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 5741471

Read the official Assembly record

Text

The problem with Mr Tennyson's framing his argument in the way in which he does is that, on the face of it, someone may think that that would be entirely reasonable. When you look, however, at the definition of "harm" in his Bill, you see that clause 8 states:

"psychological harm includes fear, alarm or distress."

It includes "distress".

I am sure that the Member will agree with this. I am a parent, and there have been many occasions when I have witnessed my children attempt to emotionally avoid going to school. They have been very distressed about going to school, as happens, but, as a parent, I have, as tears flowed down their cheeks, repeatedly said, "You will be at school" — not once or twice but on repeated occasions. One might say that that was "coercive" because it happened on more than two occasions. Distress is real and occurs for many different reasons. That is why, when we drill into the definitions in the Bill, we should all be alarmed about the word "distress". If the Alliance Party Members and the Bill sponsor —. I believe that the Bill is superbly drafted to cast the net deep and wide and have a chilling effect on multiple fronts. People should be disabused of the idea that, "The Member may not have intended that", or, "The Member may not want to capture this". The Member is far from stupid. Indeed, I think that he is one of the most capable Members of this House, and, when I interpret the Bill, it reflects that. I am sure that the Member will agree with me. Other Alliance Members very cleverly quoted "coercive behaviour". When you talk to the public and to Members and say that behaviour is "violent", "threatening", "controlling", "regulating" and "depriving ... the victim's freedom" and talk about people being "frightened", "humiliated", "degraded" or "intimidated", everyone will say, "That is wrong". Indeed, we supported including coercive behaviour in the Domestic Abuse and Civil Proceedings Act (Northern Ireland) 2021. The problem is that the Bill has two stand-alone offences: one on coercive behaviour and one on providing conversion therapy. If the Bill sponsor were serious about tying in the coercive behaviour element, it would only have been an offence to have provided conversion therapy through coercive behaviour, but it is not connected by way of those two offences; they are stand-alone. That is primarily why the offence of providing conversion therapy is vaguely defined but includes suppression and other aspects. When you look at the definition in the Bill, you realise that the bar is being set incredibly low to capture as many people as possible.

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

Assessment

Not qualifying

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 16:41 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