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 5707481

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Without getting into the semantics — I do not say that in a pejorative sense — of particular scenarios, first, that is precisely the purpose of having a Committee Stage, during which such scenarios are discussed and people can give evidence. If the Bill were to proceed to Committee Stage, I have absolutely no doubt that the kinds of religious groups that you are talking about are the very ones that would send their representations and seek to give evidence to the Communities Committee. On the points that you made, you talked about the broad gamut of people expressing their views. I am not a religious person any longer. I do not say that from a position of being antagonistic at all. Indeed, I was raised in a particular faith, and it is very much part of my moral grounding, but I do not pursue a religion now. However, in the context of what you just mentioned, do I think that somebody standing up in a church and expounding on faith or doctrine and saying something that might be deemed to be criticising a sexual or gender identity that is heard by someone who has walked into that church or church hall would lead to a prosecution? I think that that is unlikely to lead to a prosecution if it happens in a church or a church hall and if the person has walked into that church or church hall. I just do not see a plausible scenario in which that leads to the provisions of the Bill being —.

I will not give way. In a sense, I wish that I had not been drawn on a hypothetical, because it is now drawing people into individual hypotheticals. I personally do not think that it is plausible that, if a minister of religion is expounding upon broad doctrine or teaching in their church, as they are perfectly entitled to do, they are going to be caught by this legislation. That is clearly not the intention of the Bill. I will give way in a little while, but I am going to make some progress, and then I will conclude my remarks. The point that I was going to make is that, in order to interrogate some of those things, we should allow the Bill to go to the Committee where they can be interrogated. Some of the points that have been made about family contexts and parental relationships have been acknowledged already and dealt with by the Bill sponsor. Lots of people who are parents understand the distinction between ordinary parenting, including parenting when a child, for example, comes and talks to a parent about their gender identity and questions that gender identity. It is, of course, the job of any parent to engage with their child humanely and offer them the best guidance that they can. I do not think that the intent or outcome of the Bill when it gets to Final Stage will be or should be to in any way criminalise that. It is really important that we have the opportunity to discuss and unpack those things at Committee Stage. Simply refusing to proceed with the Bill is refusing to give us the opportunity to interrogate those things and, ultimately, to come to a good outcome for LGBTQIA people. Ultimately, that is the intent of the opposition at Second Stage: not to get to a good place. As for some of the things that the Minister said about other potential consequences, there have been bans on conversion practice of one kind or another — the Bill sponsor can correct me — in Canada, France, Belgium and Germany. I have done some research, and, as far as I can see, there has not been a wave of prosecutions of parents. If there had been, we would have heard about it. People who are opposed to the Bill would have been saying, "Have you seen what has happened in all these places?". That has not happened yet. Yes, it is true to say that there is — you talked about rights — a tension to be navigated. The way to navigate that tension is for us to do our job properly as legislators and to interrogate it in a Committee context. I will give way briefly and then, hopefully, let somebody else in.

725 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