Sarah Pochin has hit back at Sir Keir Starmer after making a festive jibe about her during today’s Prime Minister’s Questions.

Speaking to GB News, the Reform UK MP branded the remark a “silly comment” as she condemned Sir Keir’s actions in the House of Commons.

During today’s session, the Prime Minister took aim at the Runcorn MP, referencing her comments in October about “seeing adverts full of black people and full of Asian people”.

The Prime Minister told MPs: “The member for Runcorn is clearly dreaming of a white Christmas.”

Snapping back at the remark, Ms Pochin told GB News Chief Political Correspondent Katherine Forster: “My message to the Prime Minister is to stop throwing silly comments around the chamber.”

Speaking from the protest against the Government-backed puberty blocker trial, she fumed: “Why isn’t he here? Why isn’t he standing up for vulnerable young children? Why is he backing human experimentation on our young kids?”

Declaring the trial “state-sponsored child abuse”, she said of Health Secretary Wes Streeting’s support: “I’ve just delivered my message to him in the chamber today, and I’ve told him this is state-sponsored child abuse.

“I’ve told him this trial doesn’t need to go ahead because 2,000 children and young people have taken these drugs under the scandal that was Tavistock. That data is available.”

The Reform UK MP added: “Wes Streeting could introduce statutory legislation to access that data. This trial does not need to go ahead.”

Ms Pochin was joined at the protest by Labour MP Jonathan Hinder, Baroness Claire Fox and Independent MP Rosie Duffield, who all told GB News why they are opposing the trial.

Baroness Fox told the People’s Channel: “Of course, evidence should be collected, but a medical dictum is ‘first, do no harm’. The idea that the only way you can collect evidence is by experimenting on children who can’t consent to this properly is a disgrace. It’s going to discredit medical science.

“And I was delighted, therefore, that we had parents, we had lesbians and gays who make the point that disproportionately the young people that are being experimented on, or indeed people who think that maybe they’re not sure about their body, but if they were allowed to go through puberty, we’d just know that they’re a lesbian. It absolutely should be called off now.”

LATEST DEVELOPMENTS:

• WATCH: Keir Starmer handed brutal ‘last Christmas’ swipe by Stephen Flynn
• WATCH: Kemi Badenoch says Keir Starmer ‘doesn’t have the baubles’ to ban doctors strikes
• Nigel Farage stages Commons walkout over ‘rigged’ Labour in final PMQs of 2025

Delivering his verdict on the trial, Labour MP Jonathan Hinder stated that the children simply need “love, support and compassion”, not puberty blockers.

He said: “The fundamental point is that these are medically healthy children. There is absolutely nothing wrong with them and what they need is love, support and compassion to actually accept their bodies as they are. They are primary school age in many cases that are going to be on this trial. They don’t know what is happening to them, they cannot consent to this.

“And I think in a few years time when these children become adults, they will be asking, ‘who did this to me?’, and it’s not good enough to stand behind some small number of clinicians who do support this, when many of them are against it. It’s not good enough to stand behind them and say, ‘oh well, I’m following the evidence’.”

He added: “As politicians, I’m just a backbencher, but the Government ministers have to take responsibility. The idea this could be state-sanctioned, after what happened at the Tavistock, the scandal of young people now coming out of that saying, how on earth did you do this to me, I think it’s shocking.”

Also expressing her opposition for the trial, Ms Duffield told GB News: “These are children potentially as young as eight. Who is answerable to them when they regret this and their 20s and 30s, and which clinicians is Wes Streeting listening to?

“Not the whistleblowers from the Tavistock, all of whom are really against this trial.”

She added: “And also, he says that at least one parent has to give consent. What happens to looked-after children, who makes that decision for them?

“And what happens in a case when two parents don’t agree? Who’s going to sort that out, the family courts?”

Our Standards:
The GB News Editorial Charter