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 5707346
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I appreciate the Member's giving way, and I hope that I will not incur the wrath of the Deputy Speaker. In rebutting your point earlier, the Bill sponsor quoted Dr Cass's support for the Westminster legislation. Will the Member come to the clear differences between the proposed Westminster legislation and the Bill that is before us? That highlights some of the major concerns that we, as a party, and others have with this Bill. The Westminster Bill refers to "abusive conversion practice" and "a substantial adverse effect" on normal "day-to-day activities", which is a much higher threshold than is proposed in Mr Tennyson's Bill. The Westminster legislation uses language around abuse, while this Bill uses a general element, and that is not included in clause 1. The Westminster Bill talks about "serious harm", which is not in the Bill before us. If we are going to quote Dr Cass's support for the Westminster Bill, which Mr Tennyson has done, it is important to make it clear that there are clear distinctions between the Westminster Bill and what Mr Tennyson has proposed in the House.
Certainly not.
186 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: 0.10 (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 (0.90).
- 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
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.04 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.04 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.06 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.90 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.10 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.99 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.01 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.99 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| 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 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.