Puberty Blockers Trial: Consent

Baroness Cash Excerpts

Thursday 25th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I certainly do agree. As I have said, having put a ban in place, we will take action against those who seek to transgress and benefit from it by seeking to sell drugs that are not permitted. That is a totally unacceptable route for them to follow. They risk the safety and well-being of children.

[Baroness Cash (Con)]

My Lords, yesterday the Minister told the House that the PATHWAYS trial would be covered by insurance. I have been unable to identify any insurance company that will cover such treatment, even in a trial setting, so can she tell us how insurance has been obtained, the information on which it is based and from which provider it has been obtained? I appreciate that this may not be possible in the Chamber due to time, but I would be grateful to see the information provided in detail and the terms of the policy.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

Although I am keen to be helpful to the noble Baroness, my comments yesterday related to trials and insurance provisions. I do not know what research has been undertaken since then. I would be pleased to write to her; I cannot promise the detail she seeks, but I will seek to be helpful.

PATHWAYS Study: Puberty Suppression

Baroness Cash Excerpts

Wednesday 24th June 2026 Lords Chamber

I will not pretend that I do not continue to feel discomfort and unease, but I believe that the only way for us all to come to a fair and settled conclusion on this matter—to move forward as a country on this difficult and sensitive issue—is on the basis of clinical evidence in which we trust. Thanks to the strengthened criteria now in place for monitoring children’s well-being and for withdrawing them from the trial, there is now intense scrutiny, and there are robust mechanisms to prevent harm coming to the young people who take part. It is on that basis that I believe we should follow the advice of clinical experts and seek the clinical evidence that will give us the confidence to know that where we settle on this matter in the future is right. I commend this Statement to the House”.

[Baroness Cash (Con)]

My Lords, the proposed PATHWAYS puberty blockers trial for 226 children as young as 11 risks becoming a medical scandal unfolding in real time. Gender-incongruent children include some of the most vulnerable children in society, with disproportionate numbers of that cohort having autism or mental disorders or being children in care. There is an unknown and inestimable correlation with social media that is yet to be uncovered. The challenges for these children and their families, and the difficulties they face, are not to be underestimated, but gender-incongruent and gender non-conforming behaviour is also often characteristic of children who grow up simply to be gay. Surely the Minister does not truly agree with a trial which will place children who would otherwise simply grow up to be healthy gay and lesbian adults on a pathway that may impair their fertility and their sexual development.

The data shows, and the Cass review accepted, that a very large majority of children presenting with gender incongruence will resolve without medical intervention. I assume that the Minister accepts this. That being the case, this trial will be subjecting many physically healthy young children to completely unnecessary medical risks. Let us be clear. The medical risks inherent in taking puberty blockers at such a young age are truly life-altering. They include possible lifelong consequences for brain development, including IQ, bone health, fertility and adult sexual function.

Shockingly, 2,000 children have already been treated with puberty blockers in this country. They were treated at the now closed Tavistock clinic. More scandalously, they went on to adult clinics and we are entirely in the dark about how they are today. The data linkage study to analyse the information about those children has not yet been done. A shocking six out of seven of those adult clinics they went on to have not released the data, despite Parliament legislating for it.

So, what are Ministers doing to require adult gender clinics receiving public money to provide that data? What is the current status of that process? And, when the Government still do not know what happened to the 2,000 children already treated, why and on what grounds are they exposing another cohort of healthy children to medical harm before that question has been answered? It is no good to point to the fact that the noble Baroness, Lady Cass, recommended a trial. Government cannot and should not outsource such decisions and it will be no defence to the litigation coming down the line, as it already is in the US, that the noble Baroness told the Government to do it.

In any case, there are major issues about consent, particularly given the nature of the trial as currently put together. I am deeply troubled by how the informed consent of children can possibly be obtained when they are too young to appreciate what they stand to lose: as young as 11. It is important to set out what they stand to lose. Commencing puberty blockers at an early age may make fertility preservation for these children impossible. Studies show that puberty blockers may affect brain development, including their IQ and memory function, as well as their bone density and organ development. There is currently no long-term data sufficient to quantify those risks. Then, of course, there is a risk that normal adult sexual function—let us call a spade a spade; we are talking about the ability to ever experience sexual pleasure—does not develop when puberty is interrupted at such an early stage.

In these circumstances, it is inexplicable that the Government have rejected the MHRA’s recommendation that children under 14 should not be included in any trial. This trial is for children from the age of 11. How does the Minister justify that children under 14 are to be included in the trial? And how does she argue that any child can give informed consent to such risks? Please can the Minister confirm that these risks and all others will be expressly communicated to the children and families concerned? If this trial goes ahead, it is inevitable that irreversible, unnecessary harm will be done to at least some of these children.

Finally, could the Minister confirm that the Government have carried out an assessment of the future liability coming down the tracks to the NHS, and therefore to the taxpayer? Have the ongoing treatment costs, the treatment-related harms and the future litigation risks been assessed? What is the estimated cost to the NHS and the taxpayer of those, and how will that be funded?

Polling in December 2025 showed that almost 70% of the public was against giving puberty blockers to children and 63% wanted this trial to be stopped. As the Government consider a fresh start in other ways, I beg the Minister to think again and stop this trial.

[Baroness Barker (LD)]

My Lords, this Statement takes place in the context of a relentless campaign against trans people that started among right-wing politicians in the United States of America but has been seized on here: the bandwagon has been jumped upon by politicians in this country. That is the context.

We on these Benches have a policy towards trans people that is based on our belief that trans people not only exist but have a right to exist, and they have a right to exist with the same dignity as the rest of us—and part of that is having access to appropriate healthcare. I ask the Government, as, I hope, they seek to defend this test against the kind of political campaigning that we have just heard, to bear in mind that the use of puberty inhibitors is not the harmful intervention that has just been characterised. It is a safe medical intervention that has been used for different conditions since the 1980s, and there is already a lot of data on it. However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Cass, identified in her review, an absence or at least an insufficiency of data about the use of inhibitors in relation to people who have gender dysphoria. That is why this trial, consisting of 226 people, in a highly regulated period of group activity, has been allowed to go ahead in order to generate the data that she says we need.

It is true that last week the independent MHRA approved an update to the basis on which the trial is going to happen, in order to make sure that the safeguards were increased. It is not unusual for that to happen in a medical trial. It is not unusual for trials to stop and take note of what has happened initially and then for revisions to be made to the basis on which they are run.

We on these Benches believe very strongly that medical treatment should be based on science and evidence, not on belief and ideology. This trial has been under sustained attack from political organisations such as Sex Matters which do not believe that trans people should exist or should exist with the dignities that they currently do. This trial is currently the only legal route for anybody to access puberty blockers, so in the interests not just of accurate scientific evidence but of children who need this treatment, will the Minister ensure that the people who have undertaken this research are protected from the relentless political attacks against trans people?

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Baroness Cash Excerpts

Committee stage
Friday 16th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, I have Amendment 68A. I am conscious that I asked the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, whether lasting power of attorney can be used. I am pleased to say that, in the debate, he said no. However, I am concerned that we may start to see quite a lot of case law emerge with this Bill if it becomes an Act. It is therefore really important that we start to put the level of protections into the Bill, as has just also been suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady Berger.

The reason I am particularly keen on the lasting power of attorney issue to be put into the Bill is in recognition that this could become something that people—I recognise that these are people who are getting towards the end of their life and may have less than six months to live—would expect, if they had already transferred their decisions to a person acting with an LPA, in order to start making these decisions. However, I think the sentiment of the Committee, and certainly that expressed by the noble and learned Lord as the sponsor of the Bill, is that that should not be the case. That is why I particularly want to see this in the Bill.

I appreciate that I do not have a Bill team of civil servants to say whether this is precisely how it should be addressed, but I hope that it is been sufficiently comprehensive, also considering Sections 9 and 11 of the other Act, to make sure that, if somebody is to make this decision, it has to be wholly and exclusively their own. It cannot be done within fluctuating conditions where people interchange on who is making the decision; it must be just the one person whose life it is who considers whether to take their own life.

[Baroness Cash (Con)]

My Lords, I support this group of amendments for a specific reason. I tried to ask the Minister this question during their closing speech last week, but there was not time. The Equality and Human Rights Commission gave evidence at the Select Committee—I declare an interest that at the time I was a commissioner, but am no longer—in writing and orally, expressing grave concern about the adequacy of the equality impact assessment. The points coming up in support of this group raise real questions around this.

I ask the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, to say when we will see addressed the gaps identified in that evidence given by Alasdair Henderson, a commissioner at the EHRC, and in a follow-up letter written to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, identifying specifically where the EHRC was concerned. When will we see a follow-up to that? It seems to me that many of the points in this and subsequent groups are about the vulnerabilities of individuals because of certain protected characteristics and the lack of protection for them. The EHRC has expressed no position on this Bill but is very concerned about it. I think the same applies to many Members of this House. We need answers to these questions to inform this debate fully.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to my Amendments 40 and 59. The changes I propose may seem puzzling or pedantic, but, when dealing with legislation about life and death, every word matters. My amendments aim to bring the same care for language to subsections (2) and (3) as is used in subsection (1), which sets out that only if the conditions in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) are met then assistance to end a person’s life, in accordance with Clauses 8 to 30, may be provided. If any of these conditions is not met then the action is subject to the existing criminal provisions of the Suicide Act 1961.

As they now stand, subsections (2) and (3) do not set out conditions in this way. Rather, they describe other parts of the Bill. Clause 1(2) is framed as an observation about Clauses 8 to 30, and Clause 1(3) apparently sets out a geographical marker for the certain steps provided for elsewhere in the Bill that “must be taken”. Subsection (2) therefore seems entirely redundant, since it purports merely to note what is said elsewhere. Subsection (3) is puzzling. Is the “must” a mistake or should it be “may only”?

Perhaps more important than such redundancy, inelegance and imprecision in drafting is that, in their present form, subsections (2) and (3) do not deprive those who act in contravention of the paragraphs they contain of the protection of the law from assisting suicide. They fail to make it explicit that this remains prohibited and punishable unless it meets subsections (2)(a), (2)(b), (3)(a) and (3)(b). My amendments would remove this perhaps unintentional looseness—the sponsor may wish to comment on the intentionality or otherwise—by making it explicit that assistance to end a person’s life may not be provided unless subsections (2)(a), (2)(b), (3)(a) and (3)(b) are all met.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

I apologise. I do not know whether the noble Lord feels that he is withdrawing a compliment or withdrawing an insult, but I get what he is doing.

To the noble Baroness, Lady Cash, before she gets to her feet, I say that she is right. In relation to the ECHR points that were raised by, I think, Mr Stevenson, who was the commissioner—I have the name wrong.

[Baroness Cash (Con)]

It was Alasdair Henderson, who gave evidence to the Select Committee and raised a lot of the concerns that have been reiterated by the noble Baroness, Lady Berger, and others today. Indeed, the point that the noble and learned Lord makes about being poor and having a choice is something that is really of concern to the EHRC, which raised that in evidence orally and in writing and, subsequently, in the letter to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope. Indirect discrimination, because of circumstances, is one of the problems with this Bill that troubles us most greatly. That has not been addressed, which is why the EHRC, without taking a position on the principle, has asked for that clarification. I would like to know whether it needs to write formally to request that, or is its evidence before the Select Committee and its subsequent letter adequate? Can the noble and learned Lord please clarify?

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

The commissioner for the EHRC raised a number of points in relation to the risk of discrimination under the convention. The Government have done an equality impact assessment and, broadly, they adopt the approach that it is unlikely that the courts will interfere in a deliberate choice made by the Government, or the legislature in this case, as to what the limits would be of an assisted dying Bill. I agree strongly with that. It is the approach that the English courts have reflected in relation to assisted dying, and it is the approach that the European Court of Human Rights has taken as well. I therefore do not think that the views expressed by the commissioner to the Select Committee are right, but I am more than happy if the noble Baroness, Lady Cash, would like to raise specific ones—or all of them—she can do so with me, and I can raise them with the Government as well.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Cash (Con)]

I am grateful for the chance to clarify my point. It is not about litigating any of those complex issues. The EHRC is the regulator for this type of law in this country. The EHRC evidence, given before the Select Committee and written subsequently in answer to the committee’s questions, is that the equality impact assessment is inadequate, and it requests that those inadequacies be clarified. I do not have the text to hand, but it specifies in its letter to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, the protected characteristic categories that it is particularly concerned about. That inadequacy, which was just now highlighted by noble Baroness, Lady Berger, is what is leaving us with our hands tied behind our backs and unable to give an answer in this debate.