A proposed UK conversion practices bill is drawing concern from Catholic bishops, who warn its broad wording could create uncertainty around pastoral care, family conversations and counselling. The Government says the draft is intended to prohibit criminal conversion practices, but it has not become law. The debate now sits within Parliament’s scrutiny of the proposal.

Essential Takeaways

  • It’s still a draft: The Government published the bill in June 2026 and sent it to Parliament for pre-legislative scrutiny.
  • The proposal has three offences: The Government says these would prohibit criminal conversion practices, alongside proposed civil protection orders.
  • Bishops fear uncertainty: Archbishop John Sherrington says the draft could affect lawful pastoral care, family life and ordinary conversations.
  • Parliament is examining it: A joint committee opened its inquiry in October 2026 and invited written evidence.
  • The US ruling has limits: The Supreme Court ruling concerned a Colorado law as applied to a counsellor’s speech, not every kind of conversion-practice regulation.

A draft bill, not a new law

The argument is over a proposal, not an enacted ban. The UK Government says its draft Conversion Practices Bill is designed to close gaps in criminal law, setting out three proposed offences and civil protection orders intended to protect people in advance.

The Government defines a conversion practice as an act intended to change someone’s sexual orientation or transgender identity. It published the draft on 25 June 2026 and sent it to Parliament for pre-legislative scrutiny, so its wording and likely effects remain part of an ongoing process. (Sources: [3], [4])

That distinction matters. The bishops’ warning is about what the draft could mean if adopted, not a statement that counselling about biological sex is already automatically a crime.

Why the bishops are concerned

Archbishop John Sherrington, who chairs the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales’ Department for Social Justice, says the draft’s broad definition could create uncertainty around pastoral care, family life and everyday conversation. He acknowledges that abusive practices should be prohibited and says the Church opposes abuse. (Source: [2])

His concern is that the proposal could extend the legal definition of abusive conduct in ways that affect freedom of religion or belief and freedom of expression. Sherrington also warns that parents and organisations could face legal action over well-intentioned comments, a risk he says could leave people unsure where lawful support ends and prohibited conduct begins. These are the archbishop’s concerns, not an authoritative finding about how a final law would operate. (Source: [2])

Parliament is still weighing the wording

The draft is being examined by a joint parliamentary committee, which opened its inquiry in October 2026 and invited written evidence. Its work gives lawmakers a formal setting to examine the bill’s language, possible effects and the arguments made by critics and supporters. (Source: [4])

Sherrington has urged politicians to abandon the proposal and focus instead on enforcing existing protections and supporting people facing abuse or coercion. That call lands while the bill is still under scrutiny, rather than after Parliament has settled its final shape. (Source: [2], [4])

What the US comparison does - and doesn’t - show

The debate has a parallel in the United States, where the Supreme Court considered a Colorado law restricting licensed therapists from providing conversion therapy to minors. In Chiles v. Salazar, the Court ruled that the law, as applied to a counsellor’s speech, required stronger First Amendment scrutiny than the lower courts had used. (Source: [5])

But the ruling was narrower than a blanket rejection of conversion-practice laws. The Court addressed the law’s application to speech in that case; it did not decide that every form of regulation is unconstitutional. And because it concerns US constitutional law, it does not determine how the UK draft would apply to counselling, religious care or family conversations. (Source: [5])

The difficult distinction: abuse and respectful support

The underlying question is how a law can prohibit coercive or abusive practices while protecting conversations that are supportive and non-directive. The Swiss Bishops’ Conference draws a distinction between coercive measures, which it rejects, and open pastoral conversations in which people can reflect and make their own decisions freely. (Source: [7])

That position is useful context, but it does not settle the UK bill’s meaning or establish the legal status of any Swiss ban. For readers following the UK proposal, the practical point is to separate what the draft officially proposes from what its critics fear it could cover. Parliament’s scrutiny is where those competing readings can be tested against the bill’s wording. (Sources: [3], [4], [7])

For now, the key question is how Parliament will refine the draft and define its boundaries.

Source Reference Map

Story idea inspired by: [1]

Sources by paragraph: