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

Debate contribution by Mr Phillip Brett on .

MLA
Mr Phillip Brett
Party at the time
Democratic Unionist Party
Date
15 September 2026
Type
Debate contribution
Business
Private Members' Business
Heading
Conversion Practices (Criminalisation) Bill: Second Stage
Assembly identifier
Official Report component 5706750

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Mr Carroll inadvertently highlighted one of the major concerns with the Bill, which, I think, my colleague was going to articulate. It has been borne out by the consultation responses that a lot of professionals, including teachers, who are governed by different professional standards authorities and who are required to be on professional registers are not listed in the Bill.

Mr Carroll has helped make the DUP's argument for us.

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

Assessment

Not flagged

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: 0.13 (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 (0.74).
  • No identity-based framing was identified (0.99).
  • 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

Probability that each statement is true of this text (0 = no, 1 = yes). A criterion counts as met at 0.60 or above.
QuestionProbabilityMet?
Identity framing0.06No
Sectarian or communal antagonism0.03No
Cultural grievance politics0.02No
Dog-whistle messaging0.06No
Controversy escalation0.10No
Legitimate policy scrutiny0.74Yes
Overall judgement0.13At or below not-flagging threshold
Context and attribution (stance)
OptionProbability
No identity-based framing (chosen)0.99
Reports or questions it0.00
Criticises or condemns it0.00
Adopts it0.01
Subject area (top five)
SubjectProbability
Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues0.94
No identity-related subject0.04
Education structures, integration and community division0.01
Another identity-related subject0.01
Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials0.00

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 16:22 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