Draft Conversion Practices Bill

Debate between Lord Collins of Highbury and Lord Hayward

Wednesday 1st July 2026 Lords Chamber

[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.

Equality Act 2010: Section 106

Debate between Lord Collins of Highbury and Lord Hayward

Tuesday 10th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

The noble Baroness makes a really important point. Sadly, many people out there seek to stop the widest possible engagement in our political process. We have seen that through harassment and intimidation of voters, electoral staff and campaigners, and particularly women Members of Parliament, and what we have seen has been shocking. That intimidation, which is not just restricted to women, has a huge impact on the willingness of people to seek public office. That is why we are taking specific action, making plans to extend the disqualification order to protect electoral staff, empowering courts to hand out tougher sentences to people who abuse those who uphold our democratic traditions, and removing the requirements for candidates’ home addresses to be published. It is a sad indictment of where we are, but those are important protections for our political process.

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

My Lords, given the failure of the Labour Party to find any female leader as yet—a full party leader; my apologies to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith—will the requirements of this section apply when the Labour Party next seeks a new leader?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I think the noble Lord knows full well that we should not judge our ability for representation on one person. He referred to my noble friend the Leader of this House, and I am a protected characteristic as a gay Deputy Leader of this House. It is important to see Section 106 not in terms of the headlines but in terms of the whole of our political activity and the people involved in it. Councillors at a local level are just as important as Members of this House.