Puberty Blockers

Debate between James Murray and John Hayes

Tuesday 23rd June 2026 Commons Chamber

[James Murray]

If a child is looked after under a care order, the local authority has parental responsibility, so it would need to be part of the consent process as the corporate parent.

I turn to the points raised by the right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen) about young people becoming involved in the trial and the checks that are in place to enable that to happen. As I set out earlier, as the trial involves children, it comes with a responsibility to interrogate and understand its design. As Health Secretary, I have sought the most detailed assurances possible from my clinical advisers as to how children taking part in the trial will be protected.

There are a number of important safeguards. As I have said, children can participate only with the consent of a parent or guardian, and the child themselves must consent or assent. They can participate only if they have had a diagnosis of gender incongruence for at least two years, have received psychosocial support through the NHS and are of stable physical and mental health. They can participate only if they are not subject to any safeguarding concerns and if they and their parents demonstrate sufficient understanding of the nature of the treatment, including its possible advantages and disadvantages. They can participate only if the treatment has been deemed clinically appropriate by both the NHS care team and the national multidisciplinary team and if they are already accessing NHS gender services. On eligibility, the bar is extremely high.

The number of young people who would expect to qualify for the trial will be low and the safeguards to ensure their safety and wellbeing will be rigorous. I have sought and had an assurance that, once they are involved in the trial, participants may be withdrawn at any point. We are not proceeding with the previous, now decommissioned, model of care overseen by the Conservatives when they were in government. We are proceeding cautiously, with rigorous safeguards in pursuit of the evidence, as Dr Cass recommended.

Last Thursday, the independent MHRA approved an updated protocol that significantly strengthened the objective criteria for withdrawing children from the trial, which is a change that I welcome. Signs of greater risk to participants will now trigger increased monitoring, clinical review or their automatic withdrawal from the trial. All participants will be monitored before, at the start of, every three months during, and after the trial. Before and during the trial, information will be collected about mental health, quality of life, self-harm and suicidality, body image, cognition, puberty stage, physical health and side effects.

I have been determined to ensure that the oversight of this trial is as rigorous and robust as it possibly can be, so I have requested monthly updates on its progress. That will include my being notified of any emerging risks.

This trial is rightly one of the most scrutinised UK clinical trials of recent times. We should expect nothing less when we are talking about the health and wellbeing of some of the most vulnerable children in our country. Yet, as Dr Cass has made clear, we have to build the evidence base to show whether the treatments are safe and whether they produce the positive outcomes that young people and clinicians want from them.

The Opposition’s motion would prevent us from following expert clinical advice, when proceeding with the trial is the most appropriate way forward. I say that not because I am suggesting that we should feel instinctively comfortable in doing so but because I have arrived at that conclusion after considering the clinical evidence and receiving robust assurances on the safeguards that are in place.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

I know that the Secretary of State has agonised over this matter—he made that clear in his statement to the House last night and again today—but what is not in doubt is the harm that these drugs do. It is an established medical fact. He is determined to be driven by the evidence. That is evidential. We know that the drugs have harmful effects, so in essence what he is saying is that we are prepared to wear those harmful effects on the off-chance that the drugs may have a beneficial set of effects, when there is no evidence to suggest up until now that they do.

[James Murray]

The MHRA has introduced additional safeguards. As a result of its dialogue with the trial sponsors, the amended protocol published last week increases the level of safeguards. That means that if the regular monitoring, which will happen at least every three months—it can be more regular during the trial—shows any sign of increased risk of harm, that will lead to increased monitoring, clinical review and, when considered against objective criteria, automatic withdrawal from the trial.

It is a question of monitoring this trial, possibly more closely than any trial before—the level of scrutiny is very great indeed—to ensure that at the first sign of any increased risk of harm, action will be taken. That is the assurance that I have sought in interrogating this matter carefully in recent days, and that is the basis on which I am talking to the right hon. Gentleman and others in the House today.

We must come to a fair and settled conclusion on this matter to move forward as a country, and I believe that we should follow clinical advice and establish the clinical evidence gathered in a highly scrutinised trial with all the safeguards in place that I have described. Only that approach will give us the confidence about where we settle on this matter in the future. On that basis, the Government oppose this motion.

Pathways Study: Puberty Suppression

Debate between James Murray and John Hayes

Monday 22nd June 2026 Commons Chamber

[James Murray]

My hon. Friend asks about the data linkage study, and I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for North Northumberland (David Smith), who a few seconds ago also asked about that—I did not respond then but can now address both questions together.

It is important to understand that the information in the linkage study is much more limited than the detailed information that the research team will be able to collect about the relative benefits and risks of puberty blockers. NHS England is, however, committed to delivering the data linkage study. NHS England, since assuming responsibility for that study, has taken time to ensure that the data is shared by relevant organisations. Let me be absolutely clear, for the avoidance of all doubt, that the Government’s clear expectation is that all relevant organisations will provide the data required to complete the study.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

I first raised the horrors of the Tavistock clinic in this House in 2019, having been provoked to do so by staff who said that they were often under pressure to refer for life-altering treatment children and young people who had experienced mental health difficulties, abuse and family trauma. Indeed, the Secretary of State will know that the Cass review found that childhood trauma, neglect and abuse featured heavily in the cohort of patients seeking gender changes. As many as two thirds of those referred had suffered neglect or abuse, with high levels of parental mental illness, substance abuse and exposure to domestic violence. So will the Secretary of State, even at this late juncture, abandon this trial? I have no reason to believe that he is anything other than a good man who wants to do the right thing. He has made it clear that he knows that this matter often sorts itself out through puberty and adulthood. I implore him to do so, for I fear that because he is a good man, he will regret this cruel experiment on harmless children.

[James Murray]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his comments, and although he and I come to a different conclusion on this, I do not doubt for a second the sincerity of his motivation in wanting to protect children and young people. I actually agree with him, as I said in my earlier comments, that most young children who are questioning their gender will resolve it on their own—let them be to resolve it. But there is a small subset of children who will need extra support, and within that there is a question about whether for a very small subset of them there might be a benefit to having treatment, and that is what this trial seeks to conclude.

I would add that the right hon. Gentleman refers to what happened in the Tavistock clinic and the stories that led to Dr Hilary Cass being commissioned. I think the right hon. Gentleman and I agree on how unacceptable that situation was, and I put on record my thanks to Sir Sajid Javid for commissioning the work by Dr Cass, because it has been such an important piece of work not only to expose what was happening before, but to provide a way forward.

Office for Budget Responsibility Forecasts

Debate between James Murray and John Hayes

Monday 1st December 2025 Commons Chamber

[James Murray]

My hon. Friend is right. I do not hold out any hope that the Conservatives will speak with any consistency or do anything other than try to talk down the British economy. In stark contrast, we are cutting Government borrowing, increasing the headroom, and making sure we have stable public finances and a stable economy, because it is on that basis that we can boost investment and growth.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

The demeanour of a good Chancellor should be somewhere between an undertaker and an oncologist—a reassuring presence and no words wasted—not a party entertainer trialling a few tricks before they go on stage, which is what this Chancellor did before the Budget. In seizing back control from the OBR—which is unaccountable and unelected, and should never have been set up in the first place—will the Minister recognise that, unless the Treasury and Ministers are straight with the public, no one will be trusted?

[James Murray]

The right hon. Gentleman and I disagree about the role of the OBR. We value its role in a transparent and robust fiscal framework. Madam Deputy Speaker, during this debate Richard Hughes has offered his resignation. May I put on record, on behalf of the Government, our thanks to him for his dedication to public service?

Inheritance Tax: Family-owned Businesses

Debate between James Murray and John Hayes

Tuesday 3rd June 2025 Westminster Hall

[James Murray]

My hon. Friend is a great champion of businesses and farmers in her constituency. When we were deciding how to reform agricultural property relief and business property relief, we made sure that generous tax reliefs still existed in the tax system precisely because we want to continue to support small and family-owned farms and businesses in particular. I will come to those in a moment.

I am conscious that you asked me to give you a few moments at the end, Sir John. Do you mean at the end of my remarks?

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

I need about 15 seconds at the very end of your remarks.

[James Murray]

Got it. To conclude my remarks on the wider support that we are giving to businesses, I also draw hon. Members’ attention to the fact that we committed in the “Corporate Tax Roadmap”, which was published at the autumn Budget, to maintain the small profits rates and marginal relief at their current rates and thresholds, as well as the £1 million annual investment allowance.

I know that many Members are concerned about the reforms to inheritance tax that are the subject of the debate, so I will now turn to them. The reality is that the full, unlimited relief introduced in 1992 has become unfair and unsustainable, particularly in the economic context that we inherited. Under the current system, the 100% relief on business and agricultural assets is heavily skewed towards the wealthiest estates, which is clear from the latest HMRC data from 2021-22. More than 50% of business property relief was claimed by just 4% of estates making claims. That means that the wealthiest few per cent of estates claimed £558 million in tax relief. That contributes to the very largest estates paying a lower average effective inheritance tax rate than smaller estates. It is neither fair nor sustainable to maintain such a large tax break for such a small number of claimants, given the wider pressures on the public finances. It is for that reason that the Government are changing how we target agricultural property relief and business property relief.

Under the reformed system, estates will still benefit from 100% relief for the first £1 million of combined assets from April 2026, and on top of that there will be an uncapped 50% relief on further assets. That means that inheritance tax will be paid at a reduced effective rate of up to 20%, rather than the standard 40%. Those reliefs sit on top of the standard nil-rate bands and other exemptions, such as transfers between spouses and civil partners.

Farming and Inheritance Tax

Debate between James Murray and John Hayes

Wednesday 4th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (James Murray)]

I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “House” to the end of the Question and add:

“thanks farmers for their immense contribution to the UK economy and the nation’s food security; welcomes the Government’s commitment of £5 billion to the farming budget over the next two years, the biggest budget for sustainable food production and nature recovery in UK history; acknowledges that the Government is having to make difficult decisions to protect farms and farmers in the context of the £22 billion fiscal blackhole left by the previous Government; recognises that the Government is seeking to target Agricultural Property Relief and Business Property Relief to make them fairer whilst also fixing the public services that everyone relies on; and notes that under the changes announced in the Budget around three quarters of claims for Agricultural Property Relief, including those that also claim Business Property Relief, are expected to not pay more Inheritance Tax.”

I welcome the chance to open the debate on behalf of the Government. The Government’s commitment to farmers is steadfast. As our amendment makes clear, farmers make an immense contribution to the UK economy and to the nation’s food security. We recognise and respect the crucial contribution that farmers make to our country’s way of life.

We must also recognise, however, the state of our public services and the mess in which we found the public finances when we came into power. There was no way we could have left things as they were. Unlike the Conservatives, there was never any question of Labour ignoring the £22 billion black hole that we uncovered in the public finances. We had to bring the previous Administration’s fiscal irresponsibility to an end. We had to ensure that our country lives within its means. We had to get public services back on their feet while meeting our tough new fiscal rules, which end borrowing for day-to-day spending. That is what we, as a responsible Government, had to do.

That is why, at the autumn Budget, the Chancellor set out a number of difficult but necessary decisions on tax, welfare and spending. These decisions were to restore economic stability, fix the public finances and rebuild our public services. One of the decisions we took was to reform agricultural and business property relief. We chose to do so in a way that maintains significant tax relief for family farms, while fixing the public finances as fairly as possible.

[Sir John Hayes]

The hon. Gentleman will want to explain this, Mr Speaker. The Government have argued that only 27% of farms will be affected by this measure, while the National Farmers Union says it is 75%. Will he at least give us an indication from the Dispatch Box, perhaps supported by a note in the Library of the House, showing the modelling that contradicts the NFU’s figures?

[James Murray]

I point the right hon. Gentleman to the letter the Chancellor recently sent to the Treasury Committee, which sets out some of these figures in detail. Some of the confusion that he and other hon. Members have encountered might come from the fact that there are different sets of data. The set of data he may be referring to relates to the total value of farms across the country, but if we are thinking about inheritance tax claims, it is right to look at His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs claims data on inheritance tax. Looking simply at the value of a farm does not tell us what the inheritance tax liability for that farm may be, given that we would have to look at the ownership structure—at who owns what—and at any liabilities, and so on. That might be where some of the right hon. Gentleman’s confusion is coming from.