Draft ‘conversion therapy’ Bill stalls in No10

ITV News is reporting that the Westminster Government’s draft Bill on ‘conversion therapy’ has “reached No10 for consideration, but hasn't progressed any further”.

It has been a year since the Labour Government committed to introducing draft legislation for England and Wales in the King’s Speech.

We’ve been here before. This is not the first time a draft Bill has reached No10 only to run into difficulties. You may recall that in June 2023, after years of delay, we were told that a draft Bill had made it to the then Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s desk and was awaiting sign-off. But that draft Bill never saw the light of day. 

The then Conservative Government cited concerns about the impact a new conversion therapy law could have on legitimate religious guidance, parental support and clinical care as the reasons for the delay. And by the time of the General Election, the Conservatives had pulled back on their previous commitment to legislate, stating in their manifesto: “legislation around conversion practices is a very complex issue, with existing criminal law already offering robust protections… it is right that we take more time before reaching a final judgement on additional legislation in this area”. 

The challenges with producing legislation in this space remain unchanged. According to ITV’s Paul Brand, who is himself a leading proponent of a new law, the Labour Government’s “sticking points” are the same ones its predecessor faced, including: “religious freedoms” and “what role parents should be allowed to play in the case of children who may be questioning their sexuality or gender identity”. These are concerns we and many others have repeatedly raised. Independent legal advice from leading KCs has shone a light on the basic liberties that are at stake. They say a law like this would criminalise people for upholding gender-critical beliefs about sex and traditional Christian views on marriage.   

Mr Brand further reports: “It is also understood the government is carefully considering the recent Supreme Court judgement on the definition of a woman before proceeding with a ban, as well as requesting more evidence of current conversion practices.” 

This is very significant. First, it suggests the Government recognises the legal complexities of drafting a ‘trans-inclusive’ ban in the light of the Supreme Court’s ruling that ‘sex’ in the Equality Act refers to biological sex, not self-declared gender. The Supreme Court judgment clarifies that in many circumstances it is legally necessary to distinguish people by ‘biological sex’. But the activists calling for a new law often describe refusing to accept a person’s self-declared identity as an attempt to ‘suppress’ them which should be criminalised. 

Second, it suggests that even after years of ‘data-gathering’, the evidence base for a new law is lacking. The previous Government carried out research only to conclude that the evidence base was weak. The current Government’s desire for ‘more evidence of current practices’ may also suggest that many of the reports it’s heard relate to historic incidents, not present-day practices. We’ve long said that the existing law is sufficient to tackle genuine verbal and physical abuse. The Government will have to search long and hard to find cases of abuse that ought to be criminalised, but aren’t already.