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

Debate contribution by Mr Paul Frew on 15 September 2026.

MLA

Mr Paul Frew

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 5707079

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Some Members in the House paint me in a very bad light.

They are wrong in that regard. Before I forget, I will pay tribute to Maolíosa McHugh, with whom I served on the Finance Committee in the previous Assembly term. Do not get me wrong: we had many a row and rough spot, but he was always good-natured and well mannered, and I respected that, as I do of all Committee members. I wish him all the best in his retirement. I also pay tribute to the Bill sponsor. Earlier today, I congratulated him privately, because it is not easy to bring forward a private Member's Bill. A massive amount of work is required to get it to this stage of the process. Again, publicly this time, I congratulate him for that. Of course, Mr Deputy Speaker, you will allow me to say that I disagree with probably everything in the private Member's Bill and believe that it is really dangerous; in fact, I believe that the Bill could create a dystopian nightmare. Having said that, I will explain what I mean. It could be the case that the Bill sponsor's intentions are good, but I believe that he is cleverer than that. I believe that he knows what every word in the Bill means. That is why I hope that he will not mind if I ask him some questions about his Bill. I do not expect him to be on his feet every time with an intervention. He will be comfortable doing that when he sees fit to do so or needs to do so. I do, however, expect him to provide a summary at the end of the debate in which he can answer some, if not all, of the questions that I will pose to him, and I will thank him for that. I also pay tribute to the Member's conduct during the debate. He has made interventions and taken notes, for which I am grateful, because that will add to the debate. It will also add to his understanding of our fears and concerns. In many ways, I hope that, if the Bill passes Second Stage — I hope that it does not — the Bill sponsor will be able to address some of our concerns. It is why we are here: to discuss the principles of the Bill. The Conversion Practices (Criminalisation) Bill is a dangerous Bill. We have heard it asked time and time again, "Why will you not support the Bill if it is going to ban conversion therapies?". Had the Bill been titled the "Conversion Therapies (Criminalisation) Bill", I would maybe understand where Members' arguments are coming from, but it is not; it is about conversion practices. At least the Alliance Party Members opposite know what they are. Well, most of them do: Nuala did not know. She thought that she was a libertarian for one brief second, but, of course, nothing could be further from the truth. They are liberals, and at least we know what we are dealing with when we are dealing with liberals. I thank them for that. There are parties in the House that are populist, however, and that is the wrong way to be. It is hard to negotiate with populists. At least we know what the Alliance Party is and what it stands for, even though we are totally and utterly opposed to what it stands for. If passed, the Bill would be an attack on freedom of thought, conscience and religion, in contravention of article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights. It would be an attack on the right to family life, in contravention of article 8. It would be an attack on freedom of expression and freedom of speech, in contravention of article 10. I believe that it would ban or, at least, criminalise private conversations between parents and children conducted in their own home. I wish that I were not having to say that, but I fear that the legislation would create that situation, because it represents an extraordinary imposition on free expression, free association and freedom of belief not only in the family home but in the classroom, in the schoolyard and in Church settings and everywhere else for that matter. That is why the Bill is so dangerous. In my time in the House — I have been here since 2010 — I have not scrutinised a Bill as dangerous as this. Given that I have been here for 16 years, that must stand for something.

I fear this Bill more than I have feared any other Bill that I have scrutinised. I worry — I worry deeply.

The Bill creates three offences. When offences are created, we must take notice. We have a responsibility in this place to make sure that we govern appropriately and that the laws that we pass are measured and considered. I do not believe that any of those three offences are that; in fact, they are quite the opposite. The first offence is the offence of providing "conversion therapy", We are now back in "conversion therapy" land instead of "conversion practices" land, which is good. Let me read the offence:

"A person commits an offence if— (a) the person provides or carries out conversion therapy in relation to another person" —

OK, that sounds good —

"(b) the person has the intent of changing or suppressing the sexual orientation or gender identity of the victim, and (c) the victim suffers physical or psychological harm as a consequence of the therapy."

That is quite weighty. I will go on to the other offences later, but let me take the first part of clause 1:

"A person commits an offence if— (a) the person provides or carries out conversion therapy".

I am thinking, then, that "conversion therapy" must be being locked in a room, having white noise played, being strapped to a bed and having electrodes plugged into your body. Those are all things that have happened, and I would never, ever condone them. In fact, I support the banning of them. If the Member were to bring forward a ban on those practices, most which are now banned in law anyway, I would support him. However, that is not what the Bill does. The Bill sponsor, helpfully, gives us this definition of "conversion therapy", and it is very wide:

"In this Act, a person provides or carries out conversion therapy if the person provides or carries out any of the following— (a) counselling or any form of talking therapy" —

— any form of talking therapy —

"(b) coaching or instruction, (c) a treatment, or purported treatment."

I could probably live with "treatment, or purported treatment", but his definition of "conversion therapy" as "counselling or any form of talking therapy" or "coaching or instruction" is really, really wide — especially "coaching or instruction".

1,152 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