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 5706463

Text

I absolutely agree with the Member. When we compare this Bill with the draft Bill in Westminster, the differences on the threshold for serious harm become even more notable. That Bill proposes that the conduct has to be abusive and requires serious harm, serious alarm or distress that substantially affects someone's day-to-day activities. That is a clear threshold that is relatively robust versus a threshold in this Bill that is entirely subjective. Westminster's Bill includes the words "abusive" and "serious", but the Member has left them out of his. There is no requirement — none whatever — that someone's conduct has to be abusive for them to fall foul of this legislation. There is no requirement that any serious harm has to be done, just that a child may feel distressed. That is a serious flaw that leaves parents the length and breadth of this country open to litigation and criminal investigation. Mr Tennyson, as Ms Bradshaw did yesterday, keeps saying that he is up for amending the Bill. By the time that we amend it to make it fit for purpose, it will be unrecognisable. That is why doing such cross-cutting, controversial and difficult things in private Members' Bills is lunacy. We should sit down and do them properly through Executive Bills and not do them through private Members' Bills that are atrociously drafted. I will move on.
They are not minor drafting differences. There is genuinely abusive conduct, which is wrong, and there is the ordinary distress and discomfort that can come from everyday conversation.
The former is clearly wrong; the latter happens every day around our country, particularly with people who have parental responsibility. I repeat: a parent who wants to speak freely and in the best interests of their children, in this world where children are fed a diet of nonsense on social media and other things that are damaging to them, would require a KC at the kitchen table. That is wrong. They do not have access to the professional draftspeople that Ms Bradshaw interjected about.
The average citizen, parent, carer, guardian and coach in this country does not have access to the KC advice of the Christian Institute or the drafters in the Assembly. They are trying to navigate life's challenges the best they can and in the best interests of their children. This Bill puts them at genuine risk of investigation, at least — a knock on the door. What happens in those cases? A marker is put against them for vetting, social services get involved and they are told, "You've been investigated for misgendering your child". This is serious stuff. Simply rolling your eyes, objecting and saying, "It's not my intent" does not cut it. Clause 4 defines "conversion therapy" as:
"(a) counselling or any form of talking therapy, (b) coaching or instruction".
The problem is that coaching and instruction are the bedrock of parenting and pastoral work. They are a far cry from some of the behaviours that are being described, such as electric shock treatment, imprisonment, putting someone in a broom cupboard, berating someone or sending someone to a boot camp to be converted. Those behaviours are clearly wrong and are already criminal offences. One lobby group said to me, "Jon, do you not realise that, in parts of the world, there are people who are subjected to corrective rape? That is why this is important". I do not know whether that happens in Northern Ireland, but that is astonishing. If someone was subjected to false imprisonment or corrective rape, the perpetrator would not be prosecuted under this Bill; they would be prosecuted under serious existing legislation that has sentences of up to life imprisonment. When we say that the legislation is needed to deal with such cases as false imprisonment, corrective rape or electric shock treatment, there is always a danger that the public will think that, unless we pass the Bill, there will remain an existing gap in the law that is not being catered for. Those things are already criminal offences. It is important that everybody who is listening to the debate knows that they are not awaiting protections from those offences through the Bill — that they have those protections through the existing justice system. This is dangerous drafting and messaging. Under clause 1, there is no requirement that counselling, coaching or instruction be coercive or abusive — none. The prosecution would have to establish an intention to change or suppress and to establish the psychological harm that resulted, even though it is at a low level. However, it would not have to establish any intention to cause harm or any recklessness as to whether harm was caused. No intent whatsoever is required to cause harm. Even someone acting in what they believe to be the best interests of their child or friend would be liable for prosecution under the Bill. I say it again — it is unchallengeable, and I note that the Member is not jumping up to intervene: there is no necessity to establish any intention to cause harm or even recklessness around causing harm.
If you can find it, please point it out.
No. The majority of such legislation refers to the intent to cause the harm or the recklessness to do so. Under this Bill, you could be acting with absolute nobility of intent — in the best interests of your child and to try to intervene to protect, support, help, nurture and guide — and you would be liable for prosecution. Even if the prosecution were to accept that you were trying to do what was in the best interests of your child, you would still be liable to receive a knock on the door and a conviction. The Member cannot airbrush that away with his rather weak intervention. He cannot point to a single part of the Bill that contradicts what I am saying. Of course, we could amend it again and again, but it gets to the point of there being so many amendments that the Bill should be disposed of, and we should start again. As I said yesterday, I will work on the flags Bill. I am open to working with the Alliance Party to get Bills that are workable and commonsensical.

1,046 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