BABCP response to Conversion Practices (Criminalisation) Bill
The British Association for Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapies (BABCP) is the lead organisation for Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT) in the UK and Ireland. Our mission is to support the development of CBT, and those who deliver it, to improve the mental health of people across the UK and Ireland.
As the leading organisation for CBT in the UK and Ireland with over 26,000 members, we are committed to promoting the highest standards of CBT practice, training, and supervision. We hold all our members to the highest professional standards, which they commit to by adhering to our Standards of Conduct, Performance, and Ethics. Alongside the Association for Rational Emotive Behaviour Therapy (AREBT) we keep the CBT Register UK and Ireland. This is the only officially recognised register of BABCP and AREBT accredited CBT therapists, supervisors and trainers, and evidence-based Parent Trainers. The CBT Register is a Professional Standards Authority (PSA) Accredited register. BABCP also provides individual registration schemes for Psychological Wellbeing Practitioners (PWPs), Children’s Wellbeing Practitioners (CWPs), Mental Health Wellbeing Practitioners (MHWPs), Education Mental Health Practitioners (EMHPs); and Evidence Based Parent Trainers (EBPTs) Accreditation. These registration schemes are approved by NHS England.
General views on the Bill
Do you support the overall purpose of the Conversion Practices (Criminalisation) Bill?
Yes.
We support the overall purpose of the Conversion Practices (Criminalisation) Bill and the principle of protecting individuals from harmful practices intended to change or suppress their sexual orientation or gender identity.
It is important, however, that the legislation clearly distinguishes conversion practices from legitimate, evidence-based psychological therapy. Psychological therapists should be able to support individuals to openly explore distressing thoughts, feelings or uncertainty relating to their sexual orientation or gender identity, without directing them towards a particular outcome or seeking to change or suppress their identity.
This distinction is important to ensure that individuals are protected from harmful conversion practices while continuing to have access to appropriate, person-centred psychological support where needed.
Offence of providing conversion therapy — Clause 1
Clause 1 would make it an offence to provide or carry out conversion therapy where the person intends to change or suppress the victim’s sexual orientation or gender identity, and the victim suffers physical or psychological harm as a consequence. Do you support this approach?
Yes
We support Clause 1 and the overall aim of the Bill to protect people from harmful conversion practices. BABCP has a longstanding commitment to opposing conversion practices and is a signatory to the Memorandum of Understanding on Conversion Therapy, which sets out clear professional standards against practices that seek to change or suppress a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity. [1]
We particularly welcome the recognition that conversion practices can cause physical or psychological harm and that such conduct should be subject to criminal sanctions.
However, we consider that the Bill should also include an offence where a person intends to change or suppress the victim’s sexual orientation and the individual experiences serious alarm or distress which has a substantial adverse effect on their usual day-to-day activities because of the conversion practice. This would provide greater protection where significant psychological harm has occurred but does not meet the existing threshold.
This would also bring the Bill more closely in line with the approach taken in the England and Wales draft Bill, which includes serious alarm or distress where it has a substantial adverse effect on a person’s ability to carry out their normal day-to-day activities. [2]
Offence of engaging in coercive conversion behaviour — Clause 2
Clause 2 would make it an offence to engage in coercive conversion behaviour where the person intends to change or suppress the victim’s sexual orientation or gender identity, and the victim suffers physical or psychological harm as a consequence. Do you support this approach?
Yes
We support the principle of making coercive conversion behaviour a criminal offence where there is an intention to change or suppress a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity and this results in physical or psychological harm.
Conversion practices can cause significant and lasting psychological harm, particularly where individuals experience sustained pressure, intimidation or coercion to change or suppress their identity. It is therefore important that the legislation provides clear protection from these practices and recognises psychological as well as physical harm.
We would also welcome clarity within Clause 2 that serious alarm or distress which has a substantial adverse effect on a person’s usual day-to-day activities can amount to psychological harm for the purposes of the offence.
Are the elements of the offence sufficiently clear, including the requirements relating to intent, harm, the reasonableness defence, consent and penalties?
Yes
We consider it important that legislation recognises the significant psychological harm coercive practices can cause and protects individuals from practices intended to change or suppress their sexual orientation or gender identity.
We particularly welcome the provision that consent is not a defence. An individual may seek or consent to conversion practices because of pressure from their family, community or faith group, or because they believe changing or suppressing their identity will enable them to remain part of that community. Such consent should not make it permissible for a practitioner to provide conversion therapy.
At the same time, the legislation should not unintentionally restrict appropriately trained and regulated professionals from providing evidence-based, person-centred psychological care. Individuals should be able to access support that respects their autonomy, dignity and circumstances, including where they are experiencing distress or uncertainty relating to their sexual orientation or gender identity.
This should include therapeutic support for individuals experiencing distress due to rejection, exclusion or pressure from their family, faith group or wider community, without directing them towards a particular sexual orientation or gender identity.
We therefore support robust protection from coercive and harmful practices, while maintaining clarity around legitimate psychological care provided by appropriately trained professionals, including cognitive behavioural therapists.
Furthermore, as expressed above, we believe Clause 2 should make it an offence to engage in coercive behaviour intended to change or suppress the victim’s sexual orientation or gender identity where this results in serious alarm or distress that has a substantial adverse effect on their usual day-to-day activities.
Offence of removing a person from Northern Ireland — Clause 3
Clause 3 would make it an offence to cause or facilitate a person leaving Northern Ireland for the purposes of being subject to conversion therapy or coercive behaviour. Do you support this approach?
Yes
We support this clause and believe it is important that an offence can be committed where a person causes or facilitates another person leaving Northern Ireland for the purpose of subjecting them to conversion practices or coercive behaviour.
However, we are concerned about circumstances in which individuals may choose to leave Northern Ireland to seek conversion practices in another jurisdiction, in situations where fear, stigma or a sense of not belonging within their community may contribute to this decision. While we recognise that this Bill cannot address conversion practices taking place in other jurisdictions, we believe it is important to acknowledge that such circumstances may arise and that individuals may be particularly vulnerable to seeking harmful practices outside Northern Ireland.
We therefore support the inclusion of this offence while recognising the importance of wider measures to address stigma, promote inclusion and ensure that individuals can access appropriate, evidence-based and person-centred psychological support within Northern Ireland.
Are the elements of the offence sufficiently clear, including the requirements relating to intent, recklessness as to harm, the reasonableness defence, consent and penalties?
Yes
We consider the elements of the proposed offence to be sufficiently clear in establishing the circumstances in which causing or facilitating a person to leave Northern Ireland for the purpose of subjecting them to conversion practices or coercive behaviour would constitute an offence.
Definition of conversion therapy — Clause 4
Clause 4 defines conversion therapy as including counselling or any form of talking therapy, coaching or instruction, and treatment or purported treatment. Is this definition sufficiently clear and appropriate?
No
The definition of conversion therapy could also be strengthened by including that the reason why conversion practices aim to change or suppress sexual orientation or gender identity is on the basis that this gender identity or sexual orientation is considered inherently inferior, as expressed by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. [3]
We also consider that the definition could be broadened to ensure that it captures the full range of practices intended to change or suppress a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity. Clause 4 currently defines conversion therapy by reference to specific forms of activity, including counselling or talking therapy, coaching or instruction, and treatment or purported treatment. This could create uncertainty where conversion practices do not fall neatly within one of these categories.
We also consider it important that the legislation makes clear that a person’s belief that they are helping, treating or preventing harm does not in itself mean that the practice falls outside the definition where its intended purpose is to change or suppress a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity.
Does Clause 4 provide sufficient clarity on the circumstances in which regulated healthcare professionals would fall outside the scope of the offence?
No
We believe this clause should be amended to extend its remit to all appropriately trained healthcare professionals, including those who are not statutorily regulated. In Northern Ireland, many counsellors and psychotherapists are not registered with statutory regulators such as the HCPC or GMC, but are instead subject to voluntary professional regulation through PSA-accredited registers. For example, BABCP maintains a PSA-accredited register of CBT therapists and related practitioners. These registers provide important safeguards relating to professional standards, education and training, complaints and public protection.
We strongly urge the Government to amend Clause 4 to include appropriately trained professionals providing healthcare services, rather than limiting its application to those regulated by statutory bodies. This would be consistent with the approach taken in the UK Government’s draft Conversion Practices Bill, which provides that conduct carried out in the course of providing healthcare services is not a conversion practice unless the person providing the care acts in a way that falls far below the standards reasonably expected of someone in their position.
This is particularly important for CBT psychotherapists supporting people with OCD, anxiety or other mental health difficulties who may wish to explore feelings of distress or discomfort, including those relating to sexuality or gender. The Bill should ensure clinicians can engage in open-ended, evidence-informed and empirically grounded therapeutic exploration of a client’s thoughts, feelings, identity, beliefs or experiences where this is client-led, free from coercion or predetermined outcomes, consistent with informed consent and professional standards, and without fear of prosecution.
This approach would also be consistent with comparative European law. For example, France’s legislation provides a broad prohibition of practices intended to modify or suppress sexual orientation or gender identity while retaining a specific safeguard for legitimate healthcare activity. [4] We consider that Northern Ireland can similarly provide strong protection from conversion practices while ensuring that appropriately trained healthcare and psychological therapy professionals are able to provide legitimate, evidence-based care.
Power to amend list of regulatory bodies — Clause 4
Clause 4 would allow the Department of Health, by order subject to Assembly approval, to amend the list of regulatory bodies whose registered professionals may fall outside the scope of the conversion therapy offence when acting in accordance with applicable standards and codes of ethics. Is this delegated power appropriate?
Yes
We consider that this delegated power is appropriate, as it would allow the Department of Health to respond to changes in the regulation of healthcare professionals and to amend the list of relevant regulatory bodies where appropriate, subject to Assembly approval.
However, we reiterate our concerns regarding the current limitation of Clause 4 to professionals regulated by the specific statutory regulatory bodies listed in the Bill. Counsellors and Psychotherapists are not subject to statutory professional regulation in Northern Ireland, and therefore appropriately trained practitioners in these professions may not fall within the current provision.
We consider that the delegated power should therefore be used, where appropriate, to ensure that the legislation remains responsive to developments in professional regulation and recognises appropriate professional safeguards, including PSA-accredited voluntary registers such as BABCP CBT Register.
Definition of coercive behaviour — Clause 5
Clause 5 defines coercive behaviour for the purposes of the Bill. Is the definition sufficiently clear and workable?
Yes
We consider the definition to be broadly clear and workable, particularly as it provides specific examples of behaviours that could amount to coercion, including violence, threats, controlling behaviour and restricting a person’s freedom. These examples provide useful clarity around the types of conduct that may fall within the scope of the offence, while allowing the definition to capture different forms of coercive behaviour. We would, however, emphasise the importance of ensuring that the definition is applied consistently and provides sufficient clarity for both individuals and professionals.
Does the requirement that coercive behaviour must take place on two or more occasions provide an appropriate threshold for the offence?
Yes
We consider that requiring coercive behaviour to take place on two or more occasions provides an appropriate threshold for the offence. This provides a clear distinction between an isolated incident and a pattern of coercive behaviour, while recognising that coercive behaviour may take different forms.
We note that Clause 5(3) expressly provides that the behaviour may consist of the same behaviour occurring on a number of occasions or different behaviour occurring on different occasions. We consider this important, as coercive behaviour may involve a pattern of different behaviours rather than one repeated act.
We would, however, emphasise the importance of ensuring that the threshold is applied consistently and that the circumstances and cumulative impact of the behaviour are considered as a whole, particularly where repeated behaviour results in psychological harm, including fear, alarm or distress as recognised under Clause 8.
Sexual orientation, gender identity and intent — Clauses 6 and 7
Clauses 6 and 7 define sexual orientation and gender identity, and set out when there is, or is not, intent to change or suppress sexual orientation or gender identity. Are these provisions sufficiently clear?
Yes
We consider the provisions to be sufficiently clear in defining sexual orientation and gender identity and in setting out when there is, or is not, an intention to change or suppress a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity. As per our response to clause 4, it could be useful ten-ended, evidence-informed and empirically grounded therapeutic exploration where this is client-led, free from coercion or predetermined outcomes, and consistent with valid consent and professional standards.
Do these clauses provide sufficient protection for legitimate expression of beliefs or opinions, and for support which affirms a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity?
Yes
We consider that Clause 7 provides appropriate protection for legitimate expression of beliefs or opinions and for support which affirms a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity. It is important that the legislation protects individuals from coercive practices intended to change or suppress their sexual orientation or gender identity, while respecting freedom of expression and the provision of appropriate, evidence-based person-centred support.
We also consider it important that the legislation does not inadvertently restrict appropriately trained and accredited professionals from providing evidence-based psychological care. The UK Government’s draft Conversion Practices Bill provides a useful example of this distinction. It provides that conduct carried out in the course of providing healthcare services, including mental healthcare, is not a conversion practice unless the person providing the care acts in a way that falls far below the standards reasonably expected of someone in their position. [5]
Furthermore, as expressed earlier it is crucial for the Government to amend Clause 4 to include all of those providing healthcare services to the individuals concerned; not only those regulated by statutory bodies. We support an approach which provides strong protection from coercive and harmful conversion practices while maintaining appropriate safeguards to ensure clinicians are able to engage in open-ended, evidence-informed and empirically grounded therapeutic exploration of a client’s thoughts, feelings, identity, beliefs or experiences, where such exploration is client-led, free from coercion or predetermined outcomes, and consistent with informed consent and professional standards; without the fear of prosecution.
This should not create an exemption for conversion practices. Where a professional intentionally seeks to change or suppress a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity, the conduct should remain within the scope of the legislation.
Psychological harm — Clause 8
Clause 8 provides that psychological harm includes fear, alarm or distress. Is this definition appropriate and sufficiently clear for the purposes of the offences in the Bill?
No
We consider that Clause 8 provides useful clarification that psychological harm can include fear, alarm or distress. However, we do not consider that the provision currently provides sufficient clarity regarding the threshold at which fear, alarm or distress would amount to psychological harm for the purposes of a criminal offence.
The Bill does not specify the level, seriousness, duration or impact that fear, alarm or distress must reach to constitute psychological harm. Greater clarity would therefore be helpful in distinguishing distress that is sufficiently serious to meet the threshold for a criminal offence from more ordinary or temporary emotional distress.
We note that the UK Government’s draft Conversion Practices Bill takes a more specific approach, providing for serious harm to a person’s physical or mental health, or serious alarm or distress which has a substantial adverse effect on the person’s ability to carry out their usual day-to-day activities. [6]
We recommend that consideration be given to adopting a clearer threshold in Clause 8, including consideration of the seriousness and impact of the psychological harm. This would provide greater certainty for victims, professionals and those responsible for investigating and prosecuting offences, while ensuring that significant psychological harm is appropriately recognised and protected against. [7]
No right to claim trial by jury — Clause 9
Clause 9 would amend the Magistrates’ Courts (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 so that there would be no right to claim trial by jury for offences under clauses 1, 2 or 3. Do you agree with this approach?
Yes
We support the approach set out in Clause 9. Given the nature of the offences covered by Clauses 1–3 and the potential for cases to involve deeply held beliefs and views concerning sexual orientation and gender identity, we consider it important that these offences are dealt with through a process that supports impartial and consistent application of the law.
We recognise that individuals may hold a range of beliefs and opinions concerning sexual orientation and gender identity. However, the purpose of the legislation is to protect individuals from conduct intended to change or suppress their sexual orientation or gender identity where the relevant legal thresholds are met. We therefore consider it important that decisions in such cases are based on the evidence and the requirements of the legislation, rather than on personal beliefs or attitudes.
Subject to appropriate safeguards and fair-trial protections, we support the proposed removal of the right to claim trial by jury for these offences.
Commencement — Clause 10
Clause 10 provides that the Act would come into operation 12 months after Royal Assent. Is this an appropriate period to allow for preparation and implementation?
No
We consider that 12 months may be longer than necessary for implementation. While we recognise the need for sufficient time for relevant public bodies, professionals and other stakeholders to prepare for the new legislation, develop appropriate guidance and ensure there is clarity around its application, we would support the Act coming into operation sooner where these preparations can be completed within a shorter timeframe.
Given the potential harm associated with conversion practices, we would not wish the commencement period to unnecessarily delay the protections provided by the legislation. We would therefore support a shorter implementation period, provided that appropriate guidance and training are in place to ensure that the legislation is clearly understood and applied consistently.
It will be particularly important that guidance provides clarity for appropriately trained healthcare and psychological therapy professionals regarding the distinction between prohibited conversion practices and legitimate, evidence-based and person-centred psychological care.
Comparative European law also highlights the importance of supporting legislation with appropriate professional guidance, training, monitoring and public awareness. We therefore consider that, if a shorter commencement period is adopted, sufficient resources should nevertheless be provided to ensure that these measures are in place before the legislation comes into force. [8]
Suggested amendments
We recommend the following amendments to the Bill:
Clauses 1, 2 and 8 – Psychological harm: The Bill should provide a clearer threshold for psychological harm. We recommend the England and Wales draft Bill approach, referring to serious harm or serious alarm or distress with a substantial adverse effect on usual day-to-day activities. This would provide greater clarity for victims, professionals and enforcement.
Clause 4 – Definition of conversion therapy: The definition should make clear that practices may seek to change or suppress a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity on the basis that it is considered inherently inferior. This would reflect the discriminatory basis of conversion practices recognised in the Memorandum of Understanding on Conversion Therapy and international human rights standards.
Clause 4 – Healthcare professionals: Protection should be extended beyond those subject to statutory regulation. Many counsellors and psychotherapists in Northern Ireland are not statutorily regulated but may be subject to PSA-accredited registers. BABCP maintains a PSA-accredited register of CBT therapists, with safeguards on training, standards, complaints and public protection. The Bill should recognise appropriately trained professionals subject to such safeguards.
Clauses 4 and 7 – Legitimate psychological care: The Bill should make clear that appropriately trained healthcare professionals, including psychotherapists, CBT psychotherapists and counsellors, can engage in open-ended, evidence-informed and empirically grounded therapeutic exploration of a client’s thoughts, feelings, identity, beliefs or experiences where this is client-led, free from coercion or predetermined outcomes, and consistent with valid consent and professional standards. This should not exempt conversion practices; intentional attempts to change or suppress sexual orientation or gender identity should remain in scope.
Clause 4 – Religious or faith-based practitioners: There should be no blanket exemption for religious or faith-based practitioners where conduct meets the definition of a conversion practice. Legitimate expression of religious or other beliefs should remain protected where there is no such intention.
Implementation: Clear guidance and training should be provided before the legislation comes into force, particularly for psychological therapy professionals, to distinguish prohibited from legitimate therapeutic practice.
