Examination of Witnesses (Questions 1-19)
CAROLINE FLINT
MP, MR HUGH
WHITTALL AND
MR TED
WEBB
12 JULY 2006
Q1 Chairman: Could I welcome Minister
Caroline Flint and indeed your colleagues, who you will introduce
yourself, Minister. This is an opportunity to follow up the former
Committee's report on human reproductive technologies and the
law, and indeed the consultation that was put in train during
the production of that report and the government's response, and
indeed to try and follow on with some of the issues that were
raised during the debate last Monday on the floor of the House
and the Estimates Day as well. We are very grateful to you, Minister,
for coming. Can we call you Caroline?
Caroline Flint: That is perfectly
all right, Phil!
Q2 Chairman: Could you introduce your
colleagues to us?
Caroline Flint: This is Hugh Whittall,
who is the branch head of the Human Tissue Branch, which is part
of our scientific development in the bioethics division; and this
is Ted Webb, who is section head of Assisted Reproduction Policy
area within the same division, and hopefully they will be able
to support me this morning where I will need it.
Q3 Chairman: Thank you very much
and welcome to you both. Could I say that this session is being
televised so if you could be careful not to use any unacceptable
language, as they say in the Big Brother house! Caroline,
the government was rightly consulted widely on updating the HFE
Act and has taken time to consider the options, but how close
are you now to bringing your thoughts and firm proposals to the
House?
Caroline Flint: It has been a
very interesting exercise for myself, obviously, as when I became
Public Health Minister and had responsibility for this area our
consultation was already building on the work that this Committee
had done, and I think considerable discussion amongst the public
and those bodies involved, the HFEA in particular, and other organisations
as well about taking stock of where we are in terms of development
since the legislation first came into being. We have had a huge
number of responses. You will not be surprised to know that a
number of those responses were from individuals who have a particular
view and concern in this matter, but also I think we had a broad
range of organisations too. I think where we are at the moment
is that we feel that we are making progress in determining some
of our views about the way forward, and in fact I think we tried
to indicate in the consultation papers some of the areas where
we felt we intended to go.
Q4 Chairman: Are we going to get
a Bill or a White Paper?
Caroline Flint: What I am hoping
to do is to announce some more definite proposals later this year.
Q5 Chairman: What does "later
this year" mean?
Caroline Flint: Hopefully over
the summer period I will be making some announcements. But at
the moment I cannot at this point say in terms of a Bill because
that is a matter in terms of discussion within the legislative
cycle, but what I can say to you—and I said this last week
in the debate—is I think that the process we have been through
has been important in engaging people in debate, and I am looking
at ways in which we continue that exploration because I do think
it is important to this particular area that we achieve, as much
as is possible, a consensus on the way forward, and I think that
that can be informed by greater scrutiny and parliamentary involvement;
so that is something I am giving very serious consideration to
at the moment.
Q6 Chairman: So you are expecting
over the summer to produce some draft proposals either for a Bill
or a White Paper with a timetable to that. By Christmas do we
expect to have firm proposals as to what in fact you are going
to do about amalgamating the Human Tissue Authority and also HFEA?
Caroline Flint: What I can say
about that particular issue is that we do intend to move ahead
to amalgamate those two organisations and we are very clear about
that. Already we are seeing joint work between the two organisations
in looking at back room functions and how they work together,
so that is the direction for which we are on course. What I can
say to you is, yes, I definitely would hope that by Christmas,
or even before, that we would have some firm proposals that would
be part of the ongoing debate.
Q7 Chairman: Your main proposals
will actually come out during the recess.
Caroline Flint: What I am saying
is that over the next few months, which obviously is the summer,
there may be some particular policy points that I will be looking
to make some announcements on.
Q8 Chairman: In terms of pre-legislative
scrutiny is there an opportunity, do you think, for this Committee,
which has taken a very keen interest in this area, to be involved
in that process? Is that in your thinking?
Caroline Flint: I do consider
that scrutiny is going to be important in this and it is one of
the areas I am considering in relation to how we develop the debate.
I think that the process so far has been very positive and I think
it is quite important to have the debate because—and you
can see that from the debate we had last week—possibly sometimes
if it is too truncated some of the issues that deserve some attention
do not get the attention that they deserve against some of the
more headline issues within this area. So that is something to
which I am giving consideration, about the opportunities for parliamentary
scrutiny and further discussion, and that obviously would involve
this Committee too.
Q9 Chairman: I just think, Minister,
that there would be some disquiet if in fact major proposals came
out during the recess without the opportunity for Parliament to
be able to immediately respond to those. Is that not a concern?
Caroline Flint: I think it would
be a direction of the way we are going; it is not the end of the
discussion, it is the direction we are going. What people have
asked me for and asked our department for are clearer indications
of our views. This morning I am sure you are going to ask me some
questions on particular issues and in some areas I hope I am going
to be able to give you a helpful guide to the government's thinking
in some of these areas. But, as I have said, whatever I say today
or whatever I might say during the summer, I think there is plenty
of room for more discussion and scrutiny of those issues, but
I think it is important that people have an understanding about
the direction of the debate and where it is going. So it is not
about shutting down debate but it is about giving a clear indication
of that which the debate can form around.
Q10 Chairman: With respect, Minister,
this has been going on for an awful long time.
Caroline Flint: Yes, but I do
not think that in itself is a bad thing. I think the previous
inquiries into different areas that have raised similar issues,
both in terms of the science and also the ethics and principles
that this area develops, also have had considerable amounts of
time to debate these issues and take these issues forward. I have
to say that one of the points that came out of the consultation
and the discussions that we had with the different interests in
this area has been a view that it is better to get it right than
to speed into a process. This may seem a long process but actually
I think our chance to change the legislation—and considering
that the legislation has been pretty good for the time we have
had it—is a serious one, and there are not that many opportunities
that come around for that. We also have to think in terms of the
legislation what parameters we need to have to cover future changes
that we may not know about at the moment or are only just beginning.
So I think it is quite a complex area to come through with something
that can define certain areas that are practised already in a
way that are not covered by the present legislation—and
I am sure we will come on to those issues—but at the same
time try to create a piece of legislation that has the flexibility
in it to deal with changes with science, but that are also mindful
of ethical concerns too. So I do not think that the time in itself
is a bad thing and I do not think that the time is prejudicing,
in any particular way, the functioning of the Act as it is at
the moment.
Q11 Chairman: In terms of the consultation,
did you learn anything from the consultation that you did not
know already?
Caroline Flint: Interestingly—and
we may come on to this, it came up in the debate last week—the
issue around the welfare of the child. Before the consultation
the view I was getting was that within the organised professions,
the medical groups and others, was that there was a desire for
this to be removed. Actually our consultation indicated that amongst
the medical organisations, whilst they felt that there were some
issues around it they thought that there should still be a need
for that to be retained. So that is certainly one thing that came
out of that process. But, again, part of it is about recognising—and
I think you can see from the document that we have produced in
relation to the consultation process—that there are a varied
number of views and there is not necessarily a consensus amongst
different groups on the issues and therefore we still have to
take that on board and at the same time think about the way ahead.
Q12 Chairman: But with respect, the
consultation, which was responded to by a self-selecting group
of people or organisations, there was no methodology towards an
analysis of the responses; there was no weighting to different
responses, so I do not see what that has done in terms of bringing
government thinking forward.
Caroline Flint: We had 535 formal
responses, we had submissions—
Q13 Chairman: I am not debating the
number of responses—
Caroline Flint: Submissions from
around 100 organisations and of course we look at these and we
look at organisations. Yes, as with any consultation that government
undertakes, you can have a situation where individuals respond
because they represent a particular point of view, and we do take
some of that into account and we will be thinking about that in
relation to how we make our considered view on what should be
the policy direction; that is what consultations do, they hopefully
create input from the organisations that are most involved, those
who in the end have to implement the law, those who have to practise
under the law and other organisations that have an interest in
this area. But, undoubtedly, as with any consultation, this particular
area does create a large number of responses of individuals who
have a particular, often moral point of view about this science
and this area of work.
Q14 Chairman: And we saw that in
the debate last week, but surely the job of government in fact
is not to look at where the public opinion is running, but in
fact to create a regulatory framework that is based on good, strong
scientific and ethical bases.
Caroline Flint: Absolutely.
Q15 Chairman: What we do not seem
to be getting is any sort of clear steer from you in terms of
where that ethical direction is going to come from: is it going
to come from government, is it going to come from Parliament as
a whole? And in terms of the scientific framework the consultation
document, I am arguing, did not take you any further forward than
you were in August of last year when you actually began the consultation
process.
Caroline Flint: I think that is
unfair because I think consultation plays a lot of roles. Firstly,
it is, you are right in saying, to possibly inform us of views
that we had not thought about and to consider evidence that maybe
we had not given enough weight to, but part of it again is about
testing the views and certainly in the consultation document we
produced in some areas we were asking questions that were in many
respects looking for confirmation of some of the directions we
wanted to take. In a number of areas we have already publicly
agreed with some of the recommendations made by this Committee
in their report, but, again, as I said, we are working through
not just the responses to the consultation but the difficult areas
in both the science and in terms of the ethics to try and come
forward with something that we hope will not only get the support
of Parliament, but also be a piece of legislation that is both
clear in the areas it needs to be clear but also flexible in order
that as changes develop action can be taken. Part of that process
is the way in which we are trying to think about Parliament's
role in some of these areas and, for example, what more might
need to be included in legislation, which currently is not, and
I think that is an issue that we have been trying to go through
in the best way.
Q16 Chairman: Before I pass you on
to Des, could I ask you for a straight answer—all your answers
are straight, I did not mean that in that sense, Caroline—in
terms of the role of Parliament in determining the ethical framework:
do you think that is the job of Parliament or is it the job of
government?
Caroline Flint: I think it is
the job of Parliament to have a very important role in that and
that is one of the areas we are considering. There are a number
of issues—and I do not want to pre-empt too many questions—that
were raised in last week's debate and probably will be asked today,
where we are considering the right balance between the regulator
making these decisions or Parliament having an input in these
decisions as well, and the right way to go about that in terms
of the issues that should be either on the face of the Bill or
there should be secondary powers, or whatever, or regulatory powers.
And these are complex issues. I do think, at the same time though,
that there does not appear to be enough scope for the regulator
to also deal with some of these changes as well, and I think for
the most part the regulators work well in these areas.
Q17 Dr Turner: You rightly say that
it has worked well up to now but it has increasingly in recent
years started to run into difficulty in quite difficult areas,
some of which are still snarled up in the courts, which is not
a good thing, which is one of the motivations in our recommendations
to take away from the HFEA or its successor body, RATE, some of
these acute policy making decisions. And that is a journey you
are familiar with—RATE, as it has obviously been called,
and the Bioethics Commission Standing Committee in Parliament.
You clearly seem to wish to continue with in principle the model
which we currently have, is that correct?
Caroline Flint: I think that is
correct. We did consider the question of the Bioethics Commission
and, as I say, having a remit to cover the entirety of bioethic
issues as part of our review of arm's length bodies, and it was
something that was given consideration. I think it was felt that
the present model of a number of advisory bodies that have a role
to play in this area was better because it allowed more specific
experience and knowledge to be brought to bear on a range of different
issues, and it was felt that just one Commission in itself may
not be able to develop dedicated groups in expertise and sufficient
time to devote to a wider range of issues. That was one of the
reasons, and the main reason why we did not think that was necessary.
In terms of the idea of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on
bioethics, that really is a matter for Parliament rather than
government, but of course you would then have to think about how
this Committee and other Committees would work either in parallel
or jointly with that Committee as well, but that is a matter,
I think, for Parliament to decide. As I have indicated, some of
the areas that we are exploring and giving some consideration
to is in what ways Parliament, through the legislation, can be
clearer about some of these issues where developments emerge but
also in what ways Parliament can have more of a say when science
changes, when issues come to the fore that maybe are not here
at the present, but may become an issue later on.
Q18 Dr Turner: This is coming very
close to one of the central constitutional issues, is it not,
because we have a Parliament that contains within it the Executive
and in this particular instance the legislation which governs
the area is traditionally by free vote which really makes Parliament
the supreme voice in this, would you not agree?
Caroline Flint: I think this is
one of the areas where Parliament does have to take an important
role and that is why it has been very important the last time
round to get the support of Parliament for the legislation as
it stands. I have to say that, yes, there have been some issues
where the HFEA has had to deal with some matters and debates about
whether it has the power or it does not have the power and sometimes
that has, as you quite rightly say, ended up in the court. But
all told I think it has been a pretty robust system and I have
to say that other countries around the world look to the way we
have regulated as an example of something that is a good model
to follow, and I think that should be recognised.
Q19 Dr Turner: Absolutely.
Caroline Flint: But that does
not mean that there are not issues that have happened over the
intervening years; that actually in many respects the HFEA in
its submission has made comment of where it would like some clarity
in terms of its own responsibilities and, as I say, this is something
we are thinking about and trying to think about the best way forward
in terms of hopefully a piece of legislation that will stand the
test of time that the current one has.
| 
