Daily Mail, on UK Politics, 7 November 2026

6.0out of 10Serious

Whistleblower warns that Labour's conversion therapy ban at NHS gender clinic for children

Tap a highlight to see why it matters.2 findings

Labour 's conversion therapy ban at the NHS gender clinic for children, a whistleblower has warned. Dr David Bell said that if the new law had been in place previously, it could have been used to silence those who raised the alarm about the Tavistock centre – where children as young as ten were prescribed puberty blockers. He also said the controversial legislation will mean parents fear prosecution unless they 'affirm' children who say they want to identify as the opposite sex, rather than challenging them.

The comments by Dr Bell, a psychiatrist whose work was pivotal in exposing the rush to medicalise children treated by the Gender Identity Development Service, come after Britain's former equalities watchdog branded the draft Conversion Practices Bill 'ill-conceived and unworkable'. It has also emerged this week that company directors face the threat of prosecution as well as parents under the law, which aims to outlaw abusive attempts to change someone's sexuality or gender identity, while .

In his first intervention in the growing row over the bill, Dr Bell said: 'It would have acted as serious threat to those who raised the alarm – it would have been another way, and possibly an effective way, of silencing them. 'This law is a way of making it appear as if the right attitude is to affirm children and that's the very thing that I, and many other people, said was damaging children and which was confirmed by the Cass review.'

The Tavistock centre, previously home to the NHS's controversial gender clinic for children He added: 'This bill – and this is part of its intent – will make parents and carers and health professionals fearful of criminal action if they do not affirm children and adolescents in their gender identity.' However, Equalities Minister Bridget Phillipson insisted in an interview with LBC: 'There is absolutely nothing within what we're proposing that would stop parents having reasonable conversations with their children.'

She added that the draft bill is currently being scrutinised by MPs and peers 'to allow people to flag areas they want further consideration'. Yet a leading campaigner for the ban has told the committee that the bill needs to go even further and ban 'insidious' prayer. Jayne Ozanne, who set up the Ban Conversion Therapy coalition, said the existing threshold is too high as it requires harmful abuse to have taken place. She told the committee: 'We do not have sufficient law in place at the moment to cover this most insidious form, which is prayer.'

She said one reason for the legislation was to 'send a very clear signal to society' including that 'praying for someone to change is wrong'. Asked if she would be happy to criminalise it 'even if it is in a family or with a single religious leader praying', she replied: 'I think we need to be clear about what is wrong and right. Stealing is stealing. Whether you steal a sweet or a car, it is still stealing.' A Government spokesman said: 'Our draft Bill would outlaw a specific form of abuse, setting high bars which protect freedom of expression, including for religious leaders, while ensuring no one is free to commit abuse. 'LGBT+ people should never, without exception, have to suffer coercion or abuse in an effort to change who they are.

Successive governments have agreed for almost a decade that Conversion Practices have no place in modern Britain. 'This Government is clear that freedom of belief, whether faith-based or wider, will be respected by the ban, while our draft Bill has already been welcomed by religious groups.'

Read the original article on dailymail.com (opens in a new tab)
What we found (2)

The Daily Mail reports a psychiatrist's warnings about the draft Conversion Practices Bill and quotes the minister and a Government spokesman in reply. It gives the Government's £100million cost estimate as a flat bill, dropping the 'as much as' and 'over a decade' that its own earlier article reported. Its lede adds 'activists' to the whistleblower's warning, though none of his quoted words name them, and the headline firms up his 'could' into 'would'.

  1. Uses figures that mislead

    Serious

    “businesses and the public sector face a £100million bill to implement it”

    Why this matters
    The words 'face a £100million bill' give the cost as a fixed sum, with no ceiling and no period.
    The impression it gives
    A reader believes implementing the law will cost £100million outright, at once or soon.
    The context
    The Daily Mail's own report two days earlier said the Government's figures put the cost at 'as much as £100million over a decade'. That is an upper estimate spread over ten years, not a single bill.

    How we know

    Show it in the article

  2. Headline goes beyond the article

    Minor

    “would have been used to suppress scandal”

    Why this matters
    The headline says the ban 'would have been used' to suppress the scandal.
    The impression it gives
    A reader believes the whistleblower said the ban would definitely have been used this way.
    The context
    In the body Dr Bell says the law 'could have been used' to silence people. He also calls it 'possibly an effective way' of silencing them. The headline turns a possibility into a certainty.

    How we know

    • Elsewhere in the article“it could have been used to silence those who raised the alarm”
    • Elsewhere in the article“possibly an effective way, of silencing them”

    Show it in the article

    “would have been used by activists to suppress the scandal”

    Why this matters
    The lede adds 'by activists' to Dr Bell's warning. None of his quoted words name activists as the people who would use the law.
    The impression it gives
    A reader believes the whistleblower said activists would have used the law to cover up the Tavistock scandal.
    The context
    In the quotes the article gives, Dr Bell speaks only of the law as a threat and a way of silencing people. He names no activists.

    How we know

    • Elsewhere in the article“It would have acted as serious threat to those who raised the alarm”

    Show it in the article

Spot something we missed? Report this article

More from Daily Mail

  1. 7 NovThe return of Project Fear: Treasury to outline PM's Brexit reset plan with Brussels in echo of Remain's scare tactics7.3
  2. 6 NovKeir Starmer cashes in on lucrative speaking gigs after quitting No10 as he signs up with US-based agency which boasts Joe Biden, Jacinda Ardern and Kamala Harris among its clients3.0
  3. 6 NovParliament Square poised to be next London landmark pedestrianised - but politicians voice alarm that cyclists will run riot3.0
  4. 6 NovLondon Tube drivers to go on strike across three months as RMT union continues fight against four-day working week7.3
  5. 6 NovRussell Brand's matey time with Labour: Disgraced comic invited to give drug talk by MP later forced out by cocaine and rent boys sting - and backed hard-Left Corbyn3.0

Everything we scored from Daily Mail