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

Debate contribution by Mr Tom Buchanan on 28 September 2026.

MLA

Mr Tom Buchanan

Party at the time

Democratic Unionist Party

Date

28 September 2026

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Private Members' Business

Heading

Conversion Practices (Criminalisation) Bill: Second Stage

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5762613

Read the official Assembly record

Text

A lot has been said on the Bill over the last few days on which it has been debated. Members have gone into the clauses in a lot of detail, so my comments on the Bill will be fairly broad. The Bill is presented to the House as a safeguard or a shield of protection for the people. Who is the Bill sponsor trying to fool, given that nothing could be further from the truth? When we look at its clauses, we find something very different, and Members have gone over that in detail in the last number of days. We discover a Bill that threatens the Churches, our pastors, our families, our parents, therapists, youth organisations, youth workers, Sunday school teachers and children's workers — anyone who dares to engage in honest, compassionate conversations about identity, faith or personal conduct. The Bill really is a blatant attack on free speech. I noticed last week that Emma Sheerin said that we are all created "in the image of God". When we take that a little further, we find that, when God created us, he created "male and female" — two genders. There was no ambiguity there whatsoever. However, man, through his sinful practices, is seeking to turn that into multiple genders. The Bill sponsor has been asked how many genders are in his Bill, and he has been unable to tell us. He wants us to vote for his Bill, yet he does not know what is in it and the damage that it will cause. The Bill does not simply ban conversion practices; everyone in the House opposes them. Instead, it criminalises intent, beliefs and conversations. It is causing concern and anxiety amongst a raft of people across our constituencies, and, again, that has been highlighted in various speeches about the Bill. It appears that the Bill sponsor is turning a blind eye and a deaf ear to the concerns that are being raised even by people in his constituency who have sent him letters and correspondence. Let us be clear: conversion practices are illegal. Abuse should be illegal; harm should be illegal. There are existing laws that cover abusive treatment, albeit some of them may need to be tightened up a little. However, they are there, so what is the Bill all about? It goes far beyond that. It reaches into the private sphere of homes, churches, pastoral care and counselling rooms, and it tells people what they can and cannot say or do. Churches across Northern Ireland have always provided pastoral support to people who are wrestling with questions of identity, faith, behaviour and conscience. Under the Bill, a pastor who prays with someone at their request or who teaches the Christian understanding of sexuality could be accused of suppression or of efforts to change a person. What, however, is the Christian faith all about? My colleague Paul Frew said in his speech last week that it is about changing our sinful ways, converting and turning to Christ. Paul quoted Acts chapter 3, verse 19, which states:

"Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out".

The Bill, however, would criminalise the people who stand firmly for the Christian faith. It is a Bill that does not distinguish between abuse and belief. It does not distinguish between coercion and consensual pastoral care. It does not distinguish between harm and doctrine. When a law cannot distinguish between those things, it becomes a tool to silence people. Is that not what the Alliance Party wants to do, however? It wants to silence people, and we saw that last week in the House during the debate on the Display of Flags and Emblems Bill. It now wants to silence people right across Northern Ireland. It does not want them to stand for the truth. The Bill would place parents in an impossible position. If their child were to express confusion about their identity, a parent who gently encouraged them to slow down, reflect or seek balanced advice could be accused of interference. A parent who shared their faith perspective could be accused of harm. A parent who wanted to protect their child from irreversible decisions could be criminalised. The Bill treats parents and pastors as potential offenders rather than as protectors. Do we want to see a Bill go through the House that would criminalise our parents, our pastors and others who show genuine care and compassion for our children and young people?

Professional therapists have also raised concerns that the Bill would make it impossible to conduct open-ended exploratory therapy. The Bill's definition of "conversion practices" is so vague that any discussion of sexual behaviour, identity development, trauma or faith could be interpreted as an attempt to change or suppress. Therapists would simply stop engaging, meaning that clients would be left without support. The very people whom the Bill claims to want to protect would be those harmed. Youth workers, teachers, chaplains and volunteers would be forced to avoid conversations initiated by young people. The Bill would create a chilling effect, whereby adults would fear prosecution for offering guidance, moral teaching or even a personal testimony. That is not safeguarding but state-mandated silencing. That is exactly what the Bill is intended to achieve. The Bill relies on a subjective interpretation of "intent". It would invite complaints based on offence rather than on evidence, and it would empower activists to target Churches, faith groups and families with which they disagree. Once again, the Assembly is being asked to pass a law that is vague, overreaching and wide open to misuse: a law that would be weaponised against ordinary people acting in good faith. I say this with respect: the Bill sponsor is not stupid — he has probably forgotten more than I have ever learnt — and he knows that the concerns that this side of the House has raised are 100% correct. He has, however, turned a blind eye and a deaf ear to them because he wants his ideology to go forward through the Bill. If it does, so many people and families across Northern Ireland will be affected. If the Assembly wishes to ban coercive and abusive practices, it can do so through precise, narrow, evidence-based legislation, but this Bill is not that.

The Bill is a threat to freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of conscience and parental rights. We must protect our people from harm, but, equally, we must protect the fundamental freedoms that define a democratic society.

The content and the lack of clarity in the Bill are so grave that I have received numerous items of correspondence via email, letter and telephone from parents, church leaders, community organisations, voluntary groups, women's networks, youth groups and many others raising concerns about the Bill and expressing outright opposition to it. I say this to the sponsor of the Bill: just stop for a moment and listen to the genuine fears and concerns and take a step back from pressing forward with a Bill that is causing so much alarm among all sections of our community. Why press forward with something that is causing so much concern?

I will read from a letter that was sent to the Bill sponsor from someone in his constituency. I am sure that other MLAs have received it, but I will put it on record:

"I am writing as Senior Pastor of HOPE Church Craigavon, a large Church of Ireland congregation in the heart of Craigavon, with responsibility for a substantial Christian community within your constituency."

Mr Tennyson, are you listening? The letter continues:

"Your Bill expressly includes 'counselling', 'talking therapy', 'coaching' and 'instruction', while psychological harm includes 'fear, alarm or distress'. This language threatens loving parents, who should not have to wonder whether the ordinary kinds of conversations parents have always had with their children could now land them in prison ... I personally know multiple people who once identified as homosexual or transgender whose lives changed profoundly upon meeting Christ, and who are now in faithful, heterosexual marriages raising children. Their stories matter too. The law should not permit assistance towards personal change in only one direction while outlawing it in another."

He ends by saying:

"I also want you to understand that opposition to this Bill will not be quiet. I personally intend to oppose it publicly, prayerfully and vigorously."

Mr Tennyson, that letter is from someone in your constituency. I wonder what consideration you have given to it. Parents have every right to be extremely alarmed by the content of the Bill. The definition of "coercive behaviour" in the Bill includes:

"Controlling, regulating or monitoring a person's day-to-day activities",

as well as making someone feel "punished". Therefore, a parent who exercises their parental responsibility to raise their children by setting boundaries — by limiting what they can or cannot watch on television or the internet; by saying no when it is the right thing to do; or by deciding where they may or may not go and what time they are expected to be home — will be left open to being criminalised. Is that really legislation that the House wants to pass? Everyone in the House needs to do some real soul-searching today to decide whether it is exactly what we want. When trouble breaks out in an area and young people are out on the streets, we often hear Members say, "Where were their parents? It is a parent's responsibility to know where their children are and to set parameters for them". Yet, every vote in favour of the Bill tonight will be a vote to diminish parental responsibility, because parents will have a fear of setting parameters for their children in case they are criminalised. The Bill is also an attack on places of worship. Clause 4 defines conversion therapy as including "counselling ... coaching or instruction". There is no doubt that that will capture the ordinary work of pastoral care. Bible studies, prayer and preaching will readily fall under those terms. The requirement that a perpetrator has

"an intent to change or suppress"

is a real threat to religious freedom. While not normally described in these terms, Christian teaching has the intent of changing how we live, and Christians want to suppress any idea of sin in their lives. The ordinary work of Churches will be left wide open to wrongful accusations. It is easy to see how biblical teaching on the consequences of sin could be used to claim that fear or alarm had been caused. That leaves our pastors, ministers, Sunday school teachers and children's workers wide open to prosecution. As I thought about the Bill, I could not help but think back to the Covenanters in Scotland, who, years ago, were burned at the stake for the stand that they took for their faith. If the Bill goes through, it is nothing short of a step back to those days. The House would do well to heed the legal advice from Aidan O'Neill KC. Mr O'Neill states that the Bill is devastating and poses a severe threat to basic civil liberties. We would do well to take on board what he says. My colleague Paul Frew mentioned having been elected in 2012, and he said that he had never seen such dangerous legislation. I will take my colleague back to 2003: in all my time in this place since I was first elected in 2003, I have never seen such dangerous or evil legislation before the House, legislation that goes against the moral fabric of mankind. It would silence the minister and the pastor at the pulpit and the street preacher who is presenting the gospel and threaten them with criminalisation should they counsel an individual about their spiritual condition. It is a Bill that threatens Christian homes where parents instruct their children in the ways of God and seek to raise them

"in the nurture and admonition of the Lord."

For that reason, my party cannot support the Bill. I urge everyone else in the House who will put their hand to voting for the Bill to think carefully about what they are doing. Remember this: the Bible tells us that

"whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap."

We would do well to heed the warning in God's Word.

2,058 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Qualifying

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. This record has been assessed 3 times; the latest assessment is shown.

Disagree with this assessment?

Classifications can be challenged. A person reviews every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.

Challenge this classification