Draft Conversion Practices Bill: could schools and colleges be caught in the crosshairs?

It intends to criminalise “abusive conversion practices” on another person, and encouraging or assisting such a practice. A joint committee of MPs and peers is taking evidence about the Bill as part of its pre-legislative scrutiny.

The Bill is broadly drawn and raises difficult questions for schools and colleges about where legitimate safeguarding ends and potential criminal conduct begins.

Those questions are particularly important when the Bill is considered alongside KCSIE and other guidance and legislation applicable to children. KCSIE requires schools to take a careful approach to children who are questioning their gender. Staff may need to ask difficult questions, involve parents and make safeguarding decisions which do not accord with a child's wishes. 

Could some of those conversations or decisions potentially fall within the scope of the proposed legislation?

What are conversion practices?

The Bill defines a conversion practice as any conduct carried out towards an individual with the intention of causing them:

• to have or not to have, or to believe that they have or do not have, a sexual orientation or particular sexual orientation; or
• to have or not to have, or to believe that they have or do not have, a transgender identity or particular transgender identity.

A person commits the principal offence if they carry out an “abusive conversion practice” on another person which causes “serious harm” to the individual's physical or mental health, or serious alarm or distress which has a substantial adverse effect on their usual day-to-day activities.

In deciding whether a conversion practice is abusive, the court will consider all of the circumstances. The Bill identifies a non-exhaustive list of factors including whether the conduct involves words or behaviour of a sexual nature, controlling or coercive words or behaviour, and the use of psychological or emotional pressure. 

There are a few obvious problems with the way this is drafted. 

First, conduct is undefined and can be widely interpreted. It's not limited to therapy or organised conversion programmes and could encompass any relevant conduct, including conversations between parents and children, and between teachers and pupils.

Second, abusive is not defined and will be left to a court to determine. Although the Bill identifies factors which may be relevant, it does not specify the level of gravity those types of behaviour must reach before a conversion practice becomes abusive.

How broad is the definition of transgender identity?

Sexual orientation adopts the same definition as the Equality Act 2010 and following the Supreme Court's interpretation of sex, is defined by reference to biological sex rather than any concept of gender or certificated sex. 

But “transgender identity” goes much further than the Equality Act's definition of gender reassignment and can apply to non-binary identities as well as a wide range of alternative gender identities. It therefore creates an open-ended concept of transgender identity for the purposes of the proposed offences.

What does the person accused have to intend?

The mental element of the offence is only relevant to determine whether the individual accused of trying to convert another person intended to cause that person to have, or not have, the relevant sexual orientation or transgender identity. 

Any conduct carried out with the intention of changing someone's mind about whether they have or do not have the relevant sexual orientation or transgender identity will potentially be caught by the definition of conversion practices in the Bill.

And any relevant evidence can be taken into account when determining intention. This means that an accused person does not have to explicitly say that they want to cause someone to have or not have a particular transgender identity or sexual orientation. Their intention may be inferred from what they say and do, and the surrounding circumstances. If, for example, an accused person states that a young person is too young to identify as transgender, or understand their sexuality, that could potentially provide evidence from which the required intention is inferred. 

But the Bill does not then require the prosecution to prove that the person also intended their conduct to be abusive, or intended or foresaw the serious harm which resulted.

Nor does it provide a defence simply because the person acted reasonably or in accordance with other legal, professional or safeguarding requirements. It is unclear whether those matters would be admissible as evidence of whether the required intention or abuse is established, but they do not provide an express exemption from the offence.

How high is the harm threshold?

The Bill says that the offence is only made out if the conversion practices cause serious harm to a person’s physical or mental health, or serious alarm or distress to them which has a substantial adverse effect on their usual day to-day activities.

“Day-to-day activities” can encompass a broad range of ordinary activities and changes in the way someone lives their life. Guidance in the stalking context gives examples including changing a route to work, changing work patterns or employment, moving home and suffering physical or mental ill-health.

In an education setting, a substantial adverse effect could potentially include a pupil or student avoiding school or particular lessons, withdrawing significantly from extracurricular activities or social contact, or making other substantial changes to their normal routine.

The Bill does not expressly require the defendant to have intended or foreseen those serious consequences.

Is reasonable conduct a defence in any circumstances? 

There is a carve out for professionals providing healthcare services. Their conduct will not amount to a conversion practice unless they act in a way that falls “far below the standards reasonably expected of a person in their position”.

There is no equivalent carve-out for teachers, safeguarding leads or pastoral staff, including where they are following statutory safeguarding guidance. And that leaves an important gap. KCSIE treats social transition as a safeguarding issue and requires schools to make judgements about how they respond to a child's request. 

The Bill does not expressly protect staff who make those judgements reasonably and in accordance with their safeguarding responsibilities. That said, a teacher's compliance with KCSIE or other safeguarding requirements may be relevant evidence when considering what they intended and whether their conduct was abusive. 

What could this mean in practice for schools?

The Bill could create particular difficulties for schools and colleges.

KCSIE requires you to take a careful approach to requests for social transition. Staff should not initiate discussions about social transition, but where a child makes a request they are expected to take time to understand their thoughts and feelings and remain “professionally curious” about the full range of their experiences, including wider health issues and neurodiversity. In the vast majority of cases, parents should also be involved. 

Schools are also told that social transition is an active intervention which can have a significant effect on a child's psychological functioning and longer-term outcomes. They should be particularly cautious with primary-aged children, take account of relevant clinical advice and avoid putting children under pressure to commit to a potentially irrevocable pathway when they are young. 

This means that staff may have to question or explore what a child is asking them to do, involve parents who may disagree with the child, or refuse a request altogether.

The potential legal difficulty is distinguishing genuinely exploratory safeguarding discussions from conduct carried out with the specific intention required in the Bill. The Bill does not resolve that issue. Nor does it require a formal programme or repeated pattern of behaviour. A single conversation could therefore potentially constitute the relevant conduct, although all the other requirements of the offence would still have to be established.

The same questions could potentially arise in reverse where a child wants to detransition because the Bill's definition of conversion practices applies to conduct intended to cause someone either to have or not to have a transgender identity. 

Pronouns may be particularly difficult

KCSIE recognises the religion or belief rights of pupils and staff and says that schools supporting social transition might discuss options such as using names instead of pronouns. Will refusing to use a child's preferred pronouns amount to an abusive conversion practice? That's not clear.

And, what about other children who don't want to use preferred pronouns to refer to their classmates or refuse to accept their gender identity? Are you required to compel them to do so, to avoid being accused of encouraging or assisting conversion practices? Again that's not clear. Nor is it as outlandish as you might think. The age of criminal responsibility is 10 and the Bill doesn't require there to be any duty of care between the alleged perpetrator and alleged victim. 

What about sex-based facilities?

Another difficult issue could arise where a school or college applies rules based on sex, for example by refusing a request from a pupil or student to use toilets, changing rooms or boarding or residential accommodation provided for the opposite sex. KCSIE explicitly states that you must not allow pupils to use facilities designed for the opposite biological sex. There are no exceptions to this.  

Would responding to such a request along the lines of “we can't agree to this because this particular rule is based on biological sex” avoid being a conversion practice because the teacher does not intend to challenge or change the child's transgender identity? 

Not necessarily. It could be argued that enforcing separate sex facilities in line with biological sex suppresses a child's gender identity and this amounts to the same thing as causing them not to have that gender identity or to believe they don't have it.

There could also be an important question about harm. A pupil or student might allege that the decision, or the way it was implemented, caused them serious alarm or distress which substantially affected their usual day-to-day activities. They might, for example, say that they stopped using facilities at school, restricted what they ate or drank to avoid using toilets, decided not to attend trips abroad requiring overnight accommodation, or otherwise significantly changed their normal school routine.

What about parents?

Parents do not have an equivalent to the healthcare carve-out either.

That could be important because KCSIE generally anticipates parental involvement when schools respond to requests for social transition. 

Schools could therefore find themselves managing situations in which KCSIE points towards parental involvement but the parent's response to the child's asserted identity itself gives rise to safeguarding concerns and/or doesn't align with the child's wishes.  

Could schools and colleges be liable for the actions of their staff? 

Potentially, yes. The Bill extends liability to corporate and unincorporated bodies (which may include schools and colleges depending on their structure). In addition, a person purporting to act as a relevant officer of that organisation must take all reasonable steps to prevent the commission of the offence by the school or college. And a failure to do so constitutes an offence in itself. 

That exposes another risk. What does “all reasonable steps” look like in the context of education and what happens if the requirement to take those steps conflicts with safeguarding obligations? Safeguarding is a core requirement. Failing to comply with the latter can be career-ending for teachers.

Will this Bill become law?

The Bill is in draft form and has not yet been laid before Parliament. It's possible that the Bill will be amended once the committee has considered all of the evidence. 

Have your say

The committee wants to hear views from individuals and organisations about the draft Bill. It says these will inform the recommendations it will make to the government. It is particularly interested in hearing how to address any issues you identify. 

But you don't have long. The call for evidence is open until Monday 16 November 2026 at 5pm. You can respond here.