The UK conversion-practices ban and exploratory therapy

Why have successive UK governments struggled to draft a conversion-practices ban, and what would it mean for therapists?

Successive UK governments have struggled to legislate because there is broad agreement on one proposition but sharp disagreement on another. Few dispute that violence, threats, coercion, forced confinement, assault, sexual abuse, forced marriage, exorcism involving abuse, or attempts to compel a person to renounce same-sex attraction should be prohibited. Much of that conduct is already criminal under existing law. The difficult question is whether, and how, criminal law should regulate conversations, counselling, prayer, family pressure and therapeutic work concerning sexuality or gender iden

Background

Successive UK governments have struggled to legislate because there is broad agreement on one proposition but sharp disagreement on another. Few dispute that violence, threats, coercion, forced confinement, assault, sexual abuse, forced marriage, exorcism involving abuse, or attempts to compel a person to renounce same-sex attraction should be prohibited. Much of that conduct is already criminal under existing law. The difficult question is whether, and how, criminal law should regulate conversations, counselling, prayer, family pressure and therapeutic work concerning sexuality or gender identity.

The commitment began with the 2018 LGBT Action Plan, which relied in part on the National LGBT Survey. The Government said that 2% of respondents had undergone conversion therapy and a further 5% had been offered it. In 2021, it commissioned and published evidence reviews, then consulted on a proposed ban. The consultation exposed the central drafting problem: a law wide enough to reach coercive talking practices could also be alleged to cover legitimate exploratory therapy, parental conversations, religious discussion, or clinical caution about medical transition.

The issue became more difficult once “gender identity” was included alongside sexual orientation. Same-sex attraction is an orientation, not a diagnosis or treatment pathway. Gender-related distress, by contrast, may arise alongside autism, mental-health difficulties, trauma, family circumstances, sexuality, body image and other factors. The Cass Review (2024), commissioned by NHS England after concerns about the Tavistock’s Gender Identity Development Service, recommended a more cautious, holistic and individualised clinical model for children and young people.

The relevant legal and policy record has also shifted. In Bell v Tavistock, the High Court’s 2020 declaration concerning under-16s’ capacity to consent to puberty blockers was overturned by the Court of Appeal in September 2021, which held that the declaration should not have been made. The case did not create a general legal right to puberty blockers or settle clinical standards. Later, NHS England adopted a new service model following Cass, including thorough assessment and standard evidence-based psychological support. The Supreme Court’s judgment in For Women Scotland v Scottish Ministers in April 2025 addressed the meaning of sex, man and woman in the Equality Act 2010; it did not decide the meaning of “transgender identity” in a conversion-practices Bill.

What the documents say

The draft Bill

The draft Conversion Practices Bill, published on 25 June 2026, is not yet an Act of Parliament. It has been issued for pre-legislative scrutiny, intended to be undertaken by a Joint Committee of both Houses. It would create an offence where a person carries out an “abusive conversion practice” causing serious physical or mental harm, or serious alarm or distress that substantially adversely affects ordinary day-to-day activities (Draft Conversion Practices Bill, 2026).

A conversion practice is defined very broadly as conduct intended to cause an individual to have or not have, or believe that they have or do not have, a sexual orientation or transgender identity. The definition includes a “particular” orientation or identity. The Bill then requires two further elements for criminal liability: the conduct must amount to abuse, assessed on all the circumstances, and it must meet the serious-harm threshold. The Bill identifies sexual, violent, threatening, controlling, coercive, economic, psychological and emotional pressure as matters relevant to whether conduct is abusive.

The Government says the measure fills gaps in existing criminal law, particularly for non-violent conduct outside intimate relationships or conduct that does not meet the elements of harassment, communications or coercive-control offences (Explanatory Notes, 2026). It also proposes civil conversion practice protection orders, potentially available before criminal abuse occurs, and an offence of encouraging or assisting an abusive conversion practice abroad.

The healthcare provision

For therapists, the most important wording is clause 1(3). Conduct undertaken in the course of providing healthcare services is not a conversion practice unless the person acts “far below” the standards reasonably expected of someone in that position. The Explanatory Notes say healthcare services encompass public and private provision, regulated and unregulated professionals, and people working in healthcare settings (Explanatory Notes, 2026).

This is a substantial protection for NHS clinicians and healthcare-based practitioners. However, it is not a simple statutory declaration that all exploratory therapy is protected. The protection depends on whether the work is provided “in the course of” healthcare services and whether the practitioner’s conduct remains within reasonably expected standards. A private counsellor, pastoral worker, youth worker, teacher or independent psychotherapist may therefore need more clarity than the Bill currently supplies.

Evidence and policy context

The Government’s 2026 impact assessment acknowledges important limitations. It says the evidence base is dominated by international studies, that research on practices relating to transgender identity is newer, and that prevalence evidence is constrained by retrospective self-reporting, self-selected samples, different definitions and a lack of longitudinal data. Its estimated annual range of 75,000 to 93,000 people in England and Wales is explicitly based on assumptions and selected survey measures, rather than a robust representative estimate of criminally actionable conduct (Draft Final Stage Impact Assessment, 2026).

That candour matters. The evidence that abusive and coercive interventions can cause harm is a strong reason to maintain effective safeguards. It does not by itself answer the legal question of where therapeutic exploration ends and a prohibited attempt to direct a person towards, or away from, an identity begins.

The positions

Supporters of a trans-inclusive ban argue that existing offences do not adequately capture coercive psychological practices, especially where the alleged perpetrator is a family member, community figure or religious leader rather than an intimate partner. They argue that victims need a clear name for the wrong done to them, a route to protection orders, and a criminal law that recognises serious non-physical abuse. The Government’s stated position is that the Bill targets abuse, not belief, ordinary parenting or legitimate healthcare (Hansard, 25 June 2026).

Critics do not generally defend coercion or violence. Their concern is that a definition focused on an alleged intention to make someone have, not have, believe, or cease believing in a transgender identity can reach ordinary clinical work. A therapist may explore whether a distressed young person’s identification is stable, whether it is connected to sexuality, trauma or social influence, whether social transition is beneficial, or whether medical intervention should be delayed. Such questions may be experienced as unwelcome, but they are not necessarily abusive.

Professional concerns are heightened by the Cass Review and NHS England’s subsequent policy. NHS England now requires thorough assessment and an individualised care plan for young people referred to specialist gender services, including assessment of mental health and neurodevelopmental conditions, and use of standard evidence-based psychological treatment for associated distress and co-occurring conditions (NHS England, 2024). A conversion-practices law should not place non-medical therapists under greater practical pressure to affirm than NHS clinicians are under.

Interpretation

Beyond Gender’s reading is that the repeated failure to legislate is not evidence that Parliament tolerates abuse. It is evidence that the original political slogan, “ban conversion therapy”, concealed a difficult boundary problem. A criminal prohibition needs legal precision, fair warning, evidential workability and compatibility with family life, religious liberty, freedom of expression and clinical judgment. Those requirements become especially important when the proposed protected object is an internal and contested concept of identity rather than an observable act.

The 2026 draft Bill is more carefully limited than earlier proposals because it requires intention, abuse and serious harm. Those are meaningful safeguards. Yet the primary definition remains expansive, and the healthcare carve-out may produce an uneven result. An NHS clinician conducting careful exploration appears well protected; an independent therapist, particularly one outside a conventional healthcare setting, may reasonably ask whether the same conversation could invite complaint, investigation or regulatory risk.

In this site’s view, legislation should draw a bright line against coercion, threats, violence, isolation, deprivation, financial pressure and degrading treatment. It should equally state, in clear terms, that open-ended therapeutic exploration is lawful: including exploration of sex, sexuality, puberty, autism, trauma, mental health, family context, social transition, detransition and the possibility that a child’s stated identity may change. The law should protect gay and lesbian children from being steered towards a transgender identity as much as it protects gender-distressed children from being pressured in any other direction.

Open questions

Will the Joint Committee recommend an express statutory protection for exploratory therapy, rather than relying principally on a healthcare exemption and prosecutorial thresholds? Will it define who counts as a healthcare provider, and explain the position of counsellors, psychotherapists, charities and pastoral workers outside the NHS?

Will Parliament distinguish clearly between conduct aimed at stopping abuse and conduct that merely questions an asserted identity? How will police, local authorities, family courts, regulators and schools distinguish a safeguarding concern from an allegation of conversion practice? These questions matter particularly where parents disagree with a child’s proposed social transition.

Finally, will the Government publish a clearer account of the evidential gap that the new offence is intended to fill, including examples of serious harmful conduct that cannot realistically be prosecuted under existing law? A durable law requires more than moral consensus. It requires definitions that protect victims of genuine abuse without making careful, ethical exploration professionally hazardous.

On the UK timeline

Episodes on this subject

"Conversion therapy appears differently now"

He Helped Ban Conversion Therapy. Now He Regrets It

The Therapists Breaking Ranks on Gender Ideology | Thoughtful Therapists (#47)