I beg to move

That this Assembly deplores that harmful and damaging conversion practices are still legal in Northern Ireland; recognises that conversion practices can take many forms and can occur in a variety of settings; notes the findings from the May 2024 publication, 'A Study of Conversion Practices in Northern Ireland', by Professor Fidelma Ashe and Dr Danielle Mackle; reaffirms its support for a ban on conversion practices in all forms; and calls on the Minister for Communities to commit to bringing forward legislation on an effective ban on conversion practices before the end of the current Assembly mandate.

The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have five minutes in which to propose and five minutes in which to make a winding-up speech. As an amendment has been selected and is published on the Marshalled List, the Business Committee has agreed that eight minutes will be added to the total time for the debate. Please open the debate on the motion, Colin.

Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. The history of homophobia in this country is a long one — one which, for too long, has heaped shame on the LGBT sons and daughters simply for being who they are. There has been much progress over the years to enable the LGBT community to be who they are and to live the life that they have, but, despite the great progress that has been made on this island, we know that that form of bigotry has not gone away.

Recent research into schools in Northern Ireland found that 68% of LGBT+ students faced bullying, the results of which contribute to higher levels of depression, self-harm, drug abuse and suicide. Perhaps even more concerning is that a 2019 Education and Training Inspectorate (ETI) report recorded that one third of pupils in Northern Ireland thought that their school was not welcoming to the LGBT+ community. Perhaps, then, it is little wonder that the scourge of homophobia persists and remains something that we in the Chamber must continue to fight.

There is, of course, a particularly grubby practice in this part of the country that we must address today. It does nothing to remedy the above abuses; rather, it furthers a culture of intolerance and fosters shame, self-loathing and guilt in the LGBT community. It is a practice that the medical and therapeutic establishment has entirely debunked. It is sometimes profitable for those who push it, and it preys overwhelmingly on young people, some who are as young as 13 years old.

Future students of history will, with bleak curiosity, one day study conversion therapy alongside electric shock therapy and other forms of discredited and harmful practices. However, today in Northern Ireland, that stigmatising, highly damaging and valueless practice endures. Despite those practices having been roundly dismissed by all credible medical bodies and condemned as deeply homophobic by LGBT+ rights groups, they unfortunately continue to find a market in Northern Ireland.

Forms of therapy can differ across the world. Some are sold as talk therapy cures, whilst others can involve heinous so-called corrective rape therapy. All forms cause great harm to vulnerable individuals and erode their sense of dignity and self-worth. All those who have spoken out about their experiences of conversion therapy have unanimously stated that they are not just a waste of time and money and do not work but that they are in fact invasive, manipulative and predatory by design.

The fight to end homophobia in this country will not end with the banning of conversion therapy, but it will be yet another step in the right direction. We, as Members of this House, must move swiftly to end what is, frankly, a brainless practice that is pushed sometimes openly, sometimes quietly, but a practice that always fails the people who are at its heart.

There may be those in the Chamber who claim that members of the LGBT+ community seek conversion therapy of their own volition, but such an argument is misleading and fails to recognise that most enter into such practices under the fear that they will be ostracised from their families, shunned by their friends and condemned to live on the uneasy margins of society. Those attitudes are the very hallmark of homophobia.

Will the Member give way?

Yes.

Let us be clear about this: is the Member saying that if an individual of whatever background asks for prayer and counselling in a religious setting, that should be banned?

I thank the Member for his intervention.

The Member has an extra minute.

Those are absolutely not my words. They are yours, as you have just stood up. They were at no point any of the words that I used.

I think that that gets to the next point that I was about to make, which is on the DUP amendment. This is where we need to be utterly careful about remarks such as those that the Member has just made, because this is not about banning people's ability to seek pastoral care. It is not about banning an individual who wishes to go and pray with their religious leader.

Will the Member give way?

Actually doing that would be absolutely and utterly unfortunate, so that is not something that we should ban.

Will the Member give way?

No, because you put into other people's mouths words that are not what has been said. Previous interventions have been so misleading that I do not wish to take any more in the debate.

If somebody assesses another individual and says that their lifestyle and the life that they have are wrong and need to be changed while trying to push that person to convert from who they are, those are practices that we should see banned. Nobody here wishes to see anybody who wishes to speak to their religious leader being banned. However, the DUP amendment suggests that we go back to the drawing board and go out and consult again. It suggests that we take that consultation and try to progress some legislative options. That is pushing us back to the starting line. Those practices have been done. We know where we stand, and we need to just progress and get the ban implemented.

I call on Brian Kingston to move the amendment.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. No Member of this —.

Brian, all you have to do is say, "Moved".

Indeed. I beg to move the following amendment

Leave out all after "That this Assembly" and insert: "recognises that harmful and damaging conversion practices can take place in Northern Ireland; notes that conversion practices can take many forms and can occur in a variety of settings; acknowledges the findings from the May 2024 publication, 'A Study of Conversion Practices in Northern Ireland', by Professor Fidelma Ashe and Dr Danielle Mackle; further recognises that where an individual voluntarily wishes and actively seeks prayerful and pastoral support, this should not be withheld from them, and as such this does not constitute a conversion practice; and calls on the Minister for Communities to consult widely on the way ahead, including relevant legislative options, to ban the practice of conversion therapy but to also ensure that legal safeguards are in place to protect freedom of religion and freedom of speech."

OK. Thank you. The Member has five minutes to propose and three minutes to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who are called to speak will have three minutes.

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I trust that no Member of the Assembly would ever defend any form of abuse or coercion of any individual. Any such practice should, rightly, be condemned. When we examine conversion therapy worldwide, we see clearly that it has included coercive and abusive practices being inflicted on people. There is no justification for that, and there never will be. Those extreme examples of conversion therapy are already illegal in the UK. There is legislation in place to prosecute those offences.

It is also clear that there are instances of individuals from a faith background who approach friends, parents, ministers or their small group for pastoral support and deeply personal conversation on matters relating to their sexuality. The pastoral support that I am referring to is genuine pastoral support; it is not a course of therapy that, in some countries, is dressed up to look similar to clinical therapeutic intervention.

I thank the Member for giving way. He mentioned that many of the most heinous acts of conversion practice are already illegal under existing law. Surely he acknowledges, given the evidence that we have available to us, that some forms of it are falling through the cracks.

The Member has an extra minute.

The problem is that the motion calls for:

"an effective ban on conversion practices".

It does not make any distinction. We seek to ensure that support that is given genuinely and lovingly in response to someone seeking personal support cannot be misinterpreted and become the grounds for prosecution. It is possible to make some distinction, rather than including everything in one category.

Genuine pastoral support is wholly different from the abusive practices that I outlined. In such cases, the individuals are not being coerced, forced or pressurised to seek support; they are, of their own volition, sincerely seeking personal and spiritual assistance. The motion would mean that those affirming mainstream Christian teaching, and the faith position of other religions, on same-sex attraction could well be prosecuted and handed a significant fine or, even, a prison term. In fact, that could apply even to parents who provide orthodox religious guidance to their children. According to the report that is referenced in the motion, the definition of "conversion practice" is:

"all medical, psychological, religious, cultural, or any other interventions that seek to erase, repress, or change a person’s sexual orientation and/or gender identity."

It provides no provision for, or recognition of, same-sex-attracted individuals who actively and honestly seek guidance or support. The document also states:

"Therapy that supports an LGBTQI+ person with personal, emotional, psychological or spiritual issues relating to their sexual orientation or gender identity where that support does not seek to direct that person to suppress, ‘cure,’ or change their sexual orientation or gender identity are not considered conversion practices."

That is extremely vague. It does not deal with, for example, the case of a same-sex-attracted person of faith who wishes to remain celibate and asks their minister to pray for them. Our amendment seeks to provide protection for the individual seeking support and the person who provides it. We must allow freedom of choice for anyone seeking pastoral support. That support must be equitable.

The absurdity of the wording in the motion is that, in its application, a heterosexual person seeking prayers and guidance on their sexuality or sexual practice could receive them from their minister. However, a homosexual person seeking the same could be leading that minister into committing a prosecutable offence. Essentially, the motion, if it were made into law, could also be used to criminalise any minister or priest teaching or communicating within the confines of a church building what is simply a mainstream Christian sex ethic.

In summary, we are completely in support of banning the harmful, coercive and abusive aspects of conversion therapy, and that is clearly reflected in our amendment. However, those aspects must be defined, something that the original motion fails to do. We also want to see religious liberty and freedom being respected.

Will the Member draw his remarks to a close, please?

Yes. This is the last sentence.

Same-sex-attracted individuals should be able to receive the personal support that they request in sincerity without the risk of criminalising others.

I call Emma Sheerin. I remind Members that they have three minutes in which to speak.

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle.

I support the motion and welcome the opportunity for the debate. Obviously, a similar motion was supported by the House in April 2021, so we know its position on harmful conversion therapy, and we know that the majority of MLAs in the Chamber support a ban, which is to be welcomed.

I remind Members that an awful lot of the work has already been done, so it is time for action here. When my party colleague Deirdre Hargey was in the Department, she carried out an awful lot of the research on conversion therapy. A lot of that has already been done, and what we need now is action.

This is really about protecting people's human rights. Everybody has the right to a life free from harassment, and we all should prioritise that. We have a responsibility to protect our most vulnerable. We know, as the proposer of the motion outlined, that the LGBTQI+ community has been marginalised, ostracised and physically and verbally discriminated against by successive Governments here and across the world. We need to change that, and this is one step in doing so.

Conversion therapy and everything that surrounds it legitimise homophobia. It tells people that they are wrong simply for being who they are. None of us should want to associate ourselves with that. We should outlaw it. We should tell people clearly, particularly our young gay people, that we do not want it to continue, that they are valid and that they have the same rights as anyone else and should be free to live their life as who they are.

Sinn Féin has made it clear where it stands on the issue. We want to see this progressed. This is a time for action, and we want to see that happen without delay.

The Alliance Party's vision is for a more shared, equal, tolerant and united community, where diversity is celebrated and where everyone's rights are protected and respected. We are committed, therefore, to taking steps to ensure that people in Northern Ireland are protected from harm based on who they are or whom they love, including through the delivery of a comprehensive ban on cruel and archaic conversion practices.

Such practices were conceived at a time when homosexuality and transgender identity were considered mental disorders in need of cure. Today, thankfully, LGBT identities are widely recognised as a totally normal part of human development, and so-called conversion therapy has been discredited by organisations including the British Psychological Society (BPS), NHS England, the Association of Christians in Counselling (ACC) and virtually every reputable medical and counselling body across the globe.

Despite those changes and all the evidence that we now have in our possession, we know that such degrading, destructive and denounced practices persist and are still being inflicted on LGBT people in Northern Ireland today. We know that thanks to research such as the work conducted by Professor Fidelma Ashe and Dr Danielle Mackle. I thank them and their participants for their important work.

We know that perpetrators of conversion therapy prey on internalised feelings of fear and shame in those struggling with who they are, often taking advantage of young, vulnerable LGBT people and fraudulently subjecting them not to treatment but to torture. Even if it were possible to change someone's fundamental nature, our time would be better spent on making bigots and proponents of conversion therapy more compassionate and leaving LGBT people alone. It is true that existing law already addresses some of the harmful behaviour often associated with conversion practices, including physical violence and threatening conduct. It is also true, however, that there are gaps in the law that allow some forms of conversion practice to fall through. That is why, should legislation not be forthcoming from the Communities Minister, I will seek to introduce a private Member's Bill to ban those practices once and for all.

There is no doubt that, when we debate these issues, some will seek to pit LGBTQ+ people against people of faith. That argument, of course, holds no water and ignores the plurality of our society where there are, in fact, many people who are both LGBTQ+ and people of faith. As a member of a liberal party, I believe fundamentally in religious freedom — both freedom to and freedom from religion — but I also reject a situation where religious freedom is invoked only in the name of discrimination and harm against minorities. There is no intent to criminalise expressions of traditional religious belief, far from it. Rather, the intent is to criminalise heinous, coercive and harmful practices, and I am absolutely committed to doing that.

I am happy to engage with any Member. Mr Kingston's concerns about the motion are not based on the fact of what is being proposed. I am happy to work with any Member to ensure that a comprehensive ban on conversion therapy can be delivered.

"I am a straight man. I was born straight, and there is no fix or cure for me or any therapy that will make me a gay man. Why on earth therefore would we say that a gay man was not born that way? Why would we say that a gay man can be fixed or cured? Why would we say that there is a therapy to change a gay man into a straight man? There is not. It is ludicrous." — [Official Report (Hansard), 20 April 2021, p17, col 1].

Those are the words that I used when I opened the debate on conversion therapy in 2021. The motion passed. It passed because we spoke, looked at people's concerns and addressed them. I have always been clear that conversion therapy is humiliating and harmful. I go back to that piece to say that we need to work together. Does this motion bring us forward from when we had the debate in 2021, or does it leave us stuck in another argument? My genuine concern is that it may not bring us forward.

I understand people's concerns about religious freedom. The right to pray and preach and to give counsel and pastoral care to someone who seeks support should not be diminished. I do not believe that private prayer about sexual identity, conducted in a private, supportive and affirmative way, is conversion therapy unless it is subversive and harmful. I do not believe that pastoral care is about changing someone's gender identity unless it deliberately targets the young or the vulnerable with the intent to do so. I really do not. The party to my right has tabled an amendment that tries to strike a balance and raise a concern. I will support that amendment. A person of faith should support banning conversion therapy not in spite of their faith but because of it.

I will use a line that I used in 2021:

"A young female member of the LGBTQ community once said: 'It won’t always be like this. It’s going to get better.' I never knew Lyra McKee, and she will never see the 'better' that she foresaw ... it is incumbent on all of us to reach inside ourselves to change this practice of conversion therapy." — [Official Report (Hansard), 20 April 2021, p18, col 2].

We can do that if we work together and understand concerns. There are concerns, and we cannot diminish them. We cannot just say, "You are wrong"; we can change only if we genuinely listen to each other's concerns.

I want to frame what I am about to say with an acknowledgement of the concerns that have been raised with me about freedom of religion. There are those who wish to propagate fear and division when it comes to the issue. The suggestion has been made that we wish to ban the practice of prayer and spiritual engagement, but that is simply not the case. That is a misrepresentation and a misunderstanding of what conversion therapy is. The examples that the Member for North Belfast gave — non-coercive conversations, prayer, spiritual guidance, teaching and counselling where consenting, non-vulnerable adults question their sexuality or gender identity — are not conversion therapy and should not be criminalised. That is not what is being referred to here, and that must be made clear.

Many Christian denominations and religious leaders have publicly denounced conversion therapy and recognise it to be a harmful practice that contradicts the core tenets of love, compassion and respect for all individuals that exist in Christian faith. The aim of legislative involvement is not to undermine religious beliefs but to ensure that every individual, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity, is protected from practices that have been widely condemned by medical, psychological and human rights organisations worldwide.

Conversion therapy encompasses a range of interventions aimed at changing an individual's sexual orientation or gender identity to conform to heterosexual or cisnormative gender ideals. The aim of such interventions is explicit in its desire to change some element of the individual's identity that is assumed to be broken. Those who are vulnerable, at risk or under the age of 18 simply cannot give informed consent, consent being another key element. That is what sets such practices apart from the notions of praying for or praying with. There are so many testimonies from LGBTQIA+ people of faith about their desire to have the practice banned, as they cherish their faith and want to be able to practise it without fear. Given that it is that cohort to whom the practice poses the most detrimental risk, surely we should listen to and heed those people's calls. The Church of England outlined, in its briefing on the topic, that any proposed legislation should focus on preventing coercive, abusive practice and that any restriction should specifically focus on coercive behaviour in pastoral care.

Again, let me reiterate this: we are not talking about interfering with people's right to practise their faith or their ability to engage in mutually agreed prayer conversations. Individuals should still be free to request non-coercive prayer if they wish to explore their sexuality or their gender identity. It is the coercive and abusive practices with a predetermined outcome of changing someone's identity that we want to see banned.

My party has consistently championed the rights of the LGBTQIA+ community. In previous debates, we have highlighted —.

Will the Member draw her remarks to a close, please?

Yes. Sorry.

To conclude, I am clear about what side of the divide I want to be on, and I am clear about what side Jesus calls me to be on. That is the side that I am putting forward today.

I would like to think that everyone in the Chamber will be united today in opposing conversion practices. That pseudoscience is nothing short of barbaric and is predicated on the idea that LGBT people need a cure. It has been termed as creating a "significant risk of torture" by the United Nations Independent Expert on protection against violence and discrimination, and it has been denounced by just about every credible medical expert. It is sometimes called "therapy", but it is nothing of the sort. It is undeniable torture designed to repress people's identity, which is one of the most cruel things that can be done to any individual. It is also worryingly common.

In 2022, a YouGov survey found that 18% of LGBT people had been subjected to efforts to change, cure or suppress their sexual orientation or gender identity. The fact that we have still not banned the practice is an outworking of how dominated our society has been by religious organisations and coercive social conservatism. In my view, there is nothing Christian about conversion practices, and I know that Christians and people of all faiths are opposed to such practices.

It is 2024, and the slow progress on LGBT+ rights is a sign of a society that has an entrenched fear of and hostility towards people of difference that is rooted in patriarchal norms and standards and dominated by religious teachings. When we have made progress, it has often been made not in this Chamber but at Westminster. The Assembly has so often failed to act for LGBT people.

LGBT people have already had traumatic experiences in society and been subjected to levels of fear and discrimination that would shame other parts of these islands. It is the job of politicians and the Assembly to unpick that history. Banning conversion practices is part of that journey. Amnesty International supports our call today, calling conversion practices "inherently humiliating, demeaning and discriminatory". It has been clear that international human rights law prohibits conversion practices, and any Bill that is introduced must meet the recommendations of the UN independent expert on sexual orientation and gender identity. The question is not about whether the Assembly supports a ban, but about when we will get the ban over the line. I was really disappointed that, in the previous mandate, we failed to introduce such a ban. We were told that a ban was to be introduced by the then Minister —

Can the Member draw her remarks to a close, please?

— the last time that we debated it, in 2021. Let us do this. Let us get it over the line.

One of my issues with the motion is its lack of definition. Some Members have been anxious to say that it does not apply to faith issues or anything else, but that is not what the motion says. In fact, the motion is centred around an LGBT-promoted report, which itself gives a clear insight into what it is directed at, because that report is a conglomerate of pretty confused stories from 10 individuals, one of whom complained that they experienced prayer, Bible studies and teaching. That is offered in the report as an example of conversion practices. If that is what conversion practices are, and that is what the motion seeks to outlaw, the motion is wholly wrong-headed and inappropriate. Of course, extreme issues, such as electric shock, which is already an offence, and all that, are totally wrong, but to try, under the radar, to embrace issues of religious teaching, which is what the motion is doing, is wholly wrong.

I am tempted to say that maybe the real word of offence is "conversion". Conversion is not a wrong or a bad concept. None of us, by nature, likes to admit our failings, or even our sins, but it is the reality of those that, for some, make conversion relevant and necessary. To deny Christian Churches the right to pursue their work, to pray with those who seek it and to read and expound their scriptures with them — those are things that cannot be outlawed if we believe at all in religious freedom; rather, they are things to be protected. It seems to me that, so often in this society, the cry for equality and freedom from this quarter is only for LGBT+ interests, but not for Christians or freedom of religion. It is that which is under threat. I return to the point that the motion does not define what it means by "conversion practices", but does, in its innards, with regard to the report that it quotes, make it clear where it wants to go.

Is it not a shame that the rights of the LGBTQ+ community remain up for debate in the Assembly and wider society? Is it not a shame that people's sexuality or identity are subject to such questioning and widespread bigotry, or that they are open to the most appalling forms of abuse in the guise of so-called conversion therapies? Those therapies are abuse. Those abuses — or conversion therapies, as they are called — are disgraceful and archaic; a remnant of a time when to be part of the LGBTQ+ community was to be viewed as evil, sick or sinful. Those so-called cures include sickening forms of violence, including corrective rapes, exorcisms and use of drugs, or other forms of physical punishment. Such methods are often propagated by people who make a fortune plying their harmful trade. Who are those grifters to tell anyone who they are or how they should live their lives?

Not that it should need saying, but conversion therapies do not work. Any suggestion that they do is rooted in oppressive attitudes towards the LGBTQ+ community and outright pseudoscience at best. The proven outcomes of conversion therapies on their victims include low self-esteem, depression and suicidal thoughts. Nobody should be subjected to such human rights abuses. In particular, we must recognise the vulnerability of children and young people to conversion therapy practices. Anyone who claims to stand for the protection of children must oppose their exposure to such coercion and violence.

It is important to underline the point in the motion that we need to ban all forms of conversion therapy. If we need a lesson in how not to do policy or on how to inflict more misery on people, we need only look at the approach of the Tory Government. This Government have stated that they will ban conversion therapy for lesbian, gay and bisexual individuals but not for trans, non-binary or asexual people. Make no mistake, that is not because the Tories care but because they have buckled under the weight of public opinion. It is because the vast majority of people no longer accept the notion that sexuality is, somehow, a mindset or a choice, and they will not accept the oppression of gay, lesbian or bisexual people.

In other words, it is an act of self-preservation by this hated Tory regime. The reason that they once discriminated against people attracted to the same sex is the same reason that they now want to whip up a moral panic about the trans community. The calculation by the Tories and others is simple: if the public are in a panic about trans people, they are less likely to kick up a fuss about the destruction of our health service or the Government's infringement of civil rights and the right to protest. If people are focusing on the migrant, the asylum seeker or the refugee, they are less inclined to challenge the Government for failing to invest in social homes, public services or working-class communities. In short, divide and conquer.

I want to make a final point about religion. The UN special rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, Dr Ahmed Shaheed, has said that a ban would not violate freedom of religion or belief under international law, because of the harm involved in conversion therapy.

I ask the Member to draw his remarks to a close, please.

Ban conversion therapy in all its forms outright.

I call the Minister for Communities. Minister, you have 10 minutes.

Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I welcome the opportunity to respond to the motion. It is fairly clear from the debate that there is support throughout the Chamber for a ban on abusive, coercive, degrading and humiliating conversion practices, some of which we have heard about, regardless of whether those are in a medical, therapeutic, religious or secular setting. However, Members will recognise that this is a hugely complex issue, which is due in part to the ambiguity that exists as to how we define conversion practices.

Having listened to all the contributors to the debate, there is a level of consensus. We want to make sure that we do not have those abusive practices but, at the same time, there seems to be wide support for the protection of religious freedom, prayer and pastoral support. Therefore, I hope that it follows that all Members will support the amendment to the motion. I believe that that is somewhere where everybody can land and where we can provide that protection but make sure that there is no impingement on freedom of religion and freedom of speech. I hope that we are able to come to a consensus this evening.

I want to warn Members that this is a complex and cross-cutting issue. The development of legislation to ban those practices will require careful analysis of all the elements that are involved. Indeed, if we do establish a definition of what conversion practices are, we also need to examine whether there is a gap in the law and how best we can fill that gap in a way that is compliant and consistent with human rights legislation.

Work is ongoing in my Department to inform policy proposals in order to bring forward legislation, if that is required. My officials have also worked closely with their counterparts in other jurisdictions to learn from their experience. The extent of the complexity of any potential ban is evidenced by the work in other jurisdictions on this issue. There is, currently, no existing legislation that exclusively bans conversion practices in the UK or the Republic of Ireland. The UK Government have previously committed to bringing in a ban on conversion practices, which will extend to England and Wales, although the timetable for introduction is currently unclear. A Scottish Bill is being prepared, with consultation on policy proposals just completed, and legislation to ban conversion practices is being progressed in the Republic of Ireland. However, each of those jurisdictions has experienced difficulties in arriving at a precise definition of conversion practices and of what a potential ban would include. The matter of freedom of rights is a significant one that also has to be carefully considered, and it is a matter that we have to approach cautiously as we progress policy on this issue.

The motion refers to the recent publication, 'A Study of Conversion Practices in Northern Ireland'. My predecessor agreed to award a grant towards funding that research, which was coordinated by a consortium of local LGBT organisations. It was undertaken by academics from Ulster University and Queen's, and it explored this issue. I have received the report, which examines several aspects of conversion practices, such as why, how and where those practices happen, who experiences them and their effects. However, I emphasise that the findings and recommendations are those of the authors and do not represent the views of my Department. They are not government policy. They provide evidence, but it is evidence that must be supplemented and built upon as my Department progresses to formulate policy around a potential ban.

I can understand the interest to progress legislation on this quickly, however it is a complex and sensitive matter. The development of effective legislation takes time, and the necessary steps must be taken to ensure that the resulting legislation is fit for purpose. It will require further engagement with all those who have an interest in the matter, and it will also require careful formulation of policy proposals and the drafting of precise primary legislation for the consideration of the Assembly.

That takes me on to a couple of the comments that were made. Mr McGrath said that it is time to get it done and to get on with it, and Sinéad McLaughlin said something similar. Emma Sheerin said that the research had already been carried out. Actually, the Department has not even consulted on this yet, and if we recognise that this is a significant and complex issue, surely we should at least have that basic consultation and have that information. Yes, we have this report in front of us, but it is very much one side of the overall conversation that needs to take place. The idea that we are ready to go forward with legislation at this point is incorrect. We need to have that greater understanding, we need to hear from everybody, and, importantly, we need to make sure that we get right what the legal definition would be. That is what has tripped up others elsewhere. We will have engagement. It will be a cross-cutting issue, and it will require engagement with other Departments.

I fully understand that there will be concerns around what any potential ban will include. While it is important that we have protections against coercive, abusive and unsafe practices, it is vital that rights, such as freedom of speech and freedom of religion, are protected. I assure Members that careful consideration will be given during the formulation of policy to a precise definition of the practices involved and the exclusions that may need to be in place if legislation is to progress. Extensive engagement with all those who have an interest will be important during this process. Therefore, further research and engagement are needed to avoid failure to produce a robust and effective ban in the future, and I have asked my officials to scope options for doing so.

I believe that everyone around the Chamber wants the same outcome.

I thank the Minister for giving way. Does the Minister recognise that pretty much everybody in the House, including people who are religious and people who are not, respects the right of people to practise religion and to pray privately but that there is a difference between that and people using the pulpit to attack people based on their sexuality or their gender or whether they are trans or because of the community that they come from? Does he recognise that there is a difference between those two things?

Of course we need to protect everybody, but we have freedom of speech and freedom of religion.

[Interruption.]

The Member seems unsure, but we do. We have freedom of speech and we have freedom of religion, and having those things means that we have the right to say things that others may disagree with. I hear things from others that I disagree with and which I may find objectionable, but that is what living in a free society is all about. It is that we hear and listen and that we express views that may not be to everybody's taste.

We need to make sure that the balance is right. That is, I think, what nearly everybody else in the Chamber wants to see: we want to make sure that we do not have those harmful and abusive practices in place and that, if we find that a gap exists in current legislation, we fill it while doing nothing that is inconsistent and not compliant with human rights legislation. That is an entirely appropriate and proportionate step to take. That is why I think that everybody in the House, on the basis of the comments that they have made, will support the amendment.

I know that people want to see this done quickly. I cannot commit to a specific timescale because the engagement is what is most important. I look forward to that engagement.

I call on Maurice Bradley to make a winding-up speech on the amendment. You have three minutes.

It has been an interesting if not challenging debate. Our amendment is self-explanatory. I agree that the abusive practice of conversion therapy can affect the mental health of anyone who may be subjected to it, and I recognise that the practice has been rejected by medical professionals, as it should be. We support a ban on such practices.

It is, nonetheless, important to recognise that, where an individual voluntarily or actively seeks prayerful or pastoral support, that should be underpinned. One cannot rule out the value and importance of support and pastoral guidance from churches to their parishioners and congregations. Often, the church is a confidential and trusted point of first contact.

Mr McGrath spoke of historical homophobic abuse that was sometimes hostile and unacceptable to those in the LGBT+ community: I agree with him. My colleague pointed out that coercive and abusive practices cannot and should not be tolerated and are not acceptable in any form: we agree with that.

Emma Sheerin, in supporting the motion, said that a lot of work has already been done, and she called for action. Mr Tennyson spoke of equality and togetherness, the need for change and recognition of the possibility that harmful abuse comes through conversion therapy, and he called for a ban. I think that we all want that, but we want to protect religious freedom and freedom of speech at the same time.

Doug Beattie highlighted his birthright as a straight man who cannot be changed by therapy: I agree with that. We are who we are; indeed, anybody born into the LGBT+ community cannot be changed by therapy. They are who they are. We are who we are.

Sian Mulholland spoke of a misrepresentation of faith and highlighted a Christian ethos of compassion and love for fellow human beings. Sinéad McLaughlin called for full support from the Assembly.

Jim Allister challenged the meaning of the motion and called it an "under the radar" attack on education and religion. He called for freedom of religion and for Christian teaching to be protected.

Gerry Carroll said that it is a shame that LGBT+ rights are under debate in the House.

It is important that we recognise the right to pastoral support and care. Therefore, I urge colleagues to support our amendment, which agrees to provide that protection while protecting religious freedom and the right of expression.

Will the Member give way?

Yes.

The Member made a point that I wish to emphasise. Listening to the comments from the other Members who said, "Oh, no, the legislation would not mean this. It would not mean the prosecution of people sincerely giving pastoral support" —.

Could the Member take his seat, please? It was an intervention that you were supposed to make. You are now making an additional speech, and I am not allowing that.

OK.

I call on Matthew O'Toole to make a winding-up speech on the motion. You have five minutes.

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 thank the Member for giving way. I have a quick question. Does he accept that, while there is a huge lobby and huge support for banning the therapies that he talks about, the report by Professor Ashe and Dr Mackle that he referenced conflated the issue with private prayer?

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.

The Member has an extra minute.

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.

I thank the Member for giving way. There is a bit of a contradiction in what he is saying. If he believes that prayerful and pastoral support should be allowed, why does he not support the amendment? That is all that is being asked for. We want to make sure that the definition of "conversion practice" does not include something as simple as prayer and pastoral support.

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 —

Will the Member bring his remarks to a close?

— 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.

Question put, That the amendment be made. The Assembly divided:

<SPAN STYLE="font-style:italic;"> Ayes 29; Noes 42

AYES

Mr Allister, Mr Beattie, Mr Bradley, Mr Brett, Mr Brooks, Ms Brownlee, Mr K Buchanan, Mr T Buchanan, Mr Buckley, Ms Bunting, Mr Butler, Mrs Cameron, Mr Clarke, Mrs Dodds, Mr Dunne, Mr Easton, Mr Elliott, Mrs Erskine, Ms Forsythe, Mr Frew, Mr Givan, Mr Harvey, Mr Irwin, Mr Kingston, Mr Lyons, Miss McIlveen, Mr Middleton, Mr Nesbitt, Mr Robinson

Tellers for the Ayes: Mr Bradley, Mr Kingston

NOES

Dr Archibald, Mr Baker, Mr Blair, Mr Boylan, Ms Bradshaw, Miss Brogan, Mr Carroll, Mr Delargy, Mr Dickson, Mrs Dillon, Mr Donnelly, Ms Eastwood, Ms Egan, Ms Ennis, Ms Ferguson, Miss Hargey, Mr Honeyford, Mr Kearney, Mr Kelly, Ms Kimmins, Mr McAleer, Miss McAllister, Mr McCrossan, Mr McGlone, Mr McGrath, Mr McGuigan, Ms McLaughlin, Mr McMurray, Mr McReynolds, Mrs Mason, Mr Muir, Ms Mulholland, Ms Á Murphy, Ms Ní Chuilín, Ms Nicholl, Mr O'Dowd, Mr O'Toole, Miss Reilly, Mr Sheehan, Ms Sheerin, Ms Sugden, Mr Tennyson

Tellers for the Noes: Mr Donnelly, Ms McLaughlin

Question accordingly negatived.

Main Question put.

I have been advised by the party Whips that, in accordance with Standing Order 27(1A)(b), there is agreement that we can dispense with the three minutes and move straight to the Division.

The Assembly divided:

<SPAN STYLE="font-style:italic;"> Ayes 41; Noes 25

AYES

Dr Archibald, Mr Baker, Mr Blair, Mr Boylan, Ms Bradshaw, Miss Brogan, Mr Carroll, Mr Delargy, Mr Dickson, Mrs Dillon, Mr Donnelly, Ms Eastwood, Ms Egan, Ms Ennis, Ms Ferguson, Miss Hargey, Mr Honeyford, Mr Kelly, Ms Kimmins, Mrs Long, Mr McAleer, Miss McAllister, Mr McCrossan, Mr McGrath, Mr McGuigan, Ms McLaughlin, Mr McMurray, Mr McReynolds, Mrs Mason, Mr Muir, Ms Mulholland, Ms Á Murphy, Ms Ní Chuilín, Ms Nicholl, Mr O'Dowd, Mr O'Toole, Miss Reilly, Mr Sheehan, Ms Sheerin, Ms Sugden, Mr Tennyson

Tellers for the Ayes: Mr Donnelly, Mr McCrossan

NOES

Mr Allister, Mr Bradley, Mr Brett, Mr Brooks, Ms Brownlee, Mr K Buchanan, Mr T Buchanan, Mr Buckley, Ms Bunting, Mrs Cameron, Mr Clarke, Mrs Dodds, Mr Dunne, Mr Easton, Mrs Erskine, Ms Forsythe, Mr Frew, Mr Givan, Mr Harvey, Mr Irwin, Mr Kingston, Mr Lyons, Miss McIlveen, Mr Middleton, Mr Robinson

Tellers for the Noes: Mr Bradley, Mr Kingston

Main Question accordingly agreed to. Resolved:

That this Assembly deplores that harmful and damaging conversion practices are still legal in Northern Ireland; recognises that conversion practices can take many forms and can occur in a variety of settings; notes the findings from the May 2024 publication, 'A Study of Conversion Practices in Northern Ireland', by Professor Fidelma Ashe and Dr Danielle Mackle; reaffirms its support for a ban on conversion practices in all forms; and calls on the Minister for Communities to commit to bringing forward legislation on an effective ban on conversion practices before the end of the current Assembly mandate.

Members, take your ease for a few moments while we change the personnel at the top Table.

(Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr Blair] in the Chair)