Scot Govt questioned over regular meetings with LGBTQ+ groups on ‘conversion therapy’

Let Us Pray has written to the Scottish Equalities Minister over what appears to be a heavily one-sided approach to engagement on plans for a ban on so-called conversion therapy (letter below).

The letter comes after Simita Kumar MSP was questioned by Green MSP Holly Bruce at a recent Holyrood Equalities Committee session about the Westminster Government’s draft Conversion Practices Bill, which is soon to begin pre-legislative scrutiny.

Ms Kumar told the Committee she has “been engaging with LGBTQI+ stakeholders” about it, and that “[her] officials engage with LGBTQI stakeholders on a very regular basis” (emphasis added).

While the Westminster draft Bill currently applies only to England and Wales, the Scottish Government is in talks with its UK counterparts about extending the legislation to Scotland.

Let Us Pray’s Joanna Timm commented: “When Holyrood’s Equalities Committee took evidence in 2021, eight of the nine evidence sessions heard from groups calling for a broad conversion therapy ban. Those of us with concerns were denied equivalent opportunities. Hearing the Equalities Minister talk about her department’s regular engagement with LGBTQI groups on this issue feels uncomfortably familiar.

“Gay and trans people are already protected under Scots law. A conversion therapy ban could see innocent parents and pastors reported to the police for expressing ordinary views on sex and gender that LGBTQI groups consider objectionable. But the Minister may not be aware of this because she’s only meeting with people who already agree with her policy.”

Background

The 2026-2031 Programme for Government reiterates the Scottish Government’s commitment to work with the UK Government on a legislative ban applying to Scotland, while making clear that, should the UK Government fail to deliver, it “will not hesitate to bring forward Scottish legislation”.

The SNP’s decision to invite Westminster to legislate for Scotland in a devolved area of law is telling. When the Scottish Government published its proposals for a conversion practices law at the beginning of 2024, they were met with widespread fury. Parents were outraged at the prospect of being criminalised for refusing to consent to their teenage children taking puberty blockers, and church leaders warned that they could face jail time for expressing Christian sexual ethics in prayer and pastoral conversation. By that September, the Scottish Government had withdrawn its plans and handed responsibility for a ban to Westminster.

The Scottish Government admitted to LGBT group Out for Independence that the reason for the U-turn was to ensure they “don’t end up facing judicial review” (The Christian Institute had threatened judicial review just months earlier).

Letter

Dear Ms Kumar,

Last Thursday, while appearing before the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee, you were asked about the Scottish Government’s plans to outlaw ‘conversion practices’.

You told the Committee that you have “been engaging with LGBTQI+ stakeholders” about it, and that “[your] officials engage with LGBTQI stakeholders on a very regular basis” (emphasis added).

After repeated attempts to meet with you and your predecessor Kaukab Stewart, we have been told again that you cannot meet with us. (Although today we have, at least, been offered a meeting with officials.) However, we remain concerned by what appears to be a heavily one-sided approach to engagement. One short online meeting every couple of years with your officials is nothing like the “very regular” engagement you state you are having with LGBTQI groups.

We would therefore like to renew our request to speak with you in person about our well-founded concerns over introducing new legislation in this area.

Aidan O’Neill KC, in written legal advice on the Scottish Government’s 2024 proposals, concluded that Scotland already has comprehensive laws against abuse, and warned that the proposals could trample no fewer than four of the rights guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights.

Mr O’Neill warned that the proposals could criminalise gender-critical groups, religious leaders and medical professionals for refusing to affirm an individual’s declared LGBTQ+ identity. He particularly highlights the risk of criminalising “parents who, lovingly and in good faith and in accordance with their own best judgment and conscience, seek to caution and direct their children against acting on any stated intention to embark on ‘gender affirmatory’/‘gender transition’ treatment”.

The Scottish Government’s own consultation found that a majority of respondents did not support turning loving parents into criminals. Of the 5,717 responses, 52% opposed a new law covering “acts or courses of behaviour intended to ‘suppress’ another person’s sexual orientation or gender identity”.

We look forward to hearing from you.