Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Baroness Butler-Sloss (Crossbench) in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 9 March 2011. It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL) and Debate on bill on Public Bodies Bill [HL].


Public Bodies Bill [HL]

My Lords, I have been looking with interest at the very helpful parliamentary briefing, particularly on the HFEA and the statutory functions that fall into four main groups. I am very concerned about each area. If licensing is to go into the Care Quality Commission, as has already been mentioned, will that commission have the same level of expertise to deal with the really difficult cases that may come up? I speak as a former judge who had a case where semen was put into the wrong eggs. Two families found that the non-white semen had been put into white eggs, and the children born to the white family were not white. It was the most appalling story. It caused grief to two families and, of course, to the twin children. It became public knowledge. It was a case that I tried. What is needed is careful regulation of the clinics and expertise in what the clinics are doing. Another matter I would like to raise in particular with the Minister, and one which has not yet been raised in this evening’s debate, is the collection of data, the division of information, and the maintenance of a register. What is happening, according to the Government, is that the licensing and regulating will go to the Care Quality Commission but the provision of the information, the data collection, will go somewhere else. What rather shocked me was the last paragraph of the helpful briefing saying that the arrangements for the transfer of the information-related functions will be based on assessments, and functions will be integrated into the most appropriate body. We do not know where the data functions will be going, which I find extremely disturbing. It leads me to the view that this plan to abolish both the HFEA and the HTA, whose functions are going to be divided, has not been given the sufficient thought or impact assessment one would have hoped for. We have not yet been given good reasons why these two functioning bodies should be got rid of. I entirely support the wise words of the noble Lord, Lord Warner. It may very well be that each of these bodies could be streamlined, pared to the bone, have less back-up staff and cost less money. However, having asked in another debate on this Public Bodies Bill, ““If something works, why break it?””, I say that these two organisations appear to work and so it is premature, at least, to be abolishing them now.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
725 c1694-5 
Session
2010-12
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Complaints Conditions of employment Codes of practice Devolved matters Consumers Accountability BBC Banks Competition British Waterways Competition Commission Fertility Freedom of information Human rights Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority Inland waterways Legislation IVF Forestry Commission Forests Ministerial powers Northern Ireland Navigation Public bodies Railways Mergers Parliamentary scrutiny Passengers Staff Office of Fair Trading Non-departmental public bodies Scotland Regulation Wales Welsh language Shipping Research Supermarkets Television Stem cells S4C Human Tissue Authority Passenger Focus Legal Services Board Care Quality Commission Independent Commission on Banking
Legislation
Public Bodies Bill (HL) 2010-12
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk