Parliament resumes sitting today, marking the first opportunity for backbenchers and opposition Members to formally scrutinise the newly installed Prime Minister across the floor of the House of Commons. The occasion carries unusual weight, coming at a moment when public confidence in Britain's speech laws, criminal justice system, and religious freedoms is measurably eroding. Recent polling by More in Common indicates that a majority of Britons believe free speech is under threat, while YouGov data has repeatedly shown declining trust in the impartiality of policing around expression.
We at the Great British PAC intend to work tirelessly to hold this Government accountable, and we are setting out our initial demands publicly, on the record, and without qualification.
Conversion Practices Bill: A Threat to Families, Clinicians and Clergy
We are urging Andy Burnham, who has been widely reported as a leading voice within the Cabinet on the draft legislation, to withdraw the proposed bill to ban so-called conversion practices in its current form. The draft, as circulated, is drawn so broadly that parents, licensed therapists, pastors, imams, rabbis and youth workers could face criminal prosecution, with penalties of up to two years' imprisonment, for holding well-intentioned, exploratory conversations with children experiencing gender confusion or same-sex attraction.
The concerns are not hypothetical. The Cass Review, published in April 2024 by Dr Hilary Cass, found that clinical practice in the field of paediatric gender medicine had been "built on shaky foundations," and it explicitly warned against affirmation-only pathways for young people. A ban framed as broadly as the current draft risks criminalising the very cautious, watchful, therapeutic approach that Dr Cass recommended. It also threatens the ordinary conversations that Christian parents, pastors and Sunday school teachers have with young people navigating questions of identity, sexuality and faith, conversations that are protected under Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights and are integral to the pastoral life of every mainstream denomination.
Our solution is clear: withdraw the draft bill, commission an independent consultation involving churches, medical professionals and safeguarding experts, and produce narrowly targeted legislation that criminalises genuine coercive abuse without ensnaring prayer, preaching, parenting or good-faith counselling.
Trial by Jury: A Cornerstone That Must Not Be Dismantled
We are also calling on the Prime Minister to abandon David Lammy's proposals to significantly curtail the right to trial by jury in England and Wales. The right, which traces its lineage to Magna Carta 1215, is not a procedural detail. It is a constitutional safeguard against overreach by the state and by a politicised prosecutorial culture.
Research conducted by the Great British PAC into recent case outcomes indicates that defendants charged with speech-related offences are almost twice as likely to be acquitted before a Crown Court jury as they are before a magistrates' bench sitting without one. This gap is significant, statistically robust, and consistent with data published by the Ministry of Justice showing that jury acquittal rates in contested Crown Court trials have hovered around 55 to 60 per cent for several years, compared with substantially lower rates in the magistrates' courts.
The implication is stark. Removing or narrowing jury trial in the name of efficiency will disproportionately affect ordinary citizens accused of saying the wrong thing online, praying silently near an abortion clinic, or expressing traditional Christian views on marriage, family and biological sex. Data compiled by The Times and reported in 2024 suggested that more than 12,000 arrests annually in the United Kingdom relate to online communications offences, a figure that dwarfs equivalent numbers in comparable European democracies.
Our solution: retain the right to elect Crown Court trial for all either-way offences, address court backlogs through additional sitting days and judicial recruitment, as recommended by the Bar Council, and reject any reform that transfers speech cases to summary jurisdiction.
The Proposed Islamophobia Tsar and the Definition of "Anti-Muslim Hostility"
We are further calling on the Prime Minister to abandon plans to appoint an Islamophobia tsar and to drop the working definition of "anti-Muslim hostility" that his Government has been circulating. The definition, in the form that has been briefed to journalists and previously championed by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on British Muslims, conflates criticism of Islam as a religion, which is legitimate, with hostility towards Muslims as people, which is not.
The distinction matters enormously. Christians in Britain have a long and legally protected tradition of theological disagreement with other faiths, and vice versa. It is a tradition that produced the King James Bible, the Wesleyan revival and the modern human rights framework itself. Reports in The Telegraph and The Spectator have documented cases in which the proposed definition has already been weaponised, both by activist groups and by sitting Members of Parliament, to shut down legitimate discussion of grooming gangs, sharia councils, forced marriage, and the theological content of Islamic scripture.
The Equality Act 2010 already protects Muslims, as it does Christians, Jews, Hindus, Sikhs and those of no faith, from discrimination and harassment. A new tsar and a new definition are, therefore, not only unnecessary but actively harmful to the freedoms of the very Christian citizens whose ancestors built the pluralist settlement under which British Muslims themselves worship freely.
Our solution: shelve the tsar proposal, withdraw the draft definition, and, in its place, convene a cross-faith commission, including Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu and secular representatives, to affirm existing hate crime protections while explicitly safeguarding the right to critique any and all religious ideas.
The Wider Picture: A National Embarrassment
There is a great deal more we would wish to see from this Government, including a repeal of the non-crime hate incident regime, which has seen more than 130,000 records logged against ordinary citizens since 2014 according to figures released by the College of Policing, and a comprehensive review of the Online Safety Act 2023. However, the three demands set out above represent our initial and non-negotiable priorities as the Prime Minister rises to the despatch box for the first time.
The fight for free speech in the United Kingdom has never been more urgent. The crisis we are witnessing, in which police officers attend homes over tweets, in which silent prayer becomes grounds for arrest, and in which pastors are questioned for preaching the historic Christian understanding of marriage, is a national embarrassment. It shames the country that gave the world Milton, Wilberforce and the King James Bible.
We stand ready to work with any Member of Parliament, of any party, who is prepared to defend the ancient liberties of this Realm.
What is your opinion?
Tell us in the comments below or send us an email to info@advanceuk.org.uk.