language —
"of changing or suppressing".
As the Minister has just asked: what does that mean? Does it mean dampening down? What is the threshold? Where are the bars for the kind of language that is used in the Bill? Clause 1(1)(c) states:
"the victim suffers physical or psychological harm as a consequence of the therapy."
No one wants anyone to suffer harm. However, the definition of "psychological harm" at clause 8 is incredibly wide; indeed, it is a catch-all. We have to read the clauses together, and the definition at clause 8 states:
"psychological harm includes fear, alarm or distress."
For any young person who is suffering a crisis of identity and going through puberty, all those things could be present at any one time. Therefore, we have a Bill that will criminalise people that does not clearly define the harms that it is trying to prevent. We then have the burden of proof, which is on the accused to show that their actions were "reasonable in the particular circumstances". It will be left up to the courts, the Public Prosecution Service (PPS) and the PSNI to determine how that is worked through. Again, as I said previously, that leads us to a situation in which we may well have parenting by the courts, because parents will be afraid of the legislation's implications.
I will, of course.
We will undoubtedly see litigation. Unfortunately, parents will find themselves the subject of that litigation. That is not a desirable place for our community to be led to. The Assembly should think very carefully about the Bill and the wide-ranging terms in it.
628 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Awaiting analysis
This record has not been analysed yet. It is not counted in any total until it has been assessed.
Disagree with this assessment?
Classifications can be challenged. A person reviews every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.