Historical Forced Adoption

Baroness Cash Excerpts

Tuesday 7th July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Cash (Con)]

My Lords, I sincerely thank the Lord Privy Seal for repeating this Statement and taking the time to read it out today, as the Prime Minister did in the House of Commons. We on these Benches associate ourselves fully and without reservation with the apology that the Statement contains.

The scale and pain of the harm are impossible to comprehend. Some 185,000 children were taken between 1949 and 1976—perhaps more; the Prime Minister fears that the records understate the number—from mothers who were coerced, bullied or misled into giving them up. Imagine the brutality of mothers being stitched without anaesthetic as a punishment and being told that they deserved it. Think of the nearly 200,000 children across our nation who grew up believing that they were unwanted. Some who have given evidence, such as Debbie Iromlou, were raised with racist attitudes towards their own family of origin. Grief has followed all of them through a lifetime of everyday cruelties. The Prime Minister spoke of mothers who still dread the simplest question: “Do you have children?”

The damage is irreparable. That there has been an apology at all is down to the mothers and the adopted children who have campaigned tirelessly over decades to raise awareness of the scandal. I pay tribute to their courage, particularly that of the founder of the Movement for an Adoption Apology, Veronica Smith. Sadly, she died before she could hear the words that she fought 16 years for. I also pay tribute to those who repeatedly had to give evidence and relive their trauma before the Joint Committee on Human Rights and the Education Committee. Their testimony was among the most harrowing that this Parliament has ever heard.

The Prime Minister was candid that an apology is not enough, and I agree. The measures that he announced, however, are genuinely welcomed—the records platform, the consultation on retaining records for 100 years and the undertaking to help locate the graves of babies who died in the homes. It is so awful to say—and it is so little, so late. As the surviving mothers are now in their 70s, 80s and 90s, time is of the essence. We need to know that these steps will happen promptly.

The Lord Privy Seal will understand that I have some questions about these matters. On the records platform, the Prime Minister said in answer to questions that it would happen as quickly as possible. Can the Lord Privy Seal give the House a meaningful timeline? Data helps nobody who does not know that it exists. Some of those affected have never yet spoken, from shame, about what happened to them. Can the Lord Privy Seal help the House with how the Government will communicate that this information may be available to them? Many babies were sent to homes across our internal borders between England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. How will information be tracked between the devolved nations and where many records sit at the moment—and how will they be communicated?

On support for victims, there is to be funding of £4 million over three years, which we welcome. But the need will be lifelong. The Education Committee recommended a dedicated mental health support pathway, while the package offers guidance for clinicians instead. Why was that recommendation adopted instead of the mental health support pathway? What will survivors be offered in its place? On redress, the Prime Minister told the other place that the Government are looking at redress schemes. These too we would welcome. Can the Lord Privy Seal expand on what is meant by that, what is being considered and when any appraisal will be published?

We are, yet again, shamed as a nation. Giving evidence to the Education Committee in March, Ann Lloyd Keen, already quoted by the Prime Minister, asked a question of her own:

“Do you know why we have to keep repeating our evidence?”


The Prime Minister, when answering questions on his Statement, identified the reason. He said:

“We got this wrong as a state. So often we circle the wagons and protect the decision makers and wrongdoers instead of asking ourselves the question, ‘Where is the injustice here, and how do we put it right?’ That has to change, because it has happened in this case and others”.—[Official Report, Commons, 2/7/26; col. 1052.]


All those words are the Prime Minister’s, and I agree with them wholeheartedly.

The Prime Minister is right. This House knows only too well the scandals: infected blood, where the risks were known from the 1940s; the Post Office, which prosecuted 1,000 innocent people; the grooming gangs, where 16 years of recommendations were unactioned; and Nottingham, where a statutory duty of candour has bound every NHS trust since 2014, yet here we are again with the Ockenden review finding 10 days ago that 520 mothers and babies suffered potentially avoidable harm, 162 died and nearly half the trust’s senior directors simply refused to engage. It seems, as with this terrible scandal, that codes, duties and even laws are not enough to stop this institutional rot. Even with the Public Office (Accountability) Bill, I fear that deeper cultural change is needed.

I ask the Lord Privy Seal, in a collaborative and supportive spirit: what are the Government going to do to change the culture, attitudes and behaviours of our public sector employees so that they start by asking the Prime Minister’s question, “How do we put this right?”, instead of, “How do we protect the decision-makers or the wrongdoers?” Nothing that the state does now can ever right the profound wrongs done to these mothers, their children and their families. But we can and we must deliver the support that they still need. I look forward to Lord Privy Seal’s response.

[Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)]

My Lords, I too thank the Lord Privy Seal for repeating the Statement. It was particularly moving to hear the examples of the parents and the mothers. It was a difficult thing to hear, particularly those young mums who were basically stitched back together again without any help or support—it is really moving. It is a dark period in our nation’s history that we have to acknowledge.

We on these Benches warmly welcome the Government’s apology. It is long overdue. For decades, thousands of mothers, children and families have lived with the pain of what happened. Women were made to feel ashamed simply because they had children outside of marriage. Many were put under enormous pressure, as we heard earlier, to give up the babies they loved and wanted to keep. At a time when they needed compassion and support the most, too many instead faced judgment, coercion and silence. The state actually helped create the conditions in which this happened, and it is right that this has finally now been recognised.

I also want to pay tribute to the mothers, adoptees and campaigners who never gave up and fought for years to have their voices heard and their experiences acknowledged. They have shown remarkable courage in speaking up about events that caused them lifelong grief and trauma. Sadly, some of them are no longer with us. However, they have long campaigned for this, and it is a reminder of how long justice can sometimes take, and that an apology matters. It is an important step, and it will mean a great deal for many people, but it cannot be the end of the story.

It must be followed by practical actions that help those still living with the consequences of those historical wrongs. We welcome the measures announced, including improvements to access to adoption records and better support from the NHS. Those are positive steps, and we hope they will make a real difference to people who have spent decades searching for answers and trying to reconnect with their families.

I have some questions for the Lord Privy Seal. First, on mental health support, many of the people affected have lived with the trauma for more than 50 years. Some have struggled with anxiety, depression and unresolved grief throughout their adult life. Others may now feel able to come forward only because the Government have finally acknowledged what happened to them. Can the Lord Privy Seal tell the House what dedicated funding will be available for specialist trauma-informed mental health support? Just as importantly, how will the Government ensure that survivors can access that support wherever they live, rather than being left to rely upon overstretched local health services?

Secondly, on the adoption records, we know that many mothers and adoptees still face long delays and unnecessary barriers when trying to find information about their families. Records remain scattered across local authorities, charities and voluntary organisations, many of which are already under significant pressure. Can the Lord Privy Seal say a bit more about the Government’s ambitions for a properly funded, centralised digital system that will bring records together, making it easier and more consistent for families to access information and where possible reconnect?

Finally, the Joint Committee on Human Rights encouraged the Government to consider the approach taken by other countries, including Ireland and Australia, where financial redress has been introduced. We recognise that decisions on compensation are ultimately for the Government. However, can the Lord Privy Seal confirm that Ministers will continue to examine the experiences of those countries carefully and keep the question of financial redress under active consideration?

This was a deeply shameful chapter in our history. It affected not only mothers but children, fathers, grandfathers and whole families whose lives have changed for ever. Although we cannot undo the suffering that was caused, we can ensure that those affected are treated with the dignity, compassion and respect they should always have received. The Government’s apology is an important milestone; this should also be the beginning of a wider commitment to justice. Survivors deserve support, straightforward access to the truth about their own lives and confidence that the Government will continue to work with them in the years ahead. This is how we can begin to rebuild trust and ensure that this painful chapter is never forgotten and never repeated.

Draft Conversion Practices Bill

Baroness Cash Excerpts

Wednesday 1st July 2026 Lords Chamber

[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?