Debate contribution: Conversion Practices (Criminalisation) Bill: Second Stage
Debate contribution by Mr Eóin Tennyson on .
- MLA
- Mr Eóin Tennyson
- 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 5706540
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I am happy to intervene if the Member wants to take an intervention. To be clear, when we were developing the Bill, we looked at having two intent tests: an intent to change and suppress sexual orientation or gender identity; and an intent to cause harm. The problem is that mens rea — a person's mental state when they are undertaking an offence — is so difficult to prove that proving it for two offences would be nigh on impossible, so there is one intent test in the Bill. However, that is why we have included a harm threshold, which is that actual harm has been caused. Whether the perpetrator intended to cause harm is irrelevant. They intended to undertake conversion practice, and they caused harm to the victim, which is a higher, not lower test than the one to which the Member is referring. In relation to the Minister's remarks, the use of the word "therapy" is very deliberate. Again, we consulted on the use of the words "provision of a service". The word "therapy" was selected because it added clarity to the Bill on the nature of the services that we were referring to. "Therapy", "counselling", "coaching or instructing" and "purported treatment" all come under the banner of the term "therapy", and there would have to be an assessment. I have said that, if Members want clarity on those issues, I am open to engaging with them. However, none of that touches on the principles of the Bill, which are what we should be discussing at Second Stage today.
261 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not qualifying”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.06 (qualifying needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not qualifying).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.89).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.97).
- Subject area: Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues.
- The overall probability was at or below the not-qualifying 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 | 0.04 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.03 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.07 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.89 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.06 | At or below not-qualifying threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.97 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.03 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| 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.
Disagree with this assessment?
Classifications can be challenged. A person reviews every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.