← Back to House of Commons Debates
Puberty Blockers
23 June 2026
Lead MP
Caroline Johnson
Debate Type
General Debate
Tags
Education
Other Contributors: 35
At a Glance
Caroline Johnson raised concerns about puberty blockers in the House of Commons. Other MPs contributed to the debate.
How the Debate Unfolded
MPs spoke in turn to share their views and ask questions. Here's what each person said:
Lead Contributor
Opened the debate
As a consultant paediatrician, Caroline Johnson highlights the ethical concerns surrounding the PATHWAYS clinical trial that involves administering puberty-suppressing hormones to children with gender incongruence. She argues that these powerful drugs may cause irreversible damage to bone health, cognitive function, and sexual development while there is evidence showing most children with gender incongruence improve without such interventions.
Bernard Jenkin
Con
Harwich and North Essex
Questions the reversibility of gene therapy treatments for gender incongruence, suggesting that they may not be fully reversible and could cause permanent damage.
Asks why the NHS is not using data from a discredited process to inform decisions about new cohorts undergoing similar procedures, questioning the wisdom of proceeding without comprehensive data analysis.
Defends Baroness Cass's position that the benefits of the trial outweigh the costs and mentions instances where young people have self-medicated with testosterone, highlighting the importance of medical advice and support in a structured framework.
Suggests that unblocking reasons why data is not being made available should be prioritised before further experimentation on children, advocating for thorough analysis of existing data.
Jim Shannon
DUP
Strangford
Points out the potential adverse impact of decisions in Westminster on regional Administrations like Northern Ireland that have opted not to pursue such trials.
James Murray
Con
As Health Secretary, James Murray argues for a cautious and sensitive approach to the clinical trial of puberty-suppressing hormones. He outlines the findings of Dr Hilary Cass's review which revealed issues such as lack of evidence on benefits or risks of puberty blockers and division among clinicians. The review recommended a trial to study the effects of these hormones on young people’s wellbeing, with strict eligibility criteria including parental consent, diagnosis for at least two years, and multi-disciplinary team approval.
Inquires about why NHS England is not using a data-linkage study to determine the answers before proceeding with the trial. He suggests this as an alternative method for gathering necessary information without conducting clinical trials.
Harriet Cross
Con
Gordon and Buchan
Asks if Scottish children will be included in the trial, either by travelling to England or through NHS Scotland directly. She seeks clarity on the inclusion criteria for participants from different regions.
Questions why a placebo group is not used in the clinical trial when it would provide valuable information about whether psychological support alone could improve mental health. He suggests that such a control group would offer insights into alternative treatments.
John Glen
Con
Salisbury
Concerned about the potential risks associated with taking puberty blockers, given their profound implications for life and development. He questions how the suitability of participants is verified when there are no objective markers to confirm gender incongruence.
Harriett Baldwin
Con
West Worcestershire
Inquires about the situation where a child in care might participate in the trial, asking what would happen if parental consent is not possible or applicable. She seeks clarification on inclusion criteria for children under state care.
John Hayes
Con
South Holland and The Deepings
Acknowledges that the Secretary of State has carefully considered this matter but expresses concern over the potential harmful effects of puberty blockers, given established medical facts. He questions why the Government would proceed with a trial when there is no evidence to suggest beneficial outcomes.
Alison Bennett
Liberal Democrats
The Liberal Democrats argue that medical treatment and clinical trials should be led by expert advice, not personal beliefs. They support the decision to pause a trial due to concerns raised by MHRA and then restart it based on evidence gathered since. The party also emphasises the importance of transparency in the process, calling for public record of expert opinions to ensure clarity and facts over ideology. Additionally, Alison Bennett highlights the need for improved access to specialist healthcare services for children and young people struggling with their gender identity, advocating for multiple geographically dispersed clinics and prioritising talking therapies as a first step.
Sarah Owen
Lab
Croydon North
Sarah Owen emphasised the importance of talking therapies for children experiencing gender distress and criticised the lack of trans people's voices in debates about them. She cited a constituent, an 83-year-old trans woman named Teraina, to illustrate the life-long struggle of those seeking alignment between their body and identity. Owen supported the Pathways trial, highlighting its rigorous design and oversight by experts, while stressing the role of parents in making informed decisions for their children.
Nusrat Ghani
Con
Wealden
Ghani intervened to remind Sarah Owen that there is a five-minute time limit per speaker and urged her to conclude her speech. She did not make any substantial contributions about the debate topic.
Paul expressed disappointment at having to discuss the Pathways clinical trial again, suggesting it was paused earlier in the year with hopes of finality but now is back on the agenda. She did not provide extensive details or opinions beyond this statement.
Richard Quigley
Con
Stafford
Quigley criticises opposition for their lack of governing experience and accuses them of vilifying and spreading misinformation about vulnerable young people. He argues that the Government's approach is rigorous, based on evidence from clinicians and science. The trial is presented as a better alternative to ignoring or dismissing children experiencing gender incongruence.
Rosie Duffield
Lab
Canterbury
Duffield highlights the cross-party coalition opposing the Government's decision on the puberty blocker trial. She expresses concern about the impact on young children and the potential for family disputes over consent or assent in cases of separated parents. Expert clinicians, including former Tavistock staff, oppose this affirmative-only model as it masks underlying issues like childhood trauma or autism.
Scott Arthur
Lab
Tynemouth
Acknowledged the complexity of the issue and shared a personal story about a young trans woman who stopped eating due to fear of puberty. Emphasised the importance of scientific research, welcoming news that the Pathways trial will proceed based on clinical judgment rather than political discourse. Supported Baroness Cass’s recommendations for research into puberty blockers. Called for reliance on thorough scientific research and clinical trials led by medical experts to provide better care for young people struggling with their gender identity.
Joy Morrissey
Con
Lord Lonsdale
Focused on the protection of children, questioning whether 11-year-olds have the cognitive ability to understand the long-term irreversible effects of puberty blockers. Raised concerns about potential class action lawsuits if some children regret their decision later in life. Questioned why data linkage study was not completed before proceeding with Pathways trial and raised suspicions regarding donations from pharmaceutical companies supporting this research. Emphasised need for additional safeguards, advocating for completion of the data linkage study to protect children.
Samantha Niblett
Con
South Derbyshire
Everyone should have access to high-quality healthcare, regardless of age. The debate centres on young people experiencing gender-related distress and the necessity for evidence-based care. Samantha argues against the Opposition's motion, stating that it would hinder necessary research such as the Pathways trial recommended by Baroness Cass. She emphasises the importance of gathering more evidence through regulated clinical trials to ensure compassionate, evidence-based care for transgender youth. The speech includes details about the rigorous standards and safeguards in place for participants, including consent from both parents and young people, and approval from clinicians and a national multidisciplinary team.
Christine Jardine
Lib Dem
Edinburgh West
Stresses concern for the safety and wellbeing of children facing identity crises. Argues that many children need more than just talking therapies, particularly those who do not 'grow out' of their gender dysphoria. Christine supports the availability of puberty blockers as an option to help these young people manage anxiety about physical changes during puberty. She emphasises the importance of listening to clinicians and experts like Dr Hilary Cass, who advocate for careful research to protect children from harm. The speech also addresses accusations of homophobia, clarifying that many supporters of the transgender community are part of the LGBTQ+ community.
Olivia Blake
Lab
Sheffield, Hallam
Trans healthcare is marked by lengthy waitlists and discrimination. The Pathways trial is important for young trans people's medical needs. Puberty-suppressing hormones are well-established and have been used safely since the 1980s in controlled settings. Denying this trial could lead to alternative, harmful methods of treatment such as self-starvation.
Carla Lockhart
Con
Upper Bann
The Government's decision to proceed with the Pathways puberty blockers trial is concerning given the longstanding warnings from parents, families, clinicians and campaigners. The petition on this issue attracted significant support, highlighting concerns about the safety and ethical implications of using puberty-blocking drugs on children as young as 11 years old. These children should not bear the burden of unresolved questions about long-term health outcomes.
Supports individual freedom but raises concerns about administering powerful drugs to children. Rejects the argument that this is only a clinical question, as it involves ethical and moral considerations. Questions the validity of consent in such cases and criticises the idea that parents can properly consent for their child's treatment.
Critiques the party-line division of the debate, suggesting it should have been open to cross-party support. Cites polling data showing public opposition to clinical trials involving puberty blockers. Expresses moral concerns over conducting irreversible medical research on children and questions the safety assurances provided by clinicians in past cases.
Mr Arthur interjected, challenging John Hayes to address Baroness Cass's support for the clinical trial despite her previous concerns. He noted that Baroness Cass now believes there will be real benefits from the trial.
Christine Jardine
Lib Dem
Edinburgh West
Ms Jardine interjected to share personal experiences of constituents, friends and family who have seen benefits from puberty blockers for children struggling with their gender identity. She challenged the notion that there is no evidence supporting such treatments.
Stuart Andrew
Con
Pudsey
Andrew argued against the Pathways trial, stating that when evidence is uncertain, risks may be lifelong for a child. He questioned whether an 11-year-old can understand and consent to interrupting puberty, highlighting potential long-term health impacts such as fertility issues and bone development problems. He emphasised the need for certainty before proceeding with medical intervention.
Slade clarified that young people in the trial will already have access to talking therapies and other support systems, addressing concerns about immediate exposure to experimental treatment without adequate preparation. She highlighted a two-year period in the gender system before anyone can access this trial.
Stephen Kinnock
Lab
Aberavon
Mr. Kinnock detailed the stringent criteria required for children to participate in the trial, including parental consent, diagnosis of gender incongruence for at least two years, stable physical and mental health, lack of safeguarding concerns, understanding of treatment benefits and risks, clinical appropriateness by NHS teams, and access to tailored psychosocial care. He also discussed other studies such as Pathways Horizon, Pathways Connect, Pathways Voices, and Horizon Intensive which aim to provide comprehensive support for children with gender dysphoria.
Alex Sobel
Lab
Leeds North West
Mr. Sobel commended the Minister on his speech, highlighting what he perceived as hypocrisy among those who criticised him previously and are now not accepting Dr Cass’s report in full.
Ms. Paul asked if the Government would launch a clinical trial for cross-sex hormones based on Dr Cass's review recommendation.
John Hayes
Con
South Holland and The Deepings
Mr. Hayes requested that the Minister consider looking at the approaches taken in Finland and Denmark, which emphasise counselling over medical intervention.
Esther McVey
Con
Tatton
Ms. McVey questioned what criteria would be used to measure success of the puberty blocker trial and whether individuals could sue the Government if they were unhappy with the outcome.
▸
Assessment & feedback
Summary accuracy
About House of Commons Debates
House of Commons debates take place in the main chamber of the House of Commons. These debates cover a wide range of topics including government policy, legislation, and current affairs. MPs from all parties can participate, question ministers, and hold the government accountable for its decisions.