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

Debate contribution by Mrs Deborah Erskine on 22 September 2026.

MLA

Mrs Deborah Erskine

Party at the time

Democratic Unionist Party

Date

22 September 2026

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Private Members' Business

Heading

Conversion Practices (Criminalisation) Bill: Second Stage

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5741216

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I thank the Member for that important point and for his intervention. The Bill does not define the passage of time. There is no cut-off point. It could be anything for anybody, which is deeply concerning. Clause 1(3) is very worrying, and I will come on to that later. People of faith must not be criminalised for practising their religion or expressing their sincerely held beliefs, and parents must be free to raise their children in accordance with their religious or philosophical convictions. My remarks will focus on clauses 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6, because, whilst we have heard quite a lot today about not looking at clauses, given that it is the Second Stage of the Bill, I have heard complaints for a long time that we have not been debating draft legislation in the Chamber. Here we are, scrutinising draft legislation. It is important that we look at and understand it, because, perhaps, if we understand it, we could vote for it to move forward. We have, however, asked for definitions and clarity, and we have not got them. That is why we cannot support the Bill. From the very beginning, clause 1 highlights what I am most concerned about in the Bill. The Bill is littered with subjective language and things that are hard to prove, and, worryingly, there are low thresholds for bringing someone before a court. Clause 1(2) states:

"It is a defence for the person to show that the therapy was reasonable in the particular circumstances."

I know that the Bill sponsor will come back and mention the test of reasonableness, but what is "reasonable" can be subjective, should someone want to launch a court action. What is reasonable to me when talking to somebody who may be questioning their identity may not be reasonable to somebody else. I am worried about the changing thresholds of reasonableness. Furthermore, what "particular circumstances" does the Bill sponsor believe are "reasonable"? Is it just those circumstances that fall within the confines of the bodies that are exempted in clause 4? For me, however, the most dangerous line in the Bill is in clause 1(3). Someone can consent to conversion therapy, which the Bill describes as counselling, talking therapy, coaching, instruction, treatment or purported treatment. They can choose to do that with a person on one day, and, on the next day, they can decide to take that same person to court. That is ludicrous for the very reasons that Mr Gaston outlined in his intervention in relation to time and that threshold. Take a faith-based organisation or a church, for that matter. On any given Sunday, a person who is a member of a church can sit and listen to a minister, who may have decided to preach from the Bible or deliver a series on gender identity. Again, "gender identity" is mentioned in clause 6, but it is not defined in the Bill. Because what the minister says could make someone feel a certain way, it could be deemed a conversion practice, and that minister could be criminalised as a result. Take a parent at home, speaking to their child who is questioning things. That child may want to sit down and speak to their parent because they are struggling to deal with their mental health and some aspects of their gender identity.

Clause 1(3) specifically sets out:

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

If someone willingly engages in a conversation, they can be unwittingly subject to a court case. We will begin to lose trust in our community when it comes to being allowed to have conversations. Trust will be eroded. A parent may want to help their struggling teenage child. A minister who has a pastoral responsibility to support his congregation may be subject to legal action as a result of the legislation.

646 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

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.

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