Conversion Therapy Prohibition (Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity) Bill [HL]

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean Excerpts

Friday 9th February 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, whom I have very considerable respect for. However, in nearly 40 years in Parliament, I have never seen a more badly drafted or dangerous piece of legislation. It consists of two clauses. The noble Baroness said that the key issue is where you draw the line. She is absolutely right about that. Unfortunately, the Bill does not draw the line. Clause 1(2) says:

“Conversion therapy is any practice”.


What does “any practice” mean? How is that defined? Does “any practice” include a parent not supporting a child’s decision to dress as a member of the opposite sex? The noble Baroness shakes her head, but where does the Bill say that? In her speech, she said there were all kinds of understandings of provisions, but it is not there in the Bill, and she is asking us to support it. The Bill refers to:

“any practice aimed at a person or group”—

so that includes children? Would parents saying to their children, “You must not take puberty blockers” find themselves on the wrong side of the law? This is an extraordinary suggestion. Would trying to prevent surgery or medical interventions which would be irreversible be “any practice”? The language of the Bill says,

“any practice aimed at a person”—

ie, children—

“or group of people which demonstrates an assumption”.

Are we now going to criminalise people for thinking things? That is what “demonstrates an assumption” means. The Bill goes on:

“that any sexual orientation or gender identity is inherently preferable to another, and which has the intended purpose of attempting to … change a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity”.

What exactly is gender identity? That is not included in the Bill. I notice that the Scottish Government currently have a consultation document out, in which they attempt to define gender identity. Their definition is:

“an individual’s personal sense of being or belonging to a particular gender or genders, or of not having a gender”.

That is the definition, and we are expected to criminalise people on the basis of something which is so fluid and not defined in the Bill.

The noble Baroness said that this is not about attacking free speech. Of course it is an attack on free speech if parents do not feel they can give guidance to their children. It is an absolute basic duty of parents to give guidance to their children and to prevent them from suffering any harm. The Bill criminalises advice given in good faith.

I noticed that the Bill also applies to Scotland. The Scottish Government have a consultation document out at the moment. In this Bill, the penalty for telling your child not to take puberty blockers, or whatever they are, is

“a fine not exceeding level 5”—

that is, an unlimited fine. I suppose we should be grateful for that, because in Scotland they are proposing seven years in prison. The world has gone mad.

In this House, we normally introduce legislation to fix a problem, not to create new ones. This Bill undermines the family and attacks free speech, freedom of thought and even religious belief. It is a dangerous, crude piece of legislation in a hugely complex and controversial area that is not suited to private legislation. It has all the characteristics of something written on the back of beer mat after an unruly discussion in a pub. I very much oppose it. I know we have a convention in this House not to vote against Second Readings, but were we to divide on it, I would certainly kill it now, for it is a dangerous thing that brings great discredit to this House and Parliament as a whole.