MP Tom Watson asked about the ethical concerns raised by the Tavistock judgment and whether the government would consider changing the age limit for participating in the trial.

MP Nigel Huddleston questioned the justification for including young participants as young as 11 in the trial, given the potential long-term risks.

MP Dr Philippa Whitford inquired about the role of mental health professionals and therapists in supporting young people questioning their gender identity.

Johnson declared her interest as an NHS consultant paediatrician, questioning the necessity of the clinical trial involving puberty blockers for children. She highlighted potential health risks such as weakened bones, cognitive effects, sexual dysfunction, and infertility. She expressed concerns about the subjective nature of gender incongruence diagnosis without clear markers or scans. Johnson emphasised that many cases are self-resolving and stressed the need to balance risk carefully. She questioned why this trial is funded when children may be too young for such powerful drugs with long-term consequences.

Beales thanked the Secretary of State for his statement and welcomed the full implementation of Dr Cass’s recommendations. He emphasised that while love and compassion are essential, trans people also need evidence-based healthcare. Beales asked if the Government remains committed to rolling out gender clinics in every region.

The closure of the Tavistock clinic and its inadequate rating by the Care Quality Commission demonstrated that urgent change was needed. Young people struggling with gender identity face serious challenges, including extremely long waiting lists. The average three-year wait for a young person to see a specialist can be extremely harmful at such a vulnerable age. We agree that treatment should first be based on talking therapies, but it is crucial that young people can start those therapies as a matter of urgency, not after years of delay. Decisions about these young patients’ futures should be made in an informed way, with expert clinicians and based on the best possible evidence, which the NHS must build up safely and effectively. Guidance and decisions around puberty blockers must be led by experts and clinical evidence, and not influenced by ideological opinion. Will the Secretary of State confirm whether the MHRA has confirmed that the concerns that led to the withdrawal of the trial have been substantially addressed, and how many children are expected to take part in the trial now that its parameters have been altered?

When it comes to the Pathways trial, does he agree that we must follow the science and avoid vilification, polarising language and politicisation for the good of young people and our communities?

There was a lot of disquiet about the iterative process that the trial has gone through—that it was stopped, paused and then started again. Could the Secretary of State outline for the House how usual or unusual that is? What support can the NHS offer those families who might have hoped to be part of the trail but now find themselves excluded from it?

Before my election, I was a scientist—albeit not in the health sciences. Using that background, however, can I agree with the Secretary of State that healthcare practices and medical trials, like all scientific trials, must be led by expertise and evidence, not politics? Therefore, what precedent is there for politicians, including Members of this House, intervening in a medical trial?

No child put on puberty blockers at the earliest stage of puberty and whose natural puberty is permanently blocked will ever have an orgasm or be fertile. No child can consent to that. Around 2,000 children have already been given puberty blockers for gender distress, so there is ample information available on impact and outcomes held by gender clinics. It makes no sense to experiment on even more children while this exercise remains incomplete. Why is the Health Secretary not prioritising the completion of this important data linkage study before experimenting on more children?

Notwithstanding the risks of using puberty blockers on children, and the inability to guarantee that they will not be harmed by participation in the trial, how can the trial determine long-term impacts of the use of puberty blockers when it lasts for only two years? Does that not show the inefficacy of the trial itself?

The Secretary of State has said that no child subject to safeguarding concerns will be considered for participation in the trial. Can he confirm, therefore, that no already vulnerable children currently in the care system will be accepted on to the trial?

In December 2025, The BMJ reported that the Pathways trial should wait for findings from former patients treated by GIDS between 2009 and 2020. A data linkage study of 9000 patients has full HRA approval but clinicians refused to share their data. Can he tell us whether all relevant data is available and being shared appropriately?

In 2019, I raised the horrors of Tavistock clinic in this House due to staff pressure to refer children for life-altering treatment. The Cass review found that two thirds of those referred had suffered neglect or abuse with high levels of parental mental illness and domestic violence exposure. Will he abandon the trial despite his good intentions?

Puberty suppressors have been used for years in precocious puberty but lacked a rigorous evidence base. The trial will look at the medications and other measures such as brain-imaging studies, interviews with young people and comparison groups without puberty-blocking hormones.

While many children resolve issues independently, an important group faces challenges. The focus on talking therapies is welcome but with long waiting lists for these services, how will he ensure timely access to support and qualified staff?

Confirmation of the Pathways clinical trial continuation is important. Can it help reduce long-term risks of vulnerable young people accessing drugs online in my constituency?

Given that parental or guardian permission is required for the trial to proceed, who will give it for looked-after children in care? Will it be the Secretary of State, foster parent, social worker from local council?

On a quiet day in Westminster, I have had a chance to dive into the Conservative party’s 2024 manifesto, which promised 'We will complete the implementation of the Cass Review.' Does my right hon Friend share my concerns that the Conservatives seem to have abandoned their commitment?

Has the Secretary of State sought any meetings with whistleblowers, former clinicians at the Tavistock clinic, detransitioners and psychologists campaigning against the trial?

Does the Secretary of State feel uncomfortable with the trial, as it involves injecting drugs into children as young as 11? The title 'puberty suppression' suggests something morally wrong.

How can the damage to children from puberty blockers be justified, even if it is to create clinical evidence?

What if there are mixed views in the small number of trial participants? Some may benefit, while others might not.

Why should parents consent to drugs being administered to their child for puberty suppression when they cannot consent to social media use or sexual activity?

What about children waiting for gender identity service appointments? How will they be supported if most teenagers are excluded from the trial?

Why does the Secretary of State not overrule official advice, pause the puberty blockers trial and prioritise child safety?

Why take risks with the trial when puberty blockers can affect bone density and brain development?