| Previous Section | Home Page |
Column 986
Shore, Rt Hon PeterShort, Clare
Skinner, Dennis
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Smith, C. (Isl'ton & F'bury)
Snape, Peter
Soley, Clive
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Squire, Robin
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David
Steen, Anthony
Steinberg, Gerry
Stevens, Lewis
Stradling Thomas, Sir John
Strang, Gavin
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis
Thurnham, Peter
Townend, John (Bridlington)
Trotter, Neville
Turner, Dennis
Wallace, James
Walley, Joan
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)
Wareing, Robert N.
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)
Wells, Bowen
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)
Wheeler, Sir John
Wiggin, Jerry
Wigley, Dafydd
Williams, Rt Hon Alan
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)
Wilshire, David
Wood, Timothy
Woodcock, Dr. Mike
Young, Sir George (Acton)
Tellers for the Noes :
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody and
Mr. Robert Key.
Question accordingly negatived.
SCHEDULE 3
Consents to use of gametes or embryos.
Amendment made : No. 49, in page 32, line 8, at end insert (4) Any consent required by this paragraph is in addition to any consent that may be required by paragraph 5 above.'. -- [Mrs. Virginia Bottomley.]
Clause 13
Conditions of licences for treatment
Mr. Thurnham : I beg to move amendment No. 56, in page 6, line 31, at end add
including information about their physical characteristics, family background, education, skills and interests and health history.'. Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean) : With this, it will be convenient to consider the following amendments : No. 57, in page 7, line 14, at end add
"including information recorded under subsection (2)(c) above.'. No. 33, in clause 30, page 17, line 17, at end insert--
(aa) giving the applicant all information including identifying information relating to the person concerned, if the applicant, the person treated by virtue of sections 27 to 29 of this Act as the parents of the applicant and, before the information was recorded, the person concerned, have all recorded in writing their consent to the identity of the person concerned being made known to the applicant.'.
Government amendment No. 60.
No. 31A, in page 17, line 21, at end insert--
( ) A person who has attained the age of eighteen ("the applicant") and who has received the opportunity for proper counselling required to be provided under section 30(3)(b) may by notice to the Authority require the Authority to comply with a request to give the applicant all the information relating to the applicant which is held by the Authority."
Government amendments Nos. 59 and 58.
Government new clause 11-- Civil liability to child with disability .
Government new clause 12-- Disclosure in interests of justice . Government new clause 13-- Disclosure in interests of justice : congenital disabilities, etc.
Mr. Thurnham : It is not my intention to divide the House on this amendment, but I take this opportunity to
Column 987
raise the point at issue : the very difficult question of anonymity and striking a balance when talking about personal secrets. Should a mother tell her child that her apparent father is not her father? This is an area of family secrets for which it is most difficult to decide how the House should legislate. Apart from the issue of donor children, I understand that between 5 and 20 per cent. of the population have a father who is not their true father.[Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. I hope that those hon. Members who are not listening to the debate will carry on their conversations elsewhere.
Mr. Thurnham : Approximately 60 per cent. of donor parents do not tell anyone--the child or their relatives and friends--that the child is a donor child, but some 40 per cent. of donor parents are happy to tell their families and friends, and, in due course, the child that the child is a donor child.
The Swedish Government decided that it was wrong to allow such secrets to be kept and legislated that donor children must be told the identity of their true fathers and mothers, but in Britain there is a strong weight of feeling that we should allow anonymity to continue. Some people feel that we should not force a family to burden a child--as they see it--with the details of his or her parents. So the Government are in a dilemma as to how to legislate to allow anonymity to continue but to allow for possible changes in future as has happened with the adoption laws which allowed it retrospectively.
We have to consider whether donors who donated anonymously could retrospectively lose that anonymity. Some people in the medical world believe that the supply of donors would dry up without anonymity, but others tell me that that is not the case. King's College hospital in London carried out a survey among donors. Only one third of the donors were opposed to identification. The other two thirds were either in favour of it or reserved their position on any disclosure of identity. I understand that Hammersmith hospital is also in favour of the identification of donors on the basis that dark secrets within the family are not the best way to bring up a child. The British Agencies for Adoption and Fostering, the British Association of Social Workers, the Association of Directors of Social Services and the British Infertility Counselling Association are all in favour of moving away from anonymity and towards identification.
I tabled amendment No. 33 with a view to finding out whether any middle ground exists. If donors are agreeable to identification at the time of donation and the parents agree to identification at the time of treatment and, in due course, the child is in favour of identification, the child could discover the identity of his or her true genetic mother or father. That is not always clear, and no doubt one would have to have a DNA genetic blood test to establish a sure identification. Although I put forward amendment No. 33 to establish whether there is any middle ground, I feel that people are on one side or the other.
I should like the Government to make it clear whether they consider that there is any possibility of a retrospective change in the law and, if they wanted to change the law to allow identification, how they would go about it and how they would assess what people's feelings really were. If they do not want to accept amendment No. 33 as part of the Bill, perhaps they will accept the wording as part of
Column 988
regulations so that we could have regulations now to allow children to be born who would be able to identify their genetic parents at a later date.There is an argument that that might create two classes of children, but later tonight we shall discuss an amendment that concerns another place dealing with whether donor children should be allowed to inherit titles and sit in another place. If we are to allow two classes of children in those circumstances, surely it cannot be wrong to enable at least some children to have a legal right to establish the identity of their father or mother.
Amendments Nos. 56 and 57 do not go quite as far as amendment No. 33. Amendment No. 57 seeks to ensure that information about donors is given to prospective parents at the time of treatment. There may be good reasons not to disclose the identity of the donor to the parents, but the rest of the information about the donor needs to be given to them so that they can pass it on to the child when he or she is ready to receive it. Children's curiosity about their genetic origins may arise at any time and the best people to attempt to satisfy it are likely to be their parents. The information may also help the parents in bringing up the child.
7.45 pm
It is worth noting that the Adoption Agencies Regulations 1983 require adoption agencies to give prospective adopters details of the child's personal history and background before placement and, as the Government's circular accompanying the regulations points out : "it should be explained to the adopters that the information is provided not only to help them to bring up the child but also on behalf of the child himself."
Counsellors working with couples receiving infertility treatment have found that the lack of information about donors is frequently the cause of much disquiet and distress to their clients. Amendment No. 56 seeks to ensure that where gametes or embryos are provided by donors to be used for treatment services, sufficient information about the donor is obtained at the time of donation and recorded. The purpose of recording such information is chiefly to enable any child born as a result of the treatment services to have some knowledge about his or her genetic parents.
Although, without the amendment, it would be open to the licensing authority to specify in regulations that such information should be recorded, it is too important a matter to be left to directions. The Warnock committee talked only of recording particulars of the ethnic origin and genetic health of donors. There are problems concerning the ethnic community involving infertility treatment and attention should be paid to helping ethnic minorities in that connection. The Warnock committee also spoke of a view among some of its members that there should be a move towards gathering more information and making it available to prospective parents. In the six years since the Warnock committee reported, there has been a considerable shift in views among those with experience in these matters, and it seems important to ensure that as much information as it is reasonable to seek should be gathered from the donors. Even if the current legislation does not make provision for that information to be made available in its entirety to any resulting child, it is more likely that well within the lifetime of such a child there will be a change in the law which will permit children access to further information about their
Column 989
genetic parents. It is important therefore that the information should be recorded now to allow for that future possibility. Other points have been put to me by people working with these issues. I understand that there is a legal case which may have some relevance. My attention was drawn to the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Gaskin v. The United Kingdom in 1989. That case centred on Graham Gaskin's demand for access to records held by Liverpool city council in whose care he had been as a child. The court, finding in favour of Gaskin, held that"respect for his private life",
as outlined in article 8 of the European convention on human rights, requires that
"everyone should be able to establish details of their identity as individual human beings".
I have covered the main points that I wish to raise. I do not wish to push the amendments to a Division, but I should like the Government to consider them, answer fully and, if they intend to leave it to regulations, to make sure that those regulations cover the points that I have raised.
Ms. Dawn Primarolo (Bristol, South) : This group of amendments is concerned with anonymity, and there are two competing arguments about anonymity of the donor. The first argument is that put forward by the British Association of Social Workers and the Association of Directors of Social Services. Their argument is compelling in that it advocates that the identity of the donor should be revealed, including characteristics, and they draw a direct analogy with adopted children. While we accept the strength of their case in respect of adopted children, only 5 per cent. of those children, when they reach the age of 18, take the opportunity of finding out the identity of their natural mothers. Obviously it is impossible for many of them to discover the identity of their natural fathers. We do not accept that there is a direct and fair comparison with the possibility of young adults, created as a result of infertility treatments, seeking the identity of their natural parents. It is not a sensible comparison.
We accept and understand that the clinics, and the licensing authority eventually, will collect information and know the identity of donors. If, for medical reasons, it is necessary to identify a donor at a subsequent stage, that will be possible. However, we do not believe that it is necessary for a person on reaching the age of 18 to be given information identifying the donor.
Those of us who are parents and who care for children and understand their needs, and those of us who wish to create a caring and supporting environment in which children are valued, would not want to create circumstances in the Bill that would allow children to be distinguished or separated from each other on the basis of whether they were adopted children, the issue of their natural parents or children produced as the result of infertility treatments. We should aim to create an environment in which all children are loved, supported, cared for and respected. To try to develop divisions and to distinguish between types of children because of infertility treatments is unacceptable.
The information and views of those who put forward the opposite argument-- for the non-identification of the donor--stem from the experience in Sweden. We received submissions, which we discussed in Committee, to the effect that identifying the donor will restrict the number of donors who come forward to take part in research
Column 990
programmes. It is also argued that the parents of children produced as the result of IVF do not want the donor to be identified. I do not believe that children's curiosity about themselves and their attributes extends to them wanting to know about their genetic origins or the characteristics of their donor mother or father. Amendment No. 56 suggests that the information that should be made available to children is"physical characteristics, family background, education, skills and interests".
Those are very emotive characteristics and we could have long debates about the definitions of those characteristics.
Who would want to discover that one's donor was dull and uninteresting, but well meaning? Who would want to discover that the family background of one's donor was that he was the only son of a family that was now deceased? Who would want to learn that one's donor's education amounted to five GCSEs at grade D? What if the donor's skills were clerical and his interests were bird keeping and being a wireless ham?
While I have nothing against those interests, I believe that people would rather see the following attributes about the donor : physical characteristics--tall, slim, blond and blue-eyed ; family background-- athlete and astronaut ; education--Cambridge PhD ; skills--astrophysicist ; interests--opera, theatre and sport. I do not mean to be flippant ; I just want to show that providing such information would be exceedingly difficult and would not be in the best interests of the child. It would not help the child to understand himself or herself or to develop in society. The Bill should do nothing to threaten the possibility of people coming forward as donors. It should do nothing to undermine the programmes. There is evidence that those seeking treatment are opposed to any possibility of a child having access to information about the donor. We believe that at this stage the donor should remain anonymous and no information about the donor should be available.
In that sense, the Bill as it is currently drafted makes no commitment to either camp. It does not commit itself to making the identity available, nor does it commit itself to not making that information available eventually. We believe that perhaps there is no other way to satisfy both views and we support the view expressed in the Bill.
Amendment No. 56 relates to clause 13 and in no other part of the Bill is the tension between biological and social more explicit. None of us can honestly say that we know the effects of the Bill on children who are born as a result of donated gametes. We cannot say whether it will matter to those children to know that they have been born as a result of that process. Although the approach of the Department of Health will not satisfy the competing arguments, we believe that the Bill advances the best way to proceed bearing in mind the Swedish experience.
According to the notes on clauses, new clauses 11, 12 and 13 provide for the suing of the donor parent and the parents who have undertaken the infertility treatment by a child who has suffered a disability as a result of the treatment. Those provisions refer to the Congenital Disabilities (Civil Liabilities) Act 1976, which is "An Act to make provision as to civil liability in the case of children born disabled in consequence of some person's fault". We are surprised, indeed stunned, that such a serious addition to the Bill should be produced at this late stage,
Column 991
making it impossible for hon. Members adequately to consider the proposal. We are not happy about the new clauses because they open up dangerous questions. Unless the Minister can give us various assurances, we believe that the House would be making a dreadful mistake if it were to include that material in the legislation. We shall vote against the new clauses.Mr. Alton : I entirely agree with the hon. Lady. I very much welcome her statement and can assure her that many of us will be in the Lobby with her on that matter. Does she accept that the provisions would do two undesirable things? First, they would place pressures on doctors who would then feel unable to carry out IVF, and they would place on doctors the pressure to destroy an embryo that they think might in any way result in a disabled person. Both those things are highly undesirable and unacceptable. It is appalling that at this late stage--at the very fag end of our deliberations on the Bill--such provisions, involving enormously important principles, should be introduced so cavalierly.
Ms. Primarolo : I am in some sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's point. I shall be interested to hear the Secretary of State's reply on this matter--as I am sure the whole House will be.
8 pm
It is ludicrous to include in the Bill such highly emotive and contentious words as
"information about their physical characteristics, family background, education, skills and interests and health history.' We are pleased that amendment No. 56 will not be pushed to a Division. We believe that anonymity must remain to protect both the donor service and the possibility of infertility treatment. Any changes to the legislation must be made by the House only after a full debate, if that is what the House subsequently decides to do. As currently drafted, the new clauses give rise to considerable concern and we look forward to hearing the Secretary of State's justification for them.
Mr. Key : I wish to speak to amendment No. 60. It was a pleasant surprise to find, on coming to the House early this morning, that my amendment had been hijacked by none other than the Secretary of State himself.
I agree with much of what has been said about anonymity by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) and the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo). We had a good debate about that in Committee when it was debated with great care and not a little feeling on both sides of the argument. My hon. Friend the Minister restated the Government's position, which had been set out in paragraph 83 of the White Paper, which stated :
"all adults over the age of 18 should have a legal right to find out whether they were born following gamete or embryo donation and that those who were should have a right of access to certain non-identifying information about the donor to be prescribed in regulations."
I am sure that the Government were right. That position reflects the way in which the majority of those involved see the situation. The Government were also right to leave open the possibility that the public perception of what is right may change over the years. It may, in future, be right to take advantage of the regulatory provision in the Bill to make available information that will identify the donor to the
Column 992
young person. However, that presents a real difficulty here and now for clinicians, donors and potential donors. Up to now, clinicians have told donors that donations are given on the clear and categorical understanding that their identity will not be made known to any young person who might subsequently be born as a result of the donation. Now, clinicians will have to say to donors, "At present your identity will not be disclosed"--the new legislation makes that clear--"but a future Government may change the rules".I draw the attention of the House yet again to the Swedish experience. Legislation introduced in Sweden in 1985 stated that when a child is of "sufficient maturity"--in practice that means around the age of 18--he or she has the right to know the identity of the donor. There were some beneficial and some damaging consequences of that move. As I understand it, the number of donors fell, donations had to be sought from a wider recruitment base--this may have been beneficial--partly in the hope of securing donations from men in stable relationships for whom later identification would not prove an embarrassment, and the number of couples seeking help fell. That was because of the overwhelming desire of the prospective parents to feel that the child would be fully theirs, and because of the social stigma that still attaches to infertility.
The Government's intention to provide legislation that will be responsive to future changes is wholly admirable. However, as the Bill stands, the effect will be the same as if they had legislated not to retain the anonymity of the donor--hence my amendment, which is designed to make it as sure as possible that all who donate under the present rules are protected if the rules change in the future. My amendment seeks to outlaw the retrospective identification of donors. It is in line with the Government's express intent and would enhance the viability of their approach in this sensitive area.
Mr. Alton : I do not intend to pursue the points made by the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key).
I listened carefully to what the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) said about Graham Gaskin case. I raised that case in the House at the time because Graham Gaskin lived in Liverpool and his family had been my constituents. I was, therefore, well aware of the case which raised the issue of a person's identity and right to know about decisions that are made concerning his or her life. It was partly as a result of that case that my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) introduced his Bill about the right of access to medical records.
It is vital that people should know how and why decisions about their lives have been made, and that they should know about the people who created them. I believe that we face great dangers subsequently in life if we are unaware of the identity of our parents. If that knowledge is not made available, its absence can cause complex problems in the life of the person concerned. It is far better to be as honest, open and up-front as we possibly can. The hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo) referred to new clause 11. I register my concern that such provisions have been tabled at such a late stage. I hope that the Secretary of State and the Solicitor-General will reconsider whether it is right to press the matter tonight or whether they should take the provisions away for further consideration. The new clause raises important new
| Next Section
| Home Page |