This week Labour published a draft law for a “trans-inclusive ban on conversion practices”.

The stated aim is to end abuse and close legal loopholes that leave LGBT+ people at risk. The Bill would make it illegal to carry out practices with the intent to change someone’s sexual orientation or gender identity, with extra protections for under-18s.

That goal I support. Abuse is wrong.

Any law that stops coercion, violence, or deceptive practices has my full backing. Nobody should be forced, shamed, or harmed in the name of changing who they are.

The debate is/should be about wording, not the aim.

My objection to the draft Bill is to the risk that if enacted it could confuse ‘abuse’ with sincerely held ‘biblical conviction’.

The government says it will protect adults who give informed, voluntary consent, and that “expressing the teachings of a religion” is not meant to be covered. That sounds reasonable.

The problem is in the definition.

If “intent to change” is drawn too broadly, it can catch ordinary Christian life.

A pastor praying with an adult who asks for help to live by Scripture.

Parents teaching their children what the Bible says about sex and marriage.

A church preaching from Genesis 1:27 or Matthew 19:4-6.

Individuals expressing their views on the subject, even when asked.

The Christian Institute and Christian Concern have both published legal concerns.

Neither opposes banning harmful medical practices. Their concern is that an over-broad ban could infringe the right to manifest religious belief.

Faith leaders in Victoria, Australia have reported a “chilling effect” on pastoral care since a similar law was passed in 2022.

This is not hostility to LGBT+ people. It is a call for precision in law.

Three safeguards the Bill needs

If the Bill is pursued — though I remain unconvinced it should be — it must include:

1. Ban coercion and abuse in clear, defined terms.

2. Protect voluntary pastoral support, prayer, and counselling for consenting adults.

3. Protect parents and churches to teach and live out their faith.

A good law should protect the vulnerable without criminalising belief. We can do both.

Here’s the letter I’ve sent to my MP, David Burton-Samson:

Thank you for continuing to represent Southend West & Leigh. I note your recent post on Facebook congratulating the government on introducing the Bill to tackle the evils of conversion therapy and extend LGBT rights.

I share your view that nobody deserves to be abused, and I condemn any practice that is coercive, deceptive, or harmful. That should be banned without question. For clarity, I define “coercive conversion practices” as any coercive, deceptive, or harmful attempt to change or suppress someone’s sexual orientation or gender identity.

My concern is not with banning that abuse. It is that the draft Bill’s “intent to change” test could also capture voluntary pastoral prayer, counselling, parenting, and teaching that adults request. I am a Christian constituent in Southend West. I hold that the Bible teaches that sex is for marriage between a man and a woman and there are two genders: male and female. This is a matter of truth and conscience, not hostility to LGBT+ people, who deserve the same “love thy neighbour” treatment as anyone else.

Groups including The Christian Institute have warned that a broadly framed ban could risk criminalising normal Christian prayer, pastoral care, parenting, and teaching. Legal advice they commissioned said such a ban could raise serious issues under Convention rights unless carefully circumscribed. We can see this already in Victoria, Australia under the Change or Suppression Practices Act 2021:

1.  **Intent of the law**: It aims to ban coercive, harmful practices, not prayer. No prosecutions have been brought to date.

2.  **Effect on the ground**: Faith leaders report a “chilling effect”. They say the broad wording and inclusion of ‘suppression’ has made religious leaders, parents and carers reluctant to provide voluntary, requested pastoral care for fear of breaching the law.

3.  **The ask**: Amend for clarity so voluntary pastoral care, parenting, and teaching are not caught. Without this, lawful religious expression is chilled even when no abuse occurs.

Please help to ensure the Bill is tightly drafted so it:

1.  Bans coercion and abuse outright, while

2.  Protects voluntary pastoral support, private prayer, and adults seeking counselling consistent with their beliefs, and

3.  Protects parents’ ability to raise children and teach their faith at home and in church.

Without clear safeguards, there is a real risk that lawful religious expression could be caught. I know a number of LBGT+ folk and enjoy a good relationship with many as well as, like you, recognising some legitimate concerns. I hope, if the subject arises (and more often and not it doesn’t), I still can give my honestly held views. I would welcome your response on how the draft will distinguish between coercion/abuse and lawful, voluntary religious expression.