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

Debate contribution by Mr Mark Durkan on 15 September 2026.

MLA

Mr Mark Durkan

Party at the time

Social Democratic and Labour Party

Date

15 September 2026

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Private Members' Business

Heading

Conversion Practices (Criminalisation) Bill: Second Stage

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5706564

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I rise to support the principles of the Conversion Practices (Criminalisation) Bill. I do so because there is a very simple principle at the heart of the debate, which is this: there is nothing wrong with being gay. There is nothing to cure and nothing to fix. You cannot pray the gay away. That last line may sound a bit blunt, but bluntness is necessary when we are talking about a practice that has caused real harm to real people. The Bill creates offences around conversion therapy, coercive conversion behaviour and removing someone from Northern Ireland for conversion practices. Crucially, those offences are constructed around "intent" and "harm", not around what someone privately believes. That distinction matters enormously. Government cannot legislate for what a Church believes, and nor should it. It cannot legislate for what a person believes, and nor should it. The Assembly —.

Certainly, I will give way.

I thank the Member for his constructive intervention. The Assembly should not attempt to police people's prayers, feelings or beliefs. I am a person of faith. I understand the importance that prayer, pastoral support and conversations about faith can have in people's lives. However, we need to distinguish between praying for someone and using prayer as an instrument by which to change them. The law cannot, and should not, look into the heart of a parent who is praying privately for their child. It should not criminalise a minister who is expressing a religious belief. It should not create a criminal offence when a young person goes to a priest, pastor or faith leader and asks to talk about their sexuality, identity or faith. Importantly, the Bill does not do that. Clause 7 specifically provides that there is no intent to change or suppress where somebody is simply expressing beliefs or opinions without directing another person towards a particular sexual orientation or gender identity.

Sorry, Minister. I am keen to make progress, and not just in the debate. Some people are opposed to the progress of this particular draft legislation and are, perhaps, opposed to progress full stop. Everyone will have ample opportunity to address points that I make, and I am sure that they will take that opportunity. We have 20 more Members who wish to speak, and there may be a few more added to the list. The explanatory memorandum is equally explicit that the purpose of the Bill is not to criminalise moral or religious beliefs but to deal with conduct that crosses the line from expression into directive practices, so when people ask, "Will this criminalise prayer?", the answer is this: read the Bill. A mother who is praying for her child is not committing an offence because she is praying. A minister who is explaining the teaching of their Church is not committing an offence simply because someone disagrees with that teaching. A conversation about sexuality or gender identity is not automatically conversion therapy. The question is about what you are doing to that person, why you are doing it and whether you are deliberately trying to direct them away from who they are.

I am sorry; I will not take any further interventions from the DUP today. That is the tightrope that we have to walk: protecting freedom of religion and expression while refusing to allow those freedoms to become a shield behind which coercion and harm can hide. Prayer does not become immune from scrutiny simply because we call it "prayer". If prayer is weaponised as part of a deliberate programme to shame, frighten, humiliate or coerce someone into changing or suppressing their sexuality, we are no longer talking about someone's private religious belief; we are talking about conduct directed at another human being. The evidence is deeply uncomfortable. One survivor described one-to-one prayer, Bible study and teaching designed to persuade him that his homosexuality was wrong. He described the experience as reinforcing shame and leaving him isolated and completely destroyed in his faith. That is the difference. Have your beliefs — they are important — but do not use prayer to frighten another person, do not use scripture to humiliate them, do not use your faith to coerce them and do not tell me that protecting someone from harm is an attack on Christianity when scripture itself tells us:

"Love does no harm to a neighbour".

You can hold and express a belief and you can pray, but you cannot pray the gay away, and you certainly should not be permitted to harm someone by trying. None of this is new to the House. In a previous mandate, I questioned the then Communities Minister, Deirdre Hargey, about progress towards banning conversion therapy, and she committed to bringing forward draft legislation. I supported the Minister at the time and understood entirely when she said that she did not want to rush; that research was needed to establish how widespread the practice was; that up-to-date information was required; and, importantly, that she did not want loopholes that would allow the practice to continue. I responded that day by saying that Executives can sometimes be good at announcing strategies and intention to legislate but not so good when it comes to delivering them. I urged the Minister to move quickly while ensuring that those loopholes were closed. Here we are, five and a half years later, and we are fairly entitled to ask: what happened? Sinn Féin held the Communities Ministry then. Its Minister committed to introducing legislation and said that it would be ready to come before the House by the end of that mandate, but it never came. In April 2021, the Ulster Unionist Party brought a debate — Mr Tennyson mentioned it earlier — on banning conversion therapy in all its forms. The motion noted that such therapy had been rejected by medical professionals and that it was fundamentally wrong. Again, what changed? Many of the Members who voted in favour of that motion still sit on the UUP Benches — not right now, right enough.

I wonder whether they will do the right thing today and support the passage of this legislation to the next stage, or will they just follow the latest leader? The SDLP did not just allow this issue to disappear. After we entered opposition in June 2024, we brought a motion to the Assembly deploring the fact that these harmful practices remained legal, reaffirming support for an effective ban and calling for legislation before the end of the mandate. During that debate, we were challenged directly about prayer and counselling. My answer then is my answer now: this is not about banning pastoral care or stopping an individual from praying with their religious leader. Two years later, we finally have legislation before us, and I commend Mr Tennyson for bringing it forward. I do not pretend for a second that every clause is beyond scrutiny or incapable of being improved. That is precisely what Committee Stage is for. We should listen seriously to faith communities, LGBT people of course, parents, clinicians, lawyers and, above all, those who have experienced conversion practices.

Certainly.

1,185 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 16:21 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.

Disagree with this assessment?

Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.

Challenge this classification