The Government's proposed Conversion Practices Bill is facing growing opposition over concerns that it could criminalise legitimate conversations, undermine clinical judgement and create new safeguarding risks for vulnerable children and young people.

Published in June 2026, the draft legislation seeks to introduce criminal offences targeting abusive practices intended to change someone's sexual orientation or transgender identity.

The Government argues that existing legislation leaves gaps in protection against coercive and abusive practices. However, campaigners, clinicians and other critics are questioning whether the proposed safeguards are sufficiently clear and robust.

The Bill is undergoing pre-legislative scrutiny, providing an opportunity to examine its potential consequences before it becomes law.

Why are there concerns?

1. Could legitimate clinical exploration be criminalised?

One of the most significant concerns is the potential impact on healthcare professionals working with children and young people experiencing distress about their sex.

Good clinical practice requires professionals to explore the full range of factors that may contribute to a patient's difficulties, including mental health, neurodevelopmental conditions, trauma, sexuality, family circumstances and wider social influences.

Critics fear that uncertainty about what constitutes an unlawful attempt to change someone's transgender identity could discourage clinicians from undertaking thorough, open-ended assessments.

The Government insists that legitimate healthcare and exploratory conversations are protected. The critical question is whether the wording of the legislation provides sufficient certainty for clinicians working in complex and sensitive situations.

Healthcare professionals must be able to explore, question and assess without fear that ordinary professional judgement will be misinterpreted as criminal conduct.

2. What are the implications for safeguarding children?

Children and young people require careful, individualised assessment, particularly when decisions could have significant or lasting consequences.

Parents, teachers, social workers and healthcare professionals all have responsibilities to safeguard children, recognise vulnerability and consider alternative explanations for distress.

Opponents argue that the proposed legislation could create uncertainty about when questioning a young person's understanding of their gender identity constitutes legitimate safeguarding and when it might be interpreted as an attempt to change that identity.

This raises important questions about parental responsibility, professional duties and the ability to undertake appropriate safeguarding investigations.

3. Are existing laws sufficient?

Physical assault, harassment, threats and various forms of coercive or abusive behaviour are already prohibited under existing law.

Critics argue that the Government has not adequately demonstrated why further criminal offences are necessary or how the proposed legislation will avoid capturing conduct that is neither abusive nor harmful.

The Government disputes this, arguing that gaps in existing legislation leave some victims without adequate protection.

Parliament must establish precisely what conduct is not currently covered, why new offences are needed and whether the proposed definitions are sufficiently narrow.

4. Could the legislation have unintended consequences for lesbian, gay and bisexual young people?

Campaigners have raised concerns about the interaction between sexual orientation and transgender identity, particularly among adolescents.

They argue that professionals must remain free to explore whether a young person's distress about their sex is connected to difficulties accepting same-sex attraction, without directing that young person towards any predetermined identity or outcome.

Any legislation must protect young people from coercive attempts to change their sexual orientation while also ensuring that clinicians can explore sexuality and gender-related distress openly and without bias.

5. What about freedom of expression, religion and professional judgement?

The Bill has prompted questions about the rights of parents, religious communities, teachers, academics and healthcare professionals to express views, provide guidance and discuss contested issues.

Critics are particularly concerned about the potential chilling effect of criminal investigations, even where conduct would ultimately fall below the threshold for prosecution.

They also question whether the proposed Conversion Practice Protection Orders could restrict otherwise lawful activity.

The Government maintains that the legislation is designed to target abusive conduct rather than ordinary conversations or expressions of belief.

The distinction must be clear in the legislation itself, not dependent solely on ministerial assurances.

Why this matters to NHS staff

For healthcare professionals, the implications extend beyond freedom of expression.

The NHS must be able to provide evidence-based, individualised care. This includes the freedom to undertake comprehensive assessments, consider alternative explanations for distress, discuss treatment risks and benefits, and exercise independent clinical judgement.

Legislation that creates uncertainty about these responsibilities risks affecting professional confidence and potentially patient care.

The parliamentary scrutiny process should therefore examine the Bill's compatibility with established professional standards, safeguarding responsibilities and the findings of the Cass Review.

What happens next?

The draft Bill is undergoing pre-legislative scrutiny before the Government decides whether to introduce revised legislation to Parliament.

This provides an opportunity for clinicians, parents, safeguarding professionals, academics and members of the public to examine the proposals and raise concerns.

Have your say – Parliamentary consultation

The parliamentary committee invites written evidence on the draft Conversion Practices Bill.

This is an important opportunity for healthcare professionals, parents, safeguarding practitioners and members of the public to raise concerns about the proposed legislation.

SEEN in Health will be responding to the consultation and we will publish our response.

CONSULTATION LINK

Submit your evidence to the parliamentary committee.

The call for evidence will be open until Monday 16 November 2026 at 5 pm.

How to get involved

Submit evidence to the parliamentary scrutiny committee. Healthcare professionals and others with relevant experience can provide evidence on clinical assessment, safeguarding, parental responsibility, freedom of expression and the practical implications of the proposed offences. Check the official committee guidance for submission requirements and deadlines.

Write to your MP. Ask your MP to scrutinise the Bill carefully and seek clear, legally robust protections for legitimate healthcare, parental guidance, safeguarding and freedom of expression.

Read the proposed legislation. Understanding the statutory wording is essential, particularly the definitions of prohibited conduct, available exemptions and the proposed protection orders.

Find out more about the opposition campaign. The Bin the Bill campaign provides briefings, campaign materials and suggested actions for those who oppose the legislation in its current form.

Further information and resources

• Bin the Bill – campaign information and resources

• Sex Matters – scrutiny of the draft Conversion Practices Bill

• UK Government – publication of the draft Conversion Practices Bill

• The Christian Institute – concerns about the proposed ban

• Free Speech Union – concerns about parental rights

SEEN in Health: Why proper scrutiny matters

Abusive and coercive practices should have no place in healthcare or society. Equally, legislation must not undermine the ability of healthcare professionals to provide careful, evidence-based assessment and support.

The protection of vulnerable patients requires clarity, not uncertainty.

The parliamentary scrutiny process must establish whether the proposed legislation successfully distinguishes abuse from legitimate clinical practice, parental responsibility, safeguarding and freedom of expression.

Patients deserve protection from abuse. They also deserve healthcare professionals who can ask difficult questions, explore complex circumstances and exercise independent clinical judgement without fear.

That distinction must be protected in law.