Debate contribution: Conversion Practices (Criminalisation) Bill: Second Stage
Debate contribution by Mrs Deborah Erskine on .
- MLA
- Mrs Deborah Erskine
- 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 5707298
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank the Member for giving way. There is an irony with the Bill in that the intention, I am guessing, of the sponsor is around the frightening nature, humiliation, intimidation, fear, alarm and distress, but, in fact, by not allowing conversation around that, that actually increases that fear, alarm and distress and increases the mental health aspect to that, which could have a knock-on impact on our health service. We already know that our mental health services are crippled at this time. The waiting lists for CAMHS in Northern Ireland are through the roof. Over the summer, I found out that children as young as five are presenting at A&E with mental health crises. Does the Member agree that, by not enabling talking therapy and allowing parents to have that ability, we will actually see another issue arise as a result?
142 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: 0.32 (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 (0.84).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.95).
- Subject area: Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues.
- 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 | 0.11 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.06 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.03 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.30 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.15 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.84 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.32 | Between thresholds |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.95 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.01 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.01 |
| Adopts it | 0.03 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.87 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.11 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
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.