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

Debate contribution by Mr Timothy Gaston on 28 September 2026.

MLA

Mr Timothy Gaston

Party at the time

Traditional Unionist Voice

Date

28 September 2026

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Private Members' Business

Heading

Conversion Practices (Criminalisation) Bill: Second Stage

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5762749

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I thank the Member for his intervention. When I talked about somebody exploring who they are or their gender, there was sniggering from the usual suspects in the Alliance Party. The last thing that a young and vulnerable person needs is activists and ideology-driven people imposing their world view on them and getting away from the biological reality that they were born a boy or a girl. Having the likes of the Alliance Party bringing forward this distressing, dangerous and reckless legislation is part of the reason why this world is so messed up. The Bill sponsor talks about "harm". Clause 8 — I am bouncing about here — states:

"psychological harm includes fear, alarm or distress."

Really? "Distress" ?"Fear"? "Alarm"? That is an incredibly low threshold and a very interpretative way for somebody to air their grievance against somebody.

Absolutely. Those types of emotions are a natural outworking of a child's daily life. Proving something like that in law would be difficult. The Member has had years of experience in the police. I do not understand how a court or the police could, on the basis of what we see in the Bill, prove that one way or the other. Clause 8 contains the word "distress". If somebody presents as crying, is it to be believed that that is distress? I do not know. I think that, at times, the Alliance Party is on a different planet from those of a conservative, Christian background and outlook on life. I go back to clause 7 and the imbalance that I was referring to. There is no equivalent protection for helping a consenting person who wishes to resist particular sexual impulses or to live consistently with their biological sex and religious convictions. Therefore, as we have talked about, one direction of counselling is expressly protected, but there is no mention of ministers or pastoral support. The Bill sponsor has identified that there could be problems, but he has not taken a neutral perspective on it. He is trying to protect one side: the side that is in line with his ideological vision.

The fact that an individual expressly requested the counselling would, as we have seen, not provide a defence, and I used that example in an intervention. Clause 1(3) states:

"It is not a defence that the victim consented to the therapy."

Clause 2(3) states:

"It is not a defence that the victim consented to the coercive behaviour."

Clause 3(3) states:

"It is not a defence that the victim consented to leaving Northern Ireland."

If somebody was old enough to be a consenting adult and old enough to consent to doing that at the time, that must be a defence, and it must be allowed. It is astonishing that those three subsections are in the Bill. Consent may not make violence or abuse lawful — it should not happen — but the Bill also covers talking therapies, counselling, coaching and instruction. That is where consent must be taken into account. The Assembly is being asked to declare that an adult's informed consent to a conversation is legally irrelevant. That does not protect personal autonomy; it denies it. The Bill's treatment of parents is equally troubling. Clause 5 defines coercive behaviour as including controlling, regulating or monitoring someone's day-to-day activities, restricting their freedom of action or making them feel punished. Such conduct must — must — take place "on two or more occasions". Those words have been adopted from domestic abuse legislation but are being deployed here without sufficient recognition of the proper authority and responsibilities of a parent over their child. Parents routinely regulate their children's daily activities. For their children's safety, parents monitor internet use, restrict where children go, what they wear and whom they meet. They impose discipline that, by its nature, may make a child feel punished. Under the Bill, such behaviour could be criminal, where it is said to be intended to suppress a claimed gender ideology or sexual orientation and cause distress.

667 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