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
- 22 September 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Conversion Practices (Criminalisation) Bill: Second Stage
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5741661
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank the Member for giving way. There is a contradiction, because, in his contribution last week, Peter Martin suggested, in effect, that the prevalence was so low and the size of the LGBT community so small that we should not worry about it.
I am not quoting Peter Martin directly, but that was the thrust of his argument. Now, however, we are being told that the issue is so grave and common that it would have huge resource implications for the PSNI. Neither of those positions is accurate. We have engaged with the PSNI. There is a Research and Information Service paper that the Member will be aware of that looks at the Bill's financial implications. Most of those implications would concern things such as training in respect of the new offences, which is common for any new criminal offence that the Assembly passes into law. We can also look at international examples of similar legislation, where, because the intent test is hard to meet, the incidence of such cases being prosecuted is very low. It will be a low-volume and high-threshold offence in terms of prosecutions, so, if it provides any assurance to the Member, I do not think, on the basis of my understanding of similar legislation internationally, that we will see huge numbers of cases coming to the courts.
223 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: 0.09 (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 (0.91).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.89).
- 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 | 0.06 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.03 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.07 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.09 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.91 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.09 | At or below not-qualifying threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.89 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.08 |
| 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 01:22 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9. This record has been assessed 3 times; the latest assessment is shown.
Disagree with this assessment?
Classifications can be challenged. A person reviews every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.