Puberty Suppressants Trial

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care if he will make a statement on the pathways puberty blockers trial.

Let me just start by acknowledging the sensitivities around this issue and the strong beliefs held around this House. For all the division and divided opinion, I believe that there is a determination shared by everyone in this House to do the right thing by a vulnerable group of children and young people. It is for those reasons that I am taking the course of action that I am. Put simply, that is to follow expert clinical advice and take an evidence-led approach.

The Cass review found shocking levels of unprofessionalism, a lack of clinical oversight and puberty blockers prescribed to children without sufficient evidence that doing so was safe or beneficial to those children and young people. What Dr Hilary Cass uncovered was a scandal. That is why, on coming to office, I made the temporary ban brought in by my predecessor, the right hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), a permanent one. Dr Cass also recommended a thorough study to establish how best to support children and young people who suffer gender incongruence. That is the pathways study.

The study has four main parts, one of which is the clinical trial to study the effects of puberty-suppressing hormones on young people’s physical, social and emotional wellbeing. The other aspects of the pathways study will track the physical, social and emotional wellbeing of all young people attending UK NHS gender services. It will look at young people’s thinking and brain development, following both those who are and are not taking puberty-suppressing hormones, and it will gather evidence directly from young people, parents and staff about their experiences of living with gender incongruence.

The bar for the trial to be approved was extremely high and oversight will be rigorous. Children cannot consent to being on the trial, so places will require parental consent, as well as the assent of young people. It is because protecting and promoting the health and wellbeing of affected young people is our primary concern that there are also strict eligibility criteria in place to join the pathways clinical trial. As such, the number of young people who would expect to qualify for the trial will also be low. Participants must undergo thorough mental and physical assessments and will be followed over a number of years with regular wellbeing checks. Puberty blockers have also been used to delay puberty in children and young people who start puberty much too early. Use in those cases has been extensively tested and has met strict safety requirements for that use.

The study is led by King’s College London and the South London and Maudsley NHS foundation trust. It has been carefully checked by independent scientists who advise the National Institute for Health and Care Research and by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, and received approval from a research ethics committee. I am treading cautiously in this area because the safety of children must come first.

I must first declare my interest as a consultant paediatrician who has looked after children with gender dysphoria in the past and is likely to do so in the future. We must remember that we are talking about vulnerable children.

The first and most obvious question is: why? Why have this Government chosen to fund experiments with puberty blockers on physically healthy children? Despite saying he was comfortable with this trial in a briefing to MPs, the Secretary of State told the media on Friday and the Select Committee this morning that he is in fact uncomfortable with it. Why is it even being considered before the data linkage study is complete?

Some 9,000 children went through the Tavistock clinic, and many of them came out regretting being encouraged to irreversibly damage their bodies. We should look carefully at those outcomes before we make the same mistakes. What steps is the Secretary of State taking to secure the data from the Tavistock and have it analysed? What steps is he taking to hold to account those obstructing access to data linkage information? What assessment has he made of the motivations of those obstructing that data, when this is a study to safeguard children?

And what of the trial itself? We know that 226 children will go through this trial. Is that a limit or a target? Those children will be randomised to get puberty blockers now or in a year’s time, and all will be analysed at two years. They will still be children. They might be only 11 years old. How can the results demonstrate a meaningful outcome? The control group is not properly randomised, but chosen from the Horizon intensive trial group. Is the Secretary of State concerned that this will introduce bias?

The criteria for getting puberty blockers in this trial require just one parent to consent and the clinician to think that it will benefit the child, but on what basis will the clinician decide? The Cass review said that the vast majority of children with gender dysphoria would recover, with only a few persisting with trans identities into adulthood. It is not possible to predict which those children will be, so does the Secretary of State accept that the vast majority of children in this, his Streeting trial, who will be given drugs will be physically healthy children whose distress would get better without any puberty blockers, and that the vast majority of the children in this trial are therefore being unnecessarily experimented on with risky medications under his leadership?

The shadow Minister asks, “Why?” There is a simple answer. It is because this was recommended by Dr Cass in the Cass review, which was commissioned by my predecessor, Sir Sajid Javid. I think that was the right thing to do, and it is why, when my predecessor brought forward the Cass review, I supported it in opposition. I certainly did not try to play politics with an extremely vulnerable group of children and young people.

I will tell the hon. Lady why. It is because, under the previous Government, those puberty-suppressing hormones were prescribed without proper oversight, supervision or safety, yet we did not hear a peep about that fact for years until Dr Cass, commissioned by Sir Sajid Javid—who deserves enormous credit—did the study, which was published and widely supported and which contained this recommendation. The Conservatives may have changed their tune in opposition, but I remember what they said in government when they published the Cass review and supported its recommendations, so I think their response now is a real shame.

The shadow Minister accuses me of inconsistency, so let me be clear. Am I comfortable that this clinical trial has undergone the proper process and ethical approval to ensure the highest standards and supervision? Yes, I am comfortable about that. Am I uncomfortable about puberty-suppressing hormones for this group of young people for this particular condition? Yes, I am—because of risks. It is why I was also uncomfortable when I upheld the temporary ban by my predecessor and then put in place a permanent ban. The reason I was uncomfortable with that, too, is because I had to look children and young people, and their parents, in the eye when they told me in no uncertain terms that that decision was harmful to them, as have many other clinicians who have opposed that decision.

Whatever my discomfort in this extremely sensitive area, the reason that I have made this decision is that I am following clinical advice and, as Health Secretary, it is my responsibility to follow expert advice. Had the Tavistock clinic faced such challenge and scrutiny a decade ago, we would not be in this mess. The Conservatives were right to commission the Cass review and they were right to accept its recommendations. I accept that there is now a difference on this particular recommendation, but I would urge Members not to walk away from the cross-party consensus we built behind that approach but to build on the work that Dr Cass has done.

I call Health and Social Care Committee member Danny Beales.

The hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson) asks, “Why?” Well, it is because trans people exist and their health needs exist. As the Secretary of State has clearly outlined, an independent review made a series of recommendations. There were clearly failures of healthcare, and a further recommendation was that a clinical trial should address this issue. I believe that the Conservatives supported the Cass review, but when it comes to implementing this part of it, they suddenly have collective amnesia about what Dr Cass recommended. Does the Secretary State agree that, in the absence of a trial, there will still be access to these drugs? We know that young people are seeking out private provision. They are seeking unregulated providers of these drugs, so is not a clinical trial both appropriate and the best and safest way of managing any potential risks?

The risk that my hon. Friend sets out was one of the considerations that I had to when weigh up—first when upholding the temporary ban, and then when making the ban permanent. I do worry that, outside of a trial, we may continue to see unsafe or unethical practice. I think we will be doing a service to medicine in this country as well as internationally if we have a high-quality trial with the highest standards of ethics, approvals, oversight and research from some of our country’s leading universities and healthcare providers to ensure that, for this particular vulnerable group of children and young people, we are taking an evidence-based approach to health and care.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson; you have one minute.

I hope that everyone in this House can agree that medical treatment should always follow the evidence on safety and effectiveness. It is right that expert clinicians are building this evidence base and therefore right that the Government are seeking to run this trial, because it should be led by evidence and not by ideology.

Given that the numbers on the trial will be very small and the waiting list for talking therapies, which are so important for children and their parents, is very long, with hundreds of thousands waiting, can the Secretary of State explain how he will increase access to NHS talking therapies so people can get the help they need and deserve? In a field with so little research, will he confirm if the pathways trial will look at international best practice in order to take learnings from abroad?

I can absolutely assure the hon. Member that we are doing that wider research and that of course we will take into account high-quality international evidence, as well as the research we are undertaking domestically. It is so important that we recognise that, for many young people with gender incongruence, even if approved, puberty blockers will never be the right medication. One of the things I have been most saddened by in the discourse among adults in this debate, many of whom should know better, is the elevation of puberty blockers to the status they have received in public discourse and debate; many young people out there think not only is this the gold standard of care, but that it is the only care available, and, of course, that is not true.

NHS England has opened three new children and young people’s gender services in the north-west, London and Bristol, with a fourth planned for the east of England in 2026. We aim to have a service in every region of England in the coming years. These services use a different model with multidisciplinary teams, including mental health support and paediatrics, within specialist children’s hospitals to provide good clinical care. The new services will increase capacity and reduce waiting times so that patients can be seen sooner and closer to home. We have also commissioned additional support for young people waiting to be seen through local children and young people’s mental health services.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his leadership. As a former children’s services manager, I am concerned that credible safeguarding warnings from clinicians and academics about puberty suppression in children are not being heard. Will the Secretary of State meet those experts and review the younger age limit for participation in this trial, given that children as young as 10 are currently set to be involved?

Let me reassure my hon. Friend and the House that I am absolutely open to receiving representations and evidence from clinicians involved in the care of children and young people, with insight, expertise and data, including those who might be critical of the approach that the trial team is setting out or, indeed, critical that the Cass review included this recommendation. That is important because the many things that have gone horribly wrong in this area have included the silencing of whistleblowers and the silencing of rigorous debate and discussion.

We have to have this debate with due care and sensitivity for young people in this vulnerable group in particular and for the wider trans community, who feel extremely vulnerable in this country at the moment, including as a result of decisions I have taken as the Health and Social Care Secretary. We have to consider all of that in the round, but we must make sure that at all times we are following the evidence, that we are open to scrutiny and challenge, and that where we are making these finely balanced judgments, we are doing so with rigorous debate, testing the arguments, the evidence and the data. That is why I welcome the urgent question and this discussion.

I call Health and Social Care Committee member Joe Robertson.

The Secretary of State said earlier that there is an extremely high bar for him stepping in and stopping these tests using puberty blockers. What bar could be higher than a Government protecting children from being tested on with drugs specifically to stop or alter their sexual development? There is not a unified clinical view on this. It is his choice; he is the Secretary of State. These tests are on him.

I certainly do not need to be told what my responsibilities are on this. I always take responsibility for the decisions I take. I acknowledge the extent to which the hon. Gentleman and members of his party seek to weaponise this issue, and to personalise it. [Interruption.] We can simply refer back to his question and to the shadow Minister’s reference to the “Streeting trial”—if that is not personalising, I do not know what is.

I’ll tell you what: I will take an evidence-based approach. I have done that on this issue from day one. Had the Conservatives done so, we would never have seen the Tavistock scandal. We would never have seen puberty blockers dished out willy-nilly to children and young people in this vulnerable patient group. I have sought at all times, including when I sat on the Opposition Benches, to treat this debate with the care, sensitivity and humility it deserves, and not to be tribal in my interactions. I only wish this Conservative Opposition would take the same approach.