Debate contribution: Conversion Practices (Criminalisation) Bill: Second Stage
Debate contribution by Ms Diane Forsythe on .
- MLA
- Ms Diane Forsythe
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 22 September 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Conversion Practices (Criminalisation) Bill: Second Stage
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5741653
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Thank you for handling that with so much professionalism. It gets challenging in here at times, but I have the utmost respect for you in all aspects of your role. I was talking about the clear definition of language in the courts. The Bill sponsor mentioned the role of the courts and the police, which bounced me forward a bit to the Bill's financial effects. As the Bill sponsor knows, because it has come up a few times in the Finance Committee, Members' Bills are not required to be underpinned by a detailed costing that is challenged by an auditor. The Bill sponsor's colleague mentioned some numbers earlier, but the Bill is very vague. The explanatory and financial memorandum states:
"The Bill is not intended to carry significant costs."
It goes on to state:
"The Bill, if enacted, would create a potential ‘public impact’ on departmental resources ... The Bill will also have public purse implications with regards to the PSNI in terms of their general costs and staffing".
There are no numbers. It even states:
"The PSNI advised that they were not in a position to provide estimates of any additional resource requirements that might arise from the proposed Bill."
Going back to Mr Tennyson's comments just now, it sounds as if there will be a significant additional burden on the police. Given all the things that the police will have to do — all the types of investigation, all the talking to victims and vulnerable people, and all the processes that will have to be gone through in the courts — the cost will be significant. We are talking about vulnerable victims, so there will be a significant cost to the advocacy and help required to get them through the process. I wonder whether significant efforts were made to cost that or compare it with any similar types of policing or types of offences, because I genuinely feel that the costs will be significant.
331 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: 0.06 (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 (0.94).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- 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 | 0.03 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.94 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.06 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 1.00 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.87 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.12 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 16:41 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.