I'm aware of concerns around the legislation, these seem to focus around the following:

  • Consent: No child is able to consent, making legislation for under 18s more straightforward. For over 18s HMG should focus legislation on those responsible for advertising and conducting the “conversion therapy”, not prosecuting those who may or may not have consented to it. So, it would not be unlawful to purchase or seek out “conversion therapy”, but it would be illegal to provide it. However, it should be noted that Parliament and our courts have long recognised that one cannot consent to bodily harm and torture, and consent for conversion therapy should equally be treated in this way, especially this should seek to provide parity between mental torture, and physical torture, as we have in other legislation around ABH, domestic abuse and beyond. As such, as one cannot consent to ABH mental abuse, one cannot consent to conversion therapy which is a fraudulent and abusive practice
  • Transgender counselling vs “conversion therapy”: Those individuals who associate or identify as a different gender or wish to change gender, are protected by existing legislation and can access this regulated support through the NHS. It is suggested a specific exemption is placed in the legislation for professionally accredited, or CQC registered individuals, who form a register of approved therapists / practitioners who can support those undergoing a gender transition, and this is covered by the suggested legislative wording set out above, and has the support of transgender community groups. It is quite straight-forward to introduce a safeguard for professionally accredited individuals who assist persons considering undergoing a gender transition. I know that CT falls disproportionately on those people who are trans, so any ban excluding trans people leaves those at most risk still entirely vulnerable. That would make any legislation self-defeating. The proposed definition includes a safeguard modelled on that from the Australian State of Queensland’s legislation to safeguard professionally accredited individuals who assist persons considering undergoing a gender transition
  • Faith Concerns: The suggested legislation I have proposed does not prevent individuals from seeking guidance from faith leaders regarding their personal beliefs or sexual orientation but ensures that those faith leaders may not attempt any so-called “therapy”. It also does not criminalise private prayer. Whilst this is not a fail-safe, the legislation would enable anyone who sought religious guidance but then felt victimised by improper practices by that religious figure to seek legal recourse. This is not about prosecuting religious leaders for their desire to support members of their congregation, nor the extension of the state into legislating for private prayer. Religious leaders across the UK have given their backing to a ban on conversion therapy, an article in Pink News signed by senior religious leaders of major faiths called for an urgent ban on Conversion Therapy. I have also engaged with representatives of all major faiths, and as this letter shows, representatives of all major religions have given their specific backing to the legislative wording and definition set out above. The proposed definition specifically states: (d) provides acceptance, support and understanding of a person in exploration of their sexuality or gender identity. This aims to create a protection for religious leaders, and others, to hold conversations and dialogue with their members of their congregations.