Debate contribution: Conversion Practices (Criminalisation) Bill: Second Stage
Debate contribution by Mr Jon Burrows on .
- 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 5706542
Read the official Assembly record
Text
We now turn to consent, which is a very important principle. Consent is an issue that is complex and contested. For example, there are things in law that you can consent to and things that you cannot. This will upset some Members, but criminal law sets a threshold that means that you can consent to a very minor assault. You can have a slapping-the-hand competition, and there is protection in law that you can consent to minor assaults. However, there is a degree of assault that you are not allowed to consent to; +t free and fairly given consent. All kinds of vulnerable people are unable to give free and fair consent. The Bill provides no defence whatsoever for the competent adult who seeks support. Consent is expressly not a defence. The competent adult who seeks counselling, support, prayer and pastoral assistance or reverts to a parent for guidance or help cannot provide the consent that would enable the pastoral support, parenting or guidance to be given. The Member has talked a lot about suppression. The unintended consequence of the Bill is that for someone seeking help with something that they are confused or conflicted about — their morals, beliefs or sense of being are completely conflicted, and they need help to deal with that — there is a chill factor to seeking that help and a chill factor to giving the help. There is zero exemption for a competent adult to engage in any form of support, even if they give their express consent. If the Bill passes, my advice would be that anybody who is asked to give that help — pastoral assistance, prayer, teaching or parenting — should say that they cannot give it or make sure that they have the best legal insurance because they might need a KC to give it. If they are a parent, they should record it. Let us think about that. Parents would have to record a conversation at the kitchen table in case it ended up in litigation. Nobody can consent to having a conversation about things that are deeply challenging to them. That is not good law; it is bad law. There is that fatally flawed principle running through the Bill. The professional exemptions are exceptionally narrow, and they are listed. Furthermore, the Bill is not in any sense ready, given the qualitative engagement that has taken place. Only 10 people were interviewed, albeit they are 10 people who should be heard. The PSNI was unable to give costings, and the costings could be vast. The equality assessment has not been conducted. I come to the conclusion of my speech. Rejecting the Bill does not mean rejecting compassion or protection. It does not mean that you are close-minded, bigoted or intolerant; it might actually mean quite the opposite. The Bill regulates the day-to-day activities of parents. It makes acting even in the best interests of your child, with the most noble intent to safeguard your child, liable to criminal prosecution. It makes good parenting something that risks a knock on the door and having to rely on a defence. It has absolutely no requirement, at any stage, for any intent to cause harm or recklessness when the harm is caused. The thresholds for the impact on anyone are extremely low, some of the lowest that I have seen in any proposed criminal law: alarm, distress or fear. When you are talking in particular about children, those are normal emotions that a child will feel throughout the course of their childhood. The Bill sponsor has deliberately omitted the need for any abuse or serious harm, and it is, therefore, exceptionally different from the Westminster legislation. The historical experience of people who have a gay orientation in our country has not always been good. I watched a film about Alan Turing, who was a hero to our country, and he was treated abysmally. Those who have persecuted, bullied and harassed people because of their sexual orientation are wrong, and I mean that from the bottom of my heart. There is no place for it. I have no time for hate crime in any shape or form, but this Bill is not the answer. It would make good parenting hazardous and freedom of expression dangerous, and I therefore urge everybody to vote against it at Second Stage.
725 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.