§ Order for Second Reading read.
4.23 pm§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Tom Sackville)I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
This is a technical, but very necessary Bill, which seeks to put right certain unforeseen consequences of the section of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 which dealt with confidentiality. The Bill is very narrowly defined. It seeks only to relax the restrictions on disclosure of information by people to whom a licence applies or to whom directions have been given, as contained in section 35(5) of the 1990 Act. Hon. Members may find it helpful if I explain the background to this matter and then briefly describe the Bill.
Information obtained during treatment for infertility can be extremely personal and private. Parliament recognised this in deciding that the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 should impose a stronger duty of confidentiality than existed under the common law in relation to such information.
The 1990 Act therefore introduces a criminal sanction for breaches of the confidentiality provisions in section 33 of the Act. The criminal sanction in relation to section 33(5) of the 1990 Act applies only to the licensed person who initially discloses the confidential information. Breach of that provision is a criminal offence punishable by up to two years imprisonment, or a fine, or both. That sanction is in addition to the existing common law which protects confidential information.
Since the 1990 Act came into force, practical experience has shown that the provisions on the disclosure of information by licensed clinicians were in some respects too tightly drawn. They have led to unintended risks and difficulties. As it stands, the 1990 Act prohibits licensed clinicians, with some specified exceptions, from disclosing identifying information about a patient's treatment to anyone except the patient herself. They are prohibited from disclosing it to members and employees of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority or other people covered by a licence for the purpose of licensed activities. The practical effect has been found to be that the doctor cannot pass on identifying information, even with the patient's consent, for example to the patient's general practitioner.
The intention was that patients should have maximum control over the information about their treatment. However, it has become clear that the restrictions imposed by the Act in certain instances went too far. The following example illustrates this point. In rare cases, the ovaries of a woman may be hyperstimulated as a result of super-ovulatory drugs. This could result in a dangerous, possibly life-threatening condition which may go unrecognised because a doctor other than a licensed clinician who treats her cannot be given details about her infertility treatment. If clinicians were to do all that they might wish to do to protect the health of their patients, 1154 they would—under the Act—have to break the law. Clearly, it is not right that they should be put in that position.
Another example of the unintentionally over-restrictive nature of section 33 of the Act is that it prevents the disclosure of information for legal purposes. This means that a licensed person may not be able to defend him or herself if sued by a patient. If a doctor or other person to whom a licence applies is sued by a patient who has undergone treatment, he or she cannot give his or her legal adviser information about treatment given for an identifiable individual. The doctor would therefore be left in an unfair and untenable position in relation to the patient by whom he or she is sued, who is subject to no constraints under the Act.
When the disclosure provisions in section 33 of the 1990 Act were debated, this House and another place both decided that the person to whom the confidential information relates should retain as much control over the dissemination of that information as possible. The Government's view remains that this is right, but it was not the intention that the consequences that I have described should result.
I turn now to the detail. The Bill seeks to make certain specified relaxations in the restrictions on the disclosure of information by licensed clinicians imposed by section 33 of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990. Section 33(6) of the Act contains exceptions to the general restrictions. The Bill adds further exceptions, removing the criminal sanction from disclosure in specified circumstances and for particular purposes.
Clause 1(2) inserts three new paragraphs into section 33(6) of the 1990 Act. Paragraph (f) relates to the necessary—I repeat, necessary—disclosure of information before or in connection with proceedings, including legal proceedings and procedures for dealing with complaints. This will deal with the problem that I have just described of the clinician being unable to pass identifying information to his or her solicitor. Access to necessary identifying information in connection with complaints procedures, which is also prevented under the existing provisions, will be permitted under paragraph (f).
Paragraph (g) applies to one narrow aspect of treatment involving a surrogate mother. It enables a licensed clinician to confirm, for the purposes only of an application for a parental order under section 30 of the Act, that the gametes of a particular person were used in treatment services which involved the child being carried by a woman other than the wife of the couple seeking the parental order. Without that provision, the couple seeking the parental order—that is, the couple who commissioned the surrogate mother—might have to prove their genetic relationship to the child through DNA testing, which is time-consuming, and an unnecessary imposition. The provision seeks to simplify such proceedings.
Paragraph (h) deals with inconsistencies between the 1990 Act and the Access to Health Records Act 1990. The latter gives rights of access to records in a number of cases and, in particular, access by specified persons to the records of patients who have become incapable or who have died. The inconsistency arises because the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act does not allow access in those circumstances—in cases where infertility treatment has been given. That provision will make it possible for the personal representatives, or for a person appointed by a 1155 court to manage the affairs of a patient, to pursue claims where the death or incapacity is alleged to have resulted from infertility treatment.
Subsection (3) of the Bill inserts seven subsections, (6A) to (6G). Taking those subsections in order, (6A) prevents the disclosure of the identity of a third party whose gametes were used for the purposes of treatment services when revealing information in connection with proceedings provided for by new paragraph (f). Subsections (6B), (6C) and (6D) allow for information to be given with the consent of the individual or individuals receiving treatment.
I stress that consent is an essential feature of those provisions. The subsections will enable a licensed clinician, with the patient's consent, to pass information about treatment to the GP or to others associated with the treatment, or to anyone specifically authorised by the patient. They will also allow—again, subject to consent—access to certain information for the purposes of clinical and financial audit. Subsection (6E) permits the disclosure of information about an individual's treatment without the patient's consent, in the event of a medical emergency involving that person. Such disclosure can take place only when it is not reasonably practicable to obtain the patient's consent.
Subsection (6G) contains an affirmative regulation-making power to provide for further exceptions to section 33(5) of the 1990 Act. The provisions in the Bill deal with the specific difficulties which have come to our attention. However, we cannot be sure that further practical experience will not identify new situations which could create difficulty. Therefore, it seems sensible to anticipate such an event by including in the Bill a limited regulation-making power, subject to the affirmative procedure, enabling provision to be made for future exceptions. This means that further exceptions, should they be necessary, can be provided for and debated in this House without the need for another Bill.
Subsection 5 of clause 1 makes it clear that the provisions in the Bill will apply to information obtained before as well as after the legislation comes into force.
Finally, clause 2 provides for the short title, and for the extension of the Bill to Northern Ireland and to the Channel islands. The Bill has no implications for public funds.
The Government would not be seeking the measure if satisfactory alternative ways of resolving the problems which have come to light were available. In conclusion, I emphasise that the circumstances in which disclosure would be permitted are closely defined in the Bill and, except in specified circumstances, the patient's consent will be required before any identifying information can be disclosed. I commend the Bill to the House.
§ Ms. Harriet Harman (Peckham)I thank the Minister for his full explanation of the Bill. As he knows, it was discussed fully by their Lordships, and several matters which might have needed clarification were explained in another place.
As you will know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the last time the House debated this issue we were discussing the parent legislation, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill. This is not the occasion to rehearse the arguments of principle in that Bill—the continuation of embryology 1156 research. However, since that Bill was enacted there have been two developments for which we had all hoped and which bear out the fact that the House was correct to pass it. There have been great advances in research into identifying and increasing our understanding of genetically transmitted disorders.
§ Mr. Malcolm Chisholm (Edinburgh, Leith)Does my hon. Friend think that infertile couples can still get infertility treatment under the national health service now that hospitals are opting out?
§ Ms. HarmanI thank my hon. Friend for making that point. As it is the responsibility of GP budget holders and district health authorities to purchase services for people who are on their patients lists or who are within the district health authority area, there has been much concern that in vitro fertilisation and other specialist services for people with infertility problems will not be available under the NHS. I take this opportunity to ask the Minister to reassure us that he will monitor the purchasing patterns of GP budget holders and of district health authorities and to confirm that he sees a place for infertility services in the NHS.
The importance of the 1990 Act was that it regulated research and the treatment of infertility. We want to be sure that treatment is not only regulated but available under the NHS, and not just to those who can pay for it. The intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Chisholm) gives me the opportunity to put that point to the Minister.
§ Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman (Lancaster)The hon. Lady referred to advances in research into genetically transmitted disorders as an important development. There is no evidence that that research could not have been carried out on tissue from babies who, unfortunately, were stillborn or on tissue from naturally aborted foetuses, without the breeding of embryos on which to make experiments.
§ Ms. HarmanThe clear view of people who are engaged in research is that it simply would not be possible to make advances in our understanding of genetically transmitted disorders or to further the treatment of infertility in the way that the hon. Lady suggests. It is wrong to suggest that there is a hidden agenda and that researchers are saying that advances could not be made without human embryology when they could be. There is a clear consensus in the research and medical community that such research would not be possible without the use of human embryos. There are a few people on the margins who believe that it would be possible, but they do not carry their colleagues with them.
Those of us who support the programme for improving treatment for infertility and the programme for discovering more about genetic disorders would not be prepared to sacrifice the great advances on the basis that other methods might be possible. There is no evidence to support that view. I have led the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame. E. Kellett-Bowman) astray by raising the principles of the 1990 Act. I am sure that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would say that she and I were out of order for raising the matter.
I take this opportunity to congratulate the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority on its work, which has been well described in its first annual report. I 1157 am glad to have the opportunity to draw the attention of the House to that report. It is extremely well laid out and informative. It contains much information that professionals and those who may be embarking on infertility treatment may want to see. It is especially important that the report is accessible to the public, because many people who are embarking on infertility treatment feel that they are vulnerable to the blandishments of the private sector about what they could be offered if only they would hand over their money.
The authority will have an increasingly important role to play in providing people who have been offered all sorts of services in the private sector, and for whom all sorts of claims are being made, with an opportunity to consult it. People will have an official body with whom they can discuss the situation in practice. The authority says that one of its responsibilities is
giving information and advice to donors and prospective donors, to people seeking treatment or storage, or to people considering whether to do so.I congratulate the authority on its excellent report. What help will the Minister's Department give to ensure that it is widely circulated among the medical profession and people who may want to look at it? My only minor criticism is that the report does not contain the authority's phone number or address. Many people reading the report and seeing the pictures of all those nice people working in the authority will want to ring them up or write to them for further information. Members of Parliament receive many reports and most of them are unreadable, but this is a good example and the authority has obviously done important work.Human embryology is a rapidly changing field. When we discussed the parent Act, it was impossible to predict the problems that would emerge, which is why it is useful for the authority to identify the problems and discuss them openly in consultation. One issue flagged up was whether the success rates of different clinics should be published. It is important that that is discussed further and I look forward to seeing what the authority decides. Where the authority can iron out problems, we can be confident that it will do so. Its report identifies a problem with the confidentiality clauses in the Act which it cannot sort out by guidance or in any other way, which is why we are required to legislate.
We are dealing only with the extent of criminal law in this matter. Clearly, no one wants the criminal law to extend to such a degree that criminal sanctions could apply to the passing of information between doctors in the interests of patients. Doctors should not face disciplinary charges for seeking to provide information relating to treatment that is being questioned. The Bill should not change the general duty of confidence which doctors owe their patients. General practitioners have no criminal sanctions hanging over their heads if they provide information, but we all know and expect them not to do that. So we can reassure people that the Bill deals simply with the extent of the criminal law and the normal expectation of confidence between doctor and patient would hold true.
I expect that, if that professional duty of confidence were breached, it would be monitored by the General 1158 Medical Council, so although the criminal law will be withdrawn slightly from that area, people's eyes will not be taken off it.
I hope that the fact that we are considering the Bill will encourage those who have doubts that, once it is enacted, everybody will forget about it and get on with what they felt was necessary and expedient at the time. The Bill shows that there is an expectation that the letter of the law will be obeyed, even if it makes no sense. We must change the letter of the law, because we do not want practices to develop outside the law. I hope that the fact that we have returned to consider this issue today and change the legislation will encourage those who are worried that, when people are given an inch, they will take a mile.
I thank the Minister for his clear introduction of the Bill. We recognise that we need the legislation and shall support it. I hope that he will deal with the points that I have raised.
§ Dame Jill Knight (Birmingham, Edgbaston)It is strange that, although we have been debating this small Bill for about half an hour, no one so far has mentioned the children born as a result of this so-called scientific advance. Since the introduction of the parent Act, some hon. Members on both sides of the House have been concerned about the position of the child.
Will my hon. Friend the Minister say clearly whether the Bill improves or changes the position of those children? When children are born naturally and normally, possibly as the result of a brief affair. it may not be possible to find out health details of the parents, particularly the father. A child may have only one parent—a mother—and if she does not know the child's father well, the child may never know those health details.
We are considering the position of children who have been deliberately brought into the world by a scientific procedure. Some of us believe that that puts a special responsibility on the law, and on the medical profession which has brought the child into the world through somewhat unusual and unnatural means. If a child is adopted, the law gives it a right of access to information. It is often important for doctors to know, for instance, whether there is a family history of heart disease or some other health problem; it is much easier to treat a patient if the parental background is known.
It is less than fair to a child born deliberately in that way to withhold from the child information which is on file and known.
If an adopted child can have access to such information, those children should have the same right. Few people will speak up for children born as a result of such procedures, but this is an occasion on which to do so, because we want the Bill to give those children a better deal than they have had hitherto.
During the Committee stage of the parent Act, I sought to have the same conditions apply to those children as apply to adopted children. In law, it is absolutely clear that the interests of the child are paramount, but in these circumstances the interests of the child are not paramount but secondary to the interests of the mother or father. In many cases where children are born as a result of this procedure, the father and mother will be known—although the procedure is unusual, they will be the genuine father and mother—but I am talking about the many 1159 children born as a result of the procedure where the father is not known. That is to say, he may not be known to the mother, but he will certainly he known to those who keep the hospital records. It is in that narrow context that I wish to speak up once again for the rights of children who come into the world as a result of procedures that we in the House have, rightly or wrongly, blessed.
§ Mr. Dafydd Wigley (Caernarfon)I am glad to support the Bill. Many of us present today were involved in the protracted and sometimes heated debates on the original Act. Although we may have had differences of opinion about the original Act, I suspect that there is more agreement on the Bill's provisions, which meet some of the weaknesses that have become apparent in the original legislation. We are debating narrow points, not the broad issue covered by the original Act.
There are two reasons for welcoming the relaxation of the provisions. First, it is important to establish communications between clinicians. I accept the argument of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight), although I take a different view from her on the general issue. We must strike a balance between the different interests—including those of the child that we must safeguard.
There are times when there should be better communication between clinicians than is allowed under the narrow interpretation of the original legislation. In an attempt to protect the confidentiality of those receiving treatment to assist conception, the original Act unwittingly outlawed the direct communication between doctors which can be necessary in clinical emergencies.
For example, a rare complication which can occur in the ovulatory stimulation preceding in vitro fertilisation can result in collapse. At present, if a patient collapses in the street, the licensed IVF centre could be barred from informing the casualty department of the hospital where the patient is taken of the ovulatory stimulation treatment. That problem must be addressed and overcome. It is in the interests of the patient and everyone else that legislation should allow prompt and appropriate medical treatment in such circumstances, even though they are rare.
Legislative changes are also needed in respect of legal defence. One of the unintended consequences of the original Act was that it could deprive licensed practitioners of the ability to defend themselves in legal proceedings. Clinicians who provide such treatment may be sued for negligence and may be unable to obtain legal advice or representation, or submit a defence in a court of law without the risk of prosecution under the rules of confidentiality. The original legislation was not intended to create such circumstances.
Whatever our far-reaching differences over the original legislation, we should secure as much agreement in this House on the objective of this limited Bill as was achieved in another Chamber. I hope that we can make rapid progress.
§ Mr. David Wilshire (Spelthorne)I have waited just over five years to prove to the House that I can voluntarily make a short speech, so I shall try not to speak for too 1160 long. My interest in the Bill arises from the fact that I too, served in Committee in 1990 and have followed subsequent developments with considerable interest.
I support the Bill and am delighted that the Government have realised that more people need to know about the treatment—a battle that I fought and lost in 1990. I have only one reservation about the Bill: it does not go far enough. That is why I have tabled amendments, but I shall leave my comments on them until the appropriate time.
I remain as supportive of research and treatment now as I was in 1990, and I have no quarrel with the principle. However, I will not adopt the approach of the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) and risk reopening the debate. Now, as then, the strands of support and opposition for the legislation go backwards and forwards across the House as the debate continues. Like the hon. Member for Peckham, I am delighted that experience has shown that the 1990 Act appears to be working well. I hope that it will continue to do so.
§ Ms. Liz Lynne (Rochdale)I endorse what has been said and I approve of the Act, but I have one or two worries about the Bill. Will there be any kind of monitoring? Can the Minister assure us that if the rules are relaxed the operation of the Bill will be monitored? Perhaps in two years' time there could he a review of all the law on the subject.
§ Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman (Lancaster)The 1990 Act is a bad Act and it is not surprising that it has caused trouble. If the opening speech of my hon. Friend the Minister is to be believed, it may cause further trouble, as the matter has been left open.
I strongly oppose what is inappropriately known as the parent Act—the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990—because I believe that life begins at conception and is sacred. That is why I have consistently opposed abortion, and continue to do so.
I do not oppose—indeed, I support—in vitro fertilisation where the embryo is fertilised by the patient's husband and then reimplanted in the womb, but it is absolutely unforgivable to breed embryos for the purpose of experimentation. As I said to the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman), sadly there is quite enough foetal material created by accident—by spontaneous abortions and stillbirths—to make it unnecessary to experiment on live foetuses.
The Bill slightly improves an appallingly bad Act. It would improve it still further if the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) were taken up, her amendment accepted and more consideration given to the children.
§ Mrs. Ann Winterton (Congleton)As hon. Members may imagine, any legislation containing the phrase "human fertilisation and embryology" conjures up for me painful memories of the passage of the original Act bearing that name. The nights of 23 and 24 April 1990 will go down in the history of the House as a time when some of the most momentous decisions affecting human life were taken.
1161 On 23 April, hon. Members decided to allow research on embryonic human life that involved destruction of that life. On 24 April, the House decided to change the law on abortion to allow the termination of the life of an unborn child up to birth. Those of us who talked then of abortion up to birth were accused of scaremongering. However, a parliamentary written answer in column 437 of Hansard on 29 June states that the number of abortions after 24 weeks has doubled since the Act came into force, and abortions have taken place up to 36 weeks. As someone who has had the privilege of seeing the scanned pictures of her grandchildren at about 16 weeks, I cannot imagine how abortions could be done at 36 weeks in a civilised country, unless there was a good reason such as the mother's life being in danger, which is rare.
I have deliberately strayed from the Bill to stress the momentous decisions that are being taken under the original Act and the fact that we are already reaping the results of the seeds that we sowed two years ago. I fully accept that the Bill is a technical measure. I cannot recall seeing a Bill of so few pages that was more complicated than this one. I do not object to the Bill's principle: to sort out some of the problems relating to the disclosure of information. I understand that, as the Minister and the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) said, a woman's health may be put at risk because the existing Act prevents some information being passed on to those treating her.
I have no desire to stand in the way of such a proposal. However, I should like to highlight two matters. First, why is the Bill so technical? I think that there is a simple reason. The 1990 Act allowed treatment involving the donation of egg and sperm. It would be quite legal under that Act for a man to donate sperm, a woman to donate an egg, for fertilisation to take place in the laboratory and for the resulting egg to be implanted in a second woman who would carry a baby and eventually pass that child to other parents.
Although that is an extreme case, once we allow life to be created by other than natural means and, in particular, provide for the donation of gametes, we inevitably bring on ourselves a whole range of consequences in relation to what information different people can have. It is a very sensitive matter for individuals to receive the kind of treatments that are allowed under the 1990 Act. Having decided to go down that road, we have brought on ourselves the need to devise complicated legislation. The Bill is a warning to us all of the implications of tampering with the natural means of reproduction.
The other matter that I want to highlight also concerns my hon. Friends the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) and for Birmingham, Edgbaston, (Dame J. Knight). It is that the Bill makes no mention of disclosing information to the one group of people most affected by treatment—children born as a result of licensed treatment. That is a sad omission, and I am surprised that the Government have not said anything about it throughout the passage of the Bill. I hope that the Minister will clarify the Government's position when we discuss the matter in Committee.
§ 5.1 pm
§ Mr. Peter Thurnham (Bolton, North-East)I congratulate the Minister on this necessary Bill. It will correct a technical defect, of which we were not aware when the original Bill was passed. Events since the passing of the 1990 Act have proved its importance and success. I pay tribute to the British doctors who have made advances even greater than any that we expected at the time. The hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) spoke about that. Those advances are attributed to British scientists, who lead the world, and they would not have been possible without the freedom given by the Act. My hon. Friends the Members for Lancaster (Dame. E. Kellett-Bowman) and for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) who opposed the Act should visit Hampstead hospital to see the work carried out by Dr. Bob Winston to help couples who suffer from genetic disorders and give them the chance to have a healthy child.
One of the disturbing features about Enoch Powell's opposition to such legislation in the 1983 Parliament was his preparedness to sacrifice the interests of couples who suffer from genetic disorders in the name of fears that have proved groundless. The Act paved the way for Britain to continue to lead the world, and set an example for legislation and for science.
Some doctors have spoken to me about their concerns over the defects in the 1990 Act. I am glad that the Government have not hesitated to introduce the Bill and to make provision through regulations for changes that might be required. We do not need to concern ourselves with any other corrections to the Act. It is right to maintain the anonymity of donors, an issue that is addressed by an amendment. I agree with the hon. Member for Peckham, who spoke about controlling the costs of the authority. Everybody was dissatisfied with the workings of the 1990 Act.
§ 5.4 pm
§ Mr. SackvilleWith the leave of the House, I should like to respond to the points made by hon. Members. I thank all those who have taken part, especially the hon. Members for Peckham (Ms. Harman) and for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Chisholm). The hon. Lady spoke about the principle of the Bill and the availability of infertility services, especially in vitro fertilisation. We have always made it clear that purchasing authorities, the district health authorities, have to decide, in the light of their knowledge of local priorities and needs, what treatment to provide. That is the current situation.
I thank the hon. Lady for her congratulations to the authority, which I know it will welcome. She is probably unaware of the fact that I spoke at the authority's first conference recently, on the day that the annual report was published. I shall certainly raise with the authority the issue of distribution. The authority can be contacted at Paxton house, 30 Artillery lane, London E1 7LS.
My hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) and for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) spoke about the position of the child. The Bill does not change in any way the right to information of a child born as a result of treatment. It is limited to narrow circumstances, such as—
§ Mrs. Ann WintertonSurely the crux of the matter is that an adopted child has the right to know its natural 1163 parents and its background, for reasons of health if for no other. Why have the Government not seen fit to do the decent thing and allow children born by artificial means to have the same rights?
§ Mr. SackvilleThat touches on the wider issue of comparisons between adoption law and the Bill's provisions. As my hon. Friend knows, the original Act left a regulation-making power, so that Parliament could later bring in rights to information on, for example, the health of genetic parents. The matter may be raised later in the Bill's passage.
§ Dame Jill KnightWould not the Bill be a perfect vehicle for doing exactly that? The Minister said that there should be no amendments or improvements and then he said that the matter could be raised later. Is there a chink of light there?
§ Mr. SackvilleAs I said, legislation allows for such regulations, but they must be discussed thoughtfully and at length. There are considerable ramifications attached to any change. Perhaps we can discuss that later.
The hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) has taken a great interest in the subject. I am grateful for the benefit of his expertise and his welcome for the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire), another leading expert on the subject—I have read some of his previous contributions—welcomed the Bill.
§ Mr. WilshireI am always anxious that Hansard should be accurate. I am flattered to be called an expert. I might be an interested layman, but I would not lay claim to being an expert.
§ Mr. SackvilleThe hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms. Lynne) referred to monitoring. As the hon. Lady knows, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority has statutory duties to monitor all the work and will deal with any new matters of concern in its annual report. If the hon. Lady wishes to contact me on any particular, my door is open. We look to the authority to monitor all the work and to be responsible for any changes and advances in techniques that may take place.
I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) welcomed the Bill in principle despite her considerable doubts about the embryology aspects, of which we are aware. I am glad to hear that she approves of the principle of in vitro fertilisation as a method of fertility treatment.
Lastly, I welcome the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) who has taken a great interest in the subject. I hope that his interest will continue. His contributions are always welcome.
The Bill seeks to relax the impact of section 35(5) of the 1990 Act without departing from the general principle that the person to whom the information relates should retain as much control over the dissemination of that information as possible. It seeks to redress the balance between necessary and appropriate access to identifying information and the sensitivities and wishes of the individual concerned.
§ Mr. ThurnhamIs my hon. Friend aware of some of the advances that have been made at St. Mary's hospital, Manchester? I hope that he will have an opportunity to visit that hospital to see the work done there by Dr. Brian 1164 Lieberman, among others, which shows that advances arc being made not only in London but elsewhere in the country, particularly in the north-west.
§ Mr. SackvilleI am aware of Dr. Lieberman's work. He is one of the leaders in the field and I hope that I will be able to visit in the future.
The Bill will benefit patients and clinicians alike. It is a reasonable and much-needed measure, as many who have contributed to the debate have said. I commend the Bill to the House.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Bill accordingly read a Second time.
§ Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]
§ Bill immediately considered in Committee.
- Clause 1
- RELAXATION OF SECTION 33(5) OF THE HUMAN FERTILISATION AND EMBRYOLOGY ACT 1990 5,190 words
-
cc1164-73