| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
11 Feb 2003 : Column 779—continued
Mr. Edward Leigh (Gainsborough): Does the Minister acknowledge the primacy of the House of Commons' right to be kept informed and to take decisions on such matters? Does he acknowledge that he has been unable or unwilling, perhaps for very good reasons, to intimate to the House in detail during the statement what the Secretary of State is doing and saying at this moment to resolve this crisis? Will he give an undertaking now that, when the Secretary of State returns, he will come to the House to make a full statement on his meeting?
Mr. Ingram: The hon. Gentleman misunderstands what I said. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is not going to Brussels to involve himself in the NAC;
he is going to meet senior—[Interruption.] Well, he will go a bit beyond that, but he will certainly meet Secretary Rumsfeld and others to consider—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. Let the Minister answer.
Mr. Ingram: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker. I am trying to get to the nub of the question, in case there is any doubt in the mind of the hon. Gentleman. I accept the primacy of the House of Commons, as do the Government, and that is why we have had so many statements. I remind the House that we had a substantive vote on 25 November, and we will have another if we have to come to the ultimate decision that we do not want to reach.
Andrew Mackinlay (Thurrock): May I associate myself with the comments by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman)? I am one of the people who have put their trust in the Government, but I wish to address the question of the dossier. It must have been printed on rice paper and all been eaten, because no copies are available in the Vote Office. The Minister of State mentioned the facts, but part one of the dossier implies that Hans Blix and the other inspectors have been intimidated by the Iraqis. Where does that evidence come from? Surely if there was any sense of intimidation on the narrow issue of the inspections, Hans Blix would not be there. It must have been made up.
Mr. Ingram: That is a question of interpretation. I welcome the strong position that my hon. Friend has taken, and the resolute way in which he has continued to pursue what he believes to be right. He also constantly questions the basis on which he has come to his conclusions, while keeping in mind the centrality of what we seek to do. If he thinks that the inspectors have not been frustrated, I ask him to read again what Hans Blix reported to the United Nations. It is a central feature of what we seek that unrestricted access should be allowed to key people in Iraq, many of whom know where the dangerous weapons—and the means to build more—lie. The inspectors have had a difficult job to do, so let us wait to see what the report says on 14 February.
Hywel Williams (Caernarfon): Will the Minister dissociate himself from the intemperate remarks on the "Today" programme by Washington-based hawks, in which they rubbished the efforts of France, Belgium and Germany in the attempts to disarm Iraq? Will he assure the House that the Government have given serious consideration to those countries' proposals?
Mr. Ingram: I speak for myself, not for those whom the hon. Gentleman calls hawks. I have set out the Government's position and I hope that the hon. Member agrees with us on the need to stand by the United Nations. I am glad to see that he nods at that, because that is progress. Will he also stand by the 18th resolution, if it means that Saddam Hussein has not complied with the will of the international community? If war is inevitable, will he support that position? I do not see him nodding to that.
Mr. Speaker: Order. We must move on.
Points of Order
1.23 pm
Mr. Edward Leigh (Gainsborough): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We have just had a debate for the best part of an hour on the need for the House of Commons to be kept informed. By way of written answer, the Government today made an important announcement on asylum centres, in which they said that they will not proceed with the asylum centre in Hemswell in my constituency. As a Member of Parliament, you will appreciate that such issues are of enormous importance locally. Would not it have been polite of the Minister to have rung me up or to have tried to keep me informed in some other way through my office here, instead of informing my local press and sending a fax to some distant constituency office? Can you encourage Ministers who have such an announcement to make to come and speak openly to the House, or at least ring up the Members of Parliament concerned?
Mr. Speaker: I hope that the Minister concerned will have heard what the hon. Gentleman has had to say.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The House is grateful to you for allowing questions on the urgent question for almost an hour. That is much appreciated. You will be aware that events are moving very fast, and the British Government are now apparently drafting a resolution to the UN in support of the United States. Next week we will be in recess, but we could be at war by then. In these difficult times, what arrangements can be made for the House to be recalled or for an urgent debate and vote to take place before the recess?
Mr. Speaker: The recall of Parliament during a recess is not a matter for me. It is for the Prime Minister, and the hon. Gentleman should approach him on the matter. I can understand the concern of the House, but I have been assured by the Government business managers that the Foreign Secretary will make a statement on Thursday, which will provide an opportunity for hon. Members to make their case. Those who did not catch my eye today will be top of the queue on Thursday.
Mr. Andrew Mackay (Bracknell): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am grateful for that assurance, but—on a separate point of order—can you confirm that the Secretary of State for Defence has not requested leave to make a statement yesterday or today? We had an opportunity to put questions today only because my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) tabled a question that you deemed urgent. Was it not totally incorrect of the Minister of State to suggest that he came here willingly to answer questions today? He came here only because you rightly deemed that the question was urgent and forced him to come here.
Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman should not draw me into the argument.
Human Fertilisation and Embryology Amendment
1.27 pm
Mr. David Stewart (Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber): I beg to move,
- That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend and extend certain enactments regulating the treatment of women undergoing IVF procedures and to extend the range of information and counselling provided by health authorities.
Unfortunately, Mr. and Mrs. Grant separated at Christmas in 1998, and divorce proceedings were initiated. Shortly after that, Mr. Grant insisted that the embryos be destroyed, as was his right under the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990. The hospital contacted the appropriate authority, which confirmed that my constituent had no veto over the destruction of the embryos as they did not come from her eggs. Mr. Grant underwent counselling and insisted that his estranged wife should not be informed about the destruction of the embryos. IVF treatment is started as a partnership. Why should it be ended as a sole trader?
Almost a year later, in February 2001, Mrs. Grant found out that the five embryos had been destroyed. I shall quote her description of how she felt:
- "When I heard the news I was absolutely devastated. I thought they were still there for me. It came totally out of the blue. I just went hysterical, absolutely hysterical. I could not speak about what he had done. It was my only chance of having a family, my one and only chance, snatched away from me in the blink of an eye—just like that, gone! I could not calm down. I just was not making sense of what happened. It's hard to describe what it was like. It was like losing a child and having real grief for a child that you could not have. Not a day goes by when I do not think about it. I still grieve for the child I cannot have. It is like a physical pain in the pit of your stomach.
It is too late for me but I will have some kind of peace of mind and closure if I know that I have helped other childless couples not having to go through this hell that I have been through."
How can that be done? Relatively simply, I want to insert a new one-line clause in the 1990 Act, requiring that women undergoing IVF who have had eggs donated be informed prior to the destruction of embryos, so that guidance, counselling and advice can be afforded. I want to make it clear that I am not suggesting any change in the current law, whereby the two providers of the gametes involved—the woman who provided the eggs, and the man who provided the
fertilisation—will need to give effective consent for the embryos to remain in storage. There will, of course, be no extra cost to the Exchequer, as the number of women involved in IVF in these circumstances is low, and counselling will be provided from existing resources. I also understand that the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority may be changing its code of practice to reflect this proposal later in the year.I would like to thank the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Ms Blears), for her positive and constructive meeting with me about these proposals. I know that she supports the changes in the code, but has genuine concerns about opening up the Act as a whole. Even at this late stage, however, perhaps a Pauline conversion on the road to Damascus would be welcome. I commend this Bill to the House. Let us ensure that no more women in this country suffer the devastation, loss and pain experienced by my constituent
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. David Stewart, Mr. Alistair Carmichael, Julia Drown, Mr. George Foulkes, Mr. James Gray, Lady Hermon, Glenda Jackson, Ms Oona King, Miss Julie Kirkbride, Mr. Andrew Mitchell, Mrs. Eleanor Laing and Dr. Rudi Vis.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |