Debate contribution: Conversion Practices (Criminalisation) Bill: Second Stage
Debate contribution by Mr Gordon Lyons on .
- 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 5762929
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I will not ask her to go to the Back Benches
and make it again, because I get her point. We have heard it in here time and time again, and there have almost been guffaws and an attitude of, "A judge would never do that". First, we will have to wait and see what is in the legislation, because that is what a judge would have to go on. Think, however, about what a person who had been accused of something under the legislation would have gone through by the time that the case got to court. Think about how difficult it would be for a parent or a pastor — someone who had meant only the best and had the best intentions at heart — who got a knock on the door and had to give statements and go through a process of engaging with all the relevant authorities to allow the PPS to do its job before the case was sent on again. That would cause huge concern and distress for the people involved, so it is not good enough to say, "Oh, it will be OK at the end". I give the example of the Ashers case, which happened over 10 years ago. What that family was put through at the time was absolutely disgraceful. Yes, we could say that it all worked out in the end, because the Supreme Court did its job and accurately interpreted the law, but look at what that family was put through in the meantime. That is why it is important that people know exactly what the law states in the first place. That is why there is an issue with clause 4. If the intention is that "coaching or instruction" should be criminalised only where it constitutes a genuinely therapeutic intervention, I ask this straightforward question: why does the Bill not say so? When the Assembly is creating a criminal offence carrying the possibility of imprisonment, Members should not be asked to rely on assurances about how broadly drafted words are intended to operate. Those limits should be clear in the legislation. I say that because clarity matters. Members may support the Bill's objective, but they should also ask themselves whether the offences are drafted with sufficient precision to ensure that people can understand what conduct would and would not be prohibited. It is clear from the debate that there is not certainty in the Chamber about what clause 4 means. There is also an offence of "engaging in coercive conversion behaviour". Of course abusive and coercive behaviour is unacceptable; no one in the Chamber should have any difficulty saying that. The coercive behaviour offence, however, is grounded in a concept that is so broad that it may criminalise conduct that the Bill sponsor does not wish to criminalise. The real challenge for us as legislators is to ensure that, in seeking to prohibit genuinely harmful conduct, we do not inadvertently criminalise legitimate conversations, ordinary family relationships, pastoral support or professional guidance. Mr Tennyson has noted that the Bill's definition of coercive behaviour draws on language contained in the Domestic Abuse and Civil Proceedings Act (Northern Ireland) 2021.
He has also made clear his intention that the coercive behaviour offence should be capable of applying in the context of parent/child relationships. However, that demonstrates precisely why caution is required when comparisons are made, as the Domestic Abuse and Civil Proceedings Act provides a specific exemption for those who have parental responsibility for the individual. This Bill, therefore, seeks to apply concepts drawn from the domestic abuse framework in a different context and, importantly, to relationships involving parents and children. While existing legislation already provides protections for children from harm, neglect and cruelty, the coercive behaviour concepts relied on in this Bill have not previously been applied in that way. That is why I do not accept the argument that those provisions can simply be regarded as equivalent to those in the Domestic Abuse Act or that their operation can safely be assumed to be the same. Parents necessarily set boundaries, provide guidance and supervise their children's activities. They regulate aspects of their children's day-to-day lives. Parents monitor their children's welfare and, where they believe it to be in their children's best interests, place limits on what they can and cannot do. The fact that language has been borrowed from the Domestic Abuse Act does not mean that the legal effect is the same. Context matters, and, in the case of parents and children, those differences matter a great deal, particularly when a completely different approach has been taken in the Bill. Leaving aside the significant issue of parents and children, lifting the "coercive control" wording and applying it to a wider context than that of specific domestic relationships is not without issue. For example, the absence of the intent part of the provisions in the Bill is significant. The prosecution of offences under the Domestic Abuse Act must establish that the accused intended to cause harm or was reckless as to whether harm would be caused or that a reasonable person would consider the conduct likely to cause harm. Supporters of this Bill may argue that the threshold is higher because it requires physical or psychological harm to have been caused, but that does not answer the point that I make. The question is not simply whether harm must be shown; the question is whether the offence is supported by the same wider framework of intent, recklessness and objective assessment as exists in the domestic abuse legislation from which those concepts have been drawn.
935 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.