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

Debate contribution by Mr Gordon Lyons on 28 September 2026.

MLA: Mr Gordon Lyons
Party at the time: Democratic Unionist Party
Date: 28 September 2026
Type: Debate contribution (made as a minister)
Business: Private Members' Business
Heading: Conversion Practices (Criminalisation) Bill: Second Stage
Assembly identifier: Official Report component 5762896

Text

I thank all Members who have contributed to the debate over the past couple of days, or is it weeks? I have genuinely lost track. It has been a useful debate, however. We have been able to tease out issues, and having that time has allowed Members to consider some of the issues that have been raised. Before I go any further, I will address a few comments to Mr Tennyson. First, I acknowledge that the Bill is deeply personal to him. It is a subject that he cares about and has done for a long time. That can sometimes be a virtue and a vice when bringing through legislation such as this, but I acknowledge that he has clearly put a lot of work into it. It is clear that, in some cases, he has examined alternatives to the clauses that he has put in. It is clear from our conversations and many, many interventions that have been taken throughout the debate that he has answered some of the queries that have come up and has given rationales, much as I may disagree with some of them. It is clear that he has examined this and weighed up the pros and cons. I acknowledge that, when you spend a lot of time on something, work hard and put considerable effort into it, it is difficult when others are as robust and passionate about their position as you are about yours.
I hope that he understands that our opposition to the Bill is based on what is in it. I have been sincere and genuine in that regard. I need to comment on some of the contributions that have been made. What frustrates me most about this place is how readily it rushes to a populist position. On the surface, a ban on conversion practices sounds compassionate and progressive; the sort of measure that photographs well and wins easy applause. However, I have come to the conclusion that some of the Members opposite either do not grasp the profound difficulties with the evidence base, the elastic definitions or the inevitable chilling effect that the Bill would have on free speech and religious liberty, or they understand those difficulties perfectly well and still choose silence because the alternative looks unpopular. That is the abandonment of scrutiny in favour of the appearance of virtue. The deeper problem with this place is that it is all too quick to support something that merely sounds good rather than something that actually is good. Sounding good can be easy; doing good requires the harder work of precise drafting, the honest assessment of evidence and the courage to resist popular pressure when the long-term cost to liberty and truth are clear. That was very apparent from the contributions made by Sinn Féin and SDLP Members in particular. There was no scrutiny of the Bill. There was no answer to the questions that we asked. Members spoke in very general terms about the issue at large but not about what is in front of us. Mr Boggs made his maiden speech on the issue and made many good points. The Deputy Speaker called it an "inaugural" speech, but I do not think that Mr Boggs is a president. I hope that that is not some new woke ideology. It was not an "inaugural" speech; it was a maiden speech.
No, it was not you. I do not mean to have a go at someone making their maiden speech, but it is fair to say that many of the speeches were fluffy and did not address the issues of concern. Before I turn to the Bill, I will address some of the comments about the legal advice that was provided by Aidan O'Neill KC. Members are of course entitled to scrutinise that advice. That is part of our role as legislators. However, it is not appropriate for the Assembly to dismiss or disparage professional legal advice simply because its conclusions are inconvenient or contested. Mr O'Neill provided his professional assessment of the Bill. Members may agree or disagree, but any legal assessment should be considered on its legal merits and treated with the professional respect that such advice warrants. It is important to put that on record. I also want to make a very important rebuttal of something that Mr Tennyson stated during the debate. He said:
"With the Bill, we have an opportunity ... to pass the first major piece of equality legislation through the Assembly" — [Official Report (Hansard), 15 September 2026, p25, col 2].
That is incorrect. Mr Tennyson forgets about the Sign Language Bill, which received Royal Assent on 9 July this year. That is an Act that the Assembly can be proud to have passed. I assume that he did not mean the offence that he caused by those comments. I think that that is more down to his version and view of what equality is, but I am immensely proud to have been part of that legislation and to have signed the first commencement order for last week.
Thank you very much, Brian.
Second Stage is about debating the general principles of a Bill, but that does not mean that we speak only in generalities. The question before us today is not whether people should be protected from harm. Of course they should. Nor is it whether abusive conduct should be challenged. Of course it should. The question is whether the Bill provides a lawful and workable framework for creating new criminal offences. In my view, it does not. I assure the House that I have given the Bill careful consideration. I am aware that it deals with a sensitive issue that requires care and compassion, and that is why I hope that Mr Tennyson will reflect on the comments that he has made about me and others in relation to the Bill. He was on the radio shortly after me one day and said that it was clear that I had not read the Bill. I would have hoped that he would not take that approach. I hope that he understands that I have read the Bill but have come to a different conclusion from him on it. The debate has taken place over a number of days, during which time he seems to have accepted that there are legitimate concerns on this side of the House, particularly about the definition of "conversion therapy" and the meanings of "talking therapy", "coaching" and "instruction". He appears to have moved on that. I do not doubt, therefore, the sincerity of his position. I hope that he affords the same attitude to others in the Chamber who have come with genuine concerns about what the Bill will mean. It is unfair that people have said that there has been scaremongering from this side of the House. The concerns on this side are not based on a view that we have just taken on any one day; they are considered and are the result of legal advice and a plain reading of the Bill. I hope that that will also be understood. I recognise the fact that individuals have experienced coercive or harmful treatment that was carried out in the name of changing or suppressing their sexual orientation or identity. The fact that I have concerns about the Bill should not be taken as indifference to those experiences or the harm that can arise from abusive practices. As I have said, the Second Stage is about debating the principles of the Bill and deciding whether it should progress. Our task is not simply to agree with an intention, especially when that intention is unclear, but to consider whether the proposed legislative framework is sufficiently clear, robust and workable to justify creating new criminal offences. That is an important point: they are criminal offences that would result in a criminal record with potential jail time. Even those who support the aims of the Bill should ask whether the provisions contain the degree of certainty that criminal law requires. The stated objective of the Bill is "to end" so-called "conversion practices in Northern Ireland". It is directed towards ending discredited therapies and stopping harmful or abusive behaviour towards LGBT people. As I have said, I support that objective in principle. However, we cannot debate the principles of the Bill without looking not only at what the Bill intends to do but at how it intends to do it. That is where the problems lie. In considering those principles, I have three broad concerns: concern about the clarity and legal certainty of the Bill; concern about whether the Bill is sufficiently targeted at genuinely harmful conduct; and concern about whether the offences that are to be created have been demonstrated to be necessary and proportionate. It is those concerns that lead me to conclude that I cannot support the Bill. After closely examining the provisions, it became clear that the Bill may capture all sorts of normal, everyday behaviours, infringe on human rights and use criminal law in a way that is neither appropriate nor reasonable. My first concern is about whether the Bill provides the clarity and legal certainty that is required in criminal law. When offences that may result in criminal liability and imprisonment are being created, people should be able to understand where lawful conduct ends and criminal conduct begins. It is against that standard that I have examined the Bill. The first offence in the Bill is "providing conversion therapy". It is that clause that attempts to address discredited therapies that are aimed at changing an individual's sexual orientation or gender identity. However, the definition of conversion therapy is extraordinarily broad and includes those who provide or carry out:
"any of the following— (a) counselling or any form of talking therapy, (b) coaching or instruction, (c) a treatment, or purported treatment."
That has the potential to capture all manner of actions, including parental guidance, youth mentoring, pastoral conversations and even private advice. Mr Tennyson has sought to provide reassurance on that point. He has argued that the use of the word "therapy" is deliberate and that there would need to be a "fact-specific assessment" by a court as to whether an instance of coaching or instruction amounts to a therapeutic intervention.
I struggle to see where that additional limitation appears in the Bill. The Bill does not state that "coaching or instruction" must amount to a therapeutic intervention. Clause 4 expressly states:
"a person provides or carries out conversion therapy if the person provides or carries out"
any of the listed activities, which expressly include "coaching or instruction".

1,774 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Awaiting analysis

This record has not been analysed yet. It is not counted in any total until it has been assessed.

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