Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): I welcome to the meeting, joining via Zoom, Mr Eóin Tennyson MLA — Eóin is the sponsor of the Bill — and Ms Jessica Johnston, who is his party colleague. Eóin and Jessica, you are both very welcome. Eóin, I invite you to make a brief opening statement before we move to questions from members. Go ahead, please.

Mr Eóin Tennyson (Northern Ireland Assembly): No problem, Chair. Due to the time available, I will try to keep my opening statement very brief. I begin by thanking you, Committee Chair, for accommodating this session at such short notice and for allowing me to attend via video link due to the discussions that are ongoing today with the UK Government.

I am here to brief the Committee on the Conversion Practices (Criminalisation) Bill. As you know, conversion practices are measures and efforts that are intended to suppress or change the gender identity or sexual orientation of an individual victim. They send a signal to wider society that LGBTQ+ identities are diseases in need of cures and can be hugely damaging to the individuals who are subjected to them. Research from Victoria in Australia has linked conversion practices directly to feelings of depression, anxiety, suicidal ideation, guilt, shame and loss of faith, and they even have an impact on victims' employment opportunities. The Bill aims to send a clear signal that practices that attempt to change or suppress anyone's sexual orientation or gender identity are wrong, are harmful and have no place in a modern and progressive society. We believe that criminalising conversion practices is essential to support the ending of broader stigmatisation of LGBTQ+ people in our society, as well as to protect individuals from harm.

The Bill seeks to do this through the creation of three new offences: an offence of providing conversion therapy; an offence of engaging in coercive conversion behaviour; and an offence of removing a person from Northern Ireland for the purpose of subjecting them to conversion practices. We are conscious, in developing the legislation, that it is important that we strike an appropriate balance of human rights, and we believe that we have provided for appropriate safeguards through the presence of a defence of reasonableness for the offences set out, but also through exclusions for regulated healthcare professionals and through making clear, as you will see in the Bill, that statements of opinion and belief that are not intended to direct an individual towards a certain gender identity or sexuality do not constitute an attempt to engage in conversion practices.

I will step through each offence briefly, Chair. The first is an offence of providing conversion therapy. That is intended to capture those instances that many of us recognise and understand to be conversion therapy and are used as a means of bringing about change. For example, the use of counselling or therapy techniques, the presence of coaching or instructing and the prescribing of a medication that has the side effect of suppressing someone's sex drive. For all these offences, there is a requirement that the behaviour causes harm to an individual.

In respect of the offence of engaging in coercive conversion behaviour, we recognise that, outside more formal settings, there is a risk that conversion practices can happen in the home, in faith-based settings or amongst peers. We want to ensure that we do not over-criminalise behaviour in those settings but, equally, that there are no loopholes for conversion practices to continue in that guise. We have learned from the experience of the Domestic Abuse and Civil Proceedings Act (Northern Ireland) 2021 in defining a coercive course of behaviour. That is set out in detail in the Bill, and I am happy to speak more about that in response to questions.

The third offence is to remove a person from Northern Ireland for the purposes of conversion practices, which is critical. Research from the European Parliamentary Research Service suggests that conversion practice bans tend to be very strong deterrents and lead to a low volume of offences being committed. However, it identified evidence that, where bans are introduced, the institutions that offer conversion therapy simply move elsewhere in Europe. Given that we are an island and that there is currently no draft Bill in the Republic of Ireland, and also the greater harm that people can come to if taken to countries that have fewer protections than here, it is critical that there is an offence of removing someone from Northern Ireland for the purpose of these practices to protect people from harm.

It is important to highlight the fact that some conversion practices might already be offences under existing law. For example, a conversion practice that involves physical abuse of an individual is likely to already meet the criminal threshold. Critically, however, there are gaps that allow these invidious practices to continue unchecked. There is no mechanism to prevent someone from being subjected to quack or pseudoscientific talking therapy that, for example, seeks to change their gender identity or sexual orientation, or to hold someone to account. As legislators, we have a duty to something about that.

I will wrap up my remarks, because I do not want to delay the time for questions any further. Fundamentally, this is not about our views on sexual orientation or gender identity. That is the private business of each and every individual in our society. This is about whether we, as legislators, believe that, regardless of who you are or who you love, you should not be subjected to abuse, coercion or harm as a result. We have a duty, but also a real opportunity, to send a positive signal of equality, inclusion and protection to a minority group that makes a positive contribution to society.

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): Thank you, Eóin. I will go straight to members' questions.

Mrs Cameron: Thanks, Eóin and Jessica, for attending. You are very welcome. I understand that we do not have an awful lot of time, so I will try to be brief as well.

I am on record as being supportive of banning dangerous conversion therapy practices in Northern Ireland. That is important and appropriate. I am keen to know what this Bill would mean in practice. You will be aware that there is much concern about freedom of speech and religion, certainly among Churches and what the Bill would mean for church activities. What abusive or coercive behaviour are you trying to outlaw that is not already outlawed? Verbal and physical abuse are criminal offences in Northern Ireland, and you mentioned that, so what specific harmful conduct that currently escapes prosecution would the Bill newly capture? It would be much appreciated if you gave an example of an actual case rather than a hypothetical one.

Mr Tennyson: There are two broad areas where there are loopholes. The first is the example that I gave — and there have been many examples in the media of survivors talking about their experiences — where someone is subjected to pseudoscientific psychotherapy, almost. They have been struggling with internalised homophobia, potentially because of fear of discrimination in wider society or a family breakdown if they come out to relatives.

At their most vulnerable, they are presented with a practitioner who claims that they can "cure" them of their sexuality and preys upon that vulnerability. That person will sit them down and perhaps talk them through adverse childhood experiences or their relationships with their parents. They will suggest to that person that the reason that they are gay, bisexual, lesbian, transgender, or whatever it might be, is directly linked to that adverse experience and suggest changes in their behaviour that they profess will "cure" them. We know that that can be hugely damaging and retraumatising for those individuals at really vulnerable moments. That is a loophole in the law. It is completely unregulated, and, in many cases, there is no criminal sanction for people who engage in it. That would be captured under the Bill.

The second area is coercive control and coercive behaviour. Of course, in domestic abuse legislation coercive controlling behaviour is covered in the domestic abuse offence. However, that applies only where two individuals are personally connected, so if a parent, for example, were to engage in abusive or distressing behaviour towards their child as part of a conversion practice, that may already be captured as part of domestic abuse law. However, if a friend of the family from a church that they attend or a community centre that they are familiar with were to engage in that same behaviour, in that instance there would be a gap in the law. We seek to close those two gaps.

We have employed a similar definition of "coercive behaviour" to that which operates successfully under domestic abuse law at the moment, because we do not want to reinvent the wheel. If there is a definition that is working within the judiciary at the moment, it is appropriate that we learn from it. Clause 5 defines it as:

There is a core difference in our legislation. In domestic abuse law, harm does not have to be caused: the threshold is that a reasonable person would deem that harm could be caused or that the person has been reckless as to the harm caused. Our Bill has a higher threshold in that harm must be caused to the victim, either physical or psychological. I will be clear here: when it comes to relationships within the family, the Bill does not seek to criminalise anything that is not already criminalised under existing domestic abuse law. We seek to capture those behaviours that fall outside that context.

Mrs Cameron: Thank you. I have a couple of questions on the back of that. You touched on parenting. Would a parent telling their child, "Let us wait and see", rather than pursuing a particular course of treatment or transition fall within the scope of the Bill?

Mr Tennyson: No, it would not. I will find the appropriate part of the Bill to refer you to. The Bill states explicitly that failure to do anything does not amount to a conversion practice. I am looking to see precisely where that is. Jessica may be able to help me to grab the exact clause.

Ms Jessica Johnston (Alliance Party): Clause 7.

Mr Tennyson: Clause 7.

Mrs Cameron: OK, thank you. What safeguards are in the Bill to protect from prosecution clergy who are delivering pastoral care, prayer or religious teachings?

Mr Tennyson: There are a number of safeguards. First, we seek to criminalise only behaviour that causes harm to an individual. Where there is no harm proven to an individual, there is no criminal offence. That is the first safeguard.

The second safeguard is the defence of reasonableness. All the circumstances will have to be considered by the court. The balance of rights will have to be considered in respect of freedom of speech and freedom of religion, as well as the individual's right to a private and family life.

The other safeguard, which is really important, is that the Bill is specific insofar as it concerns behaviour that is targeted towards a specific individual. For example, whilst someone making a comment from the pulpit or preaching on the street about LGBT people more broadly may be offensive and wrong, that would not constitute a conversion practice. It is important that we are clear about that and provide that reassurance.

Ms Mulholland: Thank you very much for coming, Eóin and Jessica, and for your work on the Bill. How will the Bill close the gaps in existing law around harmful conversion practices?

Mr Tennyson: As I said to Pam, the clearest and most common gap is in relation to talking therapies. In our work, that has come up repeatedly as a common method of bringing about conversion therapy for an individual. That would make a real difference.

The second area is coercive behaviour outside the family, where people are not personally connected. There is less protection there, because that falls outside domestic abuse law.

Thirdly, it is crucial that the offence of removing a person from Northern Ireland be in place. Whilst our laws are fairly robust in covering physical and sexual abuse, and human rights protections are in place in this society, there is a real danger to people who are removed from Northern Ireland to other countries and societies that, perhaps, do not have the same safeguards or oversight that we do.

The other thing to emphasise, Sian, is that we have been at pains to reassure people that legitimate counselling and healthcare services will be excluded from the Bill. Where a counsellor or psychotherapist is regulated by the Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC) and is conducting their ordinary business in line with their code of practice, there is no chill factor or threat of a vexatious complaint or prosecution. If an individual is on an accredited register rather than a statutory register, they will not be subject to that exclusion but, hopefully, will take comfort in the protections that we have put around the intent and harm clauses. Everyone whom we have spoken to from the professions has said that those instances fall so far outside what is acceptable and ethical therapy that no one acting legitimately would be at risk of falling into any of the categories or behaviours that we have set out.

Ms Mulholland: You mentioned the domestic abuse legislation. What learning has been taken from the Domestic Abuse and Civil Proceedings Act (Northern Ireland) 2011?

Mr Tennyson: The key one, which I covered with Pam, is the approach to define coercive behaviour. It was crucial that we were able to look at legislation that already works in practice, where there is a potentially broad range of behaviours that could constitute conversion therapy. Equally, there is a broad range of behaviours that could constitute domestic abuse. We have structured the offence so that it is broad enough that harmful behaviour can be captured but is not so broad that it could lead to over-criminalisation or unintended criminalisation. That is a really important balance, and it is one that we have struck on the basis of the 2011 Act, which contains a definition of coercive behaviour that was previously supported by all the parties in the Assembly. I hope that that provides some reassurance that we are not reinventing the wheel and that there are test cases that have gone through the courts where that definition has been employed proportionately and successfully.

Ms Mulholland: Thanks, Eóin.

Mr Bradley: Thanks very much for your presentation. You have answered my question very well already. I wanted to know how the Bill will protect pastoral or parental care in a church or family setting whilst, at the same time, protecting a victim from coercive, aggressive or other bad behaviour towards them, because they have gone to a church leader or a family member. You have already answered that, but can you go into a bit more depth on the protections for a minister, priest or parent?

Mr Tennyson: There is no blanket exclusion for faith-based settings, but I set out with Pam some of the safeguards that exist to strike the appropriate balance between freedom of speech and freedom of religion. This is a really important point, and I have engaged with members of faith communities about the Bill. Of course, people of faith are not a homogenous group. There are people of faith who support balancing the law on conversion practices, and there are those who are worried about them. I understand that, and I want to help to allay some of those concerns.

Often with conversion practices, a parent, a youth counsellor, or whomever it might be, is not aware of the potential harms associated with conversion practices, so they sometimes make a referral and either are not aware of the nature of the practice that is being conducted or are not aware of the potential harms. They would be horrified if they knew that their referral to an organisation would result in harm to that young person. Therefore, part of this is about raising public awareness and defining what conversion practices are so that Churches, faith organisations and youth organisations know what the boundaries are and bring greater clarity on the appropriate organisations to send a young person to when they are questioning their gender identity or their sexual orientation.

Let me be the first to say, as someone who is gay, that I know that this is not a quick process. I know that you cannot make quick decisions. You cannot come to terms with these issues very quickly. You need the time, the space and the support to understand your own identity, to understand who you are and to come to terms with it before you start making wider decisions about your life. It is really important from my perspective that, when a young person reaches out to get that support from someone trusted in their life, they are referred to an organisation that will be genuinely supportive and exploratory and non-directive rather than one that will exploit their vulnerability and fear, weaponise that against them and force them to behave in a way that is potentially harmful, leads to higher-risk activity, affects their career prospects, affects their faith and results in mental ill health. I think that all of that is in the interests of people who work in faith communities as much as it is to LGBT people and wider society because it draws clear parameters for people about what is acceptable and what is not.

Mr Bradley: Thanks very much for that, Eóin. You are right. It is important that people get the right support and are not criminalised, demonised or belittled because of how they feel. Thank you for that.

Ms K Armstrong: Eóin, it seems a bit strange talking to my party's deputy leader, but it is your private Member's Bill (PMB). Having been there and done that, I can only sympathise with you and Jessica on how you feel today. I will start off with clause 3, which introduces the offence of removing a person from Northern Ireland for the purposes of conversion practices. How important is it to have that in the Bill, given the fact that other jurisdictions do not have a ban?

Mr Tennyson: It is crucial. As I said, our experience of looking at the legislation in other jurisdictions on conversion practices is that it is a fairly low-volume offence once the law is changed. For example, Malta was the first European country to change the law, and fewer than three cases were actually prosecuted in the courts. The European Parliamentary Research Service found that it can see the deterrent effect, so those who practise conversion simply move to another jurisdiction where there is no risk of prosecution.

In the worst-case scenario, if we were to introduce a ban on conversion practices in Northern Ireland without that protection, it would be very easy for organisations simply to relocate a few miles over the border and still have access to all the people in Northern Ireland whom we are trying to protect. Given our geographic circumstances, that is crucial, although there is also the risk that people will be brought further afield to the United States or elsewhere, where we know there is also a prevalence of and a challenge with conversion therapy.

Ms K Armstrong: Thank you for that. When I have spoken to victims of trafficking, for instance, they quite often have been taken to another part of this island or these islands or elsewhere, thinking that they were going with a loved person to somewhere else for a holiday, or whatever it may be, when, in fact, it the reality was different. Clause 3(3) states that:

To be honest, given that I have spoken to a number of trafficking victims, it helps me to know that a person who agrees to leave Northern Ireland and is then presented with conversion practices will be protected.

You have obviously gone through a consultation. You have talked to faith-based groups and others. What have you learned or changed in the Bill since having those conversations?

Mr Tennyson: Initially, we sought to include avoidance-of-doubt clauses in the Bill to cover what would and would not be included. For example, when it comes to statements of belief that are not intended to direct a person towards a particular gender identity. After engagement through consultation with faith groups and with the drafter, we concluded that it was better, both for clarity from a drafting perspective and to provide reassurance, that there would be exclusions in those areas. That protection has been strengthened and, I hope, will provide some confidence.

Since you have raised it, Kellie, I will go back to a point that Pam raised. It is actually clause 5 that relates to the definition of coercive behaviour. I did not have that to hand when Pam asked the question. It states that:

Therefore, for example, not taking your child to consult with someone about their sexual orientation or gender identity would not be a conversion practice. I know that that relates to Pam's question, but I just wanted to clarify that for the record.

Ms K Armstrong: My final question, Eóin, is just for clarification on that. Say, I am a parent and my young person is confused and working through who they are. They voice that concern to me, and I happen to say, "Right, OK. I think that I need help with this". My trusted other person is, say, the priest in my parish, and I want to go to them so that there is another person to chat to my young person. If the priest were to say, "Do you think that your life would be easier if you weren't gay or lesbian?", that would not be seen as coercive behaviour under clause 5 because it is not violent, threatening, controlling or regulating, or depriving the victim of their freedom. Therefore, having a conversation does not come in under talking therapies: it is an offence only when the coercive behaviour definition has been met. Is that right?

Mr Tennyson: That is absolutely right. The second offence deals with more informal conversations. There would have to be intent. It would have to be proven beyond doubt that the individual responsible was engaging in behaviour with the intent of suppressing or changing that person's sexual orientation or gender identity. Therefore, simply saying, "You think that you might be gay. That's going to be really tough", is not an intent to change the person. There also has to be the act, which is either therapy being conducted or coercive behaviour that is defined and set out. A normal, explorative conversation, even if it is uncomfortable, that is not violent, threatening or harassing the individual and is not making them feel frightened and humiliated, is not a conversion practice.

Crucially, with regard to coercive behaviour, it would have to happen on two or more occasions in order to meet the requirements of the offence. One conversation with your local priest would not constitute coercive conversion behaviour. However, multiple occasions where those conversations are happening and there is clear intent to suppress or change a person potentially would be.

When it comes to prayer, in the circumstance where the priest says, "Let us pray for strength and guidance from God", that would be completely acceptable because it is not directive. However, if we get into the space, as has been reported in some research, where exorcism-like behaviour is conducted against an individual, that absolutely could fall within the scope of the offence, and rightly so.

Ms K Armstrong: Thank you very much, Eóin. Unfortunately, conversion practices have been happening in my constituency. I am well aware of them. There were protests outside because people felt strongly that they should not take place.

Having been there and done that with a PMB, I wish you well with it. Your nerves will be wrecked.

Mr Tennyson: Thank you.

Ms K Armstrong: At this stage, I am happy with that. Thank you.

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): Thank you, Kellie. Cathy, can you be as brief as possible, please?

Mrs Mason: I will be very brief because Kellie sort of covered my question about the cross-border stuff and other jurisdictions. Thank you, Eóin, for bringing the legislation forward. I worked with a former colleague of yours in Newry, Mourne and Down District Council on a motion on this subject, so I am delighted to see that there has been progress. Unfortunately, we have not seen much progress in this Department and Committee on the equality strategies that we are looking for. I look forward to working with you on the Bill and seeing it progress through its various stages. Thanks very much for being so open and honest.

Mr Tennyson: Thank you, Cathy. I welcome what you said. I am more than happy, over the summer recess or into the autumn, to make myself available to engage in more detail with any member of the Committee on what is proposed. My door is open and we are keen to work on a cross-party basis. I echo your disappointment about there not being more progress on this issue from the Department. My preference would have been to move this forward at a departmental level. I moved in, consulted and developed legislation in the absence of that because I think that there is strong public support for it and strong support in the Assembly for it, and it is essential that we move forward.

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): Thank you, members, and thank you, Eóin and Jessica. I found the session really informative. Importantly, I also found it thoughtful, considerate and respectful.

Mr McHugh: I wish Eóin all the best with the Bill. It is vital for all who will benefit from it. I will not be here as it progresses, as I am standing down, but, as I say, I wish you all the best.

Mr Tennyson: Thank you, Maolíosa.

Mr Durkan: I also want to congratulate and commend Eóin for bringing this legislation forward. The lack of action or progress by the Department on this issue has been lamentable. I can see from what Eóin has provided to us that he had engagement with the Minister on this. Eóin, the wide public support that you rightly claim to have for the Bill is reflected in the consultation responses. I was particularly interested in the response from the mental health champion. Will you elaborate a wee bit on that?

Mr Tennyson: Clearly, a health impact is associated with such practices. We repeatedly find, when speaking to organisations or to the mental health champion or looking at research from other jurisdictions that have invested in this space and interviewed people who are affected, that there is an impact on people's self-esteem, and understandably so. We are talking about circumstances in which people are taken into a room when they feel vulnerable, when they are ashamed of their identity and of who they are, when they are worried that they will be rejected by parents or that their employment or education prospects might be affected, and are told, "Yes, you are sick. This is wrong. You need to be changed and you can be changed". When they find out that that change is not even possible, it is soul-destroying and destructive and there is a lifelong impact on those who are subjected to it.

I commend people such as Gareth Patterson, who have spoken publicly about the impact of conversion therapy. Even getting people to speak to us on the record about their experience was difficult. I know someone who was subjected to conversion practices, but the impact on them and their family relationships, and on their own present-day relationships, was so extreme that they did not feel comfortable articulating what happened to them. In the full knowledge of all that harm and damage, it would, frankly, be a dereliction of duty for us as legislators not to step in to protect people from unregulated, unscientific and unsafe therapy when we know that there are other good, regulated options.

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): Thank you, Eóin. I appreciate that.