3 lessons from the historic ‘conversion therapy’ bill debate
by Carys Moseley, Christian Concern:
Public Policy Researcher Dr Carys Moseley comments on the recent ‘conversion therapy’ debate in the House of Lords.
Last Friday’s debate in the House of Lords on Baroness Burt’s bill to ban ‘conversion therapy’ was a historic first.
This was the first time in British history that more politicians in Parliament opposed a conversion therapy ban than supported one. This was also an international first, as this has never previously happened elsewhere either.
During the debate, peers also strongly criticised the current Scottish Government consultation on ‘Ending conversion practices in Scotland’, to which Christian Concern encourages people to respond.
What can we learn from this unusual event? And what does it mean for another private member’s bill on the same topic, scheduled for its second reading in the House of Commons on 1 March?
29 peers opposed the bill with only 15 supporting it
Fifty peers were scheduled to speak in the debate. A slim majority of twenty-nine peers opposed Baroness Burt’s bill. This is as astonishing as it is unexpected, particularly because this bill has little chance of becoming law at this stage. Only fifteen peers supported the bill. The rest did not take sides unequivocally. Nevertheless, the debate was clearly won by those opposed to it.
Lord Forsyth was so concerned about its implications that he argued the House should vote against it, even though there is a convention of not voting on Lords’ private member’s bills at second reading.
Wide-ranging concerns reflect public unease
The debate went on for much longer than might be expected. I have to admit that when I started watching it around 10 in the morning, I thought it would be over by coffee time. My reason for thinking that was that Parliamentary debates about the topic have usually consisted of supporters repeating clichés from Stonewall, mouthing the word ‘abhorrent’, twisting their own personal life histories to pretend they ‘underwent conversion therapy’, and generally engaging in back-slapping.
Instead a real debate unfolded, and before I knew it, it was 12:30. Only half of the fifty members scheduled to speak had spoken by then. The fact that so many were queuing up reflects widespread public unease about its provisions.
Read also: Christians must be vocal against ‘conversion therapy’ bans by Ben John
Related Posts
Tags
Share This
