Debate contribution: Conversion Practices (Criminalisation) Bill
Debate contribution by Mr Gordon Lyons on .
- MLA
- Mr Gordon Lyons
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 8 September 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Conversion Practices (Criminalisation) Bill
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5674144
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Yes, it is. If people read the Bill, they will see that it states:
"a person provides or carries out conversion therapy if the person provides or carries out any ... coaching or instruction".
When I go along to church, coaching and instruction is part of the religious activity.
I think that Mr Tennyson would say that there is a get-out clause for that in clause 7, which states that no conversion practice is taking place if:
"the intent is solely to express beliefs or opinions",
but religious behaviour, belief and practice can go beyond a person simply stating what they believe; it can go into an area that may be described as "instruction", which is such a broad term. I know that people want to see a Bill such as this go through, because they want to take a stand against some of the abhorrent practices that have taken place in the past. I believe that we need to draw a line between those harmful practices and what can be considered to be sincere and genuine counselling, pastoral support, preaching or prayer. I do not believe that that line is drawn in the right place in the Bill. There is a lot of tutting from the side from Alliance Members on the Committee. I am more than happy to have the discussions and the debates, and I will do so in a measured and mature way, because I believe that the issue is far too serious for us to be mistaken about what is actually in the Bill. I have no time whatsoever for the quack therapies, and they have been rightly discredited for years. When you tell a parent what they can say to a child, however, that is wrong. I encourage everybody, therefore, to wake up to what is actually in the Bill.
306 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not qualifying”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.20 (qualifying needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not qualifying).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.89).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.88).
- Subject area: Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues.
- The overall probability was at or below the not-qualifying 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
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.16 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.07 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.14 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.20 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.15 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.89 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.20 | At or below not-qualifying threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.88 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.01 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.06 |
| Adopts it | 0.05 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.64 |
| Religion and belief (including people of no religion), churches, faith communities and religious prejudice (including antisemitism and anti-Muslim prejudice) | 0.35 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.00 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 01:21 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9. This record has been assessed 3 times; the latest assessment is shown.
Disagree with this assessment?
Classifications can be challenged. A person reviews every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.