Government Unveils Controversial ‘Conversion Therapy Ban’ Draft Bill Amid Renewed Puberty Blocker Trial Plans

• Campaigners warn draft legislation risks criminalising parents, religious leaders and ordinary conversations while existing laws already prohibit abuse 

• News comes as Parliament gives controversial puberty blocker trial the go-ahead, experimenting on children as young as 11 

The Government has published draft legislation to ban so-called ‘conversion therapy’, despite longstanding concerns from legal experts that previous attempts have threatened fundamental freedoms of speech, religion and family life.

The move comes as ministers prepare to restart a controversial puberty blocker trial involving children as young as 11, prompting concerns that the Government is pursuing an increasingly interventionist approach to gender-related issues affecting young people.

Campaigners argue that existing criminal law already provides robust protections against abuse, coercion and exploitation, raising serious questions about what additional conduct a new conversion therapy law would seek to criminalise.

Reacting to the news, Simon Calvert, Deputy Director of the Christian Institute, said:

“After eight years and five Prime Ministers, is this the best draft they can come up with? The Bill would see parents, professionals and pastors having to answer to the police for innocent conversations that trans activists claim are ‘abusive’. It’s wide open to misuse.”

Existing Law Already Covers Abuse

Assault, coercive control, sexual offences, harassment, false imprisonment and child abuse are already criminal offences under UK law.

Following years of consultation, the previous Government concluded that the evidence base for introducing new criminal legislation was “weak”. A leaked government memo stated that existing criminal law already offered “robust protections” and ministers ultimately abandoned plans to legislate before the 2024 General Election.

Critics argue that previous legislative proposals extended far beyond banning abusive practices, potentially criminalising prayer, parental guidance, expressions of concern and pastoral conversations regarding sexuality and gender identity.

Commenting on the draft, Simon Calvert added:

“Public order law already outlaws ‘abuse that causes alarm or distress’. In the current censorious climate, these laws are already a problem for freedom of speech. So much so that Peers from the right and the left have called for them to be abolished:

“Causing ‘alarm or distress’ is a highly subjective test, almost totally self-fulfilling. If a trans activist says he is distressed, then police and courts will accept their evidence and there is nothing a parent or psychiatrist can say to disprove it.”

Futher Problems

Mr Calvert also commented on a number of problems with the Bill and the language surrounding it:

On ‘abuse’

“The Government claims its bill targets abuse but it’s now clear that parents are going to find themselves having to answer to police officers and the courts for conversations with their children. The Government’s insistence on criminalising what they call emotional’ or financial ‘pressure’ means the Bill would be wide open to misuse by trans activists.

“It will be easy to allege that a parent who doesn’t go along with a child’s wish to ‘transition’ and does their best to keep them away from the influence of trans activists could be accused of using emotional or financial pressure to ‘stop them being trans’.”

On parents

“We’ve seen where this ends up. Stonewall praises the conversion therapy law in Victoria, Australia as ‘best practice’. But Victoria’s equality commission recently issued guidance on the ban telling parents to ask their children ‘what pronouns and other language they would like you to use’. The Commission previously told parents that refusing consent to puberty blockers was conversion therapy.”

On psychiatrists

“In other jurisdictions psychiatrists and psychologists are too afraid of being accused of ‘conversion therapy’ to help trans kids.

“The Government says there will be an exemption for ‘legitimate healthcare’ but who will decide what is legitimate? And why do they need an exemption if the offence is only targeted at abuse? They know it is going to be interpreted expansively by trans activists to accuse practioners who don’t embrace their ideology.”

 On ‘loopholes’

“The Government claims there are loopholes in the current law without giving a single real world example of anyone who went to the police and was not able to get redress under existing law. If there were cases, we would know about them.”

 On pre-legislative scrutiny

“You might say that Dr Hilary Cass damns the proposals with feint praise by highlighting the importance of pre-legislative scrutiny. Anyone can see that the process of pre-legislative scrutiny is going to be a rough ride for these half-baked proposals. The Committee will sit for at least 12 weeks and will take evidence from experts. It’s going to be brutal.”

Senior Lawyers Warn of Human Rights Concerns

Independent legal advice from leading King’s Counsel has repeatedly identified significant human rights concerns with previous legislative proposals.

In advice on Baroness Burt’s Private Member’s Bill (PMB), Jason Coppel KC concluded:

“Put shortly, the Bill criminalises expressions of personal conviction even if they are made without expressions of hatred or intolerance, or improper purpose or coercion, or abuse of power.”

He warned that such an approach would run contrary to the consistent case law of the European Court of Human Rights.

Separately, Sarah Vine KC advised that both Alicia Kearns MP’s proposed amendment to the Criminal Justice Bill and Lloyd Russell-Moyle’s Private Member’s Bill would likely fail human rights scrutiny.

She concluded:

“Neither the amendment, nor the PMB as currently drafted will be held by the senior courts to be compatible with the Human Rights Act 1998.”

Questions Raised Over Evidence Base

Concerns have also been raised about the data underpinning calls for a new ban.

The government’s briefing document for the King’s Speech cited survey data from the LGBT advocacy organisation Stonewall in support of an LGBT conversion therapy ban.

Among its most striking findings was the claim that one in five LGBTQ+ people aged 18–34 had experienced “corrective rape” or sexual assault intended to change their sexual orientation or gender identity, while no respondents over 65 reported similar experiences.

Professional pollster and barrister Andrew Hawkins, Chief Executive of Whitestone Insight, has challenged the findings as “simply not credible”, arguing that, if accurate, they would imply conversion practices had increased dramatically despite decades of growing social acceptance of LGBT people.

According to Stonewall’s ‘Culture Wars and Hate’ survey, 10 per cent of LGBTQ+ people in the UK have experienced an exorcism which aimed to change their gender or sexual orientation. According to philosopher and academic John Armstrong, if true, that would mean clerics are conducting one LGBTQ+ exorcism for every two religious wedding ceremonies they perform.

These findings contradict the Government’s National LGBT Survey which found in 2017 that only 2 per cent of LGBT people had undergone conversion practices — a figure already regarded as implausibly high, not least because the survey failed to define ‘conversion therapy’.

Victoria’s Experience Raises Concerns

Australia’s State of Victoria enacted the Change or Suppression (Conversion) Practices Prohibition Act in 2021 and is frequently cited by activists as a model for the UK.

Official guidance accompanying the legislation encouraged parents to ask children what pronouns they wished to use and, at one stage, suggested that discouraging a child from pursuing puberty blockers could constitute unlawful conversion practices. The guidance was later amended following public criticism.

Religious leaders from Anglican, Catholic, Sikh, Hindu and Muslim communities have since warned that the law has created a chilling effect on pastoral care and religious ministry.

ENDS