Lords appoints six peers to scrutinise draft Conversion Practices Bill

Committee stage becomes the main forum

The appointment gives the joint committee powers to send for people, papers and records, appoint specialist advisers, report from time to time, travel within the United Kingdom and publish evidence if it chooses.¹ The quorum for the Lords side of the committee is two.¹

Those powers matter because the draft bill has not yet begun the normal legislative passage through either House. Pre-legislative scrutiny allows parliamentarians to test the government’s wording before ministers settle on a final bill. For Westminster policy readers, the key point is that the committee’s report may shape the version later introduced, rather than merely comment on legislation already committed to the parliamentary timetable.

The Lords order paper for 17 September listed the membership motion as chamber business for that sitting day, confirming the procedural step that put the Lords members in place.² The daily Hansard index also records the Draft Conversion Practices Bill as an item in Lords Chamber proceedings for 17 September.⁴

The Commons was not sitting on 17 September and was next scheduled to sit on 12 October, making the joint committee process the immediate parliamentary venue for detailed scrutiny rather than ordinary Commons chamber business.⁶

What the committee is likely to test

The draft bill would create offences covering abusive conversion practices in England and Wales and provide for civil conversion practice protection orders. The central policy question for the committee is how to draw enforceable criminal lines without chilling legitimate healthcare, pastoral support, family conversations or therapeutic discussion.

That balance is likely to dominate evidence from legal specialists, clinicians, LGBT+ organisations, faith groups, safeguarding bodies and free-speech advocates. The committee’s powers to gather evidence and appoint advisers give it scope to examine whether the draft text is workable for police, prosecutors, courts, regulators and frontline services.¹

Likely areas of contention include the level of harm required before conduct becomes criminal, how intent or purpose is proved, how civil protection orders would operate before or after criminal proceedings, and whether healthcare provisions are sufficiently clear. Supporters of a stronger ban are likely to press for comprehensive protection for LGBT+ people, while critics may argue for clearer safeguards around regulated clinical practice and consensual conversations.

Deadline pressures ministers

The 22 January 2027 reporting deadline gives the committee just over four months from the Lords appointment to take evidence, deliberate and produce recommendations.¹ That timetable means ministers could receive findings early enough to decide whether to revise the draft bill before seeking a slot for formal legislation later in the session.

The process also creates a public evidence trail. The motion gives the committee permission to publish evidence if it wishes, potentially exposing where the draft text commands consensus and where it remains vulnerable to legal or political challenge.¹

One procedural detail differs across the parliamentary records: the Lords business item refers to consideration of a Commons message of 10 September, while the Hansard record of the agreed motion refers to a Commons message of 14 September.¹³ Both records confirm the same substantive step: the appointment of six Lords members to join the Commons-appointed committee and report on CP 1604 by 22 January 2027.

The committee’s conclusions will not themselves enact a ban. But they may determine whether the government’s promised conversion practices legislation emerges as a tightly drawn criminal measure, a broader protective regime, or a revised bill seeking to resolve concerns before the political and legal pressures of full parliamentary passage begin.