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 5705682

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Mr Burrows is right about clause 6: there is reference to the court having regard both to what the victim considers it to be and to what the alleged perpetrator reasonably considered it to be. That is essential. The alleged perpetrator has to be knowledgeable that the person with whom they are dealing is gay or transgender and has to act with intent to suppress or change that. That is an important protection, and the court would have to consider both perspectives when coming to a view. That framework is set out. On the question of gender identity, the question before us today is not whether a term is contested or whether every phrase is accompanied by an exhaustive statutory definition. The UK Bill includes a statutory definition, and we can have a conversation at this Bill's Consideration Stage about whether Members would like to adopt that. The question is whether a court would be able to understand that concept and apply it consistently, and I have heard nothing in the debate so far that suggests that that would not be the case. The Bill includes a harm-based, not belief-based, set of offences. It is not about our opinions about particular gender identities. It is not about whether we agree or disagree with the concept of gender identity as a whole.

It is about ensuring that no one is subjected to a coercive course of behaviour or pseudoscientific therapy that results in actual harm, and which is motivated by suppressing that individual's identity.

To focus on gender identity without looking at the other key tests in the Bill completely misses the point of the draft legislation. I am going to make some progress before taking further interventions.

I will not be giving way at this point; I want to make some progress in my remarks. I have also listened to the concerns that the legislation must not create a loophole that pushes abuse abroad. As such, the Bill includes a third offence of removing a person from Northern Ireland for the purpose of conversion practice. I have no doubt that some will seek to frame the debate as a zero-sum game, pitting LGBTQ+ people against people of faith. That reductive approach fails to recognise the plurality of our society, the fact that many LGBTQ+ people are people of faith and the fact that an even greater number of people of faith respect the dignity and rights of their LGBTQ+ brothers and sisters. The Methodist Church in Ireland, the Church of England, Quakers in Britain and the Hindu Council UK have all publicly opposed conversion therapy. In 2020, 370 religious leaders from 35 countries signed a declaration calling for a ban. As a liberal, I passionately believe in the right to freedom of religion and freedom from religion. I am determined to deliver legislation that strikes the right balance and respects and protects the rights of everyone. However, religious freedom ceases to be freedom at the point at which it is weaponised and used to cause harm and deprive others of their individual freedoms. The practices that we are debating today, and the harms that they cause, cannot possibly be justified or excused by religious or cultural sensitivities. At its heart, this is a safeguarding issue. Recent scandals involving faith-based counselling and pastoral practice, including issues raised by the victims in the Jeffrey Donaldson case, have exposed the consequences that can arise when vulnerable people are subjected to unregulated interventions without proper safeguards, oversight or accountability. Many faith leaders play a vital role in supporting and protecting people in our community. That will be protected, but no individual, institution or organisation should be beyond scrutiny where harm is caused. I will address some of the commentary that has been made on the Bill over the past week. It is right that a Bill of this significance be subject to public debate, but, frankly, some contributions have contributed more heat than light. The Minister himself has contributed to confusion surrounding the scope and effects of the draft legislation. For example, it was claimed that a parent who tells their child who is worried about their identity to slow down and think it through before making life-changing decisions would be captured by the legislation. That is not true, as such a scenario would not ordinarily be coercive, neither would it result in harm, and, in the vast majority of cases, parents are motivated by the welfare of their child in navigating complex decisions and not by an intention to suppress or change a sexual orientation or gender identity.

Not only is the Bill explicit that the failure to do a thing is not a coercive conversion behaviour, but the harm test applied in the draft legislation is more rigorous than it is for existing offences relating to threatening and abusive behaviour and cruelty to a child. Unlike those offences, the actual harm must be proven beyond reasonable doubt rather than it simply being likely that harm would be caused in the eyes of a reasonable person, or that the perpetrator was reckless as to harm caused. I will give way to Miss Erskine.

Mrs Erskine; apologies.

I thank the Member for her intervention. That is to misunderstand the structure of the Bill, which, as I have said multiple times, needs to be considered in the round. The first offence deals with formal therapies. The use of the word "therapy" is deliberate, so if there is coaching and instructing, if there is counselling, treatment or purported treatment, that would have to be therapeutic in nature, and there would have to be a facts-specific assessment of the individual providing that. I do not think that any reasonable person would determine that a parent with no background, claiming no skill or therapeutic ability, would fall into that category. I will say before the Minister intervenes, because this is a point that he has raised publicly, that the structure is clear. We have gone through a process with the drafter, deliberately setting out our clear intent about which offences those scenarios would be tested against. If it is the Member's view that she would like additional clarity — for example, that parents or people with parental responsibility would be excluded from the first offence and tested against the second — that is a conversation that we can have with the Committee, and it is one that I am open to because it is simply making explicit what is already implicit in the Bill.

1,086 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