Debate contribution: Conversion Practices

Debate contribution by Mr Matthew O'Toole on 4 June 2024.

MLA

Mr Matthew O'Toole

Party at the time

Social Democratic and Labour Party

Date

4 June 2024

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Opposition Business

Heading

Conversion Practices

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 4494510

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. The purpose of our Opposition day was to focus on human rights and the rights that underpin a civilised, free and plural society. We have talked about a free press. We have talked about the need for stand-alone hate crime legislation. Now we are talking about the need to proceed with something that, the Assembly, as several Members acknowledged, agreed in 2021 in a previous version of its existence, should be proceeded with: a ban on harmful conversion practices. Those grotesque practices are underpinned by the completely outdated, profoundly objectionable and even evil notion that human beings can be changed, sometimes through violent or traumatic practices, from who they fundamentally are. As I said, the Assembly agreed in 2021 to proceed with a ban on harmful conversion therapy. The purpose of our motion is to underline and progress that principle.

I am glad that the Member has raised that point, because I was going to do so in responding to some of the Members' points. The report by Professor Ashe and Dr Mackle is not draft legislation or a draft policy paper; it is an academic study of practices. We note the report's findings because it was commissioned by a Executive Minister as research to inform policy. That is what it does. Will every line of it be converted into policy or legislation? No. I do not think that the motion's noting of the review's findings is a reason to not support it. I need to make some progress now.

I have an extra minute, but my time is still relatively short. I will respond to a few of the points that were made. Despite the fact that, respectfully, we will not be able to support the DUP amendment, I acknowledge the degree of consensus in the Assembly on the need to ban harmful conversion practices and on the need, when legislation is introduced, as, I hope, it will be, for some of the religious activities that were talked about to be exempted. There is no question of outlawing non-harmful prayerful activity, as it is called, and faith-based activity of the type that Mr Kingston elaborated on. To be honest, however, I do not think that that is a realistic prospect anyway. I am afraid that I do not accept some of the risks that he put forward. It is really important to note that many people of faith from a range of denominations and backgrounds who are LGBTQ or have LGBTQ family members want to see this harmful practice banned. It is genuinely a shame that we have to pit the interests of people of faith and those of LGBTQ people, their family and their friends against one another, because there is much more overlap there than we think. I acknowledge that Members from Mr Kingston's party have largely approached the debate respectfully, even though I disagree with some of their points.

To be clear, the Minister is asking not just for the definition to exclude prayerful and pastoral support; I do not think that a ban on conversion therapy needs to touch on those things. Let me be clear: that is not all that the Members are calling for in the amendment; they are calling for a much longer period of consultation on the way ahead. Yes, we need to consult on the detail of legislative options, but the amendment waters down the core purpose of the motion. I want to make some progress, because I have given way a couple of times. Doug Beattie noted that he spoke in favour of the ban on conversion therapy in 2021. That underlines the need for us to make progress on dealing with it. Sian Mulholland and Eóin Tennyson spoke impactfully about the need to progress the ban. I am afraid that I reject what Mr Allister said about conflating the contents of the Ashe and Mackle report, as it were, with specific legislation. Should there be specific legislation, either from the Executive or through a private Member's Bill, Mr Allister and every other MLA will be able to debate what is in the legislation, as, I am sure, he will, and its contents will not be precisely the same as what is in the report by the academics. I am sure that the report provided some useful evidence, which is why it has been mentioned in the motion. The Minister referenced the report being "one side" of the debate. Again, I push back slightly at the idea that there is one side in favour and another that is hostile. My understanding is that most people here believe that we should move away from and ban those harmful practices. This does not need to be binary. The implication is that there are —

— perhaps, people who do not want to ban it. I recognise that it is important that we are clear that freedom of religion and freedom of expression are absolutes in a liberal society. We can proceed to ban harmful conversion therapy without going anywhere near impinging on those practices. I commend the Opposition motion to the Assembly.

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

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 10:36 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