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

Debate contribution by Ms Diane Forsythe on 22 September 2026.

MLA

Ms Diane Forsythe

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 5741415

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am disappointed by the tone that has been set by the world according to Alliance. The Bill causes me great concern as an MLA, a private individual, a mother of teenagers and, quite frankly, in every capacity of my existence. I have received large volumes of correspondence on the matter from different lobby groups and people from across my constituency. I am as concerned as they are. The tone that we use is important, and I want to make it very clear at the outset that I would never condone abusive behaviour, mental or physical, against anyone. I put that on the record from the very start. Existing law deals with that and should be used in such instances. I will not re-rehearse a lot of what has been said in the last number of contributions, but the very clear theme that comes through is that there is a the lack of definitions. The Bill is too vague and too dangerous. In an intervention in Deborah Erskine's speech, I made the point that the term "gender identity" is cited 10 times in the Bill — 12 if you include the title — with no clear and finite definition. The point that was drawn out by other Members is that putting forward unclear legislation to be tested in the courts is very dangerous. We should prescribe such things up front and clearly. On the general principles of the Bill, I am not clear on what the Bill sponsor’s intention is with that definition — he has not made it any clearer in the hours of the debate so far. The Evangelical Alliance states:

"the answer is not to create laws which conflate offering genuine support and telling the truth?—?with coercion and conversion practices."

That quote is very powerful, honest and clear, and it underpins my thinking around the issue. As I listened to many of the contributions, I heard a real misunderstanding of the position on the DUP Benches. We are simply highlighting poor and undefined law and its intended or unintended — I am not sure which — consequences. Some of the points are very similar to those that were made in the debate on the Display of Flags and Emblems Bill.

I thank the Member for his intervention. I agree. At this stage of the debate, as we talk about the general principles, the Bill sponsor has not provided further clarity on that point. It has been highlighted, ruled on — I am not trying to challenge any ruling made by the Speaker — and numbers and examples have been cited to illustrate what all of this means. The definition, however, is not clear, and it is a fundamental part of the legislation. I do not understand the Bill sponsor's intention behind using such terminology. He has said that it will be tested in court. Why is it not prescribed more clearly in the legislation at the outset?

I thank the Member for that. I completely agree with him. He set that out extremely well. I look forward to hearing the Minister's contribution at the conclusion of the debate on the detailed legal advice. I refer to Aidan O'Neill KC's opinions, as others have. I cannot get past his description that characterises some of the proposals as "jellyfish legislation", saying that its concepts are "impossible to grasp", the drafting is vague and the offences carry a "sting in the tail" in the form of severe criminal penalties of up to two years in prison. To have that analogy from a professional, highly respected legal representative is really concerning. It is some 20 years since I graduated with a law degree from Queen's University, and some of the most basic concepts that I learned back then were about definitions and how to trace them through the law. I cannot see that when I pick up the Bill. I will take legal advice from senior professionals very seriously. Mr O'Neill further said that the law would establish landmark gender self-identification into law here in Northern Ireland and that self-declared identity would then become the landmark for criminal law, and anyone attempting to change or suppress that identity could face prosecution.

Yes, of course.

I thank the Member for his intervention. If the Bill sponsor wants to contribute on that, I will be happy to give way.

731 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