Debate contribution: Conversion Practices

Debate contribution by Mr Gordon Lyons on 4 June 2024.

MLA

Mr Gordon Lyons

Party at the time

Democratic Unionist Party

Date

4 June 2024

Type

Debate contribution (made as a minister)

Business

Opposition Business

Heading

Conversion Practices

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 4494483

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I welcome the opportunity to respond to the motion. It is fairly clear from the debate that there is support throughout the Chamber for a ban on abusive, coercive, degrading and humiliating conversion practices, some of which we have heard about, regardless of whether those are in a medical, therapeutic, religious or secular setting. However, Members will recognise that this is a hugely complex issue, which is due in part to the ambiguity that exists as to how we define conversion practices. Having listened to all the contributors to the debate, there is a level of consensus. We want to make sure that we do not have those abusive practices but, at the same time, there seems to be wide support for the protection of religious freedom, prayer and pastoral support. Therefore, I hope that it follows that all Members will support the amendment to the motion. I believe that that is somewhere where everybody can land and where we can provide that protection but make sure that there is no impingement on freedom of religion and freedom of speech. I hope that we are able to come to a consensus this evening. I want to warn Members that this is a complex and cross-cutting issue. The development of legislation to ban those practices will require careful analysis of all the elements that are involved. Indeed, if we do establish a definition of what conversion practices are, we also need to examine whether there is a gap in the law and how best we can fill that gap in a way that is compliant and consistent with human rights legislation. Work is ongoing in my Department to inform policy proposals in order to bring forward legislation, if that is required. My officials have also worked closely with their counterparts in other jurisdictions to learn from their experience. The extent of the complexity of any potential ban is evidenced by the work in other jurisdictions on this issue. There is, currently, no existing legislation that exclusively bans conversion practices in the UK or the Republic of Ireland. The UK Government have previously committed to bringing in a ban on conversion practices, which will extend to England and Wales, although the timetable for introduction is currently unclear. A Scottish Bill is being prepared, with consultation on policy proposals just completed, and legislation to ban conversion practices is being progressed in the Republic of Ireland. However, each of those jurisdictions has experienced difficulties in arriving at a precise definition of conversion practices and of what a potential ban would include. The matter of freedom of rights is a significant one that also has to be carefully considered, and it is a matter that we have to approach cautiously as we progress policy on this issue. The motion refers to the recent publication, 'A Study of Conversion Practices in Northern Ireland'. My predecessor agreed to award a grant towards funding that research, which was coordinated by a consortium of local LGBT organisations. It was undertaken by academics from Ulster University and Queen's, and it explored this issue. I have received the report, which examines several aspects of conversion practices, such as why, how and where those practices happen, who experiences them and their effects. However, I emphasise that the findings and recommendations are those of the authors and do not represent the views of my Department. They are not government policy. They provide evidence, but it is evidence that must be supplemented and built upon as my Department progresses to formulate policy around a potential ban. I can understand the interest to progress legislation on this quickly, however it is a complex and sensitive matter. The development of effective legislation takes time, and the necessary steps must be taken to ensure that the resulting legislation is fit for purpose. It will require further engagement with all those who have an interest in the matter, and it will also require careful formulation of policy proposals and the drafting of precise primary legislation for the consideration of the Assembly. That takes me on to a couple of the comments that were made. Mr McGrath said that it is time to get it done and to get on with it, and Sinéad McLaughlin said something similar. Emma Sheerin said that the research had already been carried out. Actually, the Department has not even consulted on this yet, and if we recognise that this is a significant and complex issue, surely we should at least have that basic consultation and have that information. Yes, we have this report in front of us, but it is very much one side of the overall conversation that needs to take place. The idea that we are ready to go forward with legislation at this point is incorrect. We need to have that greater understanding, we need to hear from everybody, and, importantly, we need to make sure that we get right what the legal definition would be. That is what has tripped up others elsewhere. We will have engagement. It will be a cross-cutting issue, and it will require engagement with other Departments. I fully understand that there will be concerns around what any potential ban will include. While it is important that we have protections against coercive, abusive and unsafe practices, it is vital that rights, such as freedom of speech and freedom of religion, are protected. I assure Members that careful consideration will be given during the formulation of policy to a precise definition of the practices involved and the exclusions that may need to be in place if legislation is to progress. Extensive engagement with all those who have an interest will be important during this process. Therefore, further research and engagement are needed to avoid failure to produce a robust and effective ban in the future, and I have asked my officials to scope options for doing so. I believe that everyone around the Chamber wants the same outcome.

Of course we need to protect everybody, but we have freedom of speech and freedom of religion.

The Member seems unsure, but we do. We have freedom of speech and we have freedom of religion, and having those things means that we have the right to say things that others may disagree with. I hear things from others that I disagree with and which I may find objectionable, but that is what living in a free society is all about. It is that we hear and listen and that we express views that may not be to everybody's taste.

We need to make sure that the balance is right. That is, I think, what nearly everybody else in the Chamber wants to see: we want to make sure that we do not have those harmful and abusive practices in place and that, if we find that a gap exists in current legislation, we fill it while doing nothing that is inconsistent and not compliant with human rights legislation. That is an entirely appropriate and proportionate step to take. That is why I think that everybody in the House, on the basis of the comments that they have made, will support the amendment. I know that people want to see this done quickly. I cannot commit to a specific timescale because the engagement is what is most important. I look forward to that engagement.

1,232 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 10:36 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.

Disagree with this assessment?

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

Challenge this classification