Debate contribution: Conversion Practices (Criminalisation) Bill: Second Stage

Debate contribution by Mr Jon Burrows on 15 September 2026.

MLA: Mr Jon Burrows
Party at the time: Ulster 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 5706431

Text

I will maybe start from the beginning again.
I know that you are all desperate to hear my contribution. I will return to that point briefly. We are not here to decide whether abuse, coercive behaviour, humiliation and degrading treatment are right or wrong: they are clearly wrong. We are here to look at the Bill and decide whether it is fit to pass into criminal law. It is not. We should remember that criminal law is the sharpest law available to the state. It has consequences for individuals that mean that they can be deprived of their liberty, and it can require and result in a chill effect on daily behaviour, because it creates a deterrent. It should not be used simply to send a message or make a point. It should be drafted and passed only when it is necessary. There are so many flaws in the Bill that it does not withstand any penetrating or forensic scrutiny. One of its outcomes would be that a parent would, in effect, need a KC at the kitchen table before having conversations with their child. I will come on to why that would be necessary. It is cold comfort to say that there are defences in the Bill, because defences apply only when a complaint has been made and investigated and a file has gone to the Public Prosecution Service. The damage that can be done before then is significant. That is why other criminal offences have a certain threshold before the criminal law is engaged. The offences in this Bill have some of the lowest thresholds that I have ever seen for what is the most litigious part of the United Kingdom. That is a recipe for disaster. I will go through the flaws one by one. First, the Bill is built on undefined concepts. Clauses 1 to 3 criminalise attempts to change or suppress a person's gender identity. That has been well litigated already. Nowhere in the Bill is there a definition of "gender identity"; in fact, clause 6 makes it precisely clear that gender identity is entirely subjective. I once read on the BBC that it was claimed that there were over 100 gender identities. Some of them are so far removed from what we ordinarily understand to be issues of gender identity that the Bill presents the risk that parents saying to their child, "What you are thinking and saying is simply nonsense. It can't be true" could be litigated and could be an offence.
With any legislation, particularly criminal legislation, the scope is the crux of the issue. Law, particularly criminal law, should be clear so that the public know the boundaries that we are setting in this place for what they can and cannot do. The Bill is not.

465 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.

Challenge this classification