Protect and Teach CIC has published a 769-page evidence and legal review of the Draft Conversion Practices Bill (England and Wales), together with an eight-page Policy Evidence Briefing designed to make the principal findings accessible to parliamentarians, professionals and the public.
769 pages of evidence and legal analysis.
8 pages for Parliament.
9 questions for parliamentary scrutiny.
📄[DOWNLOAD THE 8-PAGE POLICY EVIDENCE BRIEFING]
📄[READ / DOWNLOAD THE FULL 769-PAGE REPORT]
📄 [WRITE TO YOUR MP – DOWNLOAD THE TEMPLATE LETTER]
Want to raise these concerns with your MP? Our editable template letter focuses on the potential implications for parents, children, safeguarding and professionals, and includes nine questions for parliamentary scrutiny.
For ongoing developments: follow our live tracker of the Draft Conversion Practices Bill as pre-legislative scrutiny continues.
What happens when you follow the evidence back to its source?
The Government published the Draft Conversion Practices Bill on 25 June 2026 for pre-legislative scrutiny. It proposes new criminal offences relating to abusive conversion practices, an offence concerning encouragement or assistance of abusive conversion practices outside England and Wales, and a new civil Conversion Practice Protection Order (CPPO) regime.
The Government says the legislation is intended to address gaps in the existing criminal law and deter abusive practices, while protecting legitimate healthcare, therapy, conversations and other lawful activity.
Protect and Teach therefore asked a straightforward question:
Does the evidence establish the case for this particular new criminal and preventive regime?
To answer it, we went back to the evidence.
Not simply the headlines. Not simply statements that conversion practices can be harmful. And not simply the fact that other jurisdictions have legislated.
We examined the studies, surveys, Government assessments, legal authorities, safeguarding frameworks and international material underlying the case for legislation.
Our conclusion is that the evidential case has not been made.
Protect and Teach concludes that the Bill should not proceed.
What did we examine?
Our review considers the Bill from evidential, legal, safeguarding and practical perspectives, including:
- the evidence concerning prevalence, harm and causation;
- the Government’s estimate that approximately 75,000–93,000 people may experience selected conversion practices annually;
- whether the evidence establishes how frequently conduct would satisfy the elements of the proposed criminal offence;
- existing criminal, civil, family-law, safeguarding and professional frameworks;
- the claimed gap in existing law;
- the meaning and boundaries of “conversion practice” and “abusive” conduct;
- the different evidential and legal foundations concerning sexual orientation and “transgender identity”;
- Conversion Practice Protection Orders;
- possible consequences for parents, therapists, teachers, safeguarding professionals and pastoral advisers;
- healthcare, exploratory therapy, Gillick competence, clinical indication and informed consent;
- legal certainty and human-rights considerations;
- comparisons with forced-marriage and female-genital-mutilation protection regimes;
- legislation in other jurisdictions, including Canada and Victoria; and
- how the effectiveness and unintended consequences of the legislation could actually be evaluated.
The question throughout was not whether anybody has ever reported a harmful experience.
They have.
The more difficult question for Parliament is what those reports establish about the necessity, scope and likely effects of this Bill.
Reported harm is not the end of the evidential question
Evidence that people report harmful or distressing experiences matters. When Parliament is considering new criminal offences and preventive orders, however, further questions follow.
- How prevalent is the conduct that would actually satisfy the proposed offence?
- What evidence establishes that the conduct caused the serious harm relied upon?
- Which serious forms of conduct are not already capable of being addressed through existing criminal law, safeguarding, family law, civil remedies or professional regulation?
- How frequently does that residual legal gap arise?
- Would the proposed legislation reduce the identified harm?
- And what evidence allows Parliament to assess unintended consequences alongside intended benefits?
These are separate evidential questions.
- Reported experience is not the same thing as demonstrated causation.
- Association is not the same thing as establishing a criminal-law gap.
- Evidence that harmful conduct occurs does not, by itself, establish that a particular new criminal offence is necessary or effective.
What does the 75,000–93,000 figure actually mean?
This is one of the most important distinctions in the debate.
The Government’s Impact Assessment estimates that approximately 75,000–93,000 people in England and Wales may experience selected conversion practices annually. This figure is a modelled estimate rather than a count of police reports, prosecutions, identified victims or incidents satisfying the elements of the proposed offence.
The Government’s own Impact Assessment acknowledges limitations in the available evidence and says its estimates are subject to uncertainty and further refinement.
The figure therefore does not establish that 75,000–93,000 people each year:
- experience conduct satisfying every element of the proposed criminal offence;
- suffer the statutory level of serious harm, alarm or distress caused by that conduct;
- represent incidents reported to the police; or
- represent cases of serious criminal conduct currently escaping prosecution.
Those are different questions.
Our full report traces the estimate back through its underlying survey evidence and assumptions and examines what conclusions can and what cannot safely be drawn from it.
What is the legal gap?
This is central to the case for legislation. The Government says the Bill is intended to fill gaps in existing criminal law. Protect and Teach therefore examined the existing legal and safeguarding framework.
Serious conduct may already engage offences and protections concerning violence, threats, coercive or controlling behaviour, harassment and other criminal conduct, alongside safeguarding processes, family law, civil remedies and professional regulation. That does not prove that every conceivable harmful act is already adequately addressed.
It does, however, raise an important question for Parliament:
What material category of serious, identity-directed conduct remains lawful, how often does it occur, and why can it not be addressed through existing legal and safeguarding frameworks?
Our review concludes that a material residual legal gap of the kind necessary to justify the proposed regime has not been demonstrated by the evidence examined.
Two concepts. Different legal foundations.
The Bill places sexual orientation and “transgender identity” within the same identity-directed criminal framework, despite important differences in their legal and evidential foundations.
For sexual orientation, the Bill expressly adopts the Equality Act 2010 definition.
For “transgender identity”, the Bill uses its own definition. The Government’s Equality Impact Assessment explains that this encompasses gender reassignment while additionally providing protection for people who identify as neither male nor female, or not solely male or female.
The evidential distinction matters. Research historically concerned with attempts to change sexual orientation cannot simply be assumed to establish the prevalence, nature, harm, causation or likely policy effects of practices concerning “transgender identity”.
An umbrella legislative framework does not make the underlying evidence interchangeable.
A law can change behaviour without a conviction
The impact of criminal legislation cannot be assessed solely by counting prosecutions. The Government intends the Bill to deter abusive conduct. Its Impact Assessment expressly identifies deterrence as an intended effect. That deterrence may occur before anybody is convicted.
Unintended behavioural effects may arise at the same stage.
Complaints, police contact, safeguarding referrals, professional investigations, family proceedings, CPPO applications and changes to institutional policy can all occur before a criminal court determines whether an offence has been committed.
The potential consequences extend directly into areas of lawful everyday decision-making, including parents setting boundaries, therapists undertaking open-ended exploration, teachers exercising safeguarding judgement, clinicians assessing treatment, and pastoral or religious advisers providing consensual support.
The relevant policy question is therefore not simply: ‘Will the Bill deter behaviour?‘
It is also:
How will the Government distinguish beneficial deterrence of abusive conduct from avoidance of lawful parenting, therapy, safeguarding, education, healthcare, pastoral activity, religion or expression?
Protection orders require scrutiny too
The Bill would create Conversion Practice Protection Orders (CPPOs). These are civil orders intended to protect a person from abusive conversion practices. Courts would be able to impose conditions considered appropriate in an individual case, and breach of an order without reasonable excuse would itself constitute a criminal offence.
The Government draws on existing protection-order regimes, including those relating to forced marriage and female genital mutilation. Those comparisons demonstrate that preventive civil orders can be used to address serious harm.
They do not, however, establish that the factual and legal questions involved are equivalent.
FGM concerns defined physical acts. Forced marriage centres on an identifiable legal event and the absence of free and full consent.
An alleged conversion practice may instead require examination of intention relating to identity, the context in which conduct occurred, whether behaviour was “abusive”, psychological or emotional effects, causation and the seriousness of the resulting consequences.
Analogy can help explain a legal mechanism. It cannot substitute for evidence that the underlying circumstances are equivalent.
Enactment is not the same as effectiveness
Other jurisdictions have introduced legislation concerning conversion practices. That is relevant comparative material, but the fact that another legislature has enacted a law does not itself demonstrate that the law has reduced serious harm, produced a net safeguarding benefit or avoided unintended consequences.
Our review therefore distinguishes between:
legislation being enacted and evidence that legislation achieved its intended outcomes.
For international experience to establish effectiveness, Parliament needs evidence about outcomes; not simply legislation, enforcement activity, reporting, guidance or training.
Nine questions for parliamentary scrutiny
Our eight-page Policy Evidence Briefing distils the full analysis into nine questions:
1. What empirical evidence establishes the prevalence of conduct satisfying all elements of the proposed offence?
2. What serious conduct targeted by the Bill is currently lawful, and what evidence establishes the scale of the residual legal gap?
3. How can parents, therapists, teachers and others determine in advance when identity-related conduct becomes “abusive” conduct capable of engaging the proposed criminal offence?
4. What evidence establishes causation between the practices measured in prevalence research and the serious harms relied upon?
5. How has the Government separated evidence concerning sexual orientation from “transgender identity” when assessing prevalence, harm and legislative need?
6. What evidence shows that FGM, forced-marriage and coercive-control frameworks are sufficiently analogous to justify the proposed offence and CPPO regime?
7. How will the Government measure beneficial deterrence separately from any chilling of lawful parenting, therapy, safeguarding, education and pastoral activity?
8. What outcome evidence from Canada, Victoria or other jurisdictions demonstrates reduced serious harm rather than enactment, reporting, training or enforcement activity?
9. What would count as evidence that the Bill produced a net safeguarding benefit, and what baseline would permit that conclusion?
Protect and Teach’s conclusion
Protect and Teach’s analysis does not conclude that harmful conduct never occurs. Nor does it suggest that serious abuse should be left without an effective response.
Our conclusion concerns the much more specific question. Parliament is being asked to decide: whether the evidence establishes the case for this particular criminal and preventive legislative regime.
Having reviewed the available evidence, legal framework, Government assessments and international material, Protect and Teach concludes that it does not.
THE BILL SHOULD NOT PROCEED.
In our assessment, the evidence does not establish the necessity, legal certainty, proportionality, likely effectiveness or net safeguarding benefit required to justify the proposed identity-specific criminal and preventive regime.
Weak or incomplete evidence is not proof that harmful conduct never occurs. Equally, reported experience, association, political commitment or enactment elsewhere cannot substitute for evidence establishing the necessity and likely effects of legislation.
Want to ask your MP about the evidence?
We have also prepared a template for members of the public who wish to ask their MP to examine the evidential basis for the Bill.
You do not need to send a standard campaign email. The template allows you to explain briefly why the issue matters to you and choose one or two of the nine scrutiny questions you would particularly like your MP to answer.
Parliamentary timetable – why write now?
The Draft Conversion Practices Bill is currently undergoing pre-legislative scrutiny by a Joint Committee of MPs and members of the House of Lords.
The Joint Committee is due to report by 22 January 2027. The Government will then consider its findings and recommendations before deciding how to proceed with legislation.
This scrutiny period provides an opportunity for constituents to raise questions about the evidence and proposals with their MPs.
📄 [Write to Your MP – Draft Conversion Practices Bill: Template Letter]
**Protect and Teach CIC | Policy Analysis Paper No. 1 | September 2026
These questions are reproduced from the accompanying Policy Evidence Briefing. The template is provided to assist members of the public who wish to correspond with their MP. Users should edit the letter so that it reflects their own views.
Read the evidence
Policy Evidence Briefing – 8 pages
For MPs, peers, researchers, journalists, professionals and anyone wanting a concise account of the principal findings and questions arising from our review.
📄[DOWNLOAD THE 8-PAGE POLICY EVIDENCE BRIEFING]
Policy Analysis Paper No. 1 – 769 pages
The Draft Conversion Practices Bill (England and Wales): An Evidence Review and Policy Analysis
The complete analysis, including the evidence base, legal framework, safeguarding implications, international comparisons, Government assessments and source material underlying our conclusions.
📄[READ / DOWNLOAD THE FULL 769-PAGE REPORT]
Follow the live parliamentary scrutiny
We are maintaining a live tracker of the Draft Conversion Practices Bill, including official Government and Parliament developments, Joint Committee scrutiny, unresolved questions, Protect & Teach publications and selected stakeholder evidence.