The Government's proposed Conversion Practices Bill raises important questions about safeguarding, religious freedom and responsible pastoral ministry. As Parliament examines the proposals, the Baptist Union of Great Britain is contributing to the discussion. 
 
The UK Government has published a draft Conversion Practices Bill for England and Wales, intended to protect people from abusive practices seeking to change their sexual orientation or gender identity. The Joint Committee's call for evidence opened on the 26th October, with submissions due by the 16th November, leaving just three weeks for organisations to consider the proposals, consult colleagues and prepare a response. 
 
The proposals have prompted strong responses, including from Christian organisations. Some fear that the legislation could restrict legitimate religious expression and pastoral care. Others are concerned that it does not go far enough to protect people from harm. 
 
As Baptists, we have good reasons to take both concerns seriously. Our belief that every person is made in the image of God calls us to recognise their dignity and protect them from harm. And our longstanding commitment to freedom of conscience reflects the conviction that faith must be freely embraced, never compelled. That means defending the freedom to hold and practise religious convictions, while also recognising that spiritual authority can sometimes be misused. 
 
It is in that spirit that the Baptist Union has prepared a submission to the parliamentary committee scrutinising the Bill. 
 

 
‘Conversion practices’ is a contested term, but in the context of this Bill it broadly describes conduct intended to change someone's sexual orientation or gender identity, or to make them believe that they have or do not have a particular orientation or identity. The Bill draws an important distinction between conversion practices generally and those that are considered abusive. In determining whether a practice is abusive, it requires consideration of all the circumstances, including whether the conduct involves words or behaviour of a sexual nature, violence, threats, coercion, economic pressure, or psychological or emotional pressure. 
 
Within religious communities, concerns have included persistent pressure to change, humiliation, threats of spiritual consequences, and the misuse of prayer or pastoral relationships. 
 
Behind the arguments about legislation are the experiences of real people, including some who have been deeply hurt within Christian communities. Their stories deserve to be heard and taken seriously. 
 
Research undertaken by Coventry University in 2021, drawing on 46 previous studies and interviews with 30 people in the UK who had experienced conversion practices, recorded accounts of serious psychological distress, including self-harm and suicidal thoughts. The research doesn't establish how widespread such experiences are, but it offers compelling evidence of why safeguarding in this area matters. 
 
We should, of course, be careful not to assume that abusive practices are commonplace in Christian ministry. Our expectation is that churches seek to provide pastoral care that is compassionate, responsible and extremely attentive to safeguarding. But we must also recognise that sincere Christian convictions and a genuine desire to help do not, in themselves, guarantee that our actions will be free from harm. 
 

 
The draft Bill seeks to distinguish between legitimate religious activity and conduct that becomes abusive. It does not propose to criminalise religious convictions, nor does it explicitly prohibit prayer, preaching or pastoral conversations simply because they express particular understandings of sexuality or gender identity. However, questions remain about how that distinction would operate in practice. 
 
Under the proposals, a criminal offence would be committed where a conversion practice is abusive and causes serious harm to someone's physical or mental health, or serious alarm or distress that substantially affects their usual day-to-day activities. A person convicted of the proposed offence could face up to five years' imprisonment. 
 
The Bill also proposes protection orders intended to prevent people from being subjected to abusive practices, and provisions concerning the responsibilities of organisations and their officers. 
 
Importantly, this is not yet law. A Joint Committee of MPs and members of the House of Lords is examining the draft before the Government decides how to proceed. 
 

 
Some Christian organisations have expressed significant reservations about the proposals. While opposing coercive and abusive practices, they question whether further legislation is necessary, arguing that existing laws already prohibit abuse. They are also concerned that insufficiently precise definitions could affect legitimate religious activity, including prayer, preaching, pastoral conversations and parents discussing sexuality or gender identity with their children. 
 
Others believe the legislation does not go far enough. They question whether the proposed threshold for serious harm is too demanding, potentially leaving some harmful practices outside the law. Some have also raised concerns that attempts to suppress someone's sexuality or gender identity are not explicitly included in the Bill's definition. 
 
These concerns arise from different perspectives, but they illustrate why careful parliamentary scrutiny matters. The task is not simply to declare ourselves for or against the proposals, but to consider whether the legislation can provide effective protection while respecting fundamental freedoms and avoiding unintended consequences. 
 

 
From time to time, the Baptist Union contributes to government consultations and parliamentary inquiries, particularly where proposals may affect the life and ministry of our churches or raise significant questions of justice, conscience and public responsibility. This is one such occasion. 
 
The proposed legislation has potential implications for churches, ministers, trustees and those receiving pastoral care, and we believe there is value in bringing Baptist perspectives to the parliamentary scrutiny process. 
 
BUGB has not adopted a formal Assembly or Council resolution concerning conversion practices. Our churches hold differing theological convictions about sexuality and gender identity. Many maintain traditional positions, while some hold more affirming perspectives. Our submission does not seek to resolve those differences. 
 
Instead, it builds on our response to the Government's earlier consultation in 2021, when we supported reasonable and proportionate measures to protect people from harm while raising questions about safeguarding, consent and religious freedom. 
 
We believe there is a credible case for additional legal protection, particularly where sustained psychological or spiritual coercion may fall outside existing offences. At the same time, we recognise the importance of ensuring that criminal legislation is sufficiently clear to distinguish abusive conduct from legitimate religious activity. 
 
Simply endorsing or rejecting the proposals in their entirety would miss an opportunity to bring an important Baptist perspective into the scrutiny process.  
 

 
Our submission raises a number of practical questions about the Bill, but these are underpinned by some important convictions about the nature of Christian ministry and our responsibilities towards one another. 
 
Freedom of conscience works in both directions. 
 
Baptists have historically defended the conviction that religious faith cannot legitimately be compelled. That principle protects the freedom to believe, worship, preach and seek spiritual guidance. It also requires us to respect the freedom of those who question, disagree with or reject the teaching they encounter. 
 
We would be deeply concerned if prayer, preaching or pastoral conversations were treated as inherently abusive simply because they express sincerely held Christian convictions about sexuality and relationships, including those rooted in traditional understandings of Christian teaching. But we would be equally concerned if religious practices were considered beyond scrutiny simply because they are religious. 
 
Prayer, for example, can be a profound expression of love and care. Yet it can also be used to exert pressure, reinforce shame or exploit vulnerability – consciously or unconsciously. Good intentions do not necessarily prevent harm, and we should be open to learning from the experiences of others and reflecting honestly on our pastoral practices. 
 
Consent and spiritual authority require careful attention. 
 
Someone may freely seek prayer or pastoral guidance consistent with their convictions, and their freedom to do so matters. 
 
Nevertheless, even where someone has initially sought pastoral support, their consent cannot simply be assumed to continue indefinitely, particularly where there are significant differences in power or authority. 
 
Relationships involving spiritual authority can be complex. A person may feel unable to challenge a minister, withdraw from a conversation or decline further intervention because they fear rejection or spiritual consequences. 
 
We have therefore asked the Committee to consider the circumstances surrounding pastoral encounters, including the possibility that repeated pressure may become harmful even where individual conversations appear unremarkable. 
 
The law must be clear about what is criminal. 
 
We recognise concerns that uncertainty could discourage ministers from engaging in legitimate pastoral conversations. Churches need to understand the boundary between lawful religious activity and abusive conduct. 
 
We have asked for greater clarity in the legislation itself, alongside authoritative guidance using realistic examples from faith settings. 
 
Trustees need clear and workable responsibilities. 
 
The Bill raises particular questions about potential criminal liability for charity trustees and other officeholders. 
 
Baptist churches vary enormously in size and resources, and much pastoral activity happens informally or through volunteers. 
 
Trustees must, of course, exercise appropriate and effective safeguarding oversight. But that is not the same as expecting them to monitor every confidential pastoral conversation. We have asked the Committee to clarify what reasonable preventative action would involve and when and how trustees could be held personally liable. 
 
Safeguarding goes beyond criminal law. 
 
Finally, we have emphasised that the threshold for criminal liability should never become the benchmark for acceptable pastoral practice. 
 
Churches must address inappropriate or harmful behaviour even when it does not amount to a criminal offence. Responsible ministry also includes recognising the limits of pastoral competence and knowing when specialist support is appropriate. 
 
We have called for practical guidance, developed with religious communities, safeguarding professionals and people who have experienced conversion practices, with sufficient time for churches to prepare before any legislation comes into force. 
 

 
There is still an opportunity for individuals and churches to share their views. 
 
The Joint Committee is accepting written evidence until 5pm on Monday 16 November 2026. You can respond through the Committee's call for evidence. You do not need to answer every question; you can concentrate on those most relevant to your experience or concerns. 
 
Whether you welcome the proposals or have significant reservations, we encourage thoughtful and gracious engagement. Consider what protection is needed, where greater clarity would help, and how the legislation might affect both those seeking pastoral care and those providing it. 
 
Our hope is that the eventual legislation, should it be adopted, will enable churches to continue offering faithful and responsible pastoral ministry while strengthening the protection of individuals from abuse. 
 
For Baptists, these are not competing ambitions. Both flow from our conviction that every person bears God's image, and that faith must be freely embraced rather than compelled.