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 5706441

Text

Let me make it really clear: the Ulster Unionist Party remains of the view that it is wrong to engage in harmful, abusive and coercive practices on the basis of whatever identity, gender identity or sexual orientation people have. That is not the issue with the Bill, however. Frankly, this is not a motion. It could result in people in our country being arrested, charged and imprisoned. It is serious business that needs a serious Bill, and, even though there are some noble objectives in it, this is an unserious Bill. Equally important is the fact that the word "suppress" is left undefined. A key operating term in the Bill is not defined. What does "suppress" mean? Does it mean, for example, encouraging someone not to engage in some sexual activity at a certain age or encouraging them to think again? The Member says no to that, but it is not in the letter of the law. I will come to some stark examples of gaps and contradictions. Clause 8 states:
"psychological harm includes fear, alarm or distress."
To start equating fear, alarm or distress with psychological harm is dangerous in law. In fact, in criminal law, there was a case that allowed psychological distress to be included in the criminal law for a physical injury. The threshold was set at grievous bodily harm, which is very high. The Bill simply refers to "fear, alarm or distress". A child who is alarmed, afeared or distressed is not necessarily psychologically damaged. There is not a child in the country who is not fearful, alarmed or distressed at going to the dentist, but they are not psychologically harmed by going to the dentist. There are children who are frightened of the dark, but they will not necessarily be harmed psychologically by the dark. The Bill sponsor has equated psychological harm with fear, alarm and distress, and there is no requirement that that distress be serious, substantial or permanent. There is another striking contradiction. Paragraph 33 of the explanatory and financial memorandum is clear that:
"The Bill is not intended to carry significant costs."
After the full stop, the next sentence states that the Bill sponsor, Mr Tennyson, intends that:
"the legislative requirements focus only on serious and sufficiently harmful conduct".
I will read that again, because I know that a lot of people are listening at home: "serious and sufficiently harmful conduct". That is in the memorandum and is apparently the intent of the Bill sponsor, but it is absent from the black-letter law. That is the stuff that the Police Service, the Public Prosecution Service —
— and a judge will have to interpret. I will give way in a second. That is a striking anomaly in that it is clear in the memorandum that serious harm is being referred to, but the legislation refers simply to alarm, distress or fear. I will give way to the Bill sponsor.

488 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