Hansard

I join others in congratulating Mary Scanlon on securing this debate. Over the years, she and I have disagreed on many health-related issues, but I genuinely admire her tenacity and consistency in championing a number of issues in the Parliament, infertility being one. Over the years, Mary Scanlon has raised this issue in forums that I have been involved in and has succeeded in raising awareness and changing minds and policy as a result.

I felt duty bound to speak tonight, not least because the motion mentions the report of the expert advisory group on infertility services in Scotland, which I launched in my former life as Minister for Health and Community Care. I remember spending some considerable time thinking about how that work could be taken forward. I readily admit that my recollections might have become fuzzy over time, but I recall being impressed by the work that was being done. While I agree that it is right that that work be re-examined—particularly with regard to implementation—it is important that any work that ministers take forward builds on the thorough work that has been done.

That work was done because successive ministers recognised that the degree of variation across the country was unacceptable. In infertility services, as in so many others, the challenge is how to remove the postcode lottery. That is what the Health Department and its ministers must focus on. The situation cannot be solved simply by issuing an edict from the centre or investing a pile of money; there are complex issues about service-level delivery in ensuring that there is a genuine equity of service across the country.

Communicating the work that is done by clinicians to people who are affected by infertility is also important. I remember studying the work and gaining an understanding of why some of the recommendations were being made. That involved spending a considerable amount of time discussing the subject with some of the best experts in the country. It is important that couples who have a limited amount of time with a clinician and who are already upset and emotional have the reasoning behind certain decisions and policies in the health service explained to them in a way that they can understand more readily than is often the case.

As others have done, I want to make a link with the earlier statement on the national sexual health strategy. Many have talked about the need to discuss such issues more openly. I am talking not about requiring people to be explicit about their personal experience, but about having a society that is able to discuss issues pertaining to sex and relationships, infertility and reproductive health in general. We have a long way to go before that happens, however. I well recall from my experiences of being pregnant and of trying to conceive—I will not go into more detail—that although I was well read and well educated and had accessed much information, I found that many matters were not part of the common currency of understanding in our society. We should not kid ourselves that as a society we have got to grips with the issues.

I agree strongly with Elaine Smith's points about the importance of recognising the link between sexually transmitted infection and infertility. I am disappointed that the sexual health strategy that was published today makes no commitment to a national chlamydia testing scheme. We need not wait for further evaluation of projects to progress that. We know from work that has been done that such testing works, diagnoses infection and can lead to people being treated. We should remember that chlamydia is the leading cause of tubal infertility in women. I hope that that is a clear issue on which the minister will respond.

Although much progress needs to be made, we should applaud not only the work that is being done in the health service to deliver services, but the research that is being conducted in Scotland. Right on our doorsteps, we have the centre for reproductive biology at the Edinburgh royal infirmary, which is undertaking leading-edge work on infertility and many other areas of reproductive health. Some time ago, the cross-party group on sexual health received from Dr Bob Millar of that centre an utterly illuminating presentation of which many members would be interested to hear more.

I congratulate Mary Scanlon again on securing the debate. I hope that it raises awareness and changes practice in the time to come.