(4 days, 16 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Cash (Con)
My Lords, it should go without saying that anyone who has been subjected to violence, coercion or abuse because of who they are or whom they love deserves the full protection of the law, but this Bill provides no necessary new protections and risks criminalising people who have done nothing wrong. It is deeply flawed in its drafting, and the evidence on which it is based is at best weak and at worst misleading. I will come back to that.
The Government’s Explanatory Notes say that abuse ranges from beating a person to coercive control, but these are already crimes, and those who are not in a relationship are covered by harassment or common-law assault. The Explanatory Notes also say that the Bill will cover “psychological or emotional pressure”, “economic pressure” and conduct that
“causes serious alarm or distress which has a substantial adverse effect on their usual day-to-day activities”.
This represents an average day for most teenagers when one is parenting them, as I am.
That drafting and those terms would put in question a wife who asks her husband to stop wearing her clothes, or parents who tell their child that they will not fund puberty blockers or cross-sex hormones, or a school that insists on referring to all its pupils as girls and boys. Despite reassurances from the Minister in the other place, the way this Bill is drafted causes all these possible problems. Can the Minister tell the House why the Bill contains no carve-outs for such interactions, and can he explain how the clear conflict with Articles 8 and 10—the right to freedom of expression, and the right to a private and family life—are to be reconciled?
This Bill also hands the power of private prosecution to any organisation that wishes to use it, without requiring the consent of the Attorney-General or the Director of Public Prosecutions. This means that litigious, bad-faith, privately funded campaign groups, such as the Good Law Project, could destroy the lives of those with whom it disagrees by bringing prosecutions. Can the Minister tell the House why there is no requirement in this Bill for prosecutorial consent?
I turn to the evidence base on which the Bill is built. The Minister Olivia Bailey quite rightly stated in the House of Commons that
“it is beholden on us all to ensure that this conversation is based on real facts”.—[Official Report, Commons, 25/6/26; col. 548.]
I am sorry to say that she then relied on the report from Galop, an LGBT+ anti-abuse charity. She claimed that it contains hundreds of case studies demonstrating appalling abuse happening right now. But it contains fewer than 200 identified cases and, of those, only 51 people were specifically seeking help with conversion practices. The rest were already seeking help for domestic abuse, forced marriage, housing or mental health.
I am sorry to say that the Minister also failed to mention a highly significant fact: that Galop ran a helpline on behalf of the Government, funded to the tune of £360,000 over three years. This is a government contractor’s report, therefore, created to justify further funding for that same contractor, and presented as independent evidence. In their report, the Galop researchers themselves admitted that the cases they found align with existing offences including ABH, rape, sexual assault, forced marriage and coercive control. Will the Minister explain why a report produced by a government contractor was presented to Parliament as independent research?
The impact assessment, published yesterday, fares no better. That relies on a Stonewall opinion survey that found that 10% of LGBT people had undergone an exorcism, which—as one mathematician, helpfully verified by the charity Sex Matters, has calculated—would imply 24,600 gay exorcisms a year in this country. That is preposterous and incredible, and yet the Government have used the same survey and flawed methodology for the 75,000 to 93,000 prevalence figure on which the entire financial case for the Bill rests. This is not a small matter, because every government department is required to follow the Treasury’s Green Book rule against cherry-picking data. This document fails that test. Can the Minister please explain why the data has been used so selectively, and what will be done to correct this?
I am afraid it gets worse. It is said that the Bill will generate a benefit of £783 million by assuming, first, that this legislation will prevent 100% of conversion practices occurring and, secondly, that—and very precisely—38% of those saved from conversion practices will also avoid depression. It is curious that the 38% figure came from a US study with no assessment of multifactorial causes of depression and without any peer review. As for preventing 100% of offences, if any law in history had achieved that, we would have no crime at all. The estimated costs of the Bill are then limited to 45 minutes of training per police officer and other workers troubled with implementing it. No other police time, court time—wasted time—is factored in; it is all to be confirmed. One might laugh, if only it were not so gravely serious.
I very much welcome the fact that the Bill is going to a Joint Committee for pre-legislative scrutiny. As we can already see, that scrutiny will be vital. Can the Minister give a firm assurance to this House that the Joint Committee will be given adequate time to take comprehensive evidence from all interested parties? It is worth us remembering that the Scottish Government tried a Bill like this in 2024 and that the public ferociously rejected it—leaving it, as one commentator said, “torn in shreds”. As this Bill goes forward, I very much hope the Minister will ensure the scrutiny it requires.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, before I start, it is worth remembering that in the middle of all this conversion therapy are individuals who are dealing with trauma. It is beholden on all of us to dial down the volume and discuss this much more calmly.
We on these Benches welcome this Statement and the publication of the draft Bill for pre-legislative scrutiny. For eight years, across five Prime Ministers—most of them Conservative—we have heard repeated commitments to end conversion practices. It is conduct that the British Psychological Society and professional bodies have long condemned as unethical, so it is a relief to the one-in-six LGBT individuals who have been offered this unacceptable practice that this Government have finally advanced a draft text to fill any potential gaps in our laws.
However, publication for pre-legislative scrutiny is the commencement, and not the conclusion, of where we will get to. The Liberal Democrats have constantly pushed for an effective, workable ban. We acknowledge the Government’s intent to create a framework that includes protections regarding gender identity, as it is vital that no individuals are subject to genuinely abusive, coercive or harmful practices. Yet we must acknowledge that, for some, it is precisely around the intersection of gender identity, clinical guidance and the family sphere that this legislation will face its most contentious challenges. Striking the right balance here is an incredibly delicate task. We and the Government must get this right to avoid any unintended consequences.
In particular, we must ensure that the threshold of “abusive acts causing serious harm” is drawn with clear legal precision, so that it does not create problems for some parents, for example. It is a fundamental part of loving parenting to guide children as they navigate deep, complex questions about who they are. A parent who in good faith advises a child to take time or who expresses questions about social or medical transition is acting out of care and duty for their child’s protection. This legislation must be drawn carefully enough to guarantee that these supportive conversations within families do not unintentionally cause a crime to have been committed.
Furthermore, we must ensure absolute clarity for teachers, clinicians and therapists so that they can continue to offer objective, non-directive and exploratory support, without the fear of legal reprisal or professional hesitation. The Liberal Democrats have always championed a balance between robust protections from abuse and the defence of civil liberties, free expression and freedom of religion. These boundaries between parental guidance and legitimate healthcare must be balanced, and the work of the Joint Committee will be incredibly welcome in guiding this House in deciding on this legislation. It provides the exact rigorous cross-party forum needed to test these definitions, listen to all viewpoints and build the workable consensus required.
Therefore, I ask the Minister three important questions. First, how will the Government ensure that the draft definitions explicitly and robustly protect the rights of parents to have open and loving conversations with their children without fear of investigation? Secondly, what specific steps are being taken to ensure that the Joint Committee’s scrutiny processes actively engage with all views within the LGBT+ community, family support groups and medical professions to ensure that these boundaries are balanced and appropriate? Finally, what is the anticipated timescale for this pre-legislative scrutiny, so that this House can eventually examine a Bill that is genuinely balanced, fair and effective?
The Deputy Leader of the House of Lords (Lord Collins of Highbury) (Lab)
I thank the noble Lords for their questions. I am acutely aware that there is a consensus across this House. There are no bipartisan divides here. The previous Government were committed to the principle of this legislation, and I welcomed it at the time. So, irrespective of what the noble Baroness says, there is consensus and there is concern. At the end of the day—I agree with the noble Baroness here—we can all agree that no one should face abuse just because of who they are, and our draft Bill is about protecting LGBT+ people from serious physical and psychological harm.
The Galop anti-abuse charity has for many years supported people who have suffered abuse. It is only reflecting the evidence that has been given to it. We must be clear that we are talking about victims of severe abuse here. One case of this abuse is one too many, which is why we are criminalising it. So let us not say that we are getting this out of proportion.
The noble Lord, Lord Scriven, addressed the fact that there are gaps in the existing law that mean we cannot prosecute offences properly with domestic abuse legislation. For example, on coercive control, the legislation is designed for someone who has a relationship with an intimate partner, and it would not capture an offence committed by someone they did not know. There are many other examples of gaps in the law that need to be addressed.
Secondly, the noble Baroness missed an important point: for the first time, we will have a clear definition in law of conversion practice. As with other offences, such as upskirting or non-fatal strangulation, a definition is important to help victims understand what has happened to them and be able to come forward, and for prosecutors to build a case. I am confident that there is a need to legislate in this area.
On the points that both noble Lords raised about parents and legislation, I want to be absolutely clear that this Government and this law will not dictate how people raise their children. Our measures are not intended to infringe on the right of parents to bring up their children in line with their beliefs or core values. We are absolutely clear that the ban must be balanced and targeted so as not to impinge on legitimate healthcare or the range of broader support that those exploring their sexual orientation or gender identity might seek or receive. I also stress that this draft Bill is not about regulating medical care. We understand how important it is that people get the medical support they need, depending on their particular needs and circumstances. This is a matter for the DHSC and the NHS.
I and Minister Bailey in the other place have been clear right from the beginning about the importance of the pre-legislative scrutiny. I very much welcome the fact that the Liaison Committee has agreed to this. It will be scheduled and the usual channels will bring forward calls for participation in that committee fairly shortly. That will hopefully be a great opportunity to reassure people about what are genuine questions and concerns that we should not be afraid to deal with. Many people in this House know and have met people who have experienced the abuse defined in this Bill, so I hope that through the pre-legislative scrutiny we can all come together and return to the consensus that we have had on dealing with this terrible abuse.
Captain of the King’s Bodyguard of the Yeomen of the Guard and Deputy Chief Whip (Baroness Wheeler) (Lab)
My Lords, I gently remind noble Lords that this next session of 20 minutes is for Back-Bench questions only. We will start with the Conservatives and then work our way around.
Baroness Meyer (Con)
My Lords, given that abusive conversion practices are already criminal offences, can the Minister tell the House what conduct the Government intend this Bill to criminalise that is not already unlawful? Can he identify a single case in which a victim was denied justice because existing criminal offences were insufficient, thereby demonstrating the need for this new criminal offence?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I had hoped that the noble Baroness would have listened to my response to the Front Benches. To be clear, we have identified gaps in existing law where we cannot prosecute offences properly. The legislation on domestic abuse and coercive control, for example, is designed for someone who has a relationship with an intimate partner and would not capture the offence committed by someone they did not know. There are many other examples that I think the pre-legislative scrutiny will be able to identify.
We should not forget the point I made about the other offences that we have introduced, where people could have argued that existing law would capture them. Upskirting and non-fatal strangulation are two good examples, because they highlighted offences that were being committed and could have been prosecuted, but the victims were not prepared to identify or could not identify properly that it was an offence. That is an important element of why this Bill is so important.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, can I say how much I welcome this draft Bill and the pre-legislative scrutiny that will take place? His Majesty’s loyal Opposition have to sort out their lines on this, because as late as 2023 their Government confirmed their intention to publish a trans-inclusive draft Bill and set out time for scrutiny.
I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Cash, feels strongly about some of these issues. I had to smile, though, because she is probably an utterly brilliant lawyer, but we are not a court of law. My question to my noble friend the Minister is: would he agree that the next step is to ensure that the draft is carefully considered during pre-legislative scrutiny, so that we can be sure that it will protect all those who are vulnerable to abuse, while not criminalising important exploratory conversations about people’s sexuality or gender identity?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for her question. She is absolutely right, and that is why the pre-legislative scrutiny will be important. We are very clear that the Government will not dictate how people raise their children. Our measures are not intended to infringe parents’ rights to bring up their children in line with their beliefs and values. We are clear that the ban must be, as my noble friend pointed out, targeted and balanced, so as not to impinge on legitimate healthcare workers who may be giving advice.
I was at the Spanish embassy last night and I was very pleased that Spain has adopted similar legislation. It has passed it, and there is similar legislation in other European countries. We can learn from their experience. I also met the ambassador when I was in Copenhagen at the IDAHOT+ conference to talk about the experience in Iceland, which has also adopted similar legislation. So there are plenty of examples where, in pre-legislative scrutiny, we can understand some of these issues and how they have been adapted.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, the Minister says the Bill is intended to criminalise only seriously abusive conduct and not, for example, to impinge on parents’ rights to bring up their children. So why does Clause 1 say that any conduct can be a conversion practice? Is a parent who fails to take a child to private services that offer puberty blockers, or to give them the money to go themselves, guilty of psychological or emotional pressure, given that we know that sometimes teenagers do not like the word “no”?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I cannot be clearer, and I will repeat the point: this is not about the Government dictating to people how to raise their children. The measures in the Bill are not intended to infringe parents’ rights to bring up their children in line with their beliefs or core values. That is the straight answer. We will see how this can be properly tested and scrutinised in the pre-legislative Joint Committee of both Houses. I am absolutely satisfied that we can do that. The draft Bill seeks to target harmful and abusive acts; it will not impinge on any other legislation.
Lord Hayward (Con)
My Lords, I will take the opportunity to repeat what has been said, so that some of my noble friends can recognise that this is a piece of legislation that was to be introduced by a Conservative Government, but they failed to do so. They were repeatedly committed to introducing that legislation. The detail that has been raised by noble Lords this afternoon is a matter for pre-legislative scrutiny, but the principle of the legislation is absolutely clear and correct.
I wear the tie of the Kings Cross Steelers. One of our members was subjected to conversion therapy over a long period of time. How he has remained so balanced and such a nice person I do not know, because I would not have been so balanced if I had been subjected to what he was subjected to. All those, including the Minister, who are going to question aspects of the law in the proposed Bill should have serious conversations with people who have actually been subjected to conversion therapy, rather than reading from a script that has been concocted by people who do not like the Bill, which the Conservatives wanted to introduce in the first place.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord and I appreciate his comments. I meant what I said: there is cross-party consensus and a consensus across this House on stopping this abuse, and he is absolutely right. The United Kingdom has long championed the rights of LGBT+ people at home and abroad, and we proudly uphold one of the most expansive legislative frameworks in the world—and I want to make it clear that that has been delivered by both Labour and Conservative Governments.
However, I also remind the House that this is part of the work to fulfil the commitments set out in the Government’s manifesto on advancing rights and protections to LGBT people. Therefore, as well as this legislation banning conversion practices, noble Lords will know that we have equalised hate-crime laws, established a scheme to address the historical wrongs against LGBT veterans, and improved healthcare services for LGBT individuals. Additionally, we are collaborating with international allies to strengthen our position as a global leader. One of the important things is that we set standards which are important for other countries to see because, with some of the abuse and the legislative changes that we are now seeing, we are facing more countries that have criminalised homosexuality than there were two years ago. So we are going the wrong way, and we need to set a positive tone here.
The Lord Bishop of Leicester
My Lords, I welcome the intentions behind the draft Bill. Indeed, in 2017, the General Synod of the Church of England passed a Motion, in fact by a large majority, which called on the Government to outlaw conversion therapy. However, I want to mention today that I have a number of concerns about the drafting of the Bill, and indeed particular concerns about the lack of clarity on the difference between harmful conversion practices and perfectly acceptable practices of pastoral care and indeed prayer, which is much needed for those who are in difficulty. If this difference is not crystal-clear within the legislation, it will potentially have a very significant negative impact on what I believe is legitimate spiritual care offered by faith groups. So, alongside the vital importance of consulting with LGBT+ people, can the Minister tell me what consultations have taken place with religious groups, and is he open to further conversations about how appropriate spiritual care can be guarded within this legislation?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I thank the right reverend Prelate. The important thing here is that the consultations have been going on for some time, as have the debates on this legislation, as the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, pointed out. However, we remain committed to that level of consultation. The Government have no intention of interfering with people’s right to religious belief and expression. We are not seeking to prevent people living a life that aligns with their religious or cultural values. This is not about telling people that they cannot hold certain views. We are targeting clear instances of abuse here, and we are very clear about sending a message that LGBT+ people deserve to be safe from harm.
An offence occurs only if someone seeks to change a person’s identity through abusive conversion practices that result in harm. A religious leader teaching their faith’s views on LGBT+ matters should not be affected by this draft Bill. The principle that the right reverend Prelate raises with regard to counselling and advice is covered by what I said about parental responsibility and medical advice. These things are absolutely covered in the Bill, but we will address these questions in the pre-legislative scrutiny.
Lord Isaac (Lab)
My Lords, I start by congratulating my noble friend on his appointment as the UK Special Envoy for LGBT+ Rights. It is significant that we need this role to address some of the real lack of progress that we see around the world. I also thank my noble friend and the Minister for Equalities for their important work in bringing forward this Bill. Having grown up gay in the 1980s, I know what it is like to be a young person growing up in a society where people say that you are not normal, and there is no sense of belonging by you and by your family. I am glad that that is no longer the case for very many people but, sadly, that is not universally the case. I know people who are constantly put under pressure to change their identity, not necessarily by their family but by external third parties. As a lawyer, I think that the draft legislation does plug gaps in the criminal law, so my question is: does my noble friend agree that passing this legislation after examining it in the pre-legislative scrutiny phase will help him in his role as the special envoy but also help us regain our place as a leader in LGBT rights across the world?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for emphasising that point, because I think it is really important. I also thank him for his congratulations on my appointment as Special Envoy for LGBT+ Rights. That is an additional task I am extremely willing to take on, because in the current global climate, it is important that we can set out how we and our values in this country are so important—how we have taken the lead and that lead has shown other countries how to behave. We are absolutely clear on that. I do not think we should underestimate the importance of that because, in my recent travels, I attended the conference of the Organization of American States, where I met 200 civil society activists from across Latin America, central America and South America who were talking to me about the sorts of pressures that they were under as LGBT people. It is unbelievable the pressure that they are under, but they were determined to highlight how progress can be made. Progress can be made by seeing the example that this country sets, and we should not underestimate that.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
I appreciate the Minister’s intention but will the Government note that already family lawyers have warned that allegations under this law—not another law—as drafted, with its loose definition of “abusive” and so on, could indeed trigger criminalising parents; for example, if you are a mum who says to a teenager who says that they are born in the wrong body, “No you’re not”. That is a challenge to their identity, and that could even trigger social services investigations. Does the Minister hear those voices? Does he appreciate that in this pre-legislative scrutiny period, the last thing we want is consensus? What we need is scrutiny and proper and robust argument, so that we draft the law that the Minister obviously wants but is not the one that is written down at present.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I think I am inclined to agree with the noble Baroness that scrutiny is about challenge. I have no problem with questions being asked. I have no problem in addressing the issues that have been raised this afternoon. I have attempted to give very clear reassurances, as did my honourable friend in the other place, that the Bill will not interfere with the rights of parents, will not impact on the rights of medical people giving advice, et cetera. We are talking about horrendous abuse. The noble Lord, Lord Hayward, knows what I am talking about, because he has heard people tell others about their experience. Serious harm and abuse, that is what we are talking about. We all know that much of that remains hidden and is not talked about because people are afraid to express it. That is why I think it is really important—I come back to my original point about the gaps in the law—that when people understand that what they have suffered is subject to law, is subject to the possibility of prosecution, I think we will find a lot more people coming forward, and that is good for them and it is good for this country.
Lord Sentamu (CB)
My Lords, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester talked about the General Synod in 2017 debating outlawing conversion therapy. I put my head on the block and supported the motion that it should happen because in my book conversion is to make the person whole but not to oppress them. It is not to put your ideas on to them. Why has “conversion therapy” been taken out and replaced with “conversion practice”? When you read the first clause of the Bill, which defines these conversion practices, you have to reorientate yourself about what is being talked about. Why has “conversion therapy” not been used? We should be committed to the scrutiny of the legislation and all play our part in making sure that it arrives in a better place than it is at the moment.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I thank the noble and right reverend Lord for his question and sort of agree with him. I have tried to be clear that the Bill criminalises abusive, harmful acts that are intended to change a person’s sexual orientation or transgender identity. That is what it is intended to do. Like my honourable friend in the other place, I welcome questions. I am not fearful of challenge. That is why we have put forward a very clear programme of pre-legislative scrutiny. It is an opportunity for these issues to be properly addressed.
Baroness Brown of Silvertown (Lab)
I am delighted that the Minister is here today with this piece of legislation. I thank him for that. When I was in the other place, I had members of my religious communities come to talk to me about their fears regarding conversion practices and therapies being undertaken in our community for vast amounts of money. Can the Minister assure me that we will do all that we can to protect those who are most vulnerable to abuse while not criminalising conversations about people’s sexuality or gender identity? That is what my religious community would want me to ask.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I am glad that my noble friend has asked that question because I cannot be clearer. I might be offended by someone saying to me, “You’re gay, we don’t like it” or “It’s against my religious belief, I don’t want to be associated with you”. I can certainly be offended, but I would not argue that it should be against the law. When we have debated same-sex marriage in this House and the right reverend Prelate’s colleagues have stood up and said that it is wrong, I have never felt offended. Some of the comments in that debate I did feel offended by, but I expressed my views at the time.
We have really positive values in this country. Where is our compassion? Where is our urge to protect people from abuse? That is what this legislation will do. I ask noble Lords not to shake their heads. They do not need to. If noble Lords have questions and concerns, we have a process of pre-legislative scrutiny where these can be addressed. I am not afraid of debate or discussion. I am certainly not afraid of debate. As Minister for Africa, I faced Presidents of countries which were criminalising my sexual orientation. I was not afraid to enter into a debate with them. I am not afraid to enter into a debate with noble Lords opposite.