Debate contribution: Conversion Practices (Criminalisation) Bill: Second Stage

Debate contribution by Mr Paul Givan on 28 September 2026.

MLA: Mr Paul Givan
Party at the time: Democratic Unionist Party
Date: 28 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 5762566

Text

I welcome the opportunity to make a contribution to the debate. I do not intend to speak unnecessarily lengthily, but I want to cover some key points. Colleagues have successfully dissected the Bill in great detail. I will touch on some high-level points for consideration. I will start with the broad question: what problem is the Bill sponsor trying to fix? Typically, draft legislation is brought forward when it has been identified that there is a legislative defect that requires remediation. The Bill sponsor has a responsibility to clearly identify examples of where there has been practice of a violent or intimidatory nature, which he references in clause 5 of the Bill, "Coercive behaviour", that has gone unchecked by existing legal provisions. My understanding is that nobody should be subject to violence or intimidation and that, if they have been, they can seek recourse to the police and, ultimately, prosecution in the courts. As a party, we support that. That is a universal application of the law. In whatever circumstances prevail, that recourse is available to anyone who is a victim of such a practice. I do not see a problem having been clearly identified. The issues that the Member and those who are supportive of the Bill have wished to address throughout the debate are what they regard as being offensive by way of free speech, whether that is expressed by individuals, by parents in the way that they go about leading their home or by pastors in the pulpit. Those Members do not like language that is used in a way that they regard as being inappropriate.
That is a broader attack on free speech, because nobody has the right not to be offended in a free and democratic society. I am offended daily by what people have to say. It causes me distress, but I do not believe for one moment that I should have the right to take them to court or that I should seek to criminalise them. The Bill wants to put people in jail for two years. When we walk through the various aspects of the Bill, we find that the low bar that has been set — the threshold that needs to be passed — is one that, we believe, will be open to activists pursuing challenges against people who take a contrary view to them, be that on one's sexual orientation or gender identity. Therefore, we will oppose the Bill. Clause 1 relates to the provision of conversion therapy. Clause 1(1)(b) states that a person commits an offence if:
"the person has the intent of changing or suppressing"
the issues to which the Bill speaks. I have touched on this before: whether it be in a religious setting or in the home, the reason why parents seek to provide "instruction" or "coaching" is that they believe that they are providing the best possible advice to their children. The Bill interprets "instruction" and "coaching", where it is contrary to the individual's self-identified gender and if it is with the intent of changing it, as something for which you should be imprisoned for two years. Tens of thousands of parents could get caught in such circumstances. I do not believe that the number would be as high, because I do not believe that the issues that we are relating to would translate into that number of young people coming forward and saying that they had been coached or instructed by their parents contrary to their self-identified gender. However, it could capture a wide number of people because they hold a contrary view. Clause 1 refers to suffering "physical or psychological harm", but you have to go to clause 8 to see the definition, and it highlights "distress". Therefore there is a very low bar: being distressed. That would meet the threshold that, the proposer of the Bill feels, would merit going to court, facing a prosecution and, ultimately, being in jail for two years potentially. What is the purpose of the Bill if it is not to send a chilling effect to parents, pastors and others who take a view that is contrary to that of the proposer of the Bill?
In a previous intervention in the debate, I raised a point around clause 5, which relates to coercive behaviour. It has been lifted from the domestic abuse legislation, which I supported. I have an issue with this Bill and coercive behaviour. If somebody is treated violently, threatened or intimidated, that is wrong, regardless of the issue, but they are protected by existing law. That has been lifted and brought into a discussion around conversion therapy, and it is loosely defined and vague and would have a chilling effect. We do not even need to get to clause 5, because the two penalties are separate. The offence that is created in clause 1 is separate from the issues in clause 5. There are, therefore, two penalties associated with the legislation. The clause 1 offence is the offence that will capture more people, due to the low thresholds that I have outlined. That should cause us concern. The Bill is designed to have a chilling effect. That is affirmed for me when I read through the opt-outs that are identified in the Bill. That is referenced in clause 7, "Intent to change or suppress". We have there areas where you can opt out in respect of the application of the legislation, yet we find that positive affirmation of one's sexual orientation or gender identity is in the clause that relates to opting out of the penalties attached to the Bill. That just confirms to me that it is OK — indeed, it is positively affirmed — that, where parents, pastors and others will say, "You are right. I support you in coming forward and saying that you now want to self-identify in whatever way that you want", the Bill is completely absent in curtailing the scope of what gender identity relates to. We have clearly now exposed that there are deep flaws around clause 6 to do with gender identity — you can be anything. I do not say that to trivialise, but, if the proposer of the Bill wanted this to be constrained to a small area of gender identity, he would have specified that in the Bill. He has not, and therefore that leaves it open to the 78 genders that Mr Kingston referred to, and there are many others. That was deemed to be a trivial use of examples by us, yet the proposer of the Bill could remove that from the debate if he was much more specific in what he means by "gender identity", but he deliberately chose not to do that.

1,123 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Awaiting analysis

This record has not been analysed yet. It is not counted in any total until it has been assessed.

Disagree with this assessment?

Classifications can be challenged. A person reviews every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.

Challenge this classification