Draft Conversion Practices Bill

Debate between Lord Scriven and Baroness Cash

Wednesday 1st July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Cash (Con)]

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?

This Bill also hands the power of private prosecution to any organisation that wishes to use it, without requiring the consent of the Attorney-General or the Director of Public Prosecutions. This means that litigious, bad-faith, privately funded campaign groups, such as the Good Law Project, could destroy the lives of those with whom it disagrees by bringing prosecutions. Can the Minister tell the House why there is no requirement in this Bill for prosecutorial consent?

I turn to the evidence base on which the Bill is built. The Minister Olivia Bailey quite rightly stated in the House of Commons that

“it is beholden on us all to ensure that this conversation is based on real facts”.—[Official Report, Commons, 25/6/26; col. 548.]

I am sorry to say that she then relied on the report from Galop, an LGBT+ anti-abuse charity. She claimed that it contains hundreds of case studies demonstrating appalling abuse happening right now. But it contains fewer than 200 identified cases and, of those, only 51 people were specifically seeking help with conversion practices. The rest were already seeking help for domestic abuse, forced marriage, housing or mental health.

I am sorry to say that the Minister also failed to mention a highly significant fact: that Galop ran a helpline on behalf of the Government, funded to the tune of £360,000 over three years. This is a government contractor’s report, therefore, created to justify further funding for that same contractor, and presented as independent evidence. In their report, the Galop researchers themselves admitted that the cases they found align with existing offences including ABH, rape, sexual assault, forced marriage and coercive control. Will the Minister explain why a report produced by a government contractor was presented to Parliament as independent research?

The impact assessment, published yesterday, fares no better. That relies on a Stonewall opinion survey that found that 10% of LGBT people had undergone an exorcism, which—as one mathematician, helpfully verified by the charity Sex Matters, has calculated—would imply 24,600 gay exorcisms a year in this country. That is preposterous and incredible, and yet the Government have used the same survey and flawed methodology for the 75,000 to 93,000 prevalence figure on which the entire financial case for the Bill rests. This is not a small matter, because every government department is required to follow the Treasury’s Green Book rule against cherry-picking data. This document fails that test. Can the Minister please explain why the data has been used so selectively, and what will be done to correct this?

I am afraid it gets worse. It is said that the Bill will generate a benefit of £783 million by assuming, first, that this legislation will prevent 100% of conversion practices occurring and, secondly, that—and very precisely—38% of those saved from conversion practices will also avoid depression. It is curious that the 38% figure came from a US study with no assessment of multifactorial causes of depression and without any peer review. As for preventing 100% of offences, if any law in history had achieved that, we would have no crime at all. The estimated costs of the Bill are then limited to 45 minutes of training per police officer and other workers troubled with implementing it. No other police time, court time—wasted time—is factored in; it is all to be confirmed. One might laugh, if only it were not so gravely serious.

I very much welcome the fact that the Bill is going to a Joint Committee for pre-legislative scrutiny. As we can already see, that scrutiny will be vital. Can the Minister give a firm assurance to this House that the Joint Committee will be given adequate time to take comprehensive evidence from all interested parties? It is worth us remembering that the Scottish Government tried a Bill like this in 2024 and that the public ferociously rejected it—leaving it, as one commentator said, “torn in shreds”. As this Bill goes forward, I very much hope the Minister will ensure the scrutiny it requires.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

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.

Furthermore, we must ensure absolute clarity for teachers, clinicians and therapists so that they can continue to offer objective, non-directive and exploratory support, without the fear of legal reprisal or professional hesitation. The Liberal Democrats have always championed a balance between robust protections from abuse and the defence of civil liberties, free expression and freedom of religion. These boundaries between parental guidance and legitimate healthcare must be balanced, and the work of the Joint Committee will be incredibly welcome in guiding this House in deciding on this legislation. It provides the exact rigorous cross-party forum needed to test these definitions, listen to all viewpoints and build the workable consensus required.

Therefore, I ask the Minister three important questions. First, how will the Government ensure that the draft definitions explicitly and robustly protect the rights of parents to have open and loving conversations with their children without fear of investigation? Secondly, what specific steps are being taken to ensure that the Joint Committee’s scrutiny processes actively engage with all views within the LGBT+ community, family support groups and medical professions to ensure that these boundaries are balanced and appropriate? Finally, what is the anticipated timescale for this pre-legislative scrutiny, so that this House can eventually examine a Bill that is genuinely balanced, fair and effective?