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 5763007

Text

I understand the wish to enact legislation like this to ensure that people do not abuse people or force them to change their sexual orientation or gender identity. On the face of it, that seems to be a worthy objective. However, that does not mean that it can or should be turned into criminal law. Attempting to do so may even, as I have said, be detrimental to those who need to be protected and supported. Legislation must be clear and legally robust. It must also provide the assurance that ordinary people who act in good faith will not find themselves exposed to criminal sanction. Having considered the Bill carefully, I am not satisfied that it strikes the necessary balance between protection from harm and the preservation of fundamental rights or that it provides the certainty that the law requires. I want to be clear: I agree that abusive practices should be challenged and that coercive practices have no place in our society. However, agreeing with that objective is not the same as agreeing with this legislation. Throughout the debate, I have returned to three concerns. First, does the Bill provide the degree of clarity and legal certainty that the criminal law requires? Secondly, does it draw the boundary in the right place, targeting genuinely harmful conduct without risking the capture of lawful and legitimate interactions between parents and children, faith leaders and congregants, and professionals and those seeking guidance? Thirdly, has the case been made for creating these offences in their current form, given the existing legal framework and the significant rights issues that arise? Good intentions alone do not make good law. Nowhere has that been demonstrated for us more than in the climate change legislation that was passed at the end of the previous mandate. In my view, there was a rush to sign up to the most stringent targets so that nobody could say to us that we were being soft when it came to the climate. As a result, the A5 has not been built. At that time, we got independent advice from the Climate Change Committee that we did not need to go beyond 82% by 2050, and, were we to do so, it would cost an extra £900 million per year by the end. Those are the consequences of supporting bad legislation simply because it sounds good.
Good law requires clarity, precision and confidence that the boundaries of criminal liability are understood. When creating new criminal offences, particularly those carrying the possibility of imprisonment, we must be confident that the line between lawful conduct and criminal conduct has been drawn in the right place. As Members of the Assembly and as legislators, we have a responsibility to legislate carefully, proportionately and with certainty. Having considered the Bill carefully, I have concluded that my concerns with it are not matters of drafting detail that can readily be resolved through amendment; they go to the fundamental structure, scope and operation of the offences themselves. I therefore do not believe that amendment provides a realistic route to making the Bill workable. I am not prepared to support legislation where I have substantial concerns that it may prove ineffective, create legal uncertainty and produce unintended consequences. In closing, let me say this: we are not here to defend harm; we are here to defend the space in which free people live, speak and raise their children without the constant fear of the criminal law. The Bill claims to target only the abusive and coercive, but, in reality, its definitions are so elastic that ordinary words of caution, guidance or conviction can be pulled inside them. Once that happens, the message to parents and pastors, teachers and friends is clear: stay silent or risk prosecution. That is not protection. Freedom of expression is worthless if it covers only opinions that win applause. The real test is whether we protect the right to say what others find difficult or wrong.
I will give way to the Member.
That is a complete distraction from the issue at hand. The Member has raised none of the fundamental concerns. He is trying some kind of gotcha question. He should address the substance of the Bill. I know that that is difficult for the Member, because he operates just on good vibes and whatever looks good. What a classic example he is of what I talked about a few moments ago. It does not matter what is in the detail of the Bill or what its effect will be. It does not matter about any of those things. The Member is not concerned about the detail. We can certainly have a debate about freedom of expression. Do I believe that there are limits to freedom of expression? Of course; we all believe that to a certain extent. Do I believe that those limits should apply in this way? No, I do not.
I just answered the question. I said that, yes, there are limits to freedom of expression, but I am saying that where the Bill draws the line is not where the line should be drawn. A society that criminalises disagreement on matters of sexuality and identity is a society that has lost confidence in persuasion and resorted to the force of the state. We do not need a new offence that treats the expression of a sincerely held view as a potential crime simply because it challenges a contested ideology. Private and family life is not a privilege granted by government; it is a fundamental right. Parents have the duty and the liberty to guide their children according to their values, and Churches and communities have the liberty to teach according to their convictions. Individuals have the liberty to seek counsel that aligns with their conscience. The Bill places all of those liberties under suspicion. It draws the boundary between free speech and harm so far into the private sphere that the boundary itself becomes the problem. We should reject any law that forces citizens to choose between their deepest beliefs and the risk of a criminal record. The line must be held. On one side stand genuine abuse and coercion, which are rightly illegal; on the other side stand speech, guidance, prayer, parental authority and the open contest of ideas. The Bill crosses that line. It confuses disagreement with danger and replaces trust in free people with trust in the criminal courts.
I ask the Assembly this evening, even at this late hour and even with Members dug into where they are right now, to stand for the harder, better path, to protect the vulnerable with the laws that we already have, to protect the freedoms that make a free society possible, and to reject the Bill.

1,127 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