NOW OPEN: Responding to the Draft Conversion Practices Bill

The bill creates a definition of conversion practices as ‘any conduct’ intended to change someone’s sexual orientation or whether they are, or think they are, transgender. It then seeks to address abusive activity that might be involved in this conduct, and where it causes serious harm or distress it becomes a criminal offence. All three stages use vague terms and lack clarity as to what actions either constitutes a conversion practice, or whether it would be defined as abusive. Activity that a person willing engaged in could later be deemed a criminal offence.

Unlike coercive control or harassment, the proposals do not clearly require a relationship of trust or a pattern of behaviour. Abuse is already illegal under existing laws, although the government argues some gaps remain.

You might wish to comment on:

• Your expressed support banning coercion, threats and abuse.
• What conversations in your church or family might be deemed illegal.
• That the law should target those gaps precisely and not catch everyday conversations.
• The abuse thresholds of serious harm to someone’s physical or mental health, or serious alarm or distress that substantially affects their everyday life need to be made clear and subject to objective tests.
• Further clear guidance is needed to distinguish serious abuse from distress that arises from disagreement.
• Ask that: the bill be clearly focused on any gap in current legislation. It must clearly protect individuals having conversations and supporting their children, and churches advising and supporting members of their congregations.

The draft bill takes a narrow view on what support is legitimate for same-sex attracted individual’s or those questioning their gender identity. It fails to recognise those who seek to faithfully live out their religious beliefs and convictions which often takes primacy over sexual or gender identity. Many adults ask their church for prayer or guidance to live in line with Christian teaching on sexuality and gender. Government ministers have said religious teaching isn’t targeted, but the bill itself doesn’t say so.

Religious identity is a protected in the Equality Act 2010, Article 9 of the Human Rights Act and hate crime legislation. Therefore, the bill should more explicitly ensure people can access the spiritual support they desire.

The bill makes no distinction between children and adults, nor are there protections in the bill for parents or carers seeking to raise children in their religious belief. Parents who wish to help their child understand their identity, sexuality and/or body could be accused of attempting to convert their child away from sexual or gender identity. 

You might wish to comment on:

• What support you’ve given or received: who asked, that it was voluntary, and that it could stop at any time.
• Spiritual resources that have assisted in your faith journey and how if this was criminalised it would impact you or others.
• That force, threats and manipulation are wrong and consent doesn’t excuse them, but freely chosen support shouldn’t later be treated as abuse.
• That preaching and teaching should be explicitly protected.
• Ask for: an express protection in the bill for teaching, preaching, and voluntary prayer and pastoral support, and for whether someone freely chose to engage in a course of action to count when deciding whether conduct was abusive.

It is a very normal part of parenting to make decisions about children’s activities, their healthcare, their money and their choices. Everyday parental behaviour involves using authority and influence, even in situations where this may be contrary to their child’s wishes.

It is also reasonable for parents to seek to raise their children in line with their religious beliefs and convictions. The bill lists “economic pressure” and “psychological pressure” as possible forms of abuse without defining them, and this creates a significant risk that normal parenting, which might raise questions about a child’s views or choices, becomes criminalised.

Family courts could also make protection orders without anyone applying.

You might wish to comment on:

• As a parent, carer or youth worker (without naming children), what you’d do if your child raised questions about identity.
• That declining to fund or support a medical or social transition shouldn’t be treated as abuse.
• Parents trying to support their child to better understand their identity, sexual and religious, and falling foul of a poorly worded bill
• That the law should protect parents acting in good faith.
• Ask for an express safeguard for parents acting in good faith, and tighter limits on protection orders.

There is a risk that this proposed new law could lead to parents or church leaders facing prosecution for living out their beliefs. But the risk isn’t only prosecution. People may stop having difficult conversations because they can’t tell what’s lawful, and this limits the support that parents can provide to their children, and church leaders to members of their congregation.

The draft bill creates the possibility that anyone could bring a private prosecution without the Attorney General’s or Director of Prosecution's consent, and complaints could be made years later about conversations nobody recorded. The proposals create organisational liability so church leaders and trustees could be prosecuted on the basis of what others say in their churches.

You might wish to comment on:

• Practical examples of volunteers or leaders who would hesitate to offer support.
• That prosecutions should need Attorney General or Director of Public Prosecutions' consent to prevent a wider chilling effect.
• That official guidance with clear examples should be published before the law takes effect.
• Ask for the bill to have much stronger safeguards and a much higher threshold for organisational responsibly, official guidance with clear examples of what is specifically in scope of the new law and what is not affected should be published before the law takes effect.

The bill has a specific exemption for healthcare services, but no equivalent express protection for prayer and pastoral care, even though people may seek help and support in both settings. The protection for healthcare includes counselling, but would appear not to cover church, or other faith-based, pastoral support.

It is important to understand why these activities are treated differently and whether the healthcare exemption is sufficiently clear.

You might wish to comment on:

• The lack of clarity around healthcare, counselling and pastoral support and what is included under the exemption.
• Ensuring that people can seek voluntary, exploratory support without the activity being treated as abusive simply because it involves questions about sexuality or gender identity.
• The need for the bill to protect healthcare professionals, parents and others supporting young people who have questions about their identity, including where conversations involve difficult or challenging issues.
• Whether the government’s proposed standard is clear enough for providers who do not belong to a regulated healthcare profession, and whether it provides a chilling effect on exploratory therapies.
• Ask for clarification on whether the healthcare exemption and for it to explicitly protect non-coercive pastoral support, while ensuring that genuinely abusive conduct remains unlawful.