Proceeding contribution from Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Labour) in the House of Lords on Monday, 3 December 2007. It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL) and Debate on bill on Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill [HL].
Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill [HL]
Advertisements appear in the national press, people apply and it is up to the Appointments Commission whether they are appointed. It is a completely open and transparent process. Members must declare any conflict of interest with issues that the authority considers and absent themselves from such deliberations as appropriate. The 1990 Act set conditions for the make-up of the authority’s membership. That is covered in Schedule 1 and ensures that the chair or deputy-chair cannot be, or have ever been, a medical practitioner, a person who has been involved in keeping or using gametes outside the body or any person who has been directly involved in commissioning or funding of research involving gametes. The 1990 Act further specifies that at least one-third of the members are of a professional background and that at least half of the members are not from any of these backgrounds and are therefore lay. The current membership of the HFEA includes a philosopher—a professor of philosophy and public policy—who brings a lay and an ethical perspective to discussions. As the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, said, it is right that all members of the authority have much to contribute in terms of discussions on ethics. That is a matter for the authority as a whole. I feel strongly that there is a need for the membership of the authority to include people who have specialist expertise in the areas that the HFEA regulates. I know that this view is shared more widely outside the House, as it was brought up as one of the reasons against replacing the HFEA by the Regulatory Authority for Tissues and Embryos. The areas for which the HFEA has oversight are complicated and, in order for it to be effective, it is important that the membership includes people who have specialist expertise and first-hand knowledge of the subject matter. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, and others asked about applications currently before the HFEA in respect of interspecies embryos. The HFEA is considering two licence applications from Newcastle and King’s College to undertake the creation of interspecies embryos for research. The applications were received late last year, and the HFEA has consulted the public on the creation of embryos of this type. The authority has decided in principle that it is appropriate for it to consider the applications and is doing so through the licensing committee. Amendment No. 62 is the new clause of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, which would require the keeping of records that are already maintained by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority and HFEA-licensed clinics. It is a condition of every licence issued by the HFEA that proper records are maintained. That was supplemented in July this year when new regulations, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Quality and Safety) Regulations 2007, came into force. They amended the 1990 Act to implement the requirements of the EU directive 2003/23/EC, which sets standards of safety and quality for human tissue intended for human application in respect of reproductive cells. Schedule 3A of the 1990 Act—““Supplementary Licence Conditions: Human Application””—requires licensed clinics to keep records of and report adverse events and reactions to the HFEA. The seventh edition of the HFEA’s code of practice, published to coincide with the introduction of new regulations, requires that any occurrence that is inconsistent with routine patient care is reported to the authority. This would ensure that the example cited by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, of a clinic in Newcastle, was properly reported. The HFEA would expect an incident report from a licensed clinic whenever the clinic is made aware of a case of severe ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome, or other adverse reactions to the stimulatory drugs or the egg-collection procedure itself, where this results in prolonged hospitalisation. The information provided by my noble friend Lord Winston is, of course, extremely helpful. Non-identifying information about adverse reactions to treatment, notified to the HFEA, would be made available by the authority on request. Furthermore, Section 15A of the 1990 Act requires the HFEA to investigate reports of serious adverse reactions, and events, and take appropriate regulatory action should this be required. The HFEA already has appropriate procedures in place to ensure that severe side effects of treatment are recorded locally and notified to the authority. I hope that noble Lords will consider not moving their amendments but, before I sit down, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Elton, that I will speak to the usual channels and try to ensure the discussion on Report of a bioethics commission or Joint Committee comes at the beginning of Report stage, as he recommended.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 696 c1594-5
- Session
- 2007-08
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords chamber
- Subjects
- Fertility Human embryo experiments Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority IVF Parents Medicine Research Stem cells
- Legislation
- Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill (HL) 2007-08
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-16 00:41:00 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_426421
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_426421
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_426421