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

Debate contribution by Mr Harry Harvey on 15 September 2026.

MLA

Mr Harry Harvey

Party at the time

Democratic 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 5707003

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I rise to highlight my fundamental and serious concerns about the Bill's spirit and drafting. I also want to encourage the public to engage with the consultation on the proposals, particularly those for whom the legislation, if passed, will have the greatest impact, such as parents and individuals who work in faith-based settings. Whatever our individual views on the underlying questions of sexuality and gender, when the criminal law is being extended, we should all demand that it is clear, precise and proportionate. It is very clear that the Bill before us, despite the protestations of its sponsor, is none of those things. Given that abuse, coercion and harmful practices are already illegal, it is very clear that the fundamental undercurrent here is an attempt by those behind the Bill to target people of faith, particularly those with a Christian world view. The fact that acts of prayer, preaching and mere conversations, even those requested by an individual at the time, will all be activities caught by the legislation is proof of that. It is abundantly clear that this illiberal and poorly drafted Bill poses a severe threat to basic civil liberties. Ambiguity pervades the Bill. Clauses 1(2) and 2(2) reference a statutory defence to both therapy and coercive behaviour if it was:

"reasonable in the particular circumstances."

What does a subjective statement like that even mean? I suspect that what might appear reasonable to me—

— will be very different to that deemed to be reasonable by the proposer of the Bill. Did someone ask me to give way?

I will at the end. Similarly, if consent is not a defence, one wonders what particular circumstances would be catered for by the reasonableness defence outlined in clauses 1 and 2. I suspect that, in practice, such a defence would prove to have no effect whatsoever. In addition, the Bill relies dangerously on feelings. Clause 5(1)(e) states that coercive behaviour means:

"making the victim feel frightened, humiliated, degraded, punished or intimidated."

The scope of the clause is what I, and anyone who values free speech, find frightening. One person's offence is another person's humiliation. No one should have the right not to be offended, regardless of the nature of the discussion or debate. Under the Bill, that would no longer be the case, even in circumstances where conversations are carried out with the express consent of both adult parties. Such conversations would essentially be criminalised, with the removal of that element of individual liberty. The Alliance Party is of the view that individual liberty should be done away with when it does not correspond with its ideological view, even when an individual proactively seeks to exercise that liberty. Most concerningly, there is no particular dispensation for parents who seek to counsel or guide their children. Parents could be criminalised for advising their child against social or medical transition, or for imposing restrictions connected to how the child presents themself, who they associate with or what material they access online. Such a move would profoundly and unreasonably impact on the article 8 right of individuals to a private and family life. Contrary to what some in the House may think, the parent is best placed to provide, nurture and raise their child. It is the parent, not the state and certainly not the Alliance Party, who knows their child best and knows what is best for them. I trust that the House will appreciate the gravity of this PMB, and the inherent danger within it. I trust that the House will reject the Bill, which is a prime example of censorship and state overreach dressed up as progressive compassion. I will now give way to the Member.

I give way to Mr Givan.

622 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Qualifying

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 01:21 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9. This record has been assessed 3 times; the latest assessment is shown.

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