Proceeding contribution from Lord Patel (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]
Briefly, I find myself in support of what was said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, and also by my friend in the professional sense, the noble Lord, Lord Winston. I was involved as an officer when the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, together with the Medical Research Council, set up the voluntary licensing authority because it was felt that there was a need to reassure the public that the new science of in vitro fertilisation was not going to lead, as the newspapers then had it, to creating monsters in a Petri dish. Fortunately, two years after that, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, led the Bill that became the Act that established the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. For the reason already rehearsed, it was necessary to make sure that the public could be reassured. More importantly, it was set up to make sure that clinical practice followed strict rules about what should be good practice and about people engaged in in vitro fertilisation and fertility. I was not a specialist in in vitro fertilisation, but as an obstetrician I saw the results of the initial practices of multiple pregnancies, to which the noble Lord, Lord Winston, just referred. Every obstetrician in the land was crying out that there should be some kind of advice or regulation from the HFEA that would control the number of embryos that were inserted. The evidence existed that putting more and more embryos in might result in more pregnancies but also in multiple births that resulted in handicapped babies. We have two issues here. First was the responsibility of the HFEA in making sure that clinical practices were improved to improve the outcome for both the parents and the babies. Second is the regulation related to research practices, especially in embryo research. I have no doubt whatever that the research regulation aspect of the HFEA needs to be maintained. I go further in saying that there is a great need to bring some co-ordination in the whole area of the medical research regulatory framework; it is very fragmented. In my previous role as a National Patient Safety Agency chairman, while I was responsible for running the National Research Ethics Service for England and Wales, I found that there were issues relating to ethics for some of the medical research that, because it was fragmented, we had to address, as it was not being addressed by any of the existing regulatory authorities. The report from the Academy of Medical Sciences gives us an opportunity, which I hope the Government will grasp soon, to produce a national medical research regulatory authority that brings in all the regulation that is required. As the noble Lord, Lord Warner, said, the report did not say that it should include the HFEA and the Human Tissue Authority. In his consultation, he also said that they were not addressing the issue of the HFEA and the HTA because they were awaiting the results of the debate that we are now having, and the Bill that we will have relating to National Health Service reform and social care. I accept that we need a research regulatory authority. Now the issue is whether we need, particularly with the HFEA, to regulate clinical practice related to in vitro fertilisation. If NICE is going to have the new role of setting standards in all areas of clinical practice that will deliver better outcomes, and if we have a regulatory authority—the CQC, which may need to improve its performance and may need resources to be able to do so—we have to ask why we would have a regulation confined to one area, sensitive though it might be. Given the performance of the authority hitherto, we have to ask whether we are going to throw out something so precious; I accept that some of the aspects that the HFEA has been awarded are very precious. I accept that we were the first country in the world to bring about regulation for in vitro fertilisation, which others followed, because it was then necessary. It laid down the template of how clinical practice in a sensitive area such as in vitro fertilisation should be handled. However, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, said, we have moved on. I think we might be at a stage where we need a more overarching regulation that promotes good clinical practices and therefore good clinical outcomes.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 725 c1702-3
- 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
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-15 19:10:49 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_723262
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_723262
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_723262