Was Northern Ireland’s conversion therapy consultation meant to go unnoticed?

Every so often, something fairly significant happens without anyone really noticing. That seems to be the case with the recent publication of the consultation summary for Eóin Tennyson MLA’s proposed Bill to ban “conversion practices” in Northern Ireland.

The document, which summarises hundreds of responses submitted last year, appeared online several weeks ago, quietly, on a back page of the NI Assembly website, with no social-media announcement from Tennyson or the Alliance Party. Whether that was deliberate or simply an oversight isn’t clear.

There had already been concerns about how the consultation was conducted. Northern Ireland’s politicians must consult before bringing a Private Member’s Bill, but they have significant freedom over how they design and run this. Everything, from the wording of the questions, to the receipt of submissions, to the analysis and final report, was controlled entirely by the Alliance Party.

For those of us deeply concerned about the proposal itself, it is naturally harder to trust that those steering the legislation will reflect opposing concerns in an even-handed way. We know of some who chose not to respond for exactly this reason.

Even so, the balance of responses referred to in the summary offers a sense of how concerned many people remain about the direction and scope of Tennyson’s proposal. Of 1288 responses, 466 disagreed ‘that legislation is necessary’. That number could potentially be much higher if the consultation wasn’t being overseen by the Bill proposer.

One striking omission from the consultation summary is any meaningful engagement with legal analysis. In our response to the consultation, we referred repeatedly to existing legal advice that explains how proposals like Tennyson’s would violate the European Convention on Human Rights.

Mr Tennyson relies on assessments provided by the Scottish Government when it considered bringing its own very similar Bill in 2023/24. In setting out its legality, he repeats a claim of the Scottish Government that the proposal is ‘necessary and proportionate’. But the Scottish Government has backtracked on that position, shelving its Bill apparently due to concerns it would be legally challengeable.

The Christian Institute commissioned legal advice specifically on Tennyson’s proposals, from a top KC. He explained how the proposals would interfere with multiple convention rights, and would be inappropriate to legislate as a Private Member’s Bill.

Although that opinion was published only after the consultation closed, Tennyson and his team already had access to it while writing the summary. Yet, aside from a passing acknowledgement that some “concerns” existed, the report makes no attempt to weigh or even recognise the strength of those legal arguments. Instead, it limits itself to capturing general sentiments rather than exploring whether those concerns are legally well-founded.

This is particularly relevant when reading the concluding section of the report. Tennyson notes that certain themes from the consultation will influence the final drafting, most notably the definition of “harm” and the threshold required to demonstrate it. However, he highlights only the concerns raised by LGBT groups who argued that the previous threshold (‘substantial distress’) placed too heavy a burden on alleged victims.

By contrast, concerns raised by religious groups, parents, and medical professionals receive only faint acknowledgment. The promise to refine the ‘avoidance of doubt’ clause offers little reassurance, when so many fundamental problems remain. In fact, Tennyson only goes so far as to say he wants to amend it to offer ‘reassurance’ – not to address genuine issues with his drafting.

Adding to this uncertainty is the silence since publication. Tennyson’s promises that updates on the Bill’s progress will be shared via social-media channels. But, taking his ‘X’ profile for example, he has made no mention of ‘conversion therapy’ or ‘practices’ since 2024. With a full year of silence, it’s hard to know where the Bill now stands.

For now, the consultation summary leaves us with more questions than answers. The publication may have slipped out quietly, but its implications deserve a much louder conversation.