Debate contribution: Conversion Practices (Criminalisation) Bill: Second Stage
Debate contribution by Mr Timothy Gaston on .
- 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 5762808
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Thank you very much, Mr Kingston, for your input. Indeed, going back to some of the comments that I have made on the verses referenced, if a pastor or a minister takes said person to First Corinthians and talks them through it, they might not be saying, "You need to change your way", but First Corinthians quite openly says that homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of God, so they would be counselling that person to a different —. It is not saying, "You need to be straight" or whatever, but it is saying, "You need to change your ways, because this is what the Bible teaches". In doing that, I believe that they would fall foul, given that it states:
"psychological harm includes fear, alarm or distress".
Mr Tennyson has included that by reason of those verses. Mr Tennyson has acknowledged that there will be problems, and that is why he has put in the exemptions necessary for selected regulated professionals. However, there must be exemptions in the Bill for ministers of religion and pastors to ensure that they are not caught by what is in front of us. He quite clearly wants to protect the side that is in line with his ideology, but he is not willing to put in protections for those from a conservative, Christian background. I move on to clause 3. Clause 3 goes even further by criminalising causing or facilitating a person to leave Northern Ireland:
"for the purposes of being subject to conversion therapy or coercive behaviour".
Once again, consent is expressly excluded as a defence. Therefore, a parent could be prosecuted for taking a child elsewhere in the United Kingdom to obtain counselling that is lawful there but does not conform to the ideological approach embedded in the Bill. Could someone be investigated for helping a consenting adult attend a residential programme outside Northern Ireland that has a Christian focus and ethos? Those are not fanciful questions: they arise directly from the breadth of the language in the Bill that the Assembly is being asked to approve. There is also the question of a jury trial. Under Article 29(1) of the Magistrates' Courts (Northern Ireland) Order 1981, an accused person ordinarily has a right to claim trial by jury for a summary offence, where a sentence exceeding six months is available, subject to the exceptions specifically listed in the article. Those offences carry a maximum summary sentence of 12 months. Clause 9, therefore, deliberately adds them to the exemptions and removes the accused person's right to claim a trial by jury. Indeed, the clause heading could hardly be clearer:
"No right to claim trial by jury."
Why? The Bill creates contentious offences that turn on subjective allegations of distress, undefined concepts and highly contested beliefs about sex, sexuality, religion and family life, yet the Bill sponsor proposes to not only create those offences but remove an existing procedural safeguard from those accused of committing them. The right to be judged by one's peers is especially important where the law enters deeply disputed areas of social, moral and religious belief. That should be strengthened; it should not be deliberately removed, which is what the Bill sponsor is proposing in the Bill.
In conclusion, I note that the Bill sponsor's explanatory memorandum acknowledges that the clear majority of religious organisations that responded to his consultation expressed concerns about the vague definitions, unintended consequences and interference with freedom of belief, expression and family life. Those concerns have not been answered in the Bill. The Bill fails to define the central concepts of what it is trying to impose. It makes consent irrelevant. It gives privileged protection in only one direction. It exposes parents and churches to criminal investigation. It provides selective exemptions. It permits imprisonment without any intention to cause harm. It raises profound human rights issues. It deliberately removes the right to claim trial by jury. It is not a Bill that can be repaired through a few technical amendments at Consideration Stage. Its defects arise from its fundamental structure and purpose. That takes me back to where I started: the purpose of the Bill is to attack the Church and the family home. From my reading of the Bill, that is its intention. Therefore, for those very reasons, I will vote against the Bill tonight. I trust that other Members will do so too.
There are definitions that have not been included and have not been forthcoming, and the Bill sponsor still cannot define how many genders he believes there are. That is deeply disturbing for a blue Bill. The Bill states:
"psychological includes fear, alarm or distress."
That is vague. It can be interpreted in whatever way a person sees fit, much like gender. One minute somebody could define their gender as x, and the next thing it could be y. They could change it numerous times depending on how they feel. We need to get back to reality. Gender identity should be based on biological reality. This Bill tries to push the boundaries further than any legislation has done before on gender. I trust that it will be voted down tonight and binned.
863 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Awaiting analysis
This record has not been analysed yet. It is not counted in any total until it has been assessed.
Disagree with this assessment?
Classifications can be challenged. A person reviews every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.