The Catholic bishops have called for Labour’s Conversion Practices Bill to be abandoned, while the Church of England warns that legitimate prayer and pastoral care could be criminalised. Yet the Established Church voted to encourage such legislation in 2017, rejecting an amendment which expressly affirmed voluntary prayer ministry. Its subsequent warnings reveal how long the danger has been recognised. The Catholic hierarchy’s opposition, meanwhile, rests upon a consistent defence of religious freedom, parental responsibility and the Church’s duty to teach the Faith.
The Government’s proposed Conversion Practices Bill has encountered opposition from two ecclesiastical authorities whose objections Westminster cannot readily dismiss. On 6 November, The Daily Telegraph reported that Archbishop John Sherrington of Liverpool had called for the legislation to be abandoned, warning that it threatened legitimate pastoral care, family relationships and the Catholic Church’s freedom to proclaim her moral teaching. The Church of England, whose support ministers have repeatedly invoked, separately warned that the proposed law must not criminalise appropriate prayer and spiritual assistance. Bishop Brian McGee, vice-president of the Scottish Bishops’ Conference, added his criticism, maintaining that the proposals extended beyond protecting people from abuse into ordinary family life and religious instruction.¹
The Anglican intervention is politically awkward because the Church of England is the Established Church in England. Twenty-six Anglican bishops sit in Parliament as Lords Spiritual, the Sovereign remains its Supreme Governor, and measures passed by its General Synod may require parliamentary approval. Its institutional support therefore carries a significance beyond that of another religious organisation endorsing government policy. When ministers invoke Anglican approval of legislation affecting religious practice, they are claiming the support of an institution whose relationship with the machinery of government is part of the constitutional settlement.
When the draft Bill was published on 25 June, the Government prominently quoted the Bishop of Manchester, Dr David Walker, welcoming it as a positive development. Walker, Convenor of the Lords Spiritual, referred to General Synod’s 2017 resolution calling for legislation against conversion therapy and welcomed parliamentary consultation and scrutiny. That latter qualification has acquired considerably greater importance than ministers appear to have anticipated. Supporting the principle of protecting people from abusive practices is one thing; approving the criminal offences devised to accomplish it is another.²
An examination of the original Synod proceedings reveals a more complicated history than either ministers or the Church of England’s present spokesmen have acknowledged.
On 8 July 2017, General Synod debated a private member’s motion introduced by Jayne Ozanne, then a lay representative of the Diocese of Oxford. Her original proposal sought endorsement of a professional statement condemning conversion therapy and called upon the Archbishops’ Council to become a signatory. The eventual resolution, following amendments, went considerably further by calling upon the Government to ban the practice. The final vote was overwhelming: 36 bishops supported the motion with one against; 135 clergy voted in favour, 25 against and 13 abstained; while the laity divided 127 in favour, 48 against and 13 abstentions.³
The words of the adopted motion are important. Synod endorsed the 2015 Memorandum of Understanding on Conversion Therapy, which condemned practices intended to alter sexual orientation as unethical, potentially harmful and unsupported by evidence. It also called upon the Church to be sensitive towards contemporary expressions of gender identity. Its final provision requested government legislation prohibiting conversion therapy. The motion did not specify how Parliament should distinguish abusive treatment from freely requested prayer, religious counselling or moral instruction. Nor did it establish safeguards for the ordinary pastoral responsibilities of clergy.
That omission was no mere oversight which escaped attention during the debate. The Revd Dr Sean Doherty, then representing the Diocese of London, proposed an alternative motion which would have expressly affirmed the legitimacy of pastoral care, prayer ministry and professional counselling voluntarily undertaken, provided they respected human dignity, avoided coercion or manipulation and made no unwarranted promises about changing unwanted feelings. His amendment also recognised that all human sexuality is affected by the Fall and requested guidance from the House of Bishops distinguishing appropriate from inappropriate pastoral practices.⁴
Doherty was offering Synod an opportunity to acknowledge the evil of genuinely abusive practices while defining what legitimate Christian ministry ought to remain free to do. His proposal was more than a request for an exemption. It attempted to place the discussion within a theological understanding of human nature and to distinguish pastoral responsibility from claims that psychological treatment could or should remove particular sexual inclinations.
General Synod rejected the amendment in all three houses. Among the bishops, 10 voted in favour, 26 against and two abstained. The clergy divided 64 in favour, 110 against and two abstentions; the laity, 88 in favour, 97 against and six abstentions. These were recorded divisions upon a replacement motion containing several substantive provisions, so it would be inaccurate to conclude that every member who opposed Doherty was thereby voting against voluntary prayer or pastoral care. Nevertheless, the opportunity to adopt an explicit affirmation of such ministry was presented, debated and declined. Synod proceeded instead with an amended motion calling for government prohibition without incorporating Doherty’s proposed safeguards.⁴
The significance of that decision becomes clearer when considered alongside the contributions made during the debate. The then Bishop of Liverpool, Paul Bayes, distinguished between ascetical formation and therapeutic intervention. He recognised that Christianity calls believers to conform their lives to Christ and pursue holiness, while rejecting the suggestion that homosexual orientation should be treated as an illness requiring healing therapy. His intervention demonstrated that the distinction between Christian moral formation and purported sexual-orientation treatment was already apparent to at least some Anglican bishops in 2017.³
That distinction deserves particular attention in light of the evidence subsequently given by Ozanne to Parliament in November 2026. By then she was arguing that religious expectations of celibacy and sexual abstinence could themselves form part of the practices which legislation ought to prohibit. The difference between ascetical discipline, freely embraced according to religious conviction, and an abusive attempt to alter an individual’s sexual orientation has therefore become central to the controversy which Synod’s original proceedings left unresolved.
There was, however, an important development the following year. On 3 July 2018, responding to the Government’s LGBT Action Plan, the Church of England warmly welcomed the commitment to eradicate conversion therapy. Its spokesman recalled the previous summer’s vote and explained that the Church had continued pressing ministers to legislate. Dame Caroline Spelman, then Second Church Estates Commissioner, had held meetings with ministers for precisely that purpose.⁵
The statement nevertheless contained an explicit qualification. The Church welcomed the recognition that legislation should not inadvertently prevent individuals from seeking spiritual support from religious leaders when exploring questions of sexuality or gender identity. Thus, within twelve months of rejecting Doherty’s amendment, the Church of England had publicly identified the very category of religious activity which his proposal had sought to affirm.
That history establishes something more substantial than a belated change of heart in 2026. The Established Church helped promote a legislative prohibition, declined to adopt a comprehensive theological and pastoral alternative, and subsequently recognised that government legislation might endanger the freedom of individuals to seek spiritual assistance. It was aware of the danger in 2018, when no present Labour Bill existed. Nearly nine years after the original Synod vote, its spokesman is again asking that prayer and pastoral care remain protected.
The concern was repeated on 11 May 2021, when the Bishop of London, Sarah Mullally, responded to the Queen’s Speech announcing plans for a ban. She welcomed the Government’s commitment while acknowledging the difficulties of defining conversion therapy and insisting that consent should remain central to any eventual legislation. The Church’s present warning therefore belongs to a documented sequence of institutional reservations extending across successive administrations.⁶
Ministers cannot reasonably cite the 2017 vote as conclusive evidence of Anglican support for the present Bill while overlooking the qualifications which the Church of England has expressed since 2018. Yet the Church itself must acknowledge its responsibility for encouraging government intervention without first resolving the practical distinction between coercive conduct and legitimate spiritual ministry. A national Church with bishops sitting in the legislature possesses both the opportunity and the constitutional responsibility to examine those consequences before legislation reaches an advanced stage.
The latest warning is rendered more interesting by the Church of England’s own recent treatment of prayer ministry. On 12 October 2026, it published new guidance entitled Lord, Teach Us to Pray, developed with members of its Faith and Order Commission and specialists in safeguarding and pastoral practice. The guidance recognises that prayer may involve vulnerable people, that spiritual authority can be misused and that appropriate formation, confidentiality and professional boundaries are necessary. It also addresses circumstances requiring referral to statutory services.⁷
The Church of England was consequently developing its own safeguards for prayer ministry only weeks before warning ministers against inadvertently criminalising appropriate pastoral conduct. Its position recognises that religious organisations possess responsibilities for regulating their ministers and protecting those who seek assistance. The existence of such responsibilities is hardly an argument for allowing the criminal law to intrude into every voluntary spiritual relationship.
The Catholic bishops have approached the controversy from a more decisive position. Archbishop John Sherrington, chairman of the Department for Social Justice of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales, acknowledged the Government’s responsibility to protect individuals against abuse and coercion. According to his statement reported by The Telegraph, however, the bishops maintained that existing criminal legislation already prohibits abusive practices and questioned the necessity of additional offences whose application might extend into ordinary pastoral and family relationships.
Sherrington warned that parents offering considered guidance, individuals expressing sincerely held convictions and religious organisations undertaking their legitimate responsibilities might become exposed to legal proceedings. He also identified the danger that the proposed law could challenge the Catholic Church’s ability to proclaim an authentic understanding of the human person. The bishops consequently called upon politicians to abandon the Bill and concentrate upon enforcing existing protections, while providing appropriate assistance for those who have suffered harm.¹
This is a substantive ecclesiastical objection. The Catholic Church’s understanding of the human person is derived from her doctrinal and moral tradition, which civil authority does not possess competence to revise. Bishops have a responsibility to teach that doctrine, including those aspects concerning marriage, chastity and the proper ordering of sexual conduct. Priests are obliged to provide spiritual assistance according to the Faith, while parents remain responsible for the moral formation of their children. Their responsibilities are exercised within the law, but they cannot be made dependent upon contemporary political approval of Catholic teaching.
Bishop Brian McGee’s accompanying criticism raised comparable concerns. He recognised the necessity of protecting citizens against violence and exploitation, but warned that the proposed measures appeared capable of extending into ordinary family discussions, pastoral conversations and religious education. His intervention follows an official statement issued on 8 October by the Catholic Parliamentary Office of the Bishops’ Conference of Scotland, Parental and Pastoral Care Without Fear, signed by its director, Anthony Horan.⁸
That statement concerned a Scottish National Party conference motion proposing comprehensive conversion-practices legislation in Scotland, although it also identified deficiencies in the Westminster draft. It defended the responsibilities of parents to question, advise and set appropriate boundaries for their children, particularly where important decisions concerning identity or personal conduct were involved. It also affirmed the freedom of individuals to seek spiritual counsel and of clergy to respond according to religious conviction, provided their conduct involved no intimidation, coercion or abuse.
The Scottish Catholic hierarchy had made similar objections more than two years earlier. On 9 January 2024, the Archdiocese of St Andrews and Edinburgh published a statement responding to the Scottish Government’s consultation on conversion practices. It warned that imprecise definitions might criminalise advice offered in good faith and inhibit legitimate religious pastoral care, parental guidance and professional intervention. While supporting protection against physical and verbal abuse, the statement defended the liberty of religious organisations to teach their beliefs and assist those voluntarily seeking to live according to them.⁹
These objections acquired further practical expression on 2 November 2026, when the Scottish Catholic Parliamentary Office published guidance specifically addressing the Westminster Bill and the Joint Committee’s call for evidence. It identified questions concerning legal definitions, religious freedom, pastoral support, parental responsibility, education, healthcare and safeguarding. Catholics and religious organisations were encouraged to submit evidence examining the consequences of the proposed legislation.¹⁰
Catholic opposition to the draft is therefore supported by an institutional record extending from January 2024 to the present scrutiny process. It concerns successive proposals in different jurisdictions, but the principles under examination have remained substantially consistent. The Catholic authorities have sought effective protection against genuine abuse while questioning whether the criminalisation of vaguely defined practices could interfere with legitimate religious conduct.
Nuntiatoria has pursued these questions since the earlier government consultation. In September 2023, the publication carried Archbishop Jerome Lloyd’s account of his participation in the Ministers’ Consultation Response, originally submitted during the 2021–22 consultation. More than 2,500 Christian ministers and pastoral workers initially supported the intervention, with the number exceeding 5,000 by February 2022. They warned that legislation lacking adequate precision might criminalise catechesis, prayer, pastoral counselling and spiritual direction. The response expressly rejected coercion and abusive treatment, while defending the freedom of individuals voluntarily to embrace religious teaching and practices.¹¹
The Archbishop’s account also recorded disagreement with Jayne Ozanne’s criticism that consent might provide a loophole through which harmful practices could continue. At issue was the freedom of an adult to accept the moral requirements of his religion and seek assistance in fulfilling them. Subsequent rejection of those convictions cannot, by itself, establish that the original pastoral relationship was abusive. Whether misconduct occurred requires evidence concerning identifiable conduct, the circumstances in which it took place and the responsibilities of those involved.
Ozanne’s appearance before the parliamentary Joint Committee on 2 November demonstrated how far the disagreement has developed. She described twenty years of voluntary participation in prayer, fasting, exorcisms and other religious activities intended to address her sexuality. She subsequently came to regard those experiences as abusive and described serious psychological suffering. Her evidence deserves proper consideration, particularly where religious authority may have been exercised irresponsibly. Yet personal testimony concerning suffering does not remove Parliament’s responsibility to determine the legal elements of abuse or establish whether particular conduct warrants criminal sanction.¹²
Under questioning by Danny Beales MP, Ozanne distinguished between prayer seeking someone’s peace and prayer directed towards changing sexual orientation. She maintained that the latter should fall within a criminal prohibition, although she accepted that a single instance might not justify prosecution. When Beales questioned the distinction, she argued that making an activity criminal and deciding whether to prosecute were separate matters.
Baroness Prentis of Banbury subsequently asked whether Ozanne would criminalise such conduct even within a family or when an individual religious leader offered prayer. Ozanne compared the principle to theft, arguing that the prohibited character of an act remained the same irrespective of whether prosecution followed. Asked whether the present Bill already covered the behaviour she wished to prohibit, she acknowledged that it did not, attributing this to the statutory requirements concerning abuse and serious harm. The exchanges are recorded in questions 65–71 of the committee’s uncorrected transcript.¹²
The distinction between criminalisation and prosecution is no academic curiosity. Parliament defines criminal offences; police officers investigate suspected breaches, while prosecutors determine whether proceedings are justified. Once an activity becomes criminal, the prospect of investigation and prosecution exists regardless of whether an individual case ultimately results in conviction. Parents and clergy cannot reasonably order their responsibilities according to an activist’s expectation that prosecutorial discretion will ordinarily be exercised in their favour.
Ozanne’s wider evidence also raised the question of religious expectations concerning celibacy and sexual abstinence. She criticised the requirement that homosexual persons should refrain from same-sex relationships, regarding such teaching as a form of suppression which legislation ought to address. This brings the controversy directly into contact with the distinction recognised by Bishop Paul Bayes during the 2017 Synod debate between ascetical formation and therapeutic intervention.
Catholic doctrine requires chastity according to each person’s state of life. The Church distinguishes between involuntary inclinations and deliberate moral acts, and does not require someone experiencing same-sex attraction to become heterosexual. She nevertheless teaches that sexual activity outside marriage is contrary to the moral law. A Catholic who freely accepts that doctrine and seeks assistance in living according to it is exercising his religious freedom. The priest who responds according to Catholic teaching is fulfilling an ordinary pastoral responsibility.
Christian spiritual life necessarily involves conversion, repentance and the amendment of conduct. Moral formation cannot be restricted to matters about which contemporary society experiences little disagreement. Yet Catholic doctrine equally provides no justification for humiliating individuals, compelling participation in religious exercises or exploiting vulnerability through spiritual authority. The proper exercise of pastoral responsibility requires respect for the dignity and freedom of the person receiving counsel. Genuine abuse must be addressed through appropriate ecclesiastical discipline and civil law.
The Government’s present draft contains statutory requirements which distinguish it from the wider prohibition Ozanne advocates. Clause 1 defines conversion practices by reference to conduct intended to influence an individual’s sexual orientation or transgender identity, including beliefs concerning that identity. Whether conduct amounts to abuse depends upon the circumstances, including possible threats, coercion, economic pressure or psychological and emotional pressure. Clause 2 requires serious physical or mental harm, or serious alarm or distress substantially affecting ordinary daily activities. Conviction on indictment could result in imprisonment for up to five years. Ordinary prayer or religious disagreement does not automatically satisfy these requirements.¹³
Nevertheless, the Bill also proposes conversion practice protection orders, through which courts could impose restrictions or requirements intended to prevent abusive practices likely to cause serious harm or qualifying distress. Such orders may be made without a previous criminal conviction, including in specified family proceedings. Clause 5 additionally provides for liability involving corporate and unincorporated bodies, including relevant officers who participate in, authorise, permit or fail to take all reasonable steps to prevent an offence. The consequences for religious organisations, trustees and those exercising pastoral responsibilities require particular scrutiny.
Nuntiatoria addressed these provisions in Conversion Practices: The Law That Reaches into the Family, published on 6 November. That investigation examined Not What It Says on the Tin, the legal assessment published by Policy Exchange and written by Baroness Kishwer Falkner, formerly chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, and Akua Reindorf KC, herself a former commissioner. Their criticisms concerned statutory uncertainty, the absence of express protection for reasonable parental conduct, the proposed preventive powers and the possible liability of organisations whose ordinary activities involve moral instruction or counselling.¹⁴
The earlier editorial The State Has No Business Raising Your Child, published on 30 October, considered the consequences for parental authority and the family justice system. Drawing upon evidence discussed at the Battle of Ideas festival, it examined the position of parents questioning an adolescent’s understanding of gender identity, counsellors undertaking exploratory conversations and teachers exercising professional judgement. Barrister Sarah Phillimore warned that allegations entering the family justice system could damage relationships and impose considerable costs before their merits were determined. The consequences become particularly troubling where ordinary disagreements over parental boundaries, medical intervention or religious convictions might be interpreted through uncertain statutory language.
Nuntiatoria’s accompanying investigation, The Evidence Parliament Must Not Take on Trust, examined research produced by the LGBT+ charity Galop and its use within the Government’s evidential case. Galop’s researchers reviewed a substantial body of service records before selecting 195 cases concerning 191 individuals for detailed examination, including 52 classified as religion-based practices. The study relied upon accounts received through a specialist support organisation rather than a nationally representative sample of independently verified criminal incidents. Its published tables also contained numerical inconsistencies concerning some categories, which Nuntiatoria identified in its original examination.¹⁵
Such material may illuminate experiences reported by people seeking assistance, but it cannot establish how frequently conduct occurs which would satisfy the proposed criminal definitions. Nor does it demonstrate which instances of abuse existing legislation cannot adequately address. The Government’s own estimate that between 75,000 and 93,000 people annually experience conversion practices was derived through extrapolation from survey responses, rather than police records or independently investigated cases. Parliament must distinguish the prevalence of reported experiences from evidence of conduct presently beyond the reach of criminal law.
The Government contends that serious psychological abuse may escape offences already dealing with assault, threats, harassment and coercion. Its explanatory notes maintain that the draft is intended to close those gaps, while ministers have assured Parliament that legitimate religious teaching, parental conversations and professional advice will remain protected. These assurances deserve consideration, but they cannot substitute for sufficiently precise statutory language. The proposed legislation must itself establish which conduct is prohibited and which legitimate responsibilities remain unaffected.¹⁶
The Church of England’s institutional record now makes that requirement particularly difficult to evade. In 2017, General Synod called upon the Government to legislate while declining to adopt Doherty’s alternative motion affirming voluntary pastoral care. In 2018, the Church publicly recognised that legislation must not prevent individuals from seeking spiritual support. In 2021, it again warned about the difficulty of definition and the importance of consent. Its November 2026 intervention follows this unresolved history.
There is no warrant for representing General Synod’s rejection of Doherty’s amendment as proof that Anglican members wished to criminalise ordinary prayer. The amendment contained several propositions, and its defeat occurred within a complicated sequence of procedural decisions and competing proposals. The documentary record nevertheless demonstrates that questions about voluntary ministry were present from the outset. Anglican leaders cannot claim that the present danger has emerged unexpectedly from the Government’s latest drafting.
The Catholic bishops’ objections possess a different foundation. Archbishop Sherrington’s concern about the Church’s freedom to proclaim her understanding of the human person arises from the responsibilities of Catholic bishops as teachers of the Faith. The civil authority may legitimately protect citizens against violence, coercion and exploitation. It cannot determine the moral doctrine which the Church is permitted to communicate to those who freely seek her ministry, nor should it prohibit religious counsel merely because its spiritual purpose conflicts with a prevailing political understanding of sexuality or gender.
The constitutional history of England makes the Anglican intervention especially noteworthy. The establishment of the Church of England formed part of a settlement in which religious allegiance and civil authority became closely connected, while Catholics endured successive restrictions upon the public exercise of their Faith. The penal laws and recusancy legislation arose in circumstances entirely different from the present controversy, and their severity cannot reasonably be equated with the proposed Bill. Nevertheless, the gradual recognition of religious toleration depended upon establishing limits to the state’s authority over the practical exercise of belief.
It is therefore remarkable that the Established Church should find itself warning a Government which has relied upon its support that the criminal law may interfere with ordinary Christian practice. The warning carries constitutional significance because of the Church’s recognised place in Parliament. The Catholic bishops’ more decisive objection carries ecclesiastical authority through their responsibility to preserve and teach Catholic doctrine. Both interventions require ministers to demonstrate that the protection of vulnerable individuals can be secured without compromising legitimate religious freedom.
The Joint Committee, chaired by Alex Barros-Curtis MP, is accepting written evidence until 5 pm on 16 November and is due to report by 22 January 2027. It has heard testimony demonstrating that some campaigners wish the legislation to extend considerably further than the Government’s present proposals. It must now consider the objections raised by religious authorities, the uncertainties identified by legal specialists and the limitations of the evidence advanced to justify criminalisation.¹⁷
Archbishop Sherrington has called for the Bill to be abandoned. The Church of England has warned that voluntary prayer and pastoral care must remain protected. Ministers must answer both interventions by identifying precisely what existing law fails to prohibit and demonstrating that their proposed remedy will not place lawful religious ministry and family responsibilities in jeopardy.
The parliamentary record now extends back to a Synod debate in which the very distinction at issue was raised and left unresolved. The Established Church has had nine years to consider its implications. Westminster has no reasonable excuse for enacting a criminal statute without doing so.
¹ Janet Eastham, Amy Gibbons and Daniel Martin, “Trans law risks criminalising prayer, warns Church”, The Daily Telegraph, 6 November 2026, reproduced by Clerical Whispers, 8 November 2026; “New UK trans law risks criminalising prayer, Church of England warns”, Punch, 7 November 2026.
² Office for Equality and Opportunity, “Government pushes forward with conversion practices ban to protect LGBT+ people from abuse”, 25 June 2026; Church of England, The Lords Spiritual.
³ Church of England, “General Synod backs ban on conversion therapy”, 8 July 2017.
⁴ Peter Owen, “General Synod – Saturday’s business”, Thinking Anglicans, 8 July 2017, including the text and recorded divisions on Item 55, the Doherty amendment; Andrew Goddard, Understanding Synod’s July 2017 Sexuality Debates and Votes, 25 July 2017.
⁵ Church of England, “Government pledge to eradicate conversion therapy”, 3 July 2018; House of Commons, Hansard, Church Commissioners, 25 January 2018.
⁶ Church of England, “Conversion therapy ban: comment from the Bishop of London”, 11 May 2021.
⁷ Church of England, “New guidance for prayer in pastoral settings”, 12 October 2026.
⁸ Scottish Catholic Parliamentary Office, “Parental and Pastoral Care Without Fear: A Response to the SNP Conference Motion on Conversion Practices”, 8 October 2026; Diocese of Paisley, “A statement from the Catholic Parliamentary Office”, 8 October 2026.
⁹ Archdiocese of St Andrews and Edinburgh, “Church calls for clarity over ‘conversion practice’ consultation”, 9 January 2024.
¹⁰ Scottish Catholic Parliamentary Office, “Draft Conversion Practices Bill: A Guide to Responding to the Joint Committee’s Call for Evidence”, 2 November 2026.
¹¹ ✠Jerome Lloyd, “Concerning the ‘Ministers’ Consultation Response’”, Nuntiatoria, 16 September 2023.
¹² UK Parliament, Joint Committee on the Draft Conversion Practices Bill, Oral Evidence: Deputy Jayne Ozanne OBE and Ian Smith, HC 741, 2 November 2026, particularly questions 58–71, uncorrected transcript.
¹³ Office for Equality and Opportunity, Conversion Practices Draft Bill, CP 1604, 25 June 2026, updated 1 September 2026, clauses 1–5 and Schedule.
¹⁴ Nuntiatoria, “Conversion Practices: The Law That Reaches into the Family”, 6 November 2026; “The State Has No Business Raising Your Child”, 30 October 2026; “Before the Evidence Settles: Labour’s Conversion Practices Bill and the Limits of Legislative Certainty”, 26 June 2026.
¹⁵ Nuntiatoria, “The Evidence Parliament Must Not Take on Trust”, 30 October 2026.
¹⁶ Office for Equality and Opportunity, Explanatory Notes to the Draft Conversion Practices Bill, 1 September 2026.
¹⁷ UK Parliament, Joint Committee on the Draft Conversion Practices Bill: Inquiry and Call for Evidence, October–November 2026.
Leave a Reply