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 5741232

Read the official Assembly record

Text

No, I will move on, because I did not receive the same courtesy when the Member's colleagues spoke. I asked for interventions a number of times. I may come to the Member later. I move on to clause 2. I want to know what the threshold is for a victim's suffering "physical or psychological harm". How is "harm" defined? How is it proven? In clause 8, the door is wide open on that. Clause 2(1)(b) refers to:

"the intent of changing or suppressing the sexual orientation or gender identity of the victim".

What is the definition of "suppression"? We talked about that last week in the Chamber. Again, it is hard to get the definition. Subjectivity is littered throughout the Bill. Last week, as I said, the Minister clearly outlined that we should revert to the dictionary definition of suppression, which is "a holding back". A worried parent may see that their child is questioning their gender identity, and they may try to have a conversation with their child, but a teenager may construe that as their parent trying to hold them back and stop them. That can be construed as a conversion practice. A parent's love will be misconstrued.

I move on to clause 4 and the definition of "conversion therapy". The explanatory and financial memorandum states that the exemption for qualified medical professionals would:

"be reviewed over time and the Department of Health is delegated a power to modify its application."

However, the Bill does not specify when that would be. I can only guess that the sponsor, given the title of the Bill, wishes to ban conversion therapy outright, but, again, that is not the case. The sponsor is not setting out what he intends to put on his election literature. He has not banned conversion therapy; it is still out there. Last week, my colleague Diane Dodds outlined concerns that would exist for the Department of Health as a result of the legislation.

Absolutely; the Member makes an important point. The Member for North Antrim talked earlier — correct me if I am wrong — about a psychologist whom she knows. Is that psychologist definitely going to fall under the exemption? There are some concerns about some of the qualifications, how those would change and, indeed, how the Department would move on some elements of this later on. Is the sponsor aware of when any review of the list mentioned in clause 4(4) would take place? Is he seeking that? Does he know that? Will they be exempt at any later stage? Does he know whether that will come?

I thank the Member for that. Does he know whether that would come before the House or the Committee for scrutiny in relation to anything that the Department may choose to review?

I thank the Member for that.

Yes.

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

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 16:41 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