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

Business

Private Members' Business

Heading

Conversion Practices (Criminalisation) Bill: Second Stage

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5762959

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I am grateful to the Member for the intervention. He obviously disagrees with my interpretation of the Bill, and he obviously disagrees with my interpretation of my interpretation of the Bill as well. We have been over that a few times, but I still believe on the basis of what is written in front of us that, if the parent does as I said in that example, they will fall under this.

I do not think that we should have to rely on assurances about how a law may be interpreted. It is clear from our debates over the past few days that there is a difference in how we interpret the legislation. If that is the case here, it could also be the case with the police, the PPS and the court. That is why it is important that, if the Bill goes forward, that is tied down. If the Member is sincere in saying that he does not want those sorts of examples captured, we need to see an amendment to that effect, because many people agree with my position on this one. For the record, I am not suggesting that such a conviction or prosecution would always be likely, but my concern is that legislation should make such an outcome impossible, not just merely unlikely.

I will.

I am grateful to Mr Kingston for his intervention. It is important to acknowledge what he said, because the views expressed on this side of the House are certainly not minority views. The vast majority of people in Northern Ireland believe what we have said about gender. I believe that the vast majority of people want to be able to instruct their child in how to deal with these issues because they believe that that is best. Mr Tennyson said again this evening that the test for the Bill is harm. It has been backed up by studies with much supporting evidence that affirming somebody in a gender identity that does not match their biological sex can and does cause harm. That is the basis of so much of what we have seen through the Cass report as well. We find a reference to that in clause 7, which states that it is OK if you want to affirm someone. That creates a contradiction. I thank the Member for his intervention on that point. I will move on to another example. Imagine that a minister or pastor in a church is teaching from the Bible and says something about the distinction between men and women. Would they be criminalised by the Bill? Mr Tennyson would say, "Of course not", and he would point to clause 7(1), which states:

"For the purposes of this Act, there is no intent to change or suppress sexual orientation or gender identity if—".

Clause 7(1)(b) states:

"The intent is solely to express beliefs or opinions, without directing a victim towards a particular sexual orientation or gender identity".

I do not know about other people of faith in this place, but I do not go along to my church on Sunday morning or Sunday evening simply to hear other people's beliefs or opinions; first and foremost, I go to hear truth. As a Christian, I expect that of my minister as he stands up and speaks. I require from him instruction and teaching on these issues. As Christians, we need, I believe, to get that instruction. I simply do not want somebody standing up there saying, "Here is my opinion. Here is what I believe, but you do whatever you want with that". First of all, I would have no confidence in that minister or preacher. If they lack such conviction in their belief that they are not willing to instruct other people that it is good for them as well, I do not want to hear from them. It is not simply their role to express beliefs; it is their role to direct, guide and instruct. It seems to me, however, that such a faith leader is captured by the legislation. Mr Tennyson may say that that is not the Bill's intention, but intentions are not what governs criminal prosecutions: the wording of legislation does that. If ordinary faith leaders who are acting in accordance with their beliefs and carrying out their pastoral responsibilities cannot easily determine whether their conduct is lawful, we should pause before we create such offences. I would like Mr Tennyson to touch on that, either in his closing remarks or during the Bill's progression, because he has said that it would not apply to somebody who is standing up and speaking to a group of people. He feels that the Bill intends there to be a specific victim who feels specifically targeted. I do not believe that that is reflected in what is in front of us in black and blue. That would have required more careful consideration from him. Again, I say that it is important that someone can easily determine whether their conduct is lawful, and criminal liability should not depend on assumptions about how provisions might later be interpreted. As I have said, I am not convinced therefore that the Bill satisfies the second test as to whether it is sufficiently targeted. My third concern is about whether the creation of those offences has been shown to be necessary and proportionate and have regard for existing legal protections, the practical challenges of enforcement and the impact on fundamental rights. We have talked a lot about faith tonight. I feel particularly Presbyterian tonight because I have given three points. I make absolutely no apology for that whatsoever. Three points are very helpful to us on this issue. My speech is not an exposition of scripture, although it has touched on scripture many times. Those are my three points, and I am sticking to them. Even if Members disagree with my concerns about the clarity and scope of the Bill, a further question remains. Before creating new criminal offences, the Assembly must be satisfied that those offences are necessary and proportionate. That requires us to ask whether a clear gap in existing protections has been identified, whether the proposed offences are workable in practice and whether they strike the right balance between competing rights. That is an important question when it comes to the Bill. Members will be aware that the UK Government recently published a draft Bill on conversion practices. That follows many delays, due partly to concerns around matters including the inclusion of gender identity and the formulation of a robust legal definition of "conversion practices". There have also been concerns in the different jurisdictions of the UK on how to draft legislation on the issue that aligns with the protection of human rights freedoms. Those concerns are valid, and I believe that they are pertinent to the latest UK draft Bill and to consideration of the private Member's Bill. It is worth putting that on record because many in the House have criticised me for the lack of progress on such draft legislation. I will be very honest with the House: it is something that I have discussed extensively with officials during my time in office. We have had some useful and really interesting debates and got into the detail of it. However, the same challenges that we are talking about in the debate are the challenges that came up when we were drafting it. I did not think that I was in a position to bring forward a Bill that would gain the agreement of the House and be able to do something that did not infringe on the human rights concerns that have been expressed by many in the House. When we look at what Governments across the UK and the Republic of Ireland have been grappling with, we see that they examined the same difficult questions and faced the same legal and policy challenges that confront us today. It is worth noting that, to date, none has succeeded in implementing comprehensive legislation that meets all the key human rights challenges. That should give us pause, because it demonstrates that this is not a straightforward legislative exercise but one that raises complex questions of law, rights, definitions and enforcement.

By the way, the real test of leadership is not that we legislate first but that we legislate well. If we prioritise speed over certainty and clarity, we risk undermining the very protections that we are seeking to put in place. My responsibility is to ensure that any legislation that is introduced is legally robust, workable in practice and commands public confidence and clarity, particularly when it can result in imprisonment.

The issue of necessity brings us on to the question of rights. Any legislation in this area inevitably requires difficult choices to be made about where and how competing rights should be balanced. That was referenced in a speech that one of my colleagues made last week, and it was roundly derided by someone on the other side of the Chamber, who said that they were sick and tired of hearing about the need to balance rights. How foolish to say something like that. How inept not to understand that there will inevitably be an issue with competing rights in this area. Members need to consider that. Of course there will be a clash. Of course there will be issues. When, under the Bill, we are potentially including parents and pastors and what people can or cannot say to others, there will inevitably be a question asked about how we can ensure that everybody can be accommodated and that no one's fundamental rights are breached. That is an important distinction to make. That brings me on to the issue of consent. Attention needs to be drawn to the provision that consent is not a defence. There may well be a human rights issue involved when it comes to the impact on individuals who, for whatever reason, are unhappy with their sexual orientation or gender identity. Aside from that issue, however, there is a considerable clash of rights in this Member's Bill. ECHR rights are engaged across its provisions, including rights that protect family life and private life, freedom of thought, belief and religion, and freedom of expression. It is very clear that that is the case, and even Mr Tennyson would acknowledge that. A line therefore needs to be drawn. Balancing competing rights is not easy, but the obligation to do so remains. We must protect individuals from genuine harm while also safeguarding freedom of expression, freedom of religion, freedom of thought and the right of families to provide care and guidance. In my judgement, the Bill does not achieve that balance. The protection that it seeks to provide comes at the risk of creating uncertainty around other fundamental rights that the Assembly has a duty to uphold. I am very clear that the line is not drawn in the right place. I am therefore not convinced that the Bill satisfies the third concern, namely that the creation of the offences has been shown to be necessary and proportionate. I have talked about the chilling effect that the Bill would undoubtedly have, and I come back to that again, because it is very important. Rather than help people who need support and guidance, the Bill might have an effect to the extent that someone who sought guidance could find that the person from whom they had sought support was unwilling to engage, as they could be afraid of facing potential prosecution. I hope that Members understand that there can be legitimate pastoral care conversations and therapy that comes from those who may not be on the list of healthcare bodies listed by the Bill sponsor. That is not in any way to endorse pseudo therapies or any of the quack treatments that we have seen. I am talking about conversations that can take place between friends and between those in a faith setting or outside of one: conversations with people who simply want to offer guidance and support. Criminal law must provide certainty. Where offences are broadly drafted or where boundaries remain uncertain, people are left unsure of what is lawful and unlawful. Criminal law also has serious consequences. We therefore have to get it right.

The explanatory and financial memorandum to the Bill states:

"Criminalising conversion practices is also intended to support ending stigmatisation of LGBTQIA+ people."

Let me be clear that that sort of stigmatisation is wrong, and I have no truck with it. However, is it an effective way to support ending that stigmatisation to use criminal law to send a message and to steer the behaviour of society, particularly when it is used in such broad, far-reaching and imprecise ways, impacting on normal, everyday activities such as those involving parents and families, teachers and youth workers, Churches and other faith-based organisations? Criminal law can be a powerful way of signalling that certain conduct is unacceptable, but it is a blunt instrument that must have clear thresholds as to offence or no offence, guilty or not guilty. Societal behaviour is often more complex. Legislation demands precision and clarity, as well as consequences that are foreseeable and proportionate. As I have said, I agree that harmful pseudotherapies and abusive practices should end. However, the Bill is not the solution. There should be a better way to do it, and I am willing to work with Mr Tennyson to find the solution. I want to be very clear, again, with Members that we have sought evidence, examined the available research and explored options as to how we might proceed. However, it is not an easy area in which to take action, and we have wrestled with the issues precisely because we recognise the importance of getting it right. We must find an approach that protects people from abusive and harmful practices, while respecting fundamental rights and freedoms and ensuring that the result is clear, proportionate and properly targeted. My concerns about the Bill should not be mistaken for a lack of commitment to addressing abusive conversion practices. I genuinely want to see progress, but progress is not passing legislation irrespective of its consequences. I want to be equally clear with Mr Tennyson that I am willing to work constructively with him to explore how we can tackle abusive conversion practices in a way that commands confidence, protects those at risk of harm and properly respects fundamental rights. Some have accused me and other members of my party of scaremongering about the Bill. I say very clearly that that is not the case. I and my party colleagues have simply been setting out our understanding of the Bill. It is not only prudent to look at all scenarios; more than that, it is our job to do so. I have engaged with stakeholders on the issue of conversion practices, including representatives from the LGBT sector and their organisations. Those discussions have reinforced for me that there is broad agreement that abusive and coercive practices should have no place in our society. I want to acknowledge one thing in relation to Mr Tennyson. The Alliance Party always talks about how it wants to bring our society together, and he has succeeded. Only Mr Tennyson could bring together the Christian Institute, the Gay Men's Network and many others in between. Some Members have been dismissive and offensive, calling some of those groups fringe organisations. However, those people have a right to have their say. They should be heard, and their views should be taken on board. There are many such groups that deserve to be heard. I thank the organisations who have contributed to our engagement. I can assure the House that I have received emails from people of every background. I have lost count of the number of times that I have received an email that began, "I have never been a DUP supporter, but", or, "I have never voted for the DUP before; however", "I am a Catholic from", or "I am an atheist from". However, it has been a similar experience for so many people. I mention the Christian Institute, in particular, for the fantastic work that it has done, cutting right through to the heart of the issue and helping people to understand what the Bill actually means. Certainly, it is an organisation that represents many people in Northern Ireland. However, whether it is an organisation like the Christian Institute that has many, many supporters, or some of the others that we have mentioned here that do not have as many supporters, the key issue for me is not the numbers that they have within them but the strength of their argument. Over the course of the debate, we have heard many, many speakers. We have heard some very long speeches. However, it was this side of the House —. I see Mr Donnelly nodding his head. This side of the House had the most effective arguments and got to the heart of the Bill. That counts for something: not the length of the contribution but how we have been able to get into some of those points. Let me read from part of the Gay Men's Network's legal analysis. Their conclusion states:

"We stand against this weaponisation of identity at the expense of rational debate. We are gay men, and we consider this legislation to be anti-gay. It prevents a concerned parent from helping a homosexual teenager who is experiencing distress around gender and trying to reconcile the teenager to accepting themselves. The legislation claims to oppose gay conversion; by tilting the balance towards state-mandated affirmation, however, it is in reality homophobic."

I am not claiming that any of us, on either side of the debate this evening, can claim to have the complete and utter support of any group of people. That is why I do not like to pigeonhole people. I do not like to talk about a certain sector or a certain community because we are all human and we all have different viewpoints on the matter. Sian Mulholland made the point that there are many Christians who will think differently from the way that I think, as a Christian, on these issues. There are many gay people who will support the Bill and many who will oppose it. I simply make this point: none of us in here can claim that any one group supports the Bill because the opposition to it runs through every section of society, but, in particular, among those who cherish freedom of thought, freedom of expression and the ability to bring up their children as they see fit. It is important that we kill the notion now that any one group is completely in support of, or opposed to, this legislation. I call on people to look at those who have given the Bill the closest look and the most scrutiny.

I will.

3,161 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Uncertain

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