Debate contribution: Conversion Practices (Criminalisation) Bill: Second Stage
Debate contribution by Mr Gordon Lyons on .
- MLA
- Mr Gordon Lyons
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 15 September 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Conversion Practices (Criminalisation) Bill: Second Stage
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5705861
Read the official Assembly record
Text
That is not the case, because it is not just coercive behaviour. I will have lots more to say on that later. This is how clause 4 states that an offence is committed:
"a person provides or carries out conversion therapy if the person provides or carries out any of the following— (a) counselling or any form of talking therapy, (b) coaching or instruction".
That is my real difficulty with the Bill. That is the elephant in the room. I believe that the Member is trying to portray this as something that will take place only in a therapeutic or clinical setting, but it is not. There is nothing in the Bill that says that it cannot happen within a family environment, in any faith environment, or wherever else. That may well have been the Member's intention, but it is not what is in front of us in black and white.
151 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: 0.18 (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 (0.94).
- 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 | 0.09 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.06 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.06 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.08 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.11 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.89 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.18 | At or below not-qualifying threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.94 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.03 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.01 |
| Adopts it | 0.02 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.99 |
| Religion and belief (including people of no religion), churches, faith communities and religious prejudice (including antisemitism and anti-Muslim prejudice) | 0.01 |
| 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 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.