Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Parental Orders) Regulations 2010

I rise to speak from the Back Benches to press on two points that have already been extremely well covered from the Front Bench by my noble friend Lord Howe. They relate to the options available to the Department of Health. I know that my concerns are shared by the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, who cannot be here this afternoon as he is entertaining an important overseas delegation to Parliament. Given the important shift that is taking place, we all recognise that research into the long-term effects on people born using assisted reproduction techniques is vital. There is growing evidence that there are long-term risks associated with various assisted reproduction procedures; for example, changes in embryo culture can have a remarkable impact on later development. It is therefore vital that information is collected, but it needs to be obtained in an ethical way. I am sure that the Government are concerned about this. The regulations have various safeguards. For example, if someone has expressed a wish not to have information disclosed for research, that wish will not be overridden. However, information could still, in certain circumstances, be disclosed without the person’s knowledge or active consent. Will the Minister give a little more information about the circumstances in which that important disclosure of information might occur? In relation to the options available, I again echo the comments that have already been made. In respect of option two, which has the advantage of not compromising the issue of consent, but which the department rejected on the basis of cost, could the Minister say what cost-benefit analysis was undertaken by the department to arrive at that conclusion? What assumptions were made to feed into that system? I also endorse the need for an advertising campaign to make people aware of the changes. This is one reason why the Government—any Government—should be extremely careful before introducing any retrospective changes, particularly in such a sensitive area. Could there not be a more adequate public information campaign? Given that, by and large, people who have had this experience would be attentive to media messages and to conversations—members of their families would be aware—such a campaign could be highly effective, although obviously not 100 per cent effective. If the Minister could explain the decision not to proceed with a campaign, it would be extremely helpful.