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

Debate contribution by Mr Eóin Tennyson on 15 September 2026.

MLA

Mr Eóin Tennyson

Party at the time

Alliance Party

Date

15 September 2026

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Private Members' Business

Heading

Conversion Practices (Criminalisation) Bill: Second Stage

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5705597

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I thank the Member for that intervention. I will come to the gaps in the law later in my remarks. Another survivor told a study of conversion practices of their experiences, outlining how the perpetrator asked them:

"How do you feel about the fact that your father wasn’t there, and your mother was? Do you think that that is upsetting for you?"

The survivor said:

"he put a lot of things into my head… And he builds this case and then puts it back to you that, well, perhaps the reason why you’re attracted to men is that your father didn’t love you enough ... So, therefore, you’re trying to fill that hole by seeking out male affirmation".

Those quotations demonstrate exactly why new offences dealing with conversion practice are needed.

The evidence on the harms associated with conversion practices is extensive and remarkably clear. The impact can be lifelong, with victims reporting anxiety, depression, suicidal ideation, post-traumatic stress disorder, feelings of shame, guilt and self-loathing and a crisis of identity. Survivors have also reported impacts on relationships, work and vocations. In 2017, 25 major health, counselling and psychotherapy organisations, including the British Psychological Society and NHS England, came together to condemn conversion therapy as unethical and not supported by evidence. The evidence on prevalence is equally clear. The UK Government's 2018 LGBT survey found that Northern Ireland had the highest prevalence of LGBT people being offered or undergoing conversion therapy of any UK region. Across the globe, countries are acting to ban conversion practices. Twenty-seven countries, including Malta, Germany, France, Spain, New Zealand and Canada, already have bans in place, and the sky has not fallen in. We have learned from their experiences. We have also considered draft legislation from the Scottish and UK Governments as well as the approach to stalking, harassment and domestic abuse law in Northern Ireland. We have drawn on the framework set out by the Council of Europe, the recommendations of the UN independent expert on sexual orientation and gender identity and the experience of our local expert panel on the LGBTQI+ strategy. We have carefully studied the evidence on prevalence and types of conversion practice, and we are clear about where gaps remain in the law. I come to Mr Brett's point: there are two obvious gaps in the law. At the moment, the provision of an unregulated and unscientific therapy would not ordinarily fit within existing criminal offences. We have laws covering coercive and controlling behaviour, but they apply only where the individuals in question are personally connected. For example, were a parent or a sibling to engage in conversion therapy against a member of their family, that could be prosecuted under domestic abuse law, but, if the person who engages in that coercive and controlling behaviour is not a relative — if it is a counsellor or a member of their faith community — that may not be prosecutable under existing law. Conversion practices, as with domestic abuse, can take a variety of forms, which is why stand-alone legislation is needed. The argument was once made that we did not need stand-alone legislation to address domestic abuse because threatening behaviour, physical abuse and violence could be captured. However, the truth is that having stand-alone legislation sends a signal to society that such acts are not permissible and not acceptable. It also sends a clear message to victims that there is a legislative framework to support them, which is not clear at the moment. With respect, the examples that I have given make it clear that we have a problem with conversion practices continuing in our community and that the current legislative framework is not adequate to capture them.

I will in a moment. I want to make some progress. The Bill provides a comprehensive ban with no loopholes but with clarity so that we will not inadvertently impinge on freedom of expression, religion, legitimate healthcare or parental rights. I turn to the detail of the Bill. The Bill creates two new criminal offences of providing conversion therapy and engaging in coercive conversion behaviour. They have been treated as separate offences so as to recognise the distinction between more formal provision of therapy and coercive and controlling behaviour that is more similar in nature to domestic abuse. Both offences are constructed around key legislative requirements and tests, all of which must be satisfied for an offence to have been committed. It is therefore essential that, when we consider the legislation, we consider the tests in the round. First, there must be intention to suppress or change a person's sexual orientation or gender identity. Secondly, there must be provision of therapy or a coercive course of behaviour conducted with that intent. Thirdly, the therapy or coercive behaviour must be directed towards a specific, identified individual. Fourthly —.

Yes, I will.

Thank you. Look, I will not be drawn down a rabbit hole on sexual orientation and gender identity. I am happy to address that matter through interventions when the Member speaks, if he wants to discuss it in his contribution to the debate.

I will make some progress. I will give way to the Member shortly. Fourthly, the conduct must result in physical or psychological harm to the victim. Fifthly, it will be a defence that the behaviour was reasonable in the particular circumstances. The first offence deals with conversion therapy that is conducted with intent and results in actual harm. It deals with therapy that would normally be provided outside the family environment with a level of formality or structure by someone who claims to have a level of professionalism, knowledge or skill. Such practices are often inherently coercive because they exploit positions of trust and authority, with victims being more likely to place their confidence in someone who claims to possess a healing or reparative ability. The offence would capture, for example, services that claim to offer a remedy for unwanted same-sex attraction despite clear evidence and medical consensus that such outcomes are not achievable and that attempts to achieve them can result in harm. A court would need to demonstrate, among other things, that the behaviour constituted therapy. That would require a highly fact-specific assessment of the case, and it would be a defence that the accused's conduct was "reasonable in the particular circumstances" of the case. I have always stated that it is not my intention to interfere with the provision of legitimate healthcare. To ensure that there is no chilling effect, an exclusion for healthcare professionals who are members of regulated bodies has been provided, where the professionals act in accordance with the standards and code of ethics of that relevant body. The second offence covers practices that take the form of a course of coercive conversion behaviour. That type of conversion practice is, as I have said, much more similar in nature to domestic abuse and typically occurs in more informal or family settings. The offence will make it illegal to subject an individual to a course of conversion behaviour — on at least two occasions — with the intention of suppressing or changing their sexual orientation or gender identity, where that behaviour results in actual harm. As with the first offence, there will be a reasonableness defence that the behaviour in question was "reasonable in the particular circumstances". The Bill clearly sets out what amounts to coercive conversion behaviour and draws from the framework in the Domestic Abuse and Civil Proceedings Act (Northern Ireland) 2021 for defining coercive and controlling behaviour. The Assembly has previously adopted that approach, which has already been interpreted and applied by the courts in a range of contexts and successfully distinguishes between difficult conversations and coercion in a range of contexts. We must not underestimate the devastating impact that familial abuse can have on victims. The Bill does not, however, criminalise ordinary parental behaviour such as the removal of a child's privileges as part of their discipline. Equally, ordinary pastoral care or religious teaching would not be captured. For example, advice and guidance from a religious leader that includes statements of traditional faith beliefs and sexual ethics would have to be demonstrably coercive, through evidence of emphatic directives accompanied by forceful or threatening statements to force an individual to change or suppress their orientation or identity.

1,385 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

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 reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.

Challenge this classification