Clause 25
Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill [Lords]
11:00 am
Evan Harris (Shadow Minister, Innovation, Universities and Skills; Oxford West and Abingdon, Liberal Democrat)
I tabled a couple of the amendments in the group, but it might be best to hear the Minister’s description of the effects of the Government amendments. They are better drafted than those in my name and, if I may say so, those tabled by the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness. The right hon. Lady’s amendments are comprehensive and complex, and if she is willing to accept questions after she has explained them, that might speed things along.
Amendment No. 151 states that an exception would be made for disclosure on clinical grounds
“as part of the patient’s medical care, to a practitioner who is bound by the ordinary duty of patient confidentiality.”
Those of us who want the rules on confidentiality to be loosened are not talking about a free-for-all. We just want to bring the provisions more, albeit not totally, in line with standard medical care rules under which medical notes are confidential. There are significant professional and, indeed, possibly criminal consequences from a breach of medical confidentiality, which is something that I feel strongly about. I have argued that the same procedure should apply to politicians and their children in respect of vaccinations, given that many in the media think that that should be a free-for-all, although I disagree.
Nevertheless, several clinicians have raised a problem with me. I shall not repeat what Lord Patel and Lord Winston said in the other place because that can be read, but scientists from Newcastle have explained that when a treatment is provided in a separate tertiary clinic, there is a clear distinction between the initial investigation of the problem and the subsequent provision of treatment. In a tertiary NHS referral centre, it is likely that the initial investigations and counselling will be carried out in a general infertility clinic. That might also occur a long time from the possible treatment. For instance, an unmarried 18-year-old with a severe pelvic infection will be counselled about the potential impact on fertility and the need to consider IVF. Such records—I guess because this is a carried out in a licensed centre by a licensed person—are currently included in law under strict confidentiality regulations because they refer to IVF, and that is inappropriate.
There are two ways in which to tackle the problem. We could argue that only limited information should be included in the provisions and that they should be loosened to enable communication between doctors in the best interests of the patients in good faith. Doctors should always be answerable in respect of complaints to medical regulators and the professional regulator, the General Medical Council.
The Government have heard such concerns in the House of Lords on several occasions and I note that their amendments represent a response to that. I look forward to hearing the right hon. Lady explain their effect in detail. I hope that the clinicians who have contacted me will be satisfied by what she says, as well as the potential of the regulation-making power. I share the view of any Opposition parliamentarian that wide-ranging, regulation-making powers are questionable, but I feel more comfortable with the inclusion of the provision, given that I do not think that this debate has ended.
IVF still has a cachet, which makes it sensitive, but as its special status becomes less special, and as it becomes more routine, for many patients—it will always be their decision—it might well become appropriate to change the provisions to ensure that we keep up to date with what is practical and appropriate, rather than stick to what was felt to be appropriate in 1990.