Debate contribution: Conversion Practices (Criminalisation) Bill: Second Stage
Debate contribution by Ms Paula Bradshaw on .
- MLA
- Ms Paula Bradshaw
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 15 September 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Conversion Practices (Criminalisation) Bill: Second Stage
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5706465
Read the official Assembly record
Text
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I have sat listening to Mr Burrows's contribution. First, Mr Deputy Speaker, can you confirm that private Members' Bills are produced with the support of the Bill Office by professional drafters who are paid for out of public money? Secondly, Mr Burrows, we would not have to introduce our private Members' Bills if our Executive were able to work on progressive issues that move our society forward. As I said yesterday, I would much prefer that the Executive Office had picked up on the Commission on Flags, Identity, Culture and Tradition (FICT) report and dealt with the flags issue itself.
108 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: 0.36 (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).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.77).
- Subject area: Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials.
- The overall probability was low and the text did not adopt any identity-based framing.
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 | 0.14 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.27 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.05 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.42 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.24 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.36 | Between thresholds |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.77 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.20 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.03 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.93 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.07 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 16:21 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.