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 5705806

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I reiterate the point that, first, all the tests would have to be met: intent; coercive behaviour against a victim; and harm. I have outlined how the harm test is higher and not lower than existing offences of domestic abuse and of cruelty to a child. The definition of "psychological harm" that includes "fear, alarm or distress" is lifted directly from the concept of harm established in domestic abuse legislation that already operates successfully in law in setting a threshold, if you like, for the level of harm that the courts believe is prosecutable. Rather than invent my own definition of "harm", I have therefore chosen a definition that already operates successfully and is interpreted by the courts in the present tense. Similar concepts also underpin the Protection from Stalking Act (Northern Ireland) 2022 and the Protection from Harassment (Northern Ireland) Order 1997. They are therefore not new or novel. I have no doubt that the Committee will want to look at the harm test, because, when we are talking about a balance of rights, the point at which that line is drawn for harm is important, and I do not deny that. We could, for example, look at excluding things such as trivial or transient harm. I do not think that doing so would change the outworkings of the Bill, but it would provide additional clarity and reassurance. If Members want to have that conversation at Consideration Stage, I will be more than happy to have it. I will give way one more time, and then I will conclude.

As in every criminal case, be it domestic abuse, be it threatening and abusive behaviour or be it harassment, there will be two sides to every story. There will be the prosecution case and the defence case. Before even getting to that point, the PSNI and the Public Prosecution Service, in order to bring a prosecution, have to determine that an evidential test has been met and that the public interest test has been met. The courts would approach that through a fact-specific test, which would determine whether intent was present or there was some other overriding motivation; whether there was a coercive course of behaviour, which, as I have already outlined, is well defined in the Bill and is consistent with existing law; whether the victim was degraded, humiliated or threatened; and whether there was controlling and monitoring of the victim's activities in an unreasonable way. It would then have to be determined whether that behaviour directly contributed to harm to the child, and that would have to be proven beyond all reasonable doubt. The test would be exactly the same as that for any other criminal offence in that space that is tested by the courts. I want to make some progress and conclude my remarks.

I will briefly. I will make an exception for Miss McAllister.

I completely agree. That is why I set out in my speech that no one should underestimate the devastating impact that familial abuse can have. It can be some of the most heinous and devastating abuse that anyone in our society can go through. That is why I have taken an approach that is about creating a structured framework for assessing the offences, rather than about having blanket carveouts for religious settings or for parents, because we know that, unfortunately, in our society, abuse can happen in the home and in religious settings, and it can be devastating when the person responsible is the person whom we believed we could trust most. The other reason that the legislation is important is because many people who are brought to a conversion practitioner are brought there by their parents, who often do not realise or understand the level of harm to which they are exposing their young person. If they were aware of the lifelong impact that that so-called therapy will have on them, they would never, in good conscience, have brought them to that practitioner in the first place.

This is also about raising public awareness and setting boundaries so that parents know which services are legitimate, which services they can rely on to get non-directive ethical support and which services are quack therapies that will harm minors in our community. That boundary setting is really important.

I spoke to someone who works with young people in a religious setting. Contrary to the popular wisdom that has been expressed on the airwaves over the past number of days and weeks, he said that he would actually welcome greater clarity about just how far he can go with young people who come to him to seek guidance and advice because, as a Christian, he felt that he was not in a position to judge and he wished to do no harm towards anyone whom he deals with in the course of his work. Therefore, let us not fall into the trap of caricaturing people of faith and LGBT people as being against one another in the debate. There is much more common ground than, sometimes, debate in the Chamber would suggest. Much hard work has gone into bringing us to this point. Discussion and engagement has been ongoing with a range of organisations, including the Rainbow Project, HERe NI, the General Medical Council (GMC), the mental health champion, the Professional Standards Authority (PSA), the PSNI, the Public Prosecution Service and many others. I am grateful to each and every one of those organisations for their time and engagement. Northern Ireland's record on rights and equality for the LGBTQ+ community is not a proud one. For too much of our history, we have lagged behind the rest of these islands, with progress being secured in spite of these institutions rather than because of them. Decriminalisation was hard won through the courts. Civil partnerships and equal marriage had to be imposed by Westminster. Today, we can write a different story. With the Bill, we have an opportunity not only to pass the first major piece of equality legislation through the Assembly but to lead the way by becoming the first part of the UK or Ireland to ban conversion therapy. The place that was once synonymous with the "Save Ulster from Sodomy" campaign can become the place that sets the standard for equality, upholding human dignity and affirming the simple principle that every person has the right to live free from coercion, harm and torture and be free to be themselves regardless of who they are or whom they love. I commend the Bill to the Assembly.

1,092 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 16:21 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