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 5741354

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I agree. The Bill goes beyond even the Gender Recognition Act 2004. I know that the Women's Rights Network has been mentioned, but I mention it again and will read into the record what it said. The Women's Rights Network is correct in saying:

"Violent and coercive attempts to change a person's sexual orientation are abusive and already unlawful. Assault, harassment, domestic abuse and coercive control offences already exist. The live question is not whether cruelty should be condemned. It is whether this Bill is a proportionate, necessary and sufficiently precise criminal statute – or whether a 'conversion' headline is being used to write an undefined, self-declared concept of 'gender identity' into Northern Ireland criminal law."

The Bill is not precise in relation to gender identity. As outlined, it is a gate wide open to what the victim considers it to be and what the person considers it to be. It is not proportionate, and it gives a free pass to those with a self-declared idea of identity. In fact, the Bill has opened the door to the criminalisation of things that come nowhere near the bar of quack therapies. It will be used against ordinary people in everyday settings. Therapy exists to question and understand discomfort and to explore what is happening. A criminal ban that treats non-affirmation as suppression will drive responsible clinicians out of that work. Vulnerable children and young adults, many of whom present with autism, same-sex attraction, trauma or other mental health conditions, will lose the conversations that, the Cass review and subsequent UK clinical caution have said, they need.

Stormont has already taken a restrictive approach to puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones for children.

Moving on, it was interesting to hear the Equality Commission's response during last week's debate.

It said:

"In terms of equality, it’s our view that any legislation in this area needs to be based on International Human Rights standards and best practice and that actions to end conversion practices" —

— "should not deny access to appropriate counselling and support in psychological, medical, faith-based and domestic settings."

I share the concerns of the Equality Commission about the likes of "faith-based and domestic settings" and the fact that people should be allowed to have —

— appropriate support in those faith-based and domestic settings. It is worrying, because this Bill is going to have a chilling effect —

— in the home, in the church and in the places that I have outlined in my concerns about the Bill. I believe that it impinges on the right to freedom of speech, the right to a private life and the right to family life. It is interesting that no other jurisdiction has yet passed legislation to this effect. That is an interesting point. Why, therefore, has Mr Tennyson moved so quickly and rushed to the door to implement this legislation, which is a wrecking ball in terms of the daily conversations that people can and do have in all walks of life? Pastoral care should be something that all of us care about, yet I could be a criminal for speaking to my child. My father could be sent to jail for simply pastoring his congregation. I encourage everyone to read the Bill and think through the consequences. The Bill is far too dangerous for me to support it. In fact, I do not even know where you would begin to start amending it. Any amendments that I would attempt could and probably would be ruled out of scope. For those very fundamental reasons, I cannot support the Bill's moving forward.

Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, I was listing people who may need support in working through gender identity.

Sorry, I am speaking. I was listing people who may need support in relation to talking about their gender identity. I listed them very clearly one by one. I did not mean that anybody who has autism has a mental health illness. I was listing them separately. The Member can go back and look at Hansard, and I am sure that Hansard will reflect that — I hope that it does — because I was outlining the groups one by one.

702 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.

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