Oral evidence on the Government’s controversial draft Bill to ban so-called conversion practices began this week.
Published in June, the proposals criminalise “emotional pressure” on a person that causes them to believe they have or do not have a particular “sexual orientation” or “transgender identity”. Any person found guilty of an offence faces a fine, up to five years in prison, or both.
Within days of the Bill’s publication, Peers pointed out the risk it presented of “criminalising people who have done nothing wrong”, and now the Committee tasked with examining the legislation is listening to a number of groups to determine how it might impact them.
Deep freeze
Addressing the Committee, Helen Joyce of Sex Matters highlighted a recent study conducted by the group with thirty medical professionals, some of whom were whistleblowers at the Tavistock. Each one, she reported, had said the Bill would have “a serious chilling effect” on their work.
Adding to Joyce’s contribution, criminal law barrister Dennis Kavanagh said that, irrespective of any amendments made, the Government would be passing a Bill “that says that there’s one area, and one area only, of medical practice where you could get prosecuted if you put a foot wrong. That won’t be a chilling effect, that’ll be a deep freeze”.
Kavanagh, who was representing the Gay Men’s Network, also said that subjecting medics and parents to the threat of criminal prosecution “is a chilling effect of the most tyrannical kind” and that the Bill “fundamentally violates the principle of legal certainty, which could lead, frankly, to arbitrary enforcement, unpredictable case law and general public confusion”.
The Government’s draft conversion practices Bill could drive a sledgehammer through Articles 7, 8, 9, 10 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights, warns @Jebadoo2
⚖️Article 7 – no punishment without clear law: “A mum and dad can’t sit and read this Bill across their kitchen table… and know whether they are criminals or not”
🏡Article 8 – right to private and family life: “the state is now saying how to parent”
🗣️Articles 9 & 10 – freedom of belief and expression: “you’ve got to watch what you say”
⚠️Article 14 – protection from discrimination: if your teenager says I’m non-binary and wants to be called they/them, “you are taking a risk if you say I do not believe in that”— Let Us Pray (@LetUsPrayUK) October 29, 2026
Direct conflict with human rights
The barrister also warned that the Bill was in direct conflict with the European Convention on Human Rights: that it was ‘incomprehensible’, undermined parental freedoms, limited free speech, and directly discriminated against those who believed in biological reality.
He concluded: “I think this Bill is ripe for a declaration of incompatibility.”
Helen Joyce also told the Committee that the plans could catch quite ordinary people, “in a host of ordinary situations”, including parents, teachers and employers. She added that the legislation could in fact “potentially catch almost anyone in this country”.
🚨@HJoyceGender demolishes the claim that a conversion practices law would catch only a tiny number of abusers by exposing the sheer range of ordinary people who could be dragged into the criminal crosshairs:
– PARENTS
– TEACHERS
– EMPLOYERS
@SexMattersOrg https://t.co/JRw2VvWazS— Let Us Pray (@LetUsPrayUK) October 29, 2026
Inconclusive data
Speaking in support of the Bill, Kai O’Doherty, of LGBT activist group Galop, claimed that it’s report Still Not Illegal contained hundreds of case studies of ‘conversion practices’ reported to its services.
However, in its report the group admits that some of the cases documented “align with existing offences, including actual bodily harm, rape and sexual assault, forced marriage, and coercive control, among others”.
The report also states that the sample of those seeking help from Galop “is not statistically representative of the broader LGBT+ population, and these findings should not be considered to be prevalence data”.
Ban Conversion Practices Coalition’s Professor Ilias Trispiotis told the Committee that a pastor who prays with someone struggling with their ‘identity’ or a parent who does not affirm their child’s gender-confusion could be guilty of a ‘conversion practice’.
Call for evidence
The Christian Institute’s Deputy Director Simon Calvert urged all who believe in the importance of free speech, religious liberty and parental freedom to respond to the Westminster Committee’s call for evidence.
He explained: “This draft Bill is the biggest threat to the ordinary work of churches that I have seen in my thirty years at The Christian Institute. The way it is worded will criminalise conversations. Not real abuse. Just conversations. And it won’t just affect Christians.
“This call for evidence is our chance to help MPs and Peers to examine the Government’s proposals and see how unworkable they are.”
The committee reviewing the Government’s draft Conversion Practices Bill is inviting public submissions by 5pm on Monday 16 November.
Christians wishing to have their say can find guidance on how to respond below.
CI urges Phillipson to ditch ‘ill-judged conversion therapy ban’
‘Disappointing’: Stormont votes to progress conversion practices Bill
Scots activists push for more expansive ‘conversion practices’ Bill