Debate contribution: Justice Bill: Consideration Stage

Debate contribution by Mr Paul Givan on 8 June 2026.

MLA: Mr Paul Givan
Party at the time: Democratic Unionist Party
Date: 8 June 2026
Type: Debate contribution (made as a minister)
Business: Executive Committee Business
Heading: Justice Bill: Consideration Stage
Assembly identifier: Official Report component 5600875

Text

I appreciate the Member's giving way. I chaired the Justice Committee when Lord Morrow's private Member's Bill came through. Like the Member, I am concerned at the PSNI's failure to properly take forward prosecutions for payment for sexual services. The Assembly passed that legislation a number of years ago. Most parties supported it, although Alliance did not. Supporting it was the right thing to do then, and the amendment tabled by Paul Frew is the right one. I had young people in the Assembly at the time of the passage of Lord Morrow's Bill. The female students said that they found the objectification of women abhorrent, and they supported the inclusion of the criminalisation of payment for sexual services. The debate that took place with the boys was interesting. It is really important that we continue to use legislation to send the message, but it has to be more than just a message; it has to be followed up by successful implementation. The previous law has not been implemented in the way that it should have been. I welcome the Member's support for my colleague Mr Frew's amendment.

188 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not flagged”.

Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.08 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.90).
No identity-based framing was identified (0.99).
Subject area: Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues.
The overall probability was at or below the not-flagging threshold.

This is an AI-generated assessment of the text, made against published criteria. It is not a finding of fact about the MLA or their intentions. The Assembly record itself is the fact.

Jev’s structured answers

Probability that each statement is true of this text (0 = no, 1 = yes). A criterion counts as met at 0.60 or above.
Question	Probability	Met?
Identity framing	0.11	No
Sectarian or communal antagonism	0.02	No
Cultural grievance politics	0.01	No
Dog-whistle messaging	0.03	No
Controversy escalation	0.08	No
Legitimate policy scrutiny	0.90	Yes
Overall judgement	0.08	At or below not-flagging threshold

Context and attribution (stance)
Option	Probability
No identity-based framing (chosen)	0.99
Reports or questions it	0.00
Criticises or condemns it	0.01
Adopts it	0.00

Subject area (top five)
Subject	Probability
Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues	0.66
Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups	0.34
No identity-related subject	0.00
Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials	0.00
Parades, bonfires and commemorations	0.00

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:56 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