The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill has hardly been out of the headlines in recent months. Though the update to fertility treatment and embryo research laws will be debated for the first time by the House of Commons on Monday, it has already generated much controversy.

Its provisions for the creation of human-animal embryos have been attacked by Roman Catholic bishops. Patient groups and scientists, in turn, have accused these critics of trying to block life-saving research. Plans to remove the requirement that clinics consider a child's need for a father before starting IVF are equally contentious. Some deaf activists oppose clauses that would stop deliberate attempts to conceive deaf children. And a Tory MP has announced that she will table an amendment to ban abortions after 20 weeks.

Though I agree with the Government on these issues, all are worthy of debate. But the volume with which that debate has proceeded has drowned out discussion of other parts of the legislation that are as important. This Bill is loaded with sensible reforms that will have a more immediate impact on more people than its headline- grabbing measures.

A good example is medical training. As the law stands, scientists can be licensed to use human embryos in research, or for treating infertile patients, provided they do not grow them outside the body for more than 14 days. They are forbidden, though, from using embryos to learn the intricate procedures that fertility treatment often involves.

This means that when new technologies are developed, clinicians must pick up the required skills as they go along. The biopsy technique used to screen embryos for genetic disease, for instance, can be damaging if badly done, but embryologists aren't allowed to practise it. They must hone a delicate technique on embryos from patients, whose chances of pregnancy can be harmed by beginners' mistakes. The new Bill changes this, so that embryos that would otherwise be thrown away can be used in training. It will immediately improve medical practice.

Even more important are measures that will transform investigations of the health of people conceived through assisted reproduction. IVF accounts for 1 in 100 UK births, but while it's not thought to carry serious risks, there has been little research into long-term effects.

The main reason is the law. The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority has kept a record of IVF cycles since 1990, which ought to be a good resource for research. Strict confidentiality rules, however, mean that the database cannot be tied to registries of birth defects or cancers or otherwise used to monitor children's progress.

The Bill will permit wider use of HFEA data, without compromising patients' privacy. While it will not generally work retrospectively, it will allow researchers to examine the health impacts of IVF much more fully in the future.

These are just two examples of measures that address anachronistic regulations that are inimical to effective medicine and patient safety. Others include extending the time for which embryos can be stored and closing loopholes that have left some fertility procedures unregulated.

The importance of these issues explains why the Government has agreed to give Labour MPs only a limited free vote on this Bill. They will be allowed to oppose a few sections, such as those regulating hybrid embryos.

Once these votes have been taken, however, Labour members will then be whipped to support the final legislation in whatever form it takes.

The Government is right to insist on such support. It is important that those with objections to lesbian IVF or hybrids should be heard. But such views shouldn't threaten the Bill's lower-profile provisions, which will affect the lives of more people than the controversies that will dominate the Commons debate.

Mark Henderson is Science Editor of The Times

Explore Health

• Expert Advice

• Health Features

• Mental Health

• Alternative Medicine

• Child Health

• Health Club