Draft Conversion Practices Bill

Statement

The following Statement was made in the House of Commons on Thursday 25 June.

“With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a Statement about the Conversion Practices Bill, which we are publishing in draft today. Across the House, we can all agree that nobody deserves to be abused, no matter who they are, but right now, gaps in the law are allowing a very specific form of abuse to occur: abuse driven by the false belief that being LGBT+ is shameful, that it can be forcibly changed, and that if you cause someone enough pain, you will somehow stop them being who they are. We are talking about people being shamed in front of a congregation, and pushed to the ground in an effort to remove the devil; about families threatening to rape and murder people if they do not change their identity; and about people being beaten or sexually assaulted by those trying to ‘correct’ who they are. These are real stories, real people, and real abusers getting away with it. Today, with this legislation, that stops.

The draft Bill that we are publishing today fills gaps in our criminal law in order to ban abusive conversion practices. It gives victims and authorities a clear definition with which to identify, tackle and prevent this abuse. Specifically, the Bill creates a new criminal offence of abusive conversion practice, measured by three specific criteria: first, conduct intended to change a person’s sexual orientation or transgender identity; secondly, conduct that is abusive, in line with other criminal law; and thirdly, conduct that causes serious harm, alarm or distress that has a substantial effect on the victim’s day-to-day activities. We have listened to concerns that this legislation must not create a loophole that pushes abuse abroad, and have included a second offence of encouraging or assisting an abusive conversion practice outside England and Wales.

We are also creating new conversion practice protection orders, to support victims as well as those at risk of abuse. These will be similar to protection orders for forced marriage and female genital mutilation, and can protect people even before abuse has happened. Breach of a protection order may be prosecuted as a criminal offence. Offences will carry a maximum penalty of five years in custody or a fine, while breaching a protection order carries a maximum penalty of two years or a fine. In addition to bringing in the new measures in this Bill, the Government will continue to fund the conversion practices support helpline, and are taking wider action to tackle abuse against the LGBT+ community, including by equalising hate crime legislation through the Crime and Policing Act 2026.

We are also creating new conversion practice protection orders, to support victims as well as those at risk of abuse. These will be similar to protection orders for forced marriage and female genital mutilation, and can protect people even before abuse has happened. Breach of a protection order may be prosecuted as a criminal offence. Offences will carry a maximum penalty of five years in custody or a fine, while breaching a protection order carries a maximum penalty of two years or a fine. In addition to bringing in the new measures in this Bill, the Government will continue to fund the conversion practices support helpline, and are taking wider action to tackle abuse against the LGBT+ community, including by equalising hate crime legislation through the Crime and Policing Act 2026.

In developing this Bill, I have consulted widely and spoken to many who have legitimate concerns about legislating in this area. I have heard concerns about freedom of expression, parental rights and religious freedoms. I have spoken to therapists who worry that their important exploratory work with young people might be impacted, and that they may be accused of conversion practices. I want to be completely clear today: I have heard those concerns and acted on them. This Bill does not remove anyone’s right to freedom of expression or religion, or to choose how to parent; this Bill simply prevents abuse. To ensure that there is no inadvertent chilling effect on important healthcare, there is an exemption in the Bill for all healthcare professionals.

Across the globe, countries are acting to ban conversion practices. We have learned from the 28 countries that have some sort of ban in place. We have drawn on the important framework from the Council of Europe, fought for by my honourable friend the Member for Jarrow and Gateshead East, Kate Osborne. We have studied the evidence on the prevalence and types of conversion practice abuse, and we are clear about where there are gaps in the law. In the Bill published today, we are confident that we have learned the right lessons and got the balance right. This will be a comprehensive ban on abusive conversion practices, with no loopholes, and we have clarity that we will not inadvertently impinge on freedom of expression, important healthcare and people’s ability to parent how they choose.

There has been a cross-party consensus for years on the importance of this ban. It was Baroness May who first promised legislation on this back in 2018, and there are Opposition Members who have held my job and worked hard on this issue. This ban has been in the manifestos of parties from across the political spectrum, because despite our other political differences, we can all agree that abuse is unacceptable. I hope sincerely that we can work constructively on this issue across the House. I welcome cross-party engagement as we discuss our draft legislation, and that is why we have requested and welcome pre-legislative scrutiny of the draft Bill by a Joint Committee. I am confident that this process will make our Bill stronger.

There are people today suffering crushing, hateful abuse because someone has decided that their identity is wrong and can be changed—abuse that is allowed to happen because our legal framework simply does not acknowledge it. I understand that this draft Bill will cause debate—these are not easy issues—but I welcome that challenge and that debate, because we cannot let fear of argument prevent us from remembering what matters: it is our job and our moral responsibility to prevent this pernicious abuse. I am confident that the Bill we are publishing today will do just that”.

My Lords, it should go without saying that anyone who has been subjected to violence, coercion or abuse because of who they are or whom they love deserves the full protection of the law, but this Bill provides no necessary new protections and risks criminalising people who have done nothing wrong. It is deeply flawed in its drafting, and the evidence on which it is based is at best weak and at worst misleading. I will come back to that.

The Government’s Explanatory Notes say that abuse ranges from beating a person to coercive control, but these are already crimes, and those who are not in a relationship are covered by harassment or common-law assault. The Explanatory Notes also say that the Bill will cover “psychological or emotional pressure”, “economic pressure” and conduct that

“causes serious alarm or distress which has a substantial adverse effect on their usual day-to-day activities”.

This represents an average day for most teenagers when one is parenting them, as I am.

That drafting and those terms would put in question a wife who asks her husband to stop wearing her clothes, or parents who tell their child that they will not fund puberty blockers or cross-sex hormones, or a school that insists on referring to all its pupils as girls and boys. Despite reassurances from the Minister in the other place, the way this Bill is drafted causes all these possible problems. Can the Minister tell the House why the Bill contains no carve-outs for such interactions, and can he explain how the clear conflict with Articles 8 and 10—the right to freedom of expression, and the right to a private and family life—are to be reconciled?

My Lords, before I start, it is worth remembering that in the middle of all this conversion therapy are individuals who are dealing with trauma. It is beholden on all of us to dial down the volume and discuss this much more calmly.

We on these Benches welcome this Statement and the publication of the draft Bill for pre-legislative scrutiny. For eight years, across five Prime Ministers—most of them Conservative—we have heard repeated commitments to end conversion practices. It is conduct that the British Psychological Society and professional bodies have long condemned as unethical, so it is a relief to the one-in-six LGBT individuals who have been offered this unacceptable practice that this Government have finally advanced a draft text to fill any potential gaps in our laws.

However, publication for pre-legislative scrutiny is the commencement, and not the conclusion, of where we will get to. The Liberal Democrats have constantly pushed for an effective, workable ban. We acknowledge the Government’s intent to create a framework that includes protections regarding gender identity, as it is vital that no individuals are subject to genuinely abusive, coercive or harmful practices. Yet we must acknowledge that, for some, it is precisely around the intersection of gender identity, clinical guidance and the family sphere that this legislation will face its most contentious challenges. Striking the right balance here is an incredibly delicate task. We and the Government must get this right to avoid any unintended consequences.

In particular, we must ensure that the threshold of “abusive acts causing serious harm” is drawn with clear legal precision, so that it does not create problems for some parents, for example. It is a fundamental part of loving parenting to guide children as they navigate deep, complex questions about who they are. A parent who in good faith advises a child to take time or who expresses questions about social or medical transition is acting out of care and duty for their child’s protection. This legislation must be drawn carefully enough to guarantee that these supportive conversations within families do not unintentionally cause a crime to have been committed.

I thank the noble Lords for their questions. I am acutely aware that there is a consensus across this House. There are no bipartisan divides here. The previous Government were committed to the principle of this legislation, and I welcomed it at the time. So, irrespective of what the noble Baroness says, there is consensus and there is concern. At the end of the day—I agree with the noble Baroness here—we can all agree that no one should face abuse just because of who they are, and our draft Bill is about protecting LGBT+ people from serious physical and psychological harm.

The Galop anti-abuse charity has for many years supported people who have suffered abuse. It is only reflecting the evidence that has been given to it. We must be clear that we are talking about victims of severe abuse here. One case of this abuse is one too many, which is why we are criminalising it. So let us not say that we are getting this out of proportion.

The noble Lord, Lord Scriven, addressed the fact that there are gaps in the existing law that mean we cannot prosecute offences properly with domestic abuse legislation. For example, on coercive control, the legislation is designed for someone who has a relationship with an intimate partner, and it would not capture an offence committed by someone they did not know. There are many other examples of gaps in the law that need to be addressed.

Secondly, the noble Baroness missed an important point: for the first time, we will have a clear definition in law of conversion practice. As with other offences, such as upskirting or non-fatal strangulation, a definition is important to help victims understand what has happened to them and be able to come forward, and for prosecutors to build a case. I am confident that there is a need to legislate in this area.

My Lords, I gently remind noble Lords that this next session of 20 minutes is for Back-Bench questions only. We will start with the Conservatives and then work our way around.

My Lords, given that abusive conversion practices are already criminal offences, can the Minister tell the House what conduct the Government intend this Bill to criminalise that is not already unlawful? Can he identify a single case in which a victim was denied justice because existing criminal offences were insufficient, thereby demonstrating the need for this new criminal offence?

I had hoped that the noble Baroness would have listened to my response to the Front Benches. To be clear, we have identified gaps in existing law where we cannot prosecute offences properly. The legislation on domestic abuse and coercive control, for example, is designed for someone who has a relationship with an intimate partner and would not capture the offence committed by someone they did not know. There are many other examples that I think the pre-legislative scrutiny will be able to identify.

We should not forget the point I made about the other offences that we have introduced, where people could have argued that existing law would capture them. Upskirting and non-fatal strangulation are two good examples, because they highlighted offences that were being committed and could have been prosecuted, but the victims were not prepared to identify or could not identify properly that it was an offence. That is an important element of why this Bill is so important.

My Lords, can I say how much I welcome this draft Bill and the pre-legislative scrutiny that will take place? His Majesty’s loyal Opposition have to sort out their lines on this, because as late as 2023 their Government confirmed their intention to publish a trans-inclusive draft Bill and set out time for scrutiny.

I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Cash, feels strongly about some of these issues. I had to smile, though, because she is probably an utterly brilliant lawyer, but we are not a court of law. My question to my noble friend the Minister is: would he agree that the next step is to ensure that the draft is carefully considered during pre-legislative scrutiny, so that we can be sure that it will protect all those who are vulnerable to abuse, while not criminalising important exploratory conversations about people’s sexuality or gender identity?