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

Debate contribution by Mr Matthew O'Toole on 15 September 2026.

MLA

Mr Matthew O'Toole

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 5707453

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I will attempt to speak relatively briefly about Mr Tennyson's Bill this evening, because people deserve to go home. I presume that we will not move to a Division tonight. I want to say some words in support of the Conversion Practices (Criminalisation) Bill at Second Stage, as my party colleague did earlier, and make it clear that the SDLP Opposition will support the Bill proceeding. It is worth beginning a conversation by locating it with the people who are intended to be perhaps the beneficiaries of the Bill — that might be putting it in the wrong way — or the people who will accrue a benefit by being protected from deeply harmful practices. Those are people who are largely in the LGBTQIA+ community, people who are not like me. I am a straight man; I am cisgender. I have never experienced any of those practices and have not been at risk of experiencing any of those practices, so I am aware that I do not speak with the experience of someone who has had to confront their sexuality or gender identity being different from the majority. I have never had to navigate that, as Members in the Chamber have, or think about how I would tell my family, had I come from a family with a particular faith perspective or, indeed, a particular perspective on any of the other ways that my —

There is chattering next to me, which makes it difficult to concentrate on the points I am making. I have never been in a situation in which I have had to confront those issues as others have. It is not easy, and I acknowledge and respect the fact that Eóin Tennyson has brought forward the Bill with those people in mind, and that is understood. Harmful conversion practices and therapy — quack therapy — are real things. I do not think that anybody in the Chamber today has tried to dispute that they are real things. I profoundly respect people's faith, and the most fundamental of human rights is that people are entitled to pursue their faith. I will come to the potential tension in rights that has been mentioned by Members opposite, but freedom of faith is clearly a fundamental human right. All human rights frameworks and doctrines underpin that fact. It is true to say, however, that, in certain religious and faith communities, there has been encouragement and a facilitation of those harmful quack therapies, which have forced LGBT people into extreme harm, not just in the sense of feeling offended or hurt but into the most extreme behaviours, up to and including suicide. There is nothing wrong with scrutinising the Bill. This is its Second Stage, and it is about the principles rather than line-by-line scrutiny. I would not curtail anybody's right to do line-by-line scrutiny at any stage, but it is important to locate first of all the people whom Mr Tennyson seeks to protect through his legislation.

I will give way, but I will not take a load of interventions, I am afraid. Members, including you, Mr Buckley, have had more than ample opportunity to put their views on the record. For the sake of argument, however, I am happy to give way on this occasion.

The Bill is endeavouring to create three offences that prevent harmful conversion practices. If you agree with the principles of that and wish to see that proceed and be scrutinised at Committee with opportunity for further scrutiny and amendment, the thing to do is to vote for the Bill tonight at Second Reading. If you believe that this should not be legislated on at all, vote against it at Second Reading. That is your right.

It is important to say that, if Members genuinely think — noting what the Minister said earlier — that we should make some attempt to legislate to prevent the grotesquely harmful practices that have caused not just distress and alarm but loss of life and that we should make an attempt to ban them, the thing to do is to vote for the Bill tonight to enable it to be scrutinised in Committee. While I respect all the statements that have been made about scrutiny, it is also important to say, with the greatest respect, that the opportunity to scrutinise and improve the Bill is at its next stages. By voting against it tonight, you are removing the right to do that, but that is also your right.

I will not give way at this stage. There may be other opportunities to do so, although I will speak for only a few moments. The Bill creates three offences — they have all been discussed in detail, and there will be more discussion — which are the offence of providing conversion therapy, the offence of engaging in coercive conversion behaviour and the offence of removing a person from Northern Ireland for the purposes of conversion practices. It is not that I have not read the Bill — I have read it more than once; I have read the explanatory memorandum; I have done significant background reading on the subject; and I strongly support the principles of the Bill — but it is legitimate to scrutinise it in detail, which is why I want it to go to Committee. I respect the fact that the Bill sponsor has said that he is open to further scrutiny and, if necessary, amendment of the Bill. I did background research on this. Some of the arguments against the Bill have been made on the basis that there would be widespread criminalisation of particular groups, one of which is religious groupings. First, it is important to say, as I have said before, that people are entitled to freedom of religion, including doctrine that I might deem to be a wrongful interpretation and that I fundamentally disagree with and reject. If it is people's religion, they are absolutely entitled to preach it. The Bill draws a clear distinction between people expressing opinion, doctrine, ideology or philosophy and people using that in a specific attempt to suppress or alter somebody's sexuality or gender identity. That is dealt with and can be further dealt with at future stages. However, it is also true to say — it is with the greatest respect that I say this to people of faith — that there has been a pattern in certain parts of certain faiths of this not just being given a bye ball but being encouraged. We are kidding ourselves if we do not acknowledge that. Some of these quack practices have been particularly pursued in certain faith contexts, which is not to say that that is the case for all faith contexts, but we have to be honest about that as well.

I will not do so just now. I am not being rude; I just want us to get home tonight. In relation to —

OK, I will give way. I do not think anybody in this place could accuse me of not having a debate, but yes, please go on.

1,184 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