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

Debate contribution by Mr Paul Givan on 22 September 2026.

MLA: Mr Paul Givan
Party at the time: Democratic Unionist Party
Date: 22 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 5741027

Text

Yes, please. I appreciate the Member's giving way. I hope to make a contribution to the debate, so I would certainly welcome a commitment from the Alliance Party that it will not seek to guillotine the debate, as it did the previous debate on another Member's Bill.
To be fair to Mr Tennyson, he can be very combative when he wishes to be, but he is engaging on the Bill in a very serious manner. I welcome the way in which he is conducting himself, and he is well able to engage in that manner. I would certainly like a commitment that there will be no attempt to guillotine the debate, so that Members with sincere issues to raise will be able to do so. Mr Kingston has spoken really well about the Bill in a very respectful manner. He has not been treated with the same courtesy by some of the Members to whom he has generously given way. I think that the public will reflect on those Members' contributions to the debate. Does Mr Kingston agree that Mr Boggs and Emma Sheerin's interpretation of the Bill is very different from the interpretation that Mr Tennyson has repeatedly articulated? That speaks to our problem with the Bill's being interpreted in a manner that suits a particular agenda. We want very specific commitments and very tight legislation so that what Mr Tennyson wants to see — I do not agree with him on some of it — could not then be used in an expansive manner by activists who agitate and take a very different view, such as that of Mr Boggs and Ms Sheerin. I fear that a parent who wishes to coach, counsel or instruct their child would be caught in the Bill. The exemption in clause 7, which refers to the "intent to change or suppress", would provide an opt-out. Clause 7(1) states:
"there is no intent to change or suppress sexual orientation or gender identity if" —
as clause 7(1)(b) continues —
"the intent is solely to express beliefs or opinions, without directing a victim towards a particular sexual orientation or gender identity".
That goes to the very heart of parenting. I will confine my remarks to the example of a parent, but it would also apply in other settings. The very reason that the parent would be engaging with their child would be to say, "I believe you are wrong, and I say that out of love and my view as to what I believe is best for you as a child. I do not believe you should be transgender and wanting to transition to a different sexuality". That is a sincerely held belief. Any parent would do that for the very purpose of trying to change the feelings or desire — whatever way that you want to frame it — of that child. The Bill is so vague. Parents would get caught in the "counselling" or "coaching or instruction" aspects, and, when it comes to the opt-out, it is very clear that parents who seek to direct — to change one's direction of travel, if that is how you want to describe it — would not be exempt. I think that, fundamentally, many parents, whether Christian or of another religion or of none at all, would be fearful of the legislation.

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

Assessment

Uncertain

Uncertain: this record is excluded from all totals until a person reviews it.

Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.47 (qualifying needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not qualifying).
Criteria met: Dog-whistle messaging (0.64).
Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.85).
No identity-based framing was identified (0.51).
Subject area: Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues.
The answers did not meet either automatic 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	0.23	No
Sectarian or communal antagonism	0.22	No
Cultural grievance politics	0.04	No
Dog-whistle messaging	0.64	Yes
Controversy escalation	0.23	No
Legitimate policy scrutiny	0.85	Yes
Overall judgement	0.47	Between thresholds

Context and attribution (stance)
Option	Probability
No identity-based framing (chosen)	0.51
Reports or questions it	0.02
Criticises or condemns it	0.00
Adopts it	0.47

Subject area (top five)
Subject	Probability
Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues	1.00
No identity-related subject	0.00
Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials	0.00
Parades, bonfires and commemorations	0.00
Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy	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.

Challenge this classification