The Conversion practices draft bill is now being scrutinised by a Joint Select Committee which has been tasked with reporting back to parliament by 22 January 2027. This bill will criminalise certain types of consensual conversations, including parents objecting to a child’s gender or sexual identity or using economic or psychological or emotional ‘pressure’ in relation to a child’s sexual or gender identity.
The committee has now issued a call for evidence about this bill.
The call for evidence is open until 5pm on Monday 16 November.
Guidelines for how to respond to the call for evidence
- Anyone can respond to the call for evidence.
- Your response must be in a Word document or similar (not PDF) with numbered paragraphs and, where helpful, headings.
- Your response if accepted will be published online unless you specifically request it not to be. You can ask for your response to be anonymous. Do not include any personal details on your response in the document that you would not want published.
- Your response must be original and not published elsewhere.
- Committees like concise responses, usually less than 3,000 words, but if you go over 3,000 words then include a brief summary.
- Use plain English. If AI is used it should be declared.
- More detail on giving evidence to committees is available here.
- Your response should be submitted following directions on the online portal.
What to say in your response?
The call for evidence raises a number of questions. You do not have to address every question. Pick the questions that you are most interested in. You should state in your response which questions you are addressing and answer them directly.
The committee will be most interested in any personal experience you have relating to this bill. Also, in any ways in which you expect the bill to affect you, your family or your church or other community or organisation.
Key questions to respond to
The full list of 16 questions, some of which have multiple parts is available on the call for evidence webpage. Some of the more significant questions relating to freedom of speech and freedom of religion are given below with some suggested points to make. Please use your own words in your response.
Q2 asks to what extent this bill addresses conduct and harms that are not already dealt with under existing legislation.
- No new laws are needed. Abuse and coercion are already offences.
- This bill will criminalise requested consensual conversations. No government should criminalise conversations.
- The government has not given any specific examples of behaviour that is not already a criminal offence which this law is required to outlaw.
- This bill could criminalise ordinary parenting of children with confused identities.
- This bill will criminalise freely requested prayer or pastoral support about unwanted sexual attractions or identities.
Q5 asks about whether key concepts in the bill are clearly defined.
- The term ‘conversion practices’ is defined as “any conduct” with certain intentions. This includes private consensual conversations or prayers.
- There is no defence that the conduct be “reasonable” in the circumstances.
- The bill makes it an offence to change what someone believes about their sexual or gender identity. This will criminalise ordinary conversations and Christian pastoral ministry or prayer.
- The term “psychological or emotional pressure” is not defined. People will interpret this to mean expression of views with which they disagree or which triggered them to be upset. The threshold for a criminal offence needs to be much higher than this.
- It is not clear precisely what is meant by “transgender identity”. How many ‘transgender identities’ are there for the purposes of this offence?
- An offence does not require any intent of harm. Therefore, people providing help to someone who earnestly requests help in good faith could be convicted of a criminal offence.
Q10 asks about conversion therapy protection orders.
- There is no requirement that the person being protected is in agreement with the protection order. Thus, someone could be prevented from attending church or Christian meetings against their will.
- There is no requirement for parents to agree to a protection order which could be imposed by a council against the will of the parents preventing them from taking their child to church.
- An order can impose whatever restrictions the judge thinks appropriate, including prohibiting perfectly lawful activities.
- Anyone can apply for a conversion therapy protection order to be applied on someone else. This means activist groups will apply for orders maliciously and against the will of the person being ‘protected’.
- The committee should ask whether a protection order could require a parent or carer to use preferred pronouns for their child. If this is not the intention then this should be clarified in the bill.
Q12 asks about privacy and family life and freedom of expression.
- The fact that there is an exemption for healthcare workers is an admission that legitimate conduct will be criminalised by this bill.
- While there is an exemption for healthcare workers, there are no exemptions for parents in this bill meaning that perfectly normal family conversations held in private and in good faith could be criminalised.
- There is no defence of reasonableness in the bill which means that perfectly reasonable conduct could be criminalised.
- There is no defence of consent meaning that consensual conversations or prayer could be criminalised.
- There is no definition of ‘conduct’. An ex-gay or detransitioned person must be free to share their story without fear of being prosecuted or criminalised.
- Several lawyers have said that this bill will breach human rights when it comes to freedom of expression.
- The bill will have a chilling effect on conversations about sexual ethics and gender identity. People will fear that their conversations could cause them to risk arrest or prosecution.
Q15 asks about the protection parental rights and responsibilities.
- Like healthcare workers, parents should be exempt from any offence in this bill.
- Ordinary parenting may include things like restricting access to pornography or expressing concerns or disagreement with certain behaviours or identities. Ordinary parenting should not be subject to any possibility of criminal sanctions.
- Ordinary parenting could be deemed to be “economic pressure” or “psychological or emotional pressure” and so be an offence under this bill.
- A parent discouraging the use of puberty blockers or refusing to use preferred pronouns could be committing a criminal offence under this bill.
Q16 asks about protection of freedom of religion, belief, conscience and expression.
- Several leading lawyers have said that this bill will contravene human rights law in freedom of religion, freedom of belief, and freedom of expression.
- The right to “change your religion or belief” is protected in Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Banning ‘conversion’ is equivalent to banning ‘changing your beliefs’ which is in direct contravention of Article 9.
- Intention to change beliefs is captured in this bill and so is in direct contravention of Article 9.
- There is no defence of consent meaning that consensual private conversations will be criminalised directly contravening Article 10 on freedom of expression.
- A ‘conversion practices’ law will criminalise teaching and pastoring according to biblical sexual ethics. This will contravene Article 9 on freedom of religion.
- Ex-gay is a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010. This bill will discriminate against ex-gay people by threatening them will prosecution for telling their stories and encouraging others to follow their example.
- People who want to be helped with unwanted sexual attractions on conscience grounds will be prohibited from being helped. Those that wish to help people who want to be helped on conscience grounds will be prohibited from obeying their conscience. Thus this bill violates Article 9 on freedom of conscience.
- Since private consensual conversations in a family home could be criminalised, this bill violates Article 8 on respect for private and family life.
Thank you for taking time to influence the committee on this important bill.