Maternity Services in Morecambe Bay

Debate between Lord Winston and Lord Patel

Tuesday 3rd March 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Patel (CB)]

My Lords, I have to admit that, as an obstetrician, when I read this report, my immediate response was intense anger, anger at this systems failure on a grand scale. None of these things should have occurred. This is not an example of failure of a mild degree or of a relationship. This is failure on a major scale. No maternity unit in the country would tolerate these kinds of tragedies occurring in their own unit.

I commend the report. I have worked with the chairman and several of the expert advisers. Dr Kirkup worked with me when I carried out the inquiry on cancer services in Gateshead. He was a member of the team and I know the others, particularly as they come from my own hospital. Professor Stewart Forsyth was neonatologist with me, and I know James Walker, whose father is responsible for all the successes I have had in obstetrics and none of the failures. His name was also James Walker.

What can we do? There is the idea of mandatory reporting of unexpected maternal deaths and stillbirths. We have a stillbirth rate in the antenatal period that has not reduced in this country for 40 years. We have unexpectedly high numbers of normally formed babies who die in the interpartum period but who should not die. If that kind of tragedy ever occurred in my unit, there was a major investigation immediately afterwards. Mandatory reporting may highlight this issue because we need to address it.

I will focus on one recommendation of the several that are addressed regarding the professional organisations in medicine and midwifery. They need to step up to the plate and respond positively to this report on what their role will be in making maternity services safer in this country. The noble Earl referred to an airline-type investigation for root cause analysis. I accept that that is absolutely necessary but it requires experience and training and it must be done soon after the event to learn the lessons that might be applicable to other maternity units. I am encouraged to hear that NHS England will carry out a review of maternity services and I hope that it will be an in-depth review with the specific purpose of making maternity services safer. It should not be about demarcation issues with which we got ourselves tied up previously between different professional groups. It should not be about relocating services. It should be about making maternity services safer.

I have lots of questions but they are not for today and I will save them for another time. I hope all of us—no matter who the Government are—will now work to make maternity services in this country among the best possible.

[Lord Winston (Lab)]

Does the noble Lord not agree that one of the key issues is that nurses as midwives and obstetricians no longer work together as a team? They work separately and conflict with each other instead of seeing patients together. Would that not solve many of the problems identified in this shocking report?

[Lord Patel]

The noble Lord is absolutely right. That is why I said that the review must address how to make maternity services safer and not address any of the demarcation issues. I work with midwives. Midwives taught me—I have said that before in this House—so there should be no issues between different professional groups, whether they be nurses, midwives, doctors, neonatologists, anaesthetists or whoever.

Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Mitochondrial Donation) Regulations 2015

Debate between Lord Winston and Lord Patel

Tuesday 24th February 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Winston (Lab)]

I wonder whether I can help my noble friend Lord Patel. Does he agree with me that there were very few available data for the first in vitro fertilisation babies, and that that was a step in the dark, as were pre-implantation diagnosis and sperm microinjection? Before he concludes his speech, would my noble friend be kind enough to answer an important question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Deben, about the possibility that we might be making infertile children? Was that not the accusation made when infertility was treated by in vitro fertilisation, and was there not a widespread fear at that time, too, that we would be making infertile children?

[Lord Patel]

I thank my noble friend for that interruption. It was worse than that: it was suggested not only that those children might be infertile, but that they might be half monsters of some kind. To answer the question raised earlier about the HFEA’s evidence—yes, it did ask, and the evidence was verbally produced. The reason why it is not published is that anything that is published, even in the form of an extract, cannot then be published in a reputable journal. I know that that evidence has now been sent for publication.

To go back to the subject of the evidence requested, if we were to go down that road and do those experiments, what would be required in the human population is the deliberate creation and destruction of many hundreds, if not thousands, of embryos—to prove a point that does not require proving. Hundreds and thousands of human embryos have already been tested and found to go to a blastocyst state, and I hope my noble friend Lord Winston will agree that if we see them in that state, the embryo will be satisfactory. He nods slightly.

The alternative would be human population genetic studies to fulfil that requirement for evidence. What that shows is that exchange of mitochondrial DNA haplotypes by normal reproduction should reveal combinations that are deleterious. Human population genetic studies will do that. Such studies include genome-wide association studies and whole genome sequencing projects looking at many specific diseases and syndromes. Those kinds of studies will be required. They do not require embryos to be created, nor is it necessary to do these studies before this treatment is available.

I know I am going on a bit, but other points were made. If there are points about epigenetics et cetera, those are also spurious and have no basis in science.

Let me go now to something that the noble Lord, Lord Deben, mentioned twice: the Chinese example. The technique that was used in the United States and in this Chinese example is called cytoplasmic injection. No doubt the noble Lord, Lord Winston, is more familiar with it from his work than I am. It is a technique that is not allowed in the United Kingdom. That is the first point. It is completely different in design and intent from what we are talking about in mitochondrial replacement; it is nothing to do with it.

What was done in China was a cytoplasmic injection not for replacing mitochondria, but for infertility treatment in older women. That was also the case in the United States; it was an extra cytoplasm with possible mitochondria in older women, where both are at risk of producing chromosomal abnormality. In China it was used in only one study, which was conducted by an American, Professor Grifo. They inserted five embryos. We do not allow that in the United Kingdom because of the risk of multiple pregnancy. It resulted in a multiple pregnancy. They then tried to reduce the number of foetuses by injecting one of them to reduce the number of foetuses from three to two. I do not know what kind of technique they used—

[Lord Winston]

Dangerous.

[Lord Patel]

“Dangerous”, my noble friend says. It killed the other two and resulted in a premature birth. They never published this, despite being asked if there was a publication. It is wrong to say that the HFEA did not ask them; the review panel did. Professor Grifo sent a letter saying that, in his view, all the foetuses were normal but they died of prematurity. What they died of was an obstetric botch-up. It had nothing to do with what we are talking about today. It was a completely different technique. We should dismiss it completely. It would be wrong to put any credence on it and say that it is a good reason why we should not do this.

I could go on about other safety aspects that were brought up, but let me close by saying that hitherto the science has gone as far as it can in thousands of animal experiments that have resulted in normal pups. In human embryos it has gone as far as it can to produce normal embryos, which, if implanted, there is no reason to believe would not develop into normal, healthy babies who would not carry the defective mitochondria. All we are doing today is allowing the regulator henceforth to decide, on a case-by-case basis, to issue a licence to those clinics for those mothers who request this treatment, and which are allowed to use both techniques that we currently know are safe while further research goes on. None of us stops researching: the noble Lord, Lord Winston, still carries on researching; the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, still carries on researching. If a chance was given, the noble Lord, Lord Walton, would still carry on researching. We do not stop researching; that is the nature of medicine and of academic medical science. I hope that we will pass these regulations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Patel]

I think that the noble Lord was asking him to reply to my comment. He is quite right that China has used pronuclear transfer techniques, but the disaster was upsetting to me.

[Lord Winston]

I am very concerned that the noble Lord, Lord Patel, might get into trouble with the Whip sitting on the Front Bench. I am always in her bad books, and I would not want to allow him to be in her bad books as well.

Let me answer the noble Lord, Lord Alton. It is true that, two years ago, I said that it was unpredictable; of course, these things are unpredictable. In the context in which I was speaking, that was correct. To be fair, however, the noble Lord, Lord Alton, knows that, with the case of Jacques Cohen in New Jersey, 17 babies were born after mitochondrial transfer. Therefore, there has been some other evidence—other than that evidence from China—that suggests that this is not quite as daft as proposed. Added to which, of course, in two years, a huge amount of research has been done by our colleagues in Newcastle. They have been working flat out on a whole range of tests which, I think, have made a very big difference. Since the statement that I made in the House, three different committees have looked at the safety.

Science does not have the truth; we have a version of the truth. We have to interpret what we can as best we can.

I deeply respect the noble Lord, Lord Alton, as he knows very well. We both come from a very strong view about what is the right thing to try to do wherever possible. However, I feel here that, apart from the issue of preserving healthy life, if we decide not to vote for the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Deben, we are doing something really important. We are expressing our concern—our compassion—as a House for people who are faced with an invidious and horrendous choice.

Under those circumstances, given that this will be a limited procedure affecting very few people, it would be utterly wrong for this House to turn down the democratically elected Chamber and not to support what the Government propose.

Immigration Bill

Debate between Lord Winston and Lord Patel

Monday 10th February 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Patel (CB)]

My Lords, perhaps I may start by saying to the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, that all Patels are brothers and sisters, and that they never do anything illegal knowingly.

To get back to more serious matters, I guess that the Minister must be heartened that we are nearly half way through.

[Lord Winston (Lab)]

We are not even half way.

[Lord Patel]

He will not have heard many supporters of this Bill and he is not likely to hear more. I will try not to repeat much that has already been said but I hope to add to it. Noble Lords must not misunderstand me: I feel strongly about the issues already raised, particularly those related to universities, students and health charges. I will also mention briefly the effect that the Bill may have on other vulnerable groups, particularly pregnant women and children.

I declare an interest: I am chancellor of the University of Dundee and, rather unusually, still hold a professorship at the same university in obstetrics. Fortunately, I have not been called on for any services to be delivered for a while.

As has already been mentioned, Universities UK, which represents vice-chancellors of bona fide universities—we are not talking about bogus universities which might be mentioned in the “Panorama” programme—feels strongly that a Bill that will,

“remove appeal rights for students and staff applying for further leave to remain … introduce a surcharge for access to NHS services … require private landlords to check the immigration status of their tenants … increase the scope for government to raise fees for visas and immigration services”,

is fundamentally flawed. It believes that,

“it would be in the wider interests of the UK to exempt international students from the effects of the Bill”.

I would add postgraduate students to that list.

It has already been mentioned that, according to government figures, international students in higher education contributed £10.2 billion to the UK economy. We have already heard that it has been recorded for the first time that there was a drop of about 1% in students in 2012-13. To give some more detailed figures, as regards the total entrants by subject from non-EU countries, in STEM subjects there was a drop in 2011-12 of 8% and a further 2% in 2012-13. These are official figures.

In some STEM subjects, for instance in veterinary science, there was a 22% drop; in medicine and dentistry, there was a 6% drop; and in computer science, there was an 11% drop. While the drop has not been as significant in some non-STEM subjects, a trend is beginning to show. It is even demonstrated in postgraduate students and, more importantly, it is now beginning to show in research students. What is fundamental is that the trend is downwards.

We have to ask why, when people like me once considered the United Kingdom to be the prime place to go for undergraduate and postgraduate education, they now are trying to go somewhere else. It is a compound effect of the visa restrictions, increased charges and now the other charges that this legislation would impose. Some 32% of post-docs are from non-EU countries. They often come with their families. This Bill will make it more expensive for them.

Much has already been said about students and I support all that, so I come now to Clauses 33 and 34, which relate to NHS charges. I fully accept that there is a need to protect the public purse by limiting access to healthcare in some circumstances and preventing the deliberate misuse of scarce resources. However, any measures we introduce should be practical, necessary, appropriate and, to borrow the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, evidence based. The Bill introduces a change to the residency criteria in Clause 34 so that eligibility for free NHS services is dependent on migrants having indefinite leave to remain. How many migrants who do not have indefinite leave to remain are working, paying tax and making national insurance contributions? Is it equitable that they should also pay the charges?

I am also concerned about the equity of these changes as there are significant variations in the time it takes for individuals to become eligible for indefinite leave to remain. The introduction of the health surcharge could also make the UK a less attractive destination for skilled workers from outside the EEA, particularly in shortage areas such as the National Health Service. Everybody here is familiar with the sight of lots of doctors and many more nurses from non-EU countries in our hospitals. They might have come here to train and remained here.

There are other issues too. The rationale given for the changes, in the impact assessment accompanying the Bill, is that the current arrangements are too generous and leave the NHS open to abuse. The Department of Health commissioned a two-phase independent audit of visitors and temporary migrants using the NHS. The Government brought in the legislation based on this. I am concerned that the Government’s proposals could create unintended drawbacks for the NHS and for patients in particular. The proposals are likely to create a complex patchwork of charging and access entitlements where some services, such as GP appointments, remain free while others, including A&E visits, will be charged for.

The Bill also introduces changes to residency criteria so that eligibility for free NHS services depends on migrants having indefinite leave to remain, as I already mentioned. However, a medical student who comes to the UK on a Tier 4 visa and remains on that visa for seven or eight years to finish the undergraduate course and then goes on to a Tier 2 visa because he needs postgraduate training would take 10 to 12 years to get indefinite leave to remain. Is that equitable? Why should he be penalised for 10 years?

I am also concerned that proposals for a health surcharge in Clause 33 risk having a negative impact on the UK’s attractiveness as a destination for skilled workers, particularly in shortage occupations where the economy cannot find sufficient workers either from the UK or the EEA workforce. In the UK, consultants in emergency medicine, haematology and old-age psychiatry are on the shortage occupation list. Non-consultants and non-training medical posts—most of the junior doctors you often see in the hospital—in anaesthesia, general medicine and psychiatry are also on the list. There are many more specialties now being added because of the shortage. The health surcharge, when combined with visa application fees and maintenance requirements, risks having an impact on the UK’s ability to attract high-quality migrants in medical jobs on the shortage occupation list. This could clearly have a negative impact on healthcare.

The Bill also includes provision for migrants who have paid the health surcharge to be able to access free NHS care to the same extent as a permanent resident. However, it also allows for exclusion from free access to be specified for particularly expensive discretionary treatments. It is not stated why, if the initial payment is considered to be fair, appropriate and comprehensive, there will also be discretionary payments for some high-risk conditions and the Bill does not state what they are. It gives the overall impression that, if you want to come to this country for study or work, it will cost you.

The issue of pregnant women was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. There are potential health impacts for pregnant women from Clauses 33 and 34. The proposed changes will deter some pregnant women from seeking and accessing maternity care. This will have a negative impact on the health of these women and their babies and perversely will lead to a need for more medical care at a greater cost. Charges at the point of care create risks that women will not present to the NHS, will present late in pregnancy or will be denied access because of their inability to pay. This prevents midwives and doctors from giving the appropriate health advice and treatment early in pregnancy. It cannot be right to include pregnant women.

The newspaper headlines say that the number of babies born to immigrant mothers is increasing, but the papers do not clearly define immigrant mothers. I guess anybody who is not white might be an immigrant mother. Anybody who might be white but is known to come from another European country will also be regarded as an immigrant. An exemption from NHS charges for all pregnant women and children is required in this Bill.

In short, I hope that we will see all students and postgraduates removed from this Bill before it becomes law and that NHS charges for pregnant women and children will also be removed. That is what I hope the Minister will accept and what I will be looking for in the amendments I will bring.

Health and Social Care Bill

Debate between Lord Winston and Lord Patel

Monday 27th February 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Patel]

My Lords, I support the amendments relating to conflict of interest and I agree that there needs to be something in the Bill. I will give an example to indicate why I believe that more strongly following a seminar that we attended before the Recess. For those noble Lords who were not there, we had a presentation from a GP who told us, first, that he was salaried, and I therefore presume he did not have a standard general medical services contract, and that his salary came from somewhere else—it may well have come from another general practitioner. He said, secondly, that he was involved in commissioning and, thirdly, that the commissioners had found that the provision of some services in his area was not satisfactory or of the quality that they had asked for—particularly, in relation to hand surgery. They therefore set up an independent provider of surgical services, of which the GP was a non-executive director. The conflicts of interest are quite obvious: here is a commissioner who is a salaried doctor, and that raises a question. If the commissioning board is to hold the contracts of primary care providers, will they not include those who have a general medical services contract, or will they include those who are salaried? More and more primary care providers are salaried GPs employed by other practitioners. We therefore also need to clarify who will be asked to be a member of the commissioning group: will it be only those who hold the general medical services contract, or will it be all those who provide primary care services? The conflict of interest here is many-fold, and therefore we need to address how it is to be resolved.

While I was, and still am, very attracted to the amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, because I had not seen those of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, the question of sanctions needs to be addressed more clearly. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, on the need for this question of sanctions to be clarified so that those who may be involved in conflict know from the very beginning how those sanctions will apply to them.

[Lord Winston]

My Lords, perhaps I may deal very briefly with one area of medicine with which the noble Lord, Lord Patel, and I are particularly familiar. One problem raised is that increasingly general practitioners are doing minor surgical procedures; increasingly in practice, often in groups. I know of one large practice in south-east England, for example, that is now carrying out a procedure called a hysteroscopy, which is an endoscopic or telescopic examination of the inside of the uterus. This is quite a specialised procedure designed to identify cancers of the uterus at an early stage. The problem is that general practitioners may well be able to carry out this procedure somewhat more cheaply than gynaecologists in a practising group. Of course, there is clearly a conflict of interest here, because they may well be in the very practice that is also commissioning this procedure, and a patient might perhaps be wrongly given a particular treatment when a slightly more expensive treatment, done elsewhere, may be more effective and reduce the risk of the cancer.

Public Bodies Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Winston and Lord Patel

Monday 9th May 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Winston]

My Lords, I have not decided whether I shall vote for or against the amendment if it is pressed. I shall listen very carefully to the Minister’s response.

One of the greatest ethical issues involved in this treatment is its lack of accessibility. It is a highly privileged treatment, because it is mostly in the private sector. It is true that the NHS provides some, but many health authorities have based their fees to some extent on the private sector. Therefore, the hard-pressed PCTs have not been able to offer as many treatments as many people recommend.

When I left practice running a large IVF clinic some five or six years ago, we were charging very much less than is currently charged by clinics. We were still able to turn more than £1 million a year over to research and provide the Hammersmith Hospital with a great deal of surplus income, which was then used to treat other patients.

One of the key issues with which the HFEA has not dealt is the high cost of IVF treatment. In my view, it is a scandal. There are clinics that treat patients for around £3,400 a cycle. It is only when you look at their websites that you see that they are charging up to £1,100 to £3,200 for drugs that should be obtained on contracts at around £500 to £700 per cycle. Embryo freezing will be increasingly required if we are to limit the number of pregnancies that result in multiple births by transferring just one embryo each time. One clinic in London charges £915 for embryo freezing. That is for a mechanised treatment that is extremely easy to do in the laboratory. If that were not enough, the storage fees are £325 a year. Given that liquid nitrogen, which is what the embryos are stored in, costs a few pence a litre, that seems somewhat excessive, even allowing for the costs of regulation. I am afraid that the HFEA has shown itself to be completely unable to deal with this issue at all. This privileged treatment is a shocking issue.

Secondly, one thing that the HFEA claims to be doing is giving accurate information to patients. This morning, I trawled a few IVF clinic websites. A prominent clinic in London—which I can name but will not—argues on the front page of its website a 69 per cent IVF success rate. That figure is repeated twice on the website. It is only when you delve into the small print that you realise that it is nowhere near that. That is the cumulative success rate over several cycles of treatment. Another clinic argues that it has a 30 per cent success rate in women over 40 or 42. That is a biological impossibility given that the implantation rate alone of a patient under 40 is something around 18 per cent per embryo—at best 25 per cent. What the site does not say is that this is for pregnancy but not delivery of a live baby. It does not take into account the vast number of miscarriages that presumably these patients are going through. This kind of misinformation occurs again and again.

The Bridge fertility clinic offers a 71 per cent pregnancy rate per blastocyst treatment and 67 per cent success rate for pre-implantation genetic diagnosis. As someone who has been intimately involved with pregenetic screening of this kind, I find those figures, frankly, quite incredible. Perhaps they depend on very few patients being treated and a good deal of luck. But that is highly misleading. These treatments have not been validated by the HFEA. Presumably, that is why it has allowed advertising to continue.

Then we come to the ways of promoting treatments that are not acceptable in this country. There are several clinics in London alone that offer their services in, for example, Mauritius—that is one of the Harley Street clinics—the USA, India and Spain. There they can display all sorts of unvalidated success rates on their websites and in addition can offer treatments that are not acceptable in the United Kingdom, such as multiple embryo transfer. Why has the HFEA not withdrawn the licences of those clinics? Why has it not argued that this is dishonest and dangerous?

Then, of course, we have the question of the database, which has been referred to already. The database ought to be very valuable but, sadly, in practice it is useless because we cannot follow up patients in the long term. That is a very serious issue. As the Minister knows, epigenetic issues—early experiences in development from fertilisation onwards—may have a profound effect on our health when we become adults. IVF in this country is not followed up in this way, so we have no way of knowing whether some of the treatments or exposures of the human embryo may be more likely to cause damage at a later date.

Then we have the question of another issue, which the HFEA seems to have been totally powerless to deal with. That is the issue of treatments without any evidence base that they work. Let us take the example of immune therapy, which is charged at anything from £1,000 to £3,000 a time, in addition to the already high fees of IVF. Where is the evidence that immune therapy actually improves the success rate of pregnancies? I do not know of that evidence—and, indeed, the treatment may even be damaging or harmful to the patient’s residual immune system.

Then we have preimplantation genetic testing, which is testing of embryos genetically when IVF has previously failed. I accept that preimplantation genetic diagnosis works, as the noble Lord, Lord Walton, has said, and it is a valuable technique in a few patients. However, there is actually no evidence base showing that preimplantation genetic testing in people who do not have a genetic defect, as widely used by many clinics, provides a helpful and improved chance of a pregnancy afterwards. The control trials and the control evidence are not there, and this treatment—if it is done at all—should be done on a research basis. However, the HFEA has failed to license it on that basis. The same applies to the treatment of assisted hatching. These are not small treatments; preimplantation genetic testing is charged in one clinic at £2,690 in addition to the £3,000 or so charged for the IVF and the £800 to £1,000 for the drugs that the patient pays for. At this stage, patients who are desperate will do anything to ignore the avarice of the people who might be treating them. This is a massive issue, as it is with another treatment, widely offered, of assisted hatching, in which a little piece of damage is done to the zona pellucida around the embryo or egg in the hope that it might improve the pregnancy rate. Over many years it has not been shown to be really effective, but it is still widely sold without any proper regulation.

We have heard from a number of speakers in this debate that the HFEA is the envy of the world. If it is the envy of the world, why has no other jurisdiction accepted this method of regulation? It is not used in Singapore, the USA, France, Israel or Australia, the countries that are most successful at reproductive treatments. I am not suggesting for a moment that we should not have a proper culture of regulation or a proper ethical standard in how we deliver medicine, but the current workings of the Act of Parliament are now not suitable for the original purpose. We have outgrown it. With the burgeoning private practice that has occurred with this treatment as a result of the failure to fund it in the health service, we have an increasing problem, which is very far-reaching.

It is true that there are virtually no good academic units in the United Kingdom that really produce cutting-edge research in the field of reproductive biology where it applies to humans. That was not true 30 or 40 years ago, when we led the world, in places such as Cambridge, London, Edinburgh and many other centres in Scotland. Now we cannot find people to appoint to chairs in reproductive medicine. The chair at Hammersmith was left vacant for three years after my retirement, and eventually they decided not to seek anyone to fill it. They could not find somebody who was a suitable academic because people are being attracted to the highly lucrative business that IVF provides. In my view, this is a very serious problem.

One of the most respected academics in this field is Professor Alison Murdoch, in Newcastle, who has pointed out something really quite interesting. I take her view very seriously as I believe that hers is an example of a really well-run, ethical practice. She points out that regulation of in vitro fertilisation is now far greater than regulation of, for example, abortion. That does not seem to make sense. I listened very carefully to the right reverend prelate the Bishop of Guildford. However, does he really believe that the protection of the embryo is more important than the protection of the foetus or the protection of research on the newborn child, the patient who is pregnant or the elderly patient who may be about to die from various diseases? Surely the notion of centralising our research under one body makes good sense, because we can then have a rational basis for important ethical decisions. I shall listen with great intent to how the Minister responds to this debate. However, I am not convinced that, even if we vote for this amendment, it would be a good idea to vote for the preservation of the HFEA as it stands.

[Lord Patel]

My Lords, I shall be brief as we have been debating this for a long time. I spoke to this issue in Committee and, apart from the noble Lord, Lord Winston, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, who is not in his seat, I was the only one to argue against preserving the HFEA’s current status and role, particularly on the clinical side.

I start by agreeing with the noble Lord, Lord Willis of Knaresborough, about the medical research authority. I totally agree with him that the Academy of Medical Sciences report has been widely accepted and backs the establishment of such an authority. It will also have an ethics committee because, according to the report, it will take over the national ethics service, which is currently run separately. It will therefore have an ethical body to assess the ethical issues related to all medical research. There cannot be any doubt about that. Last time, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, asked—and I have his permission to repeat the question—whether, in the interim, the Minister will find a way of establishing such an authority before the legislation is put in place.

I turn to the HFEA and its other role. Yes, it is true that we should all feel a glow when we mention the HFEA. When it was established, soon after the birth of Louise Brown, a voluntary licensing authority established by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and the Medical Research Council had been operating for two years. Its creation gave both clinicians and the public the confidence that the newspaper headlines of the time—that monsters would be created in Petri dishes—would not be realised. It is true that in its formative years the HFEA did a fantastic and useful job in establishing and licensing premises for delivering good care to those requiring IVF treatment. Yet the world has moved on. More than 1 million children the world over have been born following IVF treatment.

There is no reason to think that the clinical care provided for patients requiring infertility treatment, including IVF, is any different, or should be any different, from the care provided for children with cardiac anomalies. Both treatments are properly regulated by the CQC and the professional organisations. We hear of units being shut down because of poor outcomes; so let us consider the recent performance of the HFEA. How should we measure it? We should measure it against the success rate for IVF. As the noble Lord, Lord Winston, mentioned, apart from spurious claims, there is no evidence that our outcome for patients requiring IVF treatment is any better than anywhere else in the world; in fact, it is poorer than in some other countries. Measured against promoting better outcomes for the patients, the HFEA has not delivered.

Public Bodies Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Winston and Lord Patel

Wednesday 9th March 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Winston]

Forgive me for correcting that impression. Many units limited the number of embryos well before the HFEA did. At Hammersmith Hospital, we limited the number of embryos two years before the HFEA did. We were not alone; a number of units did that because we were very concerned. The idea that medical practitioners do not feel responsible for the pregnancy that is induced is, I think, a dangerous precedent. It is just not true. Of course there is a problem when patients put you under pressure, and it is a very difficult ethical issue that needs to be resolved.

[Lord Patel]

My Lords, I think I have lost my thread, but I have said what I wanted to say.