Live tracker: Draft Conversion Practices Bill (England and Wales)
This tracker follows the Draft Conversion Practices Bill through pre-legislative scrutiny. It brings together the official parliamentary record, the principal unresolved questions, Protect and Teach’s published work, and selected substantive stakeholder evidence.
Last updated: 13 October 2026
Live tracker: This page will be updated as the Joint Committee publishes evidence, holds meetings and hearings, reports to Parliament, and as the Government responds or brings forward further legislation.
Current status — 13 October 2026
The Government published the Draft Conversion Practices Bill on 25 June 2026. It remains a draft undergoing pre-legislative scrutiny, not an enacted law. The 12-member Joint Committee must report by 22 January 2027.
Chair: Alex Barros-Curtis MP, recorded as taking the Chair on 12 October 2026. Members’ previous statements and selected division records are set out below; no member has yet voted on the draft Bill itself.
Parliament lists private meetings on 12 October, 15 October and 19 October 2026. A private listing is not a public oral-evidence hearing. At the latest review, no public evidence deadline or public witness programme was listed on the Committee homepage.
Latest parliamentary developments — 13 October 2026
Chair identified 12 October: Alex Barros-Curtis MP takes the Chair. His 25 June Commons comments welcomed progress towards a ban and said he had spoken extensively with the Minister. His prior statements are included in the member register below.
Committee diary Private meetings listed for 12 October (4pm), 15 October (12pm, Room 4) and 19 October (4pm, venue to be confirmed). These listings do not establish the substance of discussions.
Membership The 18 September announcement and membership page list six MPs and six peers, including Naz Shah MP. Earlier commentary carrying a different member list should not be treated as current.
Awaited Public call for evidence, submission deadline, oral witness programme, transcripts and eventual Committee report. Contact: draftbills@parliament.uk.
Protect and Teach position: the draft should not proceed
Protect and Teach opposes the June 2026 Draft Conversion Practices Bill. Its published 769-page Policy Analysis Paper No. 1 concludes that the case for the proposed criminal and preventive regime has not been established. The organisation’s objections concern legal certainty, the evidential basis for necessity and causation, safeguards for children and family life, lawful therapy and expression, civil protection orders, proportionality and the availability of existing law.
Scope of the objection: Opposition to this particular draft is not a defence of abusive conduct. Existing safeguarding duties and criminal laws remain relevant. Our assessment is that serious harm must be addressed through lawful, clearly defined and evidence-supported measures without unnecessarily restricting legitimate professional practice or family relationships.
Joint Committee: positions on the June 2026 draft
Research checked: 13 October 2026. This register records attributable comments on this draft (or notes where none was identified). It will be updated with public Committee evidence and members’ further contributions. There has been no substantive parliamentary vote on the June 2026 draft. Historic votes and other policy positions are in the separate expandable section below.
| Member | Position on this draft / extent of evidence | Official records |
|---|---|---|
| Alex Barros-Curtis MP Labour · Chair | On 25 June supported swift legislation, said he had spoken extensively with the Minister, and rejected consent as legitimising abuse. This does not establish approval of every clause. | Individual voting record Relevant parliamentary record |
| Olivia Bailey MP Labour | Presented and defended the draft as Minister on 25 June; recognised the risk of a chilling effect while arguing that healthcare safeguards would protect legitimate practice. | Individual voting record Relevant parliamentary record |
| Danny Beales MP Labour | Welcomed the comprehensive and inclusive draft on 25 June and asked that the healthcare-professional exception not create a loophole. | Individual voting record Relevant parliamentary record |
| Marie Goldman MP Liberal Democrat | No individual statement on the June 2026 draft identified in the sources reviewed. Asked about the timetable for publishing conversion-practices legislation in March 2026. | Individual voting record Relevant parliamentary record |
| Naz Shah MP Labour | No individual statement on the June 2026 draft identified in the sources reviewed. Her recorded support for an earlier 2024 Bill appears in the background section. | Individual voting record Relevant parliamentary record |
| Sir Jeremy Wright KC MP Conservative | No individual statement on the June 2026 draft identified in the sources reviewed. | Individual voting record Relevant parliamentary record |
| Baroness Brown of Silvertown Labour | On 1 July welcomed the legislation and sought protection against abuse without criminalising conversations about sexuality or gender identity. | Individual voting record Relevant parliamentary record |
| Baroness Browning Conservative | No individual statement on the June 2026 draft identified in the sources reviewed. | Individual voting record Relevant parliamentary record |
| Lord Hope of Craighead Crossbench | No individual statement on the June 2026 draft identified in the sources reviewed. | Individual voting record Relevant parliamentary record |
| Lord Isaac Labour | On 1 July welcomed the draft and stated his view that it addresses gaps in existing criminal law. | Individual voting record Relevant parliamentary record |
| Baroness Prentis of Banbury KC Conservative | No individual statement on the June 2026 draft identified in the sources reviewed. | Individual voting record Relevant parliamentary record |
| Lord Scriven Liberal Democrat | On 1 July welcomed legislation while calling for precise safeguards for parents, teachers, clinicians and therapists providing lawful, non-directive support. | Individual voting record Relevant parliamentary record |
Evidence standard: A general statement about LGBT rights, an earlier Bill or a separate parliamentary division does not establish an individual position on every provision of the June 2026 draft. The register does not forecast votes or Committee conclusions. Official membership · Chair’s official career record.
Wider relevant parliamentary record
This expandable record contains selected earlier votes, statements, official roles and reported legal advice relevant to the issues under scrutiny. It does not treat such context as a position on the June 2026 draft, and it is not a political biography.
Expand: sourced earlier parliamentary positions and background (12 members)
- Alex Barros-Curtis MP: 31 August 2026: signed EDM 240 seeking disapproval of the proposed EHRC services code. In a public statement of 31 July and ministerial letter dated 30 July, raised concerns over trans people’s access to services and identified stakeholder discussions including Stonewall. This concerns the EHRC code, not the conversion-practices draft.
- Olivia Bailey MP: In February 2025 Hansard, backed a trans-inclusive ban. On 14 April 2026, as Minister, said single-sex spaces were vital and should be protected.
- Danny Beales MP: Signed EDM 240 (official signature record: 10 June 2026). In a public statement dated 12 June 2026, described his concerns about the EHRC services code. Secondary-source record: TheyWorkForYou (2 July 2025) lists him among MPs associated with a letter raising concerns about an earlier draft code; the original signed letter has not been independently authenticated.
- Marie Goldman MP: On 1 June 2026 criticised the proposed EHRC code as unworkable and exclusionary, and signed EDM 240. Her 14 April 2026 Westminster Hall contribution addressed implications of the For Women Scotland judgment.
- Naz Shah MP: Voted Aye by proxy at Second Reading of the distinct 2024 Conversion Practices (Prohibition) Bill (Division 86). She also raised transgender hate-crime protections in 2018 Committee questioning.
- Sir Jeremy Wright KC MP: Former Attorney General. No recorded vote in the 1 March 2024 conversion-practices division. Voted Aye on the separate 23 June 2026 PATHWAYS motion; this was not a vote on conversion practices.
- Baroness Brown of Silvertown: As Lyn Brown MP, voted Aye on the 2024 Conversion Practices (Prohibition) Bill. In December 2016 Hansard, called for assessment of an informed-consent model for transgender healthcare; this was a request to assess, not unconditional endorsement.
- Baroness Browning: In May 2025 Lords Hansard, supported implementation of the For Women Scotland ruling and sex-based provision in NHS changing facilities.
- Lord Hope of Craighead: In January 2023 Lords Hansard, addressed the legal and constitutional dispute over the section 35 order affecting Scotland’s Gender Recognition Reform Bill.
- Lord Isaac: Chaired Stonewall (2003–2012), documented in a parliamentary CV; appointed EHRC Chair in 2016 (GOV.UK announcement). An August 2020 interview discussed women-only spaces and freedom of expression. These prior roles and remarks do not determine his views on individual clauses.
- Baroness Prentis of Banbury KC: Reported legal advice in an official capacity, not a personal public policy statement: The Times (20 July 2023) reported that, when Attorney General, she advised ministers that a blanket prohibition on social transition in schools would be unlawful under equality law; see also its earlier reporting. The advice itself is confidential and its contents have not been independently authenticated. It must not be attributed as her personal position.
- Lord Scriven: Supported progressing earlier trans-inclusive conversion-practices legislation in February 2024. Asked a written question on 2 June 2026 about the EHRC code and raised practical and proportionality concerns during the 3 June 2026 Lords debate. His direct July 2026 draft-Bill comments remain in the table above.
2024 division context: At the Second Reading division on 1 March 2024, 68 MPs voted Aye and 15 Noes were recorded, but the Question was not agreed to because fewer than 100 supported it. This concerned a different Bill, not the June 2026 draft. Official division.
Separate PATHWAYS record: On 23 June 2026, the opposition motion concerning PATHWAYS was a distinct parliamentary question. The division records No votes by Alex Barros-Curtis, Olivia Bailey and Danny Beales, and an Aye by Sir Jeremy Wright. An absence from the division is not an expression of opposition or support.
Method: EDM signatures are not votes. Reports of confidential advice are not authenticated private legal opinions or personal political statements. All other positions are attributed to the speaker and dated; no inference is made about how anyone will conduct scrutiny.
Government & Parliament
Official publications and parliamentary scrutiny milestones.
-
Confirmed
Draft Bill published
The Government published the Draft Conversion Practices Bill on 25 June 2026. It applies to England and Wales and proposes three principal measures: a criminal offence relating to abusive conversion practices; an offence concerning encouraging or assisting such practices abroad; and Conversion Practice Protection Orders.
-
Confirmed
Impact Assessment published
The draft final-stage Impact Assessment says costs and benefits remain provisional during pre-legislative scrutiny and may be revised before any final Bill is introduced. It also states that impacts on the wider justice system are being assessed with the Ministry of Justice for inclusion in future iterations.
-
Confirmed
Equality Impact Assessment published
The Equality Impact Assessment describes important limitations in the evidence base, including limited representative UK data, methodological variation and limitations in drawing causal conclusions from the available literature.
-
Confirmed
Explanatory Notes published
The Government’s Explanatory Notes explain the intended operation of the draft clauses but do not form part of the Bill and have not been endorsed by Parliament.
-
Confirmed
Joint Committee appointed
A 12-member Joint Committee of six MPs and six members of the House of Lords was appointed in September 2026 to scrutinise the draft Bill. The appointment announcement was published on 18 September 2026.
-
Confirmed
Committee reporting deadline
The Joint Committee is required to report by 22 January 2027.
-
Confirmed
Membership update — Naz Shah MP
The current membership and Parliament’s 18 September appointment announcement both include Naz Shah MP. The verified register below supersedes differing early commentary.
- Chair identified
Alex Barros-Curtis MP appointed Chair
The official parliamentary career record identifies the Labour MP for Cardiff West as Chair from 12 October 2026 (member since 10 September 2026). His recorded comments and voting history appear in the Committee-member register.
-
Confirmed
Private Committee meeting diary
Parliament lists private Joint Committee meetings for Monday 12 October 2026, 4:00–6:00 pm, and Thursday 15 October 2026, 12:00–1:30 pm. Both were listed for Room 4, Palace of Westminster. No public oral-evidence session is specified.
- Listed by Parliament
Private Committee meeting — 19 October
Parliament’s Committee homepage lists a private meeting on Monday 19 October 2026 at 4pm, venue to be confirmed. This does not establish a public evidence session.
-
Awaited
Public call for evidence and oral-evidence programme
Parliament has said that further details of the Committee’s work, including opportunities to contribute views, will be announced in due course. At the latest check, a public call for evidence, written-evidence deadline and programme of public oral-evidence hearings had not been identified on the Committee webpage.
Under scrutiny / unresolved
Questions likely to matter during pre-legislative scrutiny.
-
Open question
What conduct fills the claimed legal gap?
What serious conduct targeted by the draft Bill is currently lawful, how often does it occur, and why are existing criminal, civil, safeguarding and professional mechanisms insufficient?
-
Open question
How certain are the key definitions?
How will courts apply concepts such as “conversion practice”, “abusive” conduct, intention, serious harm, alarm or distress, and the boundaries between prohibited conduct and lawful conversation, advice, therapy, parenting or pastoral support?
-
Open question
What does the prevalence evidence establish?
The Government acknowledges substantial limitations in the evidence base. Scrutiny will need to distinguish reported experiences from conduct satisfying every element of the proposed criminal offence.
-
Open question
What evidence establishes causation?
The Government’s Equality Impact Assessment identifies limitations in establishing causal relationships from the available evidence. Parliament will need to consider what conclusions can safely be drawn from correlational, retrospective and self-reported evidence.
-
Open question
Parents, therapists and safeguarding
How will the framework protect legitimate exploratory conversations, professional judgement and proportionate safeguarding while still identifying genuinely abusive conduct?
Sex Matters’ 7 October 2026 article, When parents become suspects, raises stakeholder concerns about refusals involving clothing, names and related parental decisions; the legal elements of the offence would still have to be established.
-
Open question
Healthcare safeguard and professional standards
Conduct carried out in the course of providing healthcare is excluded from the definition of a conversion practice unless the provider acts in a way that falls far below the standards reasonably expected of a person in their position. Scrutiny will need to examine how sufficiently certain and predictable that threshold is in practice, including how relevant professional standards would be identified and applied.
-
Open question
Chilling effects and access to therapy
Stakeholders including mental-health professionals interviewed by Sex Matters have raised concerns that fear of complaints, investigations or legal proceedings could affect willingness to work with gender-distressed or trans-identifying clients. Scrutiny will need to test whether such effects are likely, their possible scale, and whether the draft safeguards adequately address them.
-
Open question
Children and family relationships
The draft offence does not contain a general exemption for parents or family members. Scrutiny will need to examine how the offence and protection-order regime would operate in ordinary family relationships, particularly where parents are making safeguarding, welfare or healthcare decisions concerning children.
-
Open question
Sexual orientation and transgender identity
The draft Bill applies its conversion-practice framework to both sexual orientation and transgender identity. Scrutiny will need to examine whether the evidence base, concepts, potential harms and appropriate safeguards are sufficiently comparable to justify their treatment within the same legislative framework.
-
Open question
Conversion Practice Protection Orders
What evidential threshold, procedural safeguards and limits will apply to civil protection orders, particularly where allegations concern intention, identity, psychological effects, private conversations or family relationships?
-
Open question
Human-rights and proportionality questions
How will the final scheme address legal certainty, freedom of expression, freedom of thought, conscience and religion, private and family life, and proportionality?
-
Open question
Monitoring effectiveness
What outcomes will demonstrate that legislation reduced serious harm rather than merely increasing reports, referrals, investigations, guidance or training activity? What baseline will be used and how will unintended consequences be identified?
-
Awaited
Joint Committee evidence
A public call for written evidence, submission deadline, witness programme, oral-evidence transcripts and any specialist-adviser material are awaited. Protect and Teach will update this tracker as Parliament publishes substantive material.
-
Awaited
Committee report and Government response
The Joint Committee must report by 22 January 2027. The Government will then decide how to respond and whether to introduce legislation in revised form.
- New stakeholder issue
Children affected by parental transition; disclosures and family safeguarding
Transgender Trend and Children of Transitioners have raised concerns that the draft may inadequately address children’s experiences of abuse or discourage children and non-transitioning parents from seeking help. These are stakeholder claims requiring scrutiny, not established automatic consequences of the Bill. The draft does not immunise anyone from existing child-protection or domestic-abuse law, and it does not criminalise merely asking for help without the relevant statutory elements.
Specific questions: how will complaints, protection-order applications and allegations of intention be handled in contested family cases? What protection exists for child disclosures, safeguarding referrals, parents and independent therapy?
Protect and Teach work
Protect and Teach publications, submissions and parliamentary-facing material.
-
Published
Policy Analysis Paper No. 1
Draft Conversion Practices Bill (England and Wales): An Evidence Review and Policy Analysis — a 769-page review of the evidence base, legal framework, safeguarding implications, Government assessments and international comparisons.
-
Published
8-page Policy Evidence Briefing
A shorter briefing for parliamentarians, professionals, journalists and the public, distilling the principal findings and nine questions for scrutiny.
-
Published
Template letter for MPs
An editable public template enabling constituents to ask MPs to examine the evidential basis for the draft Bill and select specific scrutiny questions.
-
Position
Protect and Teach conclusion
Protect and Teach’s published analysis concludes that the evidential case for this particular criminal and preventive regime has not been established and that the draft Bill should not proceed.
-
Action
Support for open letter
Protect and Teach supported an open letter coordinated by LGB Alliance opposing the draft Bill and raising concerns about parents, children and professionals.
-
Awaited
Joint Committee submission / evidence
Protect and Teach intends to review any call for evidence and will record here any submission, published evidence or parliamentary engagement as the Joint Committee’s scrutiny develops.
-
Awaited
Response to Committee report
Protect and Teach will review the Joint Committee’s conclusions and any subsequent Government response against the evidence and issues identified in Policy Analysis Paper No. 1.
Stakeholder publications and evidence register
Two distinct published positions are recorded below: organisations raising objections to the draft Bill, and organisations supporting its introduction or calling for stronger protections. Each entry retains its publication date, a brief description and an original source link. Inclusion does not imply endorsement. Publication counts are not counts of independent studies. Research, legal analysis, policy briefings and campaigning statements are distinguished. The Government’s draft Bill and assessments remain the primary sources for what the proposals contain.
Organisations opposing or raising substantial objections
Eight organisations or stakeholder groups identified at this stage. Expand each entry for its linked publications. The precise positions and recommendations may differ.
Sex Matters 6 publications
Publishes research, legal analysis and policy commentary objecting to the draft legislation. Individual publications are preserved below.
-
Briefing on the Conversion Practices Bill
Parliamentary briefing summarising eight concerns about the draft legislation, including family life, protection orders, therapeutic practice, safeguarding, legal certainty and freedom of expression. This is a policy briefing drawing on earlier analysis, rather than a separate independent empirical study.
-
Scrutiny starts on the draft
Conversion Practices Bill
Explains the beginning of parliamentary pre-legislative scrutiny and presents Sex Matters’ principal objections.
-
When parents become suspects
Examines how parental decisions could, in the organisation’s view, give rise to allegations or investigations. The scenarios are stakeholder interpretations of potential effects; they must be distinguished from the statutory elements required to establish a criminal offence.
-
Criminalising conversations —
Matilda Gosling
Qualitative report based on interviews with 30 mental-health professionals, including practitioners experienced in work with gender-distressed or trans-identifying clients. The findings concern the experiences and reported intentions of the interviewees. They are not representative estimates of the UK mental-health workforce.
-
Conversion therapy: still not illegal —
or still not happening?
Critiques elements of the reported prevalence evidence, helpline activity and arguments about the necessity of creating a new criminal offence.
-
Draft Conversion Practices Bill —
initial briefing
Initial response to the Government’s published draft, focusing on its proposed legal provisions and implications.
Our Duty 1 publication
Parent-focused material opposing the draft legislation.
-
Tell them the truth —
A Parent’s Briefing
Four-image briefing discussing the absence of a general parental exemption, concerns about family decision-making, protection orders, allegations and possible safeguarding consequences.
The briefing’s predicted consequences should be treated as advocacy claims rather than established legal outcomes. Protect and Teach has already examined these legal questions in its Policy Analysis Paper No. 1, particularly Sections 7.8 and 7.11.
Genspect 1 publication
Published an analysis critical of the evidence base relied upon in support of the draft.
-
Strange Brew: The Evidence for the UK’s
Draft Conversion Practices Bill 2026
Peter Jenkins examines the definition of conversion practices, prevalence studies and methodological limitations. The article is an interpretive critique of existing evidence, not a new representative prevalence study.
Gay Men’s Network 1 publication
Published detailed legal analysis of criminal-law, human-rights and family-law implications.
-
Full legal response to the draft Bill (PDF)
A detailed legal response addressing the proposed offences, human rights, family life and other implications. The response should be considered alongside the draft clauses and Government assessments.
Transgender Trend 2 publications / statements
Questions the research and evidence used to justify the draft legislation.
-
Conversion Practices Bill —
evidence analysis
Examines evidence cited in support of the proposals, with particular emphasis on parents and gender-distressed children.
- Concerns about parental abuse and asymmetrical safeguarding
Argues that the Bill does not sufficiently consider abuse against a child by a parent who has a transgender identity. The claimed gap is attributed to the organisation; existing child-abuse law remains in force.
Children of Transitioners 1 statement + contextual article
Personal and family-experience organisation raising concerns about children’s emotional welfare when a parent transitions.
- Concerns about children and non-transitioning parents seeking help
Claims the draft could expose children and mothers to allegations or deter disclosures. Those predicted consequences are not established legal outcomes and require examination against the actual offence and protection-order provisions.
- Not Shutting Up
Contextual account of family experiences; not an empirical prevalence study or a clause-by-clause assessment of the 2026 draft.
LGB Alliance 1 publication
Opposes combining sexual-orientation and transgender-identity provisions within this legislative framework.
-
Open letter coordinated by LGB Alliance
Open letter opposing the draft and raising concerns about the consequences for parents, children and professionals. Protect and Teach recorded its support on 25 August 2026.
CARE 1 publication
Raises concerns about legal necessity, definitions, family relationships and religious freedom.
-
Government publishes Draft Conversion
Practices Bill
Initial response considering the proposed definitions, penalties and possible effects on freedom of expression and religion.
Organisations supporting the draft or seeking stronger legislation
Three organisations identified at this stage. Supporting a ban in principle does not necessarily mean endorsing every provision of the current draft. The publications below are attributed to their authors and remain subject to the same evidential scrutiny.
Stonewall 1 publication
Welcomes legislation and argues that protections should be effective and inclusive.
-
Government finally publishes long-overdue
draft Bill to ban conversion practices
Welcomes publication of the draft and calls for robust legislative protection. This is an organisational policy statement rather than a new empirical study.
Galop 1 publication
Supports legislation and reports frontline experience assisting clients who describe conversion practices.
-
Conversion Practices Bill published
after years of campaigning
Welcomes the draft and discusses the organisation’s experience supporting people reporting conversion practices.
Galop has also reported analysis of 195 service cases from 2022 to 2025. These are cases encountered through a specialist support service. They can provide information about reported experiences and service needs but are not a representative survey of national prevalence.
Consortium 1 publication
Welcomes publication and calls for stronger final protections.
-
Consortium’s statement on the
Draft Conversion Practices Bill
Welcomes publication of the draft and supports an inclusive ban, while advocating parliamentary scrutiny and stronger final provisions.
Further research: A distinct, publicly available Bayswater Support Group submission addressing this 2026 draft has not yet been verified. Bayswater’s involvement in separate PATHWAYS litigation should not be recorded here as evidence concerning this Bill. Further relevant stakeholder publications, professional-body responses and formal Joint Committee submissions will be added individually when identified and verified.
Core sources
- Office for Equality and Opportunity, Draft Conversion Practices Bill , published 25 June 2026, updated 1 September 2026.
- Office for Equality and Opportunity, Draft final-stage Impact Assessment .
- Office for Equality and Opportunity, Draft Equality Impact Assessment .
- Office for Equality and Opportunity, Explanatory Notes .
- UK Parliament, Draft Conversion Practices Bill Joint Committee .
- UK Parliament, Joint Committee appointed , 18 September 2026.
- UK Parliament, Current Joint Committee membership , checked 13 October 2026.
- UK Parliament, Private Committee meeting — 12 October 2026 .
- UK Parliament, Private Committee meeting — 15 October 2026 .
- Protect and Teach CIC, Why the Evidence Does Not Support the Draft Conversion Practices Bill , September 2026.
- Matilda Gosling for Sex Matters, Criminalising conversations , 1 October 2026.
- Sex Matters, When parents become suspects , 7 October 2026.
- Sex Matters, Briefing on the Conversion Practices Bill , 12 October 2026.
- Our Duty, Tell them the truth — A Parent’s Briefing , circulated 12 October 2026.
- Genspect, Peter Jenkins’ evidence critique , 8 October 2026.
- Gay Men’s Network, Legal response to the draft Bill (PDF) , 2026.
- Transgender Trend, Evidence analysis , 7 July 2026.
- CARE, Commentary on the draft Bill , 25 June 2026.
- Stonewall, Statement on the draft Bill , 25 June 2026.
- Galop, Draft Bill response , June 2026.
- Consortium, Statement on the draft Bill , 25 June 2026.
- Hansard, Commons statement of 25 June 2026.
- Hansard, Lords discussion of 1 July 2026.
- Commons PATHWAYS motion division, 23 June 2026.
- Transgender Trend statement, October 2026.
- Children of Transitioners statement, October 2026.