Conversion therapy consultation supporter guide

The Conversion Practices Bill:

What it means for children and parents

In short
On 25 June 2026 the Government published its draft Conversion Practices Bill.

It is presented as a measure to protect children. It would do the opposite. Parliament should create new criminal offences as a last resort - when there is evidence of a real harm that the existing law cannot reach. 

Not in the absence of any evidence, and not against the evidence that already exists. This Bill fails on both counts. No case has been made that anything it targets is beyond the reach of existing law, and the evidence it brushes aside points the other way. What it would actually criminalise is caution: a parent or a clinician who declines to rush a distressed child towards a new identity, judged after the event on terms so vague that the threat alone does the damage. This briefing sets out what the Bill does, why no case has been made for it, and how you can respond while there is still time.

Five things every parent and supporter should know

1. No case has been made for it. Genuine abuse of a child- coercion, threats, violence, controlling or coercive behaviour, the sexual offences- is already criminal. The Government's own 2021 consultation admitted that "conversion therapy amounting to offences of physical or sexual violence is already illegal in this country". It asserts that "gaps" remain, but it has not produced one concrete case the existing law cannot already reach.

2. It criminalises caution, on vague terms. The offence catches conduct intended to cause a child "to have or not to have ... a transgender identity" (clause 1(2)), so a parent who declines to affirm is within its definition. Whether that becomes a crime is then left to a court, after the event: "abusive" is nowhere defined, and the offence turns on "serious alarm or distress" (clause 2). Nobody can know in advance where the line falls. That uncertainty is the point.

3. The civil orders need no crime at all. A Conversion Practice Protection Order can be made against a parent on conduct merely "likely to cause" harm- no conviction, no offence proved- without notice, and by a family court of its own motion. Breach is itself a criminal offence.

4. There is no exemption for parents. The Minister for Equalities confirmed it in the Commons on 25 June: "It is not the case that there are exemptions for parents...and I do not think that it is appropriate for such an exemption to be in place in this legislation."

5. It legislates against the evidence. Even the Cass Review - which we have criticised as far too cautious, and which remains contested - was forced to admit this is "an area of remarkably weak evidence". A criminal law built on that is the opposite of legislating on evidence.

What the Bill actually does

The offence. It is an offence to carry out an "abusive conversion practice" that causes a person serious harm to physical or mental health, or "serious alarm or distress ... which has a substantial adverse effect on their usual day-to-day activities". On conviction on indictment, it carries up to five years in prison.

The definition. A "conversion practice" is any conduct carried out towards a person "with the intention of" causing them to have or not to have a transgender identity (or sexual orientation). It runs in both directions: encouraging a child to accept their birth sex is treated identically to encouraging transition.

What counts as "abusive". The Bill does not define it. It leaves the question to a court after the event, against a non-exhaustive list of factors: words or behaviour of a sexual nature; violent or threatening words or behaviour; controlling or coercive words or behaviour; economic pressure; and "psychological or emotional pressure". Whether a parent's firm but loving refusal to affirm amounts to "psychological or emotional pressure" is left entirely to a court, on the facts, afterwards. What is carved out-and what is not. There is one exclusion, for registered health care, and even that bites only where a clinician "falls far below the standards reasonably expected" of them-and in this field the "standard reasonably expected" is itself fiercely disputed.

There is no protection at all for parents, or for ordinary family life.

The Protection Orders. The Bill creates a civil Conversion Practice Protection Order. It can be made before any offence, on conduct merely "likely to cause" harm; sought by the individual, the police or a local authority, or by anyone else with the court's leave; on a without-notice basis; and of a family court's own motion in existing proceedings. Breach is itself a criminal offence. This is how the Bill reaches a parent without ever proving a crime.

Who is caught. Individuals, including parents; and companies, charities and unincorporated bodies, with personal liability falling on directors and on members of a charity's governing body who authorise, permit, or fail to prevent the offence. The Bill extends to England and Wales. No case has been made.

 The test for a new criminal offence is necessity: a real harm that the existing law cannot reach. The Government has not met it. Every genuinely abusive act it invokes is already a crime. Coercion and controlling behaviour, threats, violence, sexual offences- all are covered by existing law, and the Government's own 2021 consultation said as much.

It asserts that "gaps" remain, but in three documents- the consultation, the Explanatory Notes, and the Minister's statement to the House - it has not produced one concrete case of conduct beyond the reach of the existing law. A criminal offence carrying five years in prison cannot rest on an unevidenced assertion that a gap exists. Legislating against the evidence If a case were to be made, it would have to be made on evidence. The evidence runs the other way. Even the Cass Review - the Government's own review, which we regard as too cautious and which remains contested - concluded that this is "an area of remarkably weak evidence" and that "we have no good evidence on the long-term outcomes of interventions to manage gender-related distress".

The University of York's systematic reviews that informed it found only one of fifty studies on puberty blockers to be of high quality. So, the model this Bill would entrench is the one the Government's own review could not support. To criminalise caution, in those circumstances, is to put the criminal law on the wrong side of the evidence.

Why this Bill should not proceed We legislate as a last resort: on evidence of a problem the existing law cannot reach. This Bill is unnecessary- no such case has been made-and it is dangerous- vague, pre-emptive, and chilling to the careful parenting and cautious clinical judgement that protect children. It cannot be put right by amendment, because the objection is not to its wording but to its absence of any justification. It should be withdrawn.

How to make your voice heard The Bill has been published in draft for pre-legislative scrutiny; the Government expects this to be carried out by a joint committee of both Houses (its Explanatory Notes, paragraph 15). No committee has yet been appointed and no call for evidence has yet opened.

This is the moment of greatest opportunity.

1. Write to your MP now. Ask them to oppose the Bill and to press the Government to withdraw it, on the ground that no case has been made for a new criminal law. You can write in a few minutes at https://www.writetothem.com

2. Submit written evidence when the call opens. Individuals and organisations can make short written submissions to the committee. A submission that asks the simple question what can this Bill reach that existing law cannot? - carries real weight.

We will provide a fuller guide when the call is published.

3. Share this briefing with anyone who cares about children's welfare and about how we make law.

Model letter to your MP

Write to them finds your MP from your postcode. A letter in your own words counts for far more than a copied one use the menu of points below to make it yours.

Dear [MP's name], I am writing as your constituent about the Government's draft Conversion Practices Bill. I share the view that no child should be subjected to coercion or abuse. But that conduct is already criminal under existing law assault, harassment, controlling or coercive behaviour, the sexual offences and the Government's own 2021 consultation acknowledged as much. My concern is that the Government has not produced a single case of genuine abuse that the existing law cannot already reach. We should not create a new criminal offence, carrying five years in prison, in the absence of any evidence that one is needed. Nor is the Bill safe in its drafting. Its definition catches a parent who declines simply to affirm; "abusive" is left undefined; and the civil protection orders can be made before any offence is proved. The Minister for Equalities confirmed on 25 June that there is to be no exemption for parents. I would be grateful if you would oppose this Bill and press the Government to withdraw it, and to show if it intends to proceed exactly what conduct this Bill would reach that the existing law cannot.

Yours sincerely, [Your name and address]

A menu of points

To make your letter your own pick two or three that matter most to you.

·       On the absence of a case Genuine abuse of a child is already a crime; the Government has produced no case that existing law cannot reach.

·       A new offence carrying five years in prison should not be created on an unevidenced assertion of a "gap".

·       On the danger in the drafting The Bill catches a parent who declines to affirm; "abusive" is undefined and judged by a court after the event.

·       The civil protection orders can come between a parent and a child before any offence is proved.

·       On the evidence Even the Government's own Cass Review- which we regard as too cautious- found the evidence "remarkably weak".

·       A criminal law that entrenches a model the evidence cannot support is legislating against the evidence.

·       What to avoid If we are to be heard, we must argue well, and precisely.

·        Lead with the absence of a case. The strongest question is the simplest: what can this Bill reach that existing law cannot? Keep asking it.

·       Be precise. Do not say a parent will be jailed for questioning a child. Say that the Bill's vague definition and its pre-emptive civil orders place careful parents and cautious clinicians under threat, on terms no one can know in advance- and that no case has been made for any of it. Precision is what makes us credible.

·       Never make it about any group of people. This is not about hostility to anyone. No child should face abuse. Our objection is to an unnecessary and unevidenced criminal law that chills protective parenting while adding nothing for genuine victims.

About this briefing

This briefing is published by the Family Education Trust, a registered charity (number 1070500, 7 Bell Yard, London WC2A 2JR) which researches the causes and consequences of family breakdown and promotes the welfare of children in stable families, and was prepared by the Trust's Chair, Dr Tony Rucinski. You are welcome to share it.

Registered charity 1070500 6