Debate contribution: Conversion Practices (Criminalisation) Bill: Second Stage
Debate contribution by Mr Matthew O'Toole on .
- MLA
- Mr Matthew O'Toole
- Party at the time
- Social Democratic and Labour Party
- Date
- 15 September 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Conversion Practices (Criminalisation) Bill: Second Stage
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5705726
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I appreciate the Member's giving way. Of course, it is right that there be scrutiny of all legislation, and I recognise the Member's acknowledgement of that. I wondered — it is something to reflect on — about the comparison that he drew between the coercive behaviour provisions in this Bill and the provisions in other legislation, here and elsewhere, about coercive control in marriages, civil partnerships or other intimate family relationships of one kind or another. I am checking this, and someone can correct me, but coercive control appears to have been on the statute book in England and Wales — your colleague the Justice Minister will be able to correct me — since 2015. Would it be fair to say that, if some of the questions about coercive control or coercive behaviour had led to, for example, the criminalisation of difficult conversations between husband and wife or, indeed, husband and husband or wife and wife — intimate partners — that would have been an example of that test having led to unintended consequences? I am not aware of that having happened, in the context of coercive control in intimate relationships or marriages having been put in statute. If that had been the case, we would have seen lots of instances of husbands, wives and intimate partners seeking the investigation or, indeed, the criminalisation of difficult conversations, which those of us who are in relationships know that there can often be, about life, finances and fundamental disagreements about things. Is that comparison worth exploring today and at Committee Stage, assuming the Bill proceeds?
263 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not flagged”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.11 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.85).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.95).
- Subject area: Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues.
- The overall probability was at or below the not-flagging 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 | 0.06 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.03 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.11 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.06 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.85 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.11 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.95 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.04 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.01 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.95 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.04 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| 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.
Disagree with this assessment?
Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.