From Hannah Barnes excellent New Statesmen article:
At a briefing on the new trial for parliamentarians on 3 December, Labour MP Jonathan Hinder pointed out that one member of the presenting panel, NHS England’s James Palmer, had been responsible for overseeing and developing youth gender services for more than a decade; Palmer had spoken publicly about it being a “good thing” that so many young people were exploring their gender. “Why on earth is he anywhere near this trial?” Hinder asked, given Palmer had been in a senior position while the many problems at Gids unfolded, but did not act to stop it. Another MP present at the briefing told me how unpersuaded they were by the argument that a new NHS trial was necessary because so many children were accessing puberty blockers from unregulated private providers. Risks and benefits had to be assessed in the safe environment of a trial, it was argued, to safeguard these children as much as possible. (This was an argument when the Tavistock study was seeking ethical approval in 2010, too: an “increasing number of UK families were accessing [puberty blockers] internationally.”)
Streeting MUST address this MASSIVE conflict of interest if the study does go ahead or it will have ZERO credibility.
The scandal at GIDS effectively has never been dealt with and there are individuals like this man who have a vested personal interest in having an NHS approved trial effectively say they weren't negligent the first time around.
This is like someone who caused a bank crash heading up a taskforce on tackling risky traders and corruption and expecting it not to be arsed covering.