A proposed conversion practices law in England and Wales has reopened a sharp political row over LGBT+ protections, gender identity and family life. Equalities Minister Bridget Phillipson says the Conservatives have abandoned a long-standing consensus by withdrawing support, while Kemi Badenoch’s party argues the draft risks reaching too far. The detail matters: this is still a bill under scrutiny, not law.

A draft bill, and a political break

The dispute centres on a draft law intended to prohibit abusive practices that try to change someone’s sexual orientation or transgender identity. The Government says the proposed offence would require intent to change a person, abusive conduct and serious harm, setting a high threshold rather than criminalising ordinary conversations.

The draft was published on 25 June 2026 for England and Wales and remains at the pre-legislative scrutiny stage. The Government’s published proposals also include an offence for arranging or assisting conversion practices overseas and civil protection orders for people at risk.

Phillipson has accused Badenoch’s Conservatives of turning away from LGBT+ people and tolerance after they dropped support for a ban. The Conservatives say their position changed because of concerns about the bill’s scope, particularly its treatment of gender identity.

What would the proposed law cover?

The Government’s draft defines a conversion practice as an act intended to change a person’s sexual orientation or transgender identity. Its parliamentary explanation describes the proposed offence as requiring abusive conduct and serious harm, alarm or distress with a substantial effect on the person’s daily activities.

A maximum sentence of five years’ custody is proposed for the main offences. That’s a proposed penalty, not a current one: the legislation has not been enacted, and its wording remains open to scrutiny.

The Government’s impact assessment says the proposal is meant to be trans-inclusive, while recognising concerns about human rights, healthcare and legitimate activity. It also notes that there is no robust estimate of how many people or organisations in the UK conduct abusive practices.

Why parents’ conversations are at the centre

Badenoch has warned that parents could be arrested for parenting their children, in response to a question about a child identifying as a cat. Government officials reject that reading, saying the offence’s combined requirements of intent, abuse and serious harm are designed to set a high bar.

The Government has also said it intends to preserve freedom of expression, religious freedom, parenting choices and appropriate healthcare. PinkNews reported that Downing Street said ordinary parenting and open, exploratory or challenging discussions with young people would not be affected.

Still, the argument has a human edge. Families and young people need room for honest conversations, while people who experience abusive attempts to change their identity need protection. The political disagreement is over where the proposed law would draw that line.

The criticism, and what it claims

Policy Exchange’s report argues that the draft could create risks for parents and constrain conversations with young people questioning their gender. It also raises concerns about protections for non-binary people and whether some conduct is already covered by existing laws.

Those are the report authors’ legal and policy arguments, not settled outcomes or a court ruling. The Government’s own assessment, meanwhile, acknowledges evidence gaps and says its analysis is provisional, so the debate is taking place while important questions remain under examination.

The Conservative response says the bill could discourage honest, exploratory conversations and thoughtful clinical support for young people. Badenoch had previously supported the idea of a legal ban, making the party’s change of position part of the story as well as the bill’s wording.

What readers should keep in mind

For now, the most useful distinction is between the draft’s stated tests and predictions about how it might work. The bill describes conduct intended to change someone’s sexual orientation or transgender identity; the Government says the proposed offence also requires abuse and serious harm.

Readers can consult the Government’s draft bill and impact assessment for its own account, and compare those documents with Policy Exchange’s critique. Neither political assurances nor a critical report is the same as a final law: the proposal is still being scrutinised.

The argument is about both protection and boundaries, and the draft’s next stage will matter.

Source Reference Map

Story idea inspired by: [1]

Sources by paragraph: