Olivia Bailey On The Conversion Practices Bill: "I'm Not Interested In Scaremongering"
Olivia Bailey, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Equalities (Credit: UK Parliament)
7 min read
Legislation to ban abusive conversion practices has reached Parliament eight years after it was first promised. Noah Vickers quizzes equalities minister Olivia Bailey on how it will work
For many LGBTQ+ people across Britain, the publication of a draft bill to ban conversion practices is a long overdue cause for celebration. First promised by Theresa May in 2018, and recommitted to by Labour in its 2024 manifesto, ministers have finally drawn up legislation to outlaw practices that seek to “convert” people away from being LGBTQ+. In the time since May’s promise, bans have been passed in Germany, France, Spain and several other countries.
But the bill faces criticism from some who fear its provisions are too far-reaching and others who say it does not go far enough to stamp out abuse. Some also question why it is needed, as violent acts and many forms of psychological abuse are already unlawful.
Equalities minister Olivia Bailey insists the bill will address “gaps in the law” through which conversion practices take place.
One example, she says, is coercive control legislation, which only applies where the abuser and their victim are personally connected through an intimate or family relationship, “whereas in conversion practices, it may well be somebody that is not an intimate partner, somebody that’s not known to you”.
Bailey says the bill will also create a “definition in law” of what conversion practices are, to ensure the abuse is prosecuted. She points to other offences, like non-fatal strangulation and upskirting, where legal definitions were specifically devised to address them.
The bill defines a conversion practice as “any conduct” carried out with the intention of causing another person to have or not to have, or to believe they have or do not have, a particular sexuality or transgender identity.
But an offence only occurs where that conduct “amounts to an abuse of the individual”. In determining that, consideration would be given as to whether words or behaviour “of a sexual nature” or which are “violent or threatening” or “controlling or coercive” have been used, and whether “economic” or “psychological or emotional” pressure has been applied, “among other things”.
The victim must also have been caused “serious harm” to their “mental or physical health”, or “serious alarm or distress” that has a “substantial adverse effect on their usual day-to-day activities”.
Perpetrators would face a prison sentence of up to five years, a fine, or both.
The law will prohibit not only conversion practices aimed at making someone straight or not transgender, but also, at least in principle, practices aimed at making someone adopt an LGBTQ+ identity.
The main point of contention is how those criminal thresholds will operate in practice.
Liberal Democrat peer Lord Scriven, who welcomed the legislation as a “relief” to those who had endured an “unacceptable practice”, also pointed out in a parliamentary speech that “a parent who in good faith advises a child to take time or who expresses questions about social or medical transition is acting out of care and duty for their child’s protection”.
The bill, he said, must “guarantee that these supportive conversations within families do not unintentionally cause a crime to have been committed”.
Gender-critical organisations such as Sex Matters meanwhile claim that parents, teachers and others could be “at risk of being subjected to investigation if they do not affirm that someone is ‘male’ or ‘female’ (or both, or neither) based on their personal declaration rather than their biology”.
The House asks Bailey whether a parent could face criminal charges, for example, if their child tells them they are trans and the parent tells them they do not accept their identity, they will not be using their preferred pronouns and they will not allow them to wear the clothes they want to wear.
The minister replies that, in any case reaching the criminal justice system, it would be for the court to decide whether the bill’s three “tests” have been triggered, including the intent to change someone’s identity, whether the practice was abusive, and whether the victim suffered serious harm. She insists this threshold is “very clear” and in line with other forms of legislation.
“It is not the case that somebody who has an opinion about my identity – somebody may say ‘I don’t agree with the fact you’re a lesbian’; people do say that to me sometimes – that does not count as a conversion practice,” she says. “That is not an attempt to change me, it is not an abusive practice, it is not causing me serious harm.”
Bailey stresses: “This is about abuse – it is about a very specific form of abuse. It is not about policing opinions, it is not about policing how parents parent, and it is for the courts to determine, not politicians, but – rightly – for the courts to determine what meets that threshold of abuse.”
Asked whether she expects any parents to go to prison as a result of the legislation, Bailey replies: “I think that anybody committing abuse, no matter where you find it, no matter in what walk of life – there are not carve-outs for abuse for parents in any other legal environment.
“So, I think it is completely right that we just say very clearly in this legislation: we want to stop abuse, we want to stop abuse wherever it happens. Full stop. End of story.”
Some of the bill’s opponents suggest ulterior motives are at work. Baroness Fox, a non-affiliated peer, tells The House that the legislation seems to her “a backdoor attempt at bringing in a version of self-ID” for trans people.
"There are not carve-outs for abuse for parents in any other legal environment"
Bailey rejects this characterisation entirely, saying: “I just think that’s completely wrong. I would encourage Baroness Fox to engage with the detail of the legislation.
“I’m not interested in scaremongering about this legislation. I’m interested in stopping this very specific form of abuse on LGBT people, which is happening today, which is real, and is having a horrible impact on the LGBT community. That’s what this bill is about.”
The government has not wholly succeeded in satisfying LGBTQ+ campaigners with the draft bill either.
TransActual, a trans rights group which met with Bailey in December 2025, says the government has drafted a bill with “so many loopholes that it has practically written an instruction manual on how to get away with conversion abuse”.
Healthcare services, they point out, are exempt from the bill’s provisions, which they say will mean the “tortuous practice will be allowed to continue in healthcare settings, regulated and unregulated alike”.
Bailey says the clause was included following feedback from therapists who “raised concerns about a chilling effect” on clinicians’ ability to have exploratory conversations with patients.
The bill’s explanatory notes confirm that “people working in all public and private, regulated and non-regulated sectors” of healthcare will be exempt, with the broad nature of that wording prompting concerns that it could provide a get-out to anyone who says they are a therapist.
Bailey insists: “If somebody comes along who is intending to conduct an abusive conversion practice and attempts to claim that they’re a healthcare professional in order to try and avoid this legislation, that will not be possible.”
The healthcare exemption ceases to apply, she points out, if someone using it “acts in a way that falls far below the standards reasonably expected of a person in their position”.
What qualifies in each case as falling “far below” such standards would be another decision for the courts, with the bill’s explanatory notes stating it would be “equivalent to a threshold of gross negligence”.
Saba Ali, chair of the Ban Conversion Practices Coalition, tells The House: “We understand that the clauses on healthcare have raised alarm for some, especially the trans community, and pre-legislative scrutiny will be vital to ensure the draft bill strikes the right balance.
“LGBTQ+ people must be able to access healthcare services, and professionals must be able to practice with confidence. Legislation must also ensure all abuse is captured, whether perpetrated by regulated or unregulated professionals.”
Bailey acknowledges that the government may have to accept changes to the bill during its parliamentary journey.
“We’ve published this bill for pre-legislative scrutiny deliberately,” she says. “I actively encourage and want people to debate it with us, discuss it with us, tell us where we’ve got it right, tell us where we need to improve it...
“I think we’ve got this right, personally… but we will continue to discuss it, we will continue to debate it, and I am really open: if we’ve got it wrong, if we need to tweak it, whatever, we’re really open to doing that.”
