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

Debate contribution by Mr Gerry Carroll on 28 September 2026.

MLA

Mr Gerry Carroll

Party at the time

People Before Profit Alliance

Date

28 September 2026

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Private Members' Business

Heading

Conversion Practices (Criminalisation) Bill: Second Stage

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5762822

Read the official Assembly record

Text

When I initially wrote my comments, I wrote that it had been a long day, but it has obviously been a long few days over two weeks. I pay tribute to the Bill sponsor for proposing the Bill and, like others, staying throughout the debate. People have waited a long time for conversion therapy to be outlawed, so, unfortunately, the Bill is a needed piece of legislation. I and my party welcome and support the Bill. I thank the organisations that have supported the Bill and those that organised the demonstration two weeks ago outside the Building — the Rainbow Project, Cara-Friend, HERe NI, TransgenderNI, the Northern Ireland Humanists, the Ban Conversion Practices Coalition — and, above all, all the survivors of conversion therapy practices who have fought for years to get us here. I thank the groups that attended the protest and the parties that spoke at it — I was delighted to be asked to say a couple of words. As a starting point, I will say that conversion therapy is completely inhumane. As has been mentioned by a few Members, researchers from Queen's and Ulster University spoke to people who had gone through conversion practices within the last decade, and seven of the 10 participants came from faith groups. People should be aware of that. We heard about a 13-year-old girl who was taken from her friends at a church youth club and locked in a dark closet. She was told that Satan would come and rape her. That is completely disgusting, despicable stuff that nobody can stand over, whether they are religious or not. A teenage boy also endured a three-hour exorcism in the middle of the night, with oil thrown over him and prayers shouted and screamed in his face — deplorable, disgusting and abusive stuff. The report makes for harrowing reading, and I encourage people who have not read it to do so. The National LGBT Survey found that 12% of cisgender respondents here have been offered or subjected to conversion practices, compared with 7% across the UK. Institutional homophobic and transphobic abuse is clearly rife across our society. In recent weeks, unfortunately, we have heard a chorus of unionist politicians trying to smear the Bill and undermine the reason for the Bill sponsor bringing it. The Communities Minister, whose job is to protect the young people we are talking about, told the public that parents could be jailed. He said that the Bill:

"Targets belief, conscience, and normal conversation, dressed up as compassion."

His party leader called it, "A real threat to freedom". Diane Dodds called it a:

"dangerous and illiberal piece of legislation."

The Ulster Unionist Party tabled a motion five years ago calling for a ban on conversion therapy in all its forms. It has now performed a U-turn and called it:

"Excessively broad, legally uncertain and potentially damaging."

I suppose that trans and non-binary people are not welcome in Jon Burrows's Union.

Yes, go ahead.

The Member needs to listen to what I said: I said that they were not welcome in your Union. Maybe they are not welcome in your party either; I do not know. I would say that you need to vote for the Bill to show that they are welcome in the Union that you are trying to protect. Let us deal with the myths, given that a lot of what has been put out during the debate has been exactly that: a myth. Parents will not be jailed for talking to their children. Every offence here requires "intent to change or suppress" someone's identity and cause real harm. Coercive behaviour must be "violent", "threatening", "controlling" or degrading, and it must be repeated. I do not know why people would do that generally, especially in any form of parenting. Whilst parenting is a difficult job, why anybody would do any of those things, regardless of whether it was connected to someone's sexuality or identity, is beyond me. Prayer and preaching are not banned. Clause 7, I think, states clearly that expressing a belief without directing someone is not an offence. As I understand it, across Europe, such bans have not criminalised worship, sermons or, indeed, family conversations. If there has been such a case, I would be happy to hear about it. Therapists are not gagged. Obviously, regulated professionals who work within their professional codes are exempt. Supportive exploratory work is protected, as the proposer of the Bill has said countless times. To those who say that abuse is already illegal, I say this: I think that it was Galop that found that 42 out of 52 religion-based cases involved coercive control. Our current laws cannot grapple with that kind of psychological and spiritual pressure. Freedom of religion is important and absolutely must be defended. However, it is not, as people have suggested, under attack from the Bill or more generally. That is completely inaccurate. Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights has never been a licence to harm others. What unionist parties are defending here is not freedom of religion or thought but the freedom to tell young LGBTQ people that they are broken and need a cure. A lot of dead cats and red herrings — probably hundreds — have been thrown out during the debate. In some ways, it would be impressive if it were not so dangerous in trying to cast shade and doubt on the Bill.

I do not know whether the Member heard my opening comments: I outlined cases in which people were threatened that Satan would rape them, locked in a cupboard and exorcised for three or four hours. That is reason enough for the Bill to proceed.

I do not believe that they are. The politics that we hear is the same hateful, dead-end politics that fought the decriminalisation of homosexuality and blocked equal marriage. Now, it stands between teenagers, young people and maybe, in some cases, children and protection from exorcism. Opposition to the Bill can be dressed up in the language of "freedom", or however people desire, but people can see it for the homophobia and transphobia that it really is. My party will back the Bill and work to strengthen it.

I will in a second. We will work to strengthen the Bill wherever possible. To every LGBTQ+ person who is watching the debate and might be disheartened or hurt by some of the things that we have heard over the past two weeks, I say this: there is nothing wrong with you and nothing to fix. I will give way to the Member for South Antrim — North Antrim again.

I have not met that group, but I guess that it is probably opposed to trans rights, as some other organisations are. I doubt that it is a mass organisation in the way that the Member suggested. If the Member is —

You can laugh all you want. If the Member is for trans rights, as, she says, she is, I say this to her: vote for the Bill and put your money where your mouth is, regardless of your friends. I do not know who your friends are. A lot of stuff that I referenced talked about gender identity, what it is and what is going on. Despite the accusations thrown at liberals or people on the left about being obsessed with gender, I say that the right — the people to my right — are absolutely obsessed and fascinated with gender, genitalia and all things connected to that. I will quote the Britannica online dictionary, which states that "gender identity" is:

"an individual’s self-conception as a man or woman or as a boy or girl or as some combination of man/boy and woman/girl or as someone fluctuating between man/boy and woman/girl or as someone outside those categories altogether."

It goes on a bit longer, but I am sure that Members will be happy with that definition. If they are not, they should maybe do a bit more research.

1,338 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Uncertain

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 6 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