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

Debate contribution by Miss Nuala McAllister on 15 September 2026.

MLA

Miss Nuala McAllister

Party at the time

Alliance Party

Date

15 September 2026

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Private Members' Business

Heading

Conversion Practices (Criminalisation) Bill: Second Stage

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5706909

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I thank the Member for his intervention. I will move on to my next point. Before I took the intervention, I discussed mental health in the LGBT community and said that conversion therapy cannot continue to exist. That is not just my view, my colleague's view or the Alliance Party's view; it is the view of multiple health bodies across the UK and further afield. The Member for South Belfast mentioned a number of international bodies as well. A memorandum of understanding was signed by 25 health bodies, including NHS England, the British Psychological Society, the Association of Christians in Counselling and Linked Professions, the Royal College of Psychiatrists and the Royal College of General Practitioners, which condemned conversion practices as unethical, potentially harmful and not supported by evidence. Other bodies, including the British Medical Association, the Royal College of Nursing, the Association of Child Psychotherapists and the British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy responded positively to the Bill's public consultation. Some arguments were made, and no doubt there will be interventions, perhaps even from you, Paul, which I am trying to pre-empt, on legitimate counselling and talking therapies as opposed to exploratory therapy. Legitimate, regulated counselling is excluded from the Bill. If you read it, you will know that exploratory therapy is also not included. We recognise that that support is important and that many young people come forward and want to talk, whether about their gender identity or their sexual orientation. They can have those exploratory conversations. Those therapies are not in the Bill. Despite what many Members of the DUP — maybe all of them — have said, if you read the Bill, you will see that those therapies are excluded. We must also recognise that regulated therapists and counselling services are bound by their own ethical standards. It is no surprise that there are Members in the Chamber who are for and against the legislation, and it is important that we scrutinise it, but opposing it at Second Stage highlights the DUP's actions rather than its words. That is a reflection on its track record: the history of the DUP and the LGBT community in Northern Ireland. No person who is listening to the debate buys what it is saying when it comes to supporting elements in the Bill and perhaps opposing conversion therapy, because the DUP's track record speaks for itself.

I thank the Member —.

Fair enough. I will maybe take fewer interventions, then. The Member referred to prejudice against the DUP. I am not a member of the DUP, and I fundamentally oppose much of what the DUP stands for when it comes to the LGBT community. How can I set aside my, as you say, so-called prejudice against the DUP when I fundamentally oppose what it stands for with regard to the LGBT community. No one who is watching would believe otherwise. Its Members are perfectly entitled — in fact, it is their job to do this, and, quite frankly, we all must do it — to scrutinise every clause and element of the Bill, but they cannot hide behind their history and true actions in the LGBT community. They are not just on record as opposing it; they try actively to stop it. I think about the gay blood ban that I mentioned before. The DUP Minister Edwin Poots tried to challenge the ruling on it. To be fair to the Member, not only —.

I will move on. The fact that some are choosing, wilfully or accidentally, to misunderstand and misinterpret the provisions of the Bill speaks volumes. Members are entitled to state their belief, whether they oppose the Bill or support it, but they also have to take into account the fact that the Bill has gone through levels of legal advice. It has gone through a lot of effort and work within the LGBT sector and the medical profession. It is not simply a desire or ideology that is being put forward. It will fundamentally change for the better some of the harm that is experienced by the LGBT community. I will touch on the issue of legal advice, which other Members have mentioned. Legal advice is legal advice for the people who pay for and commission it. It would suit everyone well to remember that. I will turn to specific points about the Bill — I will keep it general where possible — that many Members have been misreading or perhaps not quite understanding. It is a complex Bill, and perhaps some things are more difficult to understand for some, despite the sponsor's answering a lot of the questions that have been put to him. First, we have heard from some people on the issue of consent. I, too, want to look at that issue, particularly when it comes to under-18s, but not limited to that age group. We have heard from some people that you cannot use consent as a reasonable defence.

I am proud that it is included in the Bill that you cannot use consent as a defence, because we know that many who undergo conversion practices are young, vulnerable and struggling at times with internalised homophobia. They also might consent because of the power imbalance. If you are approached by your parent, by someone in a faith-based setting or by a therapist, you will not always say no, because you are afraid. You will not always have the voice —.

No, I will not, because I am going on to the previous points that I made. Informed consent is another issue. There was discussion around whether informed consent could be included in the Bill, but I do not doubt that that would not matter when it comes to opposing the Bill. Let us be honest: people are often misled into giving consent and saying that something is not harmful when it is. You cannot consent to harm, just as you cannot consent to harm when it comes to domestic violence, and that is contained in the Domestic Abuse and Civil Proceedings Act. Consent is not possible in the context of conversion practices. I have highlighted the issues of people being misled and the power imbalance. Also, people are often not aware of the risks and the damage that can be caused much later in life. I know that some of my colleagues will touch on the personal experiences of people who have been harmed decades into their life by conversion practices. Reasonableness is an argument that has been thrown about in the Chamber by both sides, and it is important that we discuss that. The reasonableness test is a tried and trusted test in criminal law. It is not something that my colleague has suddenly come up with and stuck into the Bill. It is tried and tested. Thousands of precedents have been set in court in case law. It is right there. It has been tested in court, and it has been tested in the Children and Young Persons Act and in domestic abuse proceedings. There is also the question of suppression, coercion and harm. I get that many Members were asking about balance and where the line is between suppression and coercion and stating your beliefs. I understand, and I respect the fact that people are concerned about where the line is and are afraid that talking about their belief is included. However, it is not simply a test of one thing. It is not simply a test of what exactly is said; it is also about the intent behind that. Did you intend to convert that person to a different sexual orientation or gender identity? We know that the coercive element of that has stood up, and there is much case law that can speak to that. I have mentioned in my interventions the Children and Young Persons Act. The Member for Upper Bann Diane Dodds is not here, but she will be aware that, in scrutinising the Adult Protection Bill in Committee — I am making this relevant — we discussed at length the issue of harm. We discussed how you might include different levels of harm, because that is really important. That is why you look to other legislation, including the threshold in the Children and Young Persons Act. I highlight that Act because of the parental aspect. The threshold in that Act is much higher because of the parental responsibilities there and what is acceptable when it comes to parents, how they teach their children and the views that they express to them.

1,426 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 16:22 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