The UK Government has paused work on controversial conversion therapy plans, ITV news reports.

Newly-appointed Equalities Minister Kemi Badenoch is said to have delayed the proposals to work out her own position on them, after recently taking up the brief in Rishi Sunak's Cabinet.

With abusive practices designed to change a person's sexual orientation already illegal in the UK, there are fears a broad ban on "conversion practices" would see counter-cultural views on sexuality criminalised.

Women's groups and therapists have also expressed concern that a broad ban would be used to stop parents who counsel a child against assuming a new transgender identity.

ITV News also reports that Conservative MPs are engaging with Downing Street over the issue, in the hope that new prime minister Rishi Sunak will make a clear commitment.

Last month, a Scottish Government advisory group called for a sweeping ban on "conversion therapy practices" that could see Christian parents lose custody of their children.

A report by the Expert Advisory Group on Ending Conversion Practices also recommended curbs on religious institutions, leaders, and adherents who espouse orthodox views.

News of a delay to plans at Westminster may accelerate work on Holyrood legislation as Scottish Ministers pledged to implement its own measures if UK Ministers didn't act.

Commenting on the issue earlier this year, CARE's CEO Ross Hendry stressed the need for wisdom and said free speech religious liberty could be undermined:

"It’s clear that in the past individuals have been harmed and forced to endure physical, emotional, and spiritual pain through practices that no-one should condone. For that reason, we support proposed bans on physical acts of ‘therapy’ as inconsistent with God’s call for us to freely come to him through Jesus and the Church’s call to model love, grace, and hope.

"However, there are real concerns. There is a risk that loose definitions lead to bad laws and even worse outcomes. By not clearly defining some key terms and phrases the Government may, perhaps inadvertently, cause significant harm to the well-intentioned on both sides of this debate – those who are seeking to balance our religious freedom and practice with individuals’ protection from harm."