House of Commons Hansard Debates for 15 Jul 1992

Ms. Liz Lynne (Rochdale) : I endorse what has been said and I approve of the Act, but I have one or two worries about the Bill. Will there be any kind of monitoring? Can the Minister assure us that if the rules are relaxed the operation of the Bill will be monitored? Perhaps in two years' time there could be a review of all the law on the subject.

4.56 pm

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman (Lancaster) : The 1990 Act is a bad Act and it is not surprising that it has caused trouble. If the opening speech of my hon. Friend the Minister is to be believed, it may cause further trouble, as the matter has been left open.

I strongly oppose what is inappropriately known as the parent Act--the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990--because I believe that life begins at conception and is sacred. That is why I have consistently opposed abortion, and continue to do so.

I do not oppose--indeed, I support--in vitro fertilisation where the embryo is fertilised by the patient's husband and then reimplanted in the womb, but it is absolutely unforgivable to breed embryos for the purpose of experimentation. As I said to the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman), sadly there is quite enough foetal material created by accident--by spontaneous abortions and stillbirths--to make it unnecessary to experiment on live foetuses.

The Bill slightly improves an appallingly bad Act. It would improve it still further if the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) were taken up, her amendment accepted and more consideration given to the children.

4.57 pm

Mrs. Ann Winterton (Congleton) : As hon. Members may imagine, any legislation containing the phrase "human fertilisation and embryology" conjures up for me painful memories of the passage of the original Act bearing that name. The nights of 23 and 24 April 1990 will go down in the history of the House as a time when some of the most momentous decisions affecting human life were taken.

Column 1161

On 23 April, hon. Members decided to allow research on embryonic human life that involved destruction of that life. On 24 April, the House decided to change the law on abortion to allow the termination of the life of an unborn child up to birth. Those of us who talked then of abortion up to birth were accused of scaremongering. However, a parliamentary written answer in column 437 of Hansard on 29 June states that the number of abortions after 24 weeks has doubled since the Act came into force, and abortions have taken place up to 36 weeks. As someone who has had the privilege of seeing the scanned pictures of her grandchildren at about 16 weeks, I cannot imagine how abortions could be done at 36 weeks in a civilised country, unless there was a good reason such as the mother's life being in danger, which is rare.

I have deliberately strayed from the Bill to stress the momentous decisions that are being taken under the original Act and the fact that we are already reaping the results of the seeds that we sowed two years ago. I fully accept that the Bill is a technical measure. I cannot recall seeing a Bill of so few pages that was more complicated than this one. I do not object to the Bill's principle : to sort out some of the problems relating to the disclosure of information. I understand that, as the Minister and the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) said, a woman's health may be put at risk because the existing Act prevents some information being passed on to those treating her.

I have no desire to stand in the way of such a proposal. However, I should like to highlight two matters. First, why is the Bill so technical? I think that there is a simple reason. The 1990 Act allowed treatment involving the donation of egg and sperm. It would be quite legal under that Act for a man to donate sperm, a woman to donate an egg, for fertilisation to take place in the laboratory and for the resulting egg to be implanted in a second woman who would carry a baby and eventually pass that child to other parents. Although that is an extreme case, once we allow life to be created by other than natural means and, in particular, provide for the donation of gametes, we inevitably bring on ourselves a whole range of consequences in relation to what information different people can have. It is a very sensitive matter for individuals to receive the kind of treatments that are allowed under the 1990 Act. Having decided to go down that road, we have brought on ourselves the need to devise complicated legislation. The Bill is a warning to us all of the implications of tampering with the natural means of reproduction.

The other matter that I want to highlight also concerns my hon. Friends the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) and for Birmingham, Edgbaston, (Dame J. Knight). It is that the Bill makes no mention of disclosing information to the one group of people most affected by treatment--children born as a result of licensed treatment. That is a sad omission, and I am surprised that the Government have not said anything about it throughout the passage of the Bill. I hope that the Minister will clarify the Government's position when we discuss the matter in Committee.

Column 1162

5.1 pm

Mr. Peter Thurnham (Bolton, North-East) : I congratulate the Minister on this necessary Bill. It will correct a technical defect, of which we were not aware when the original Bill was passed. Events since the passing of the 1990 Act have proved its importance and success. I pay tribute to the British doctors who have made advances even greater than any that we expected at the time. The hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) spoke about that. Those advances are attributed to British scientists, who lead the world, and they would not have been possible without the freedom given by the Act. My hon. Friends the Members for Lancaster (Dame. E. Kellett-Bowman) and for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) who opposed the Act should visit Hampstead hospital to see the work carried out by Dr. Bob Winston to help couples who suffer from genetic disorders and give them the chance to have a healthy child.

One of the disturbing features about Enoch Powell's opposition to such legislation in the 1983 Parliament was his preparedness to sacrifice the interests of couples who suffer from genetic disorders in the name of fears that have proved groundless. The Act paved the way for Britain to continue to lead the world, and set an example for legislation and for science.

Some doctors have spoken to me about their concerns over the defects in the 1990 Act. I am glad that the Government have not hesitated to introduce the Bill and to make provision through regulations for changes that might be required. We do not need to concern ourselves with any other corrections to the Act. It is right to maintain the anonymity of donors, an issue that is addressed by an amendment. I agree with the hon. Member for Peckham, who spoke about controlling the costs of the authority. Everybody was dissatisfied with the workings of the 1990 Act.

5.4 pm

Mr. Sackville : With the leave of the House, I should like to respond to the points made by hon. Members. I thank all those who have taken part, especially the hon. Members for Peckham (Ms. Harman) and for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Chisholm). The hon. Lady spoke about the principle of the Bill and the availability of infertility services, especially in vitro fertilisation. We have always made it clear that purchasing authorities, the district health authorities, have to decide, in the light of their knowledge of local priorities and needs, what treatment to provide. That is the current situation. I thank the hon. Lady for her congratulations to the authority, which I know it will welcome. She is probably unaware of the fact that I spoke at the authority's first conference recently, on the day that the annual report was published. I shall certainly raise with the authority the issue of distribution. The authority can be contacted at Paxton house, 30 Artillery lane, London E1 7LS. My hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) and for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) spoke about the position of the child. The Bill does not change in any way the right to information of a child born as a result of treatment. It is limited to narrow circumstances, such as--

Mrs. Ann Winterton : Surely the crux of the matter is that an adopted child has the right to know its natural

Column 1163

parents and its background, for reasons of health if for no other. Why have the Government not seen fit to do the decent thing and allow children born by artificial means to have the same rights?

Mr. Sackville : That touches on the wider issue of comparisons between adoption law and the Bill's provisions. As my hon. Friend knows, the original Act left a regulation-making power, so that Parliament could later bring in rights to information on, for example, the health of genetic parents. The matter may be raised later in the Bill's passage.

Dame Jill Knight : Would not the Bill be a perfect vehicle for doing exactly that? The Minister said that there should be no amendments or improvements and then he said that the matter could be raised later. Is there a chink of light there?

Mr. Sackville : As I said, legislation allows for such regulations, but they must be discussed thoughtfully and at length. There are considerable ramifications attached to any change. Perhaps we can discuss that later.

The hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) has taken a great interest in the subject. I am grateful for the benefit of his expertise and his welcome for the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire), another leading expert on the subject--I have read some of his previous contributions--welcomed the Bill.

Mr. Wilshire : I am always anxious that Hansard should be accurate. I am flattered to be called an expert. I might be an interested layman, but I would not lay claim to being an expert.

Mr. Sackville : The hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms. Lynne) referred to monitoring. As the hon. Lady knows, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority has statutory duties to monitor all the work and will deal with any new matters of concern in its annual report. If the hon. Lady wishes to contact me on any particular, my door is open. We look to the authority to monitor all the work and to be responsible for any changes and advances in techniques that may take place.

I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett- Bowman) welcomed the Bill in principle despite her considerable doubts about the embryology aspects, of which we are aware. I am glad to hear that she approves of the principle of in vitro fertilisation as a method of fertility treatment.

Lastly, I welcome the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) who has taken a great interest in the subject. I hope that his interest will continue. His contributions are always welcome.

The Bill seeks to relax the impact of section 35(5) of the 1990 Act without departing from the general principle that the person to whom the information relates should retain as much control over the dissemination of that information as possible. It seeks to redress the balance between necessary and appropriate access to identifying information and the sensitivities and wishes of the individual concerned.

Mr. Thurnham : Is my hon. Friend aware of some of the advances that have been made at St. Mary's hospital, Manchester? I hope that he will have an opportunity to visit that hospital to see the work done there by Dr. Brian

Column 1164

Lieberman, among others, which shows that advances are being made not only in London but elsewhere in the country, particularly in the north-west.

Mr. Sackville : I am aware of Dr. Lieberman's work. He is one of the leaders in the field and I hope that I will be able to visit in the future.

The Bill will benefit patients and clinicians alike. It is a reasonable and much-needed measure, as many who have contributed to the debate have said. I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.-- [Mr. Nicholas Baker.]

Bill immediately considered in Committee.

Clause 1

Relaxation of section 33(5) of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act

1990

5.11 pm

Dame Jill Knight (Birmingham, Edgbaston) : I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 21, leave out or'.

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Morris) : With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 2, in page 1, line 23, at end insert

, or

(i) to a person who was born as a result of any treatment covered by a licence.'.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley (Caernarfon) : On a point of order, Mr. Morris. I do not raise this in a disruptive manner, and it can possibly be dealt with by a manuscript amendment. Amendment No. 1 seeks to leave out "or" in line 21, but the word "or" appears twice in that line. The Chairman : I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. The word "second" should be included in the amendment.

Dame Jill Knight : As I have already spoken, I have no intention of delaying the House. I simply give my hon. Friend the Minister notice that if what we are doing today merely benefits the patients, and if there is a thus far undiscovered loophole somewhere which may benefit the children, we shall seek to find that loophole and to use it because the rights of the children are clear in our minds.

Mr. David Wilshire (Spelthorne) : I apologise for the last-minute decision to ask my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) to move the amendment standing in my name. For the record, it should be made clear that my attention was drawn to the fact that in "Guidance to Ministers", now a public document, it states that Parliamentary Private Secretaries cannot move amendments to Government Bills. I apologise for any confusion which may have arisen. I can, however, speak to the amendments and I intend to do so.

The amendments are all about who a person is and whether or not he or she has a right to know that. If the genetic parents are different from one's social parents, both sets of parents are an essential part of the child. That is an issue which I and a number of my hon. Friends raised first in 1990, and I make no apology for raising it again. Now, as then, the matter is one of conscience. These are matters of deeply held personal belief. The amendments are not anti-Government, aimed at driving a hole in a

Column 1165

central plank of Government policy, and I hope that now, as in 1990, we can approach the debate on a non-party- political basis. The issue which was fundamental in 1990 and which we are discussing now is simply whether, if you, Mr. Morris, or I or anyone else were born as a result of egg or sperm donation, we ought to have the right to know who the donor or donors were. Let us be clear about this. Over the years, as treatment becomes more and more successful, more than a few people will discover that they were born as a result of such treatment. It may be that their social parents tell them. I hope that they will. It may be that people will find out by accident. With all the good will in the world, with all the safeguards and all the criminal sanctions, people will find out. Therefore, we must have an answer to whether people who discover that they have been born as a result of treatment have the right to know who the donors were. My view remains as it was in 1990--that people have the right to know. From time to time, people will realise that they were born as a result of treatment and some of them will take steps to try to find out who the donors were. They will quickly discover that others hold files containing the answer to the question that they are asking. They will readily realise that someone somewhere knows the identity of their genetic parents--information which they will be refused. They will not be allowed to know their genetic origins. If that happened to me, my response would be : how dare this system, or any system, refuse to tell me what others know about my basic origins? My conviction is deeply held and subjective, but there is another, calmer justification for the approach that I ask the Government to consider carefully. Refusing such information to people born as a result of treatment flies in the face of the spirit of the age. A short list of recent legislation shows that we have discussed access to information and have legislated for the rights of people, particularly in areas of local government, to know certain things that they did not know before. The Data Protection Act 1984 gave people the right to know what is held on file about them. Patients have the right to look at their medical records. Dare I suggest that even the citizens charter is all about the rights of the individual? All those matters, and many more, address the issue of people's rights to know all that there is to know about themselves. Then there is the argument put forward by my hon. Friends the Members for Edgbaston and for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) of the precedent set by adopted children having the right to know who their parents are. I accept that few of them use it, but some do. To the best of my knowledge--I am happy to be corrected--there is no evidence that an adopted child's right to know its parents has done any harm. It would be foolish of me not to acknowledge the case against. It is argued that it would harm a child to know the identity of its genetic parents, but the adoptive child experience suggests that that is not so. Even if one accepts that argument, the truth will out sooner or later. Some people would find out, despite all efforts to prevent them from doing so. The only way to prevent the alleged harm would be to end all such treatment--and I would not support that.

Column 1166

Another argument is that, if the child were given the right to know, the supply of donors would end, but there is evidence to the contrary. I cite the experience of King's College hospital, London, based on 100 people who inquired whether they could donate either eggs or sperm. When the 30 who were accepted as donors were asked whether or not they were willing to have their identities revealed, 12 said yes, eight said that they wanted to give the matter further thought, and only 10 said no. Only one third said that disclosure would put them off helping in that way.

Even if the right to know served to reduce or to eliminate the supply of donors, that is not a good reason to block disclosure. If those willing to donate are so worried about their identity becoming known to the child, one questions their reasons for volunteering. Do they simply want the money, but not the responsibility? Do they want to wash their hands of their participation? Are they ashamed of their involvement, or afraid of being embarrassed 20 years later by someone knocking on their door and saying, "Hi, mum," or "Hi, dad"? If donors cannot entertain that possibility, they should not donate. The creation of life and the principle that I support carry responsibilities. Those who cannot face up to those responsibilities should not become involved.

Mr. Wigley : The hon. Gentleman used the word "eliminate". Would he really be prepared to see the ending of such treatment as a consequence of the amendment?

Mr. Wilshire : I most certainly would. If people are not willing to take responsibility and to participate in the full knowledge of the implications and of the effect on the child, that is the price that we would have to pay. We should not cover up the truth or deny an individual his or her fundamental rights as a matter of convenience or to ensure the supply of donors. I would regret that consequence, but we must confront the reality of the argument.

Another argument made against disclosure is that prospective social parents would object and that, if the child could discover the identity of his genetic parents, fewer people would seek treatment. I would be desperately sorry if we started to close the door on the people who seek such help, but if would-be social parents cannot face their children knowing the truth, what are they ashamed of? I cannot think of any better definition of the love for a child or of wanting a child than that a couple should go to such extremes to have one. There is no reason why any person seeking treatment should worry about disclosure. It should be a matter of pride and commitment that one has allowed one's child to the identity of his or her genetic parents.

Sooner or later, and despite the wishes of their social parents, children will discover the identity of their genetic parents. If the social parents do not tell their children the truth, the children will come to realise that they have been living a lie. That would do more harm than making it impossible to attract donors or having fewer people receiving treatment.

Who matters most? On Second Reading my hon. Friend the Minister said that the original Bill intended to give patients maximum control. The House will understand that it is not just a question of the parents. At least three groups of people are involved--donors, treatment seekers, and the resulting children. They all

Column 1167

matter. We cannot exclude any one of them. I argue now, as I did in 1990, that we should not seek to deny the rights and the interests of the resulting child.

We cannot duck the issue by saying, "It is better to leave matters as they are ; the system works well." Donors have a choice : either they donate or they do not. Patients have a choice : either they seek treatment or they do not. The resulting child has no choice. He or she comes into this world as a result of the decisions of others. If I must choose between those who have a choice and the child who does not, I will come down on the side of the child and do my level best to defend it.

I suspect that it is not a question of the Government refusing to accept the amendments but of their being unable to do so. The amendments were not drafted by lawyers, and I shudder to think what complications they might create. I have made the point that I am not an expert, and I cannot profess to have played a part in drafting something that is legally watertight.

I shall be grateful if my hon. Friend the Minister will clarify one point, so that we may be absolutely clear. Would the regulations allow the Government, after mature thought and having taken the advice of lawyers, to make it possible for children to learn the identity of their genetic parents? If so, the argument of principle has been won and I can leave for my summer holidays deeply satisfied and very reassured. The Government may not like the arguments, however, and they may prefer to come down on the side of withholding information. I can only say that that is democracy.

Democracy is all very well, but this issue will not go away. Those who raise it whenever an excuse is made are labelled the awkward squad on the Government Back Benches. We are reasonable people, and we understand the score, but we shall take every opportunity to pursue the matter. I suspect, however, that sooner rather than later our battle will be joined for real by a child who demands to know its genetic origins. When that happens, it will not be the awkward squad but the people of this country and the media who will be asking how the system, under whichever Government, the medical profession, and those who speak in the name of science and progress can dare to deny a child his or her absolute right to know his or her origins. That will ultimately force the Government of the day to act, and the sooner that happens, the better.

Mrs. Ann Winterton (Congleton) : It is appropriate that one of the awkward squad should have caught your eye, Mr. Lofthouse, and follow in the footsteps of my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire), who made a powerful and impassioned speech. It is extraordinary in this day and age that, on a non-party political issue of conscience and belief, a Parliamentary Private Secretary should be debarred from tabling an amendment. I was delighted to put my name to an amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) to deal with the problem, because this small amendment again focuses attention on the group of people most affected by the treatment provided under the 1990 Act. My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne was very active during the passage of that legislation, especially in Committee. He succeeded, for instance, in putting a child's need for a father on the statute book. He worked extremely hard to do that, and he should be congratulated on his tenacity.

Column 1168

5.30 pm

Children born as a result of in vitro fertilisation, artificial insemination or egg donation are not protected in the same way as other children, and many of us want that to be put right. As the 1990 Act currently stands, individuals born as a result of treatment can discover from the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority only whether they were indeed born as a result of it, and whether a named person may be related to them in some way. No information that might identify the true genetic parents of such individuals can be released.

As has already been shown, the Bill makes no change in those arrangements. Instead, it extends the number of people who can have access to information about those involved in treatment, whether they are donors or recipients. It allows information to be provided in court proceedings and it allows doctors involved in the treatment to be provided with such information. Any doctor is allowed access to identifying information, as are servants of the authority, but children born as a result of fertility treatment are not allowed such access. My hon. Friend's amendment seeks to rectify that omission ; as I said earlier to my hon. Friend the Minister, for some years adopted children have been able, at the appropriate time, to try to discover the identity of their true parents.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne said many times, this is one of those issues that will not go away. It will be raised in the House of Commons time and again, because an injustice is being perpetrated. That injustice should be put right, and the sooner the Government recognise it, the better.

During the Committee stage of the 1990 Act, the then Minister of State for Health--now Secretary of State for Health--said that the Government intended to keep under review the kind of information that should be given to individuals born as a result of treatment. She stressed that regulations could be made under section 31 of the Act to allow identifying information to be provided. Two years have passed. The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority has been established--we have referred to its report today--yet no word has been forthcoming about regulations on the matter, or even about consultation.

I hope that the Minister will tell us precisely what the Government believe and will assure us that they have not forgotten that many people--both inside and outside the House of Commons--are anxious that children should not grow up in the dark, but should be able to obtain appropriate information about their origins. Children who are born as a result of fertility treatment are treated as second-class citizens in comparison with adopted children and those who are born to their parents in the natural way.

I am happy to support my hon. Friend's amendment.

Mr. John Bowis (Battersea) : Let me complete the process that began with the great, proceeded to what we now know as the expert and then reached the awkward squad. I am not sure where that leaves me in the resulting Conservative quartet, but I am happy to be categorised if my hon. Friends insist on it.

My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) need not fear for my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire). We are seeking not to introduce a measure that is opposed to Government policy but to clarify that policy and, indeed, to extend

Column 1169

Government commitments in the earlier legislation. It was said then that the matter would be kept under review ; we are seeking that review now.

I want to highlight the practical realities to which the amendment relates. It is not simply a case of "Wouldn't it be nice to know where I came from?", although that may justify the provision of a right to information. My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne used the phrase "living a lie". We must be careful about using such terms in this place ; I think that my hon. Friend meant "living a life in which it is impossible to be truthful"-- impossible, that is, if the person concerned does not know the facts. That is what concerns me. If a person does not have the right to know his parents, who created him--even if he was born from the womb of a third party--he will not be able to tell the truth about his origins.

Decades after his birth, that person may suffer from a disease that requires the doctors to know his medical history. If he is asked whether there is a record of heart disease in his family, all that he will be able to say is, "I do not know"--or, worse, he may assume that the people who brought him up are blood relations, and give a false picture on that basis.

The individual has a right not just to know, but to be told. If, long after his birth, one of his real parents was found to have contracted a disease such as AIDS, how would it be possible to ensure that he was aware of it? The disease could have passed into the next generation through the bloodstream, unbeknown to the real parents, the adoptive parents and the child. The child would then be unable to protect himself, because he would have no right to be told of the development in his blood line.

There is another consideration. In a sense, it is much less serious, but it might be important to a young adult who took out insurance against, for instance, having twins. Insurance companies providing such cover must be told of the family history and informed whether twins have been produced regularly. The person whom we are discussing would not know that, or might think that he knew, although he would be thinking of the wrong family. He would be unable to tell the truth, or, at best, he would be discriminated against : if he could only say, "I do not know," he would be excluded from insurance benefit. I want such children to be able to live the truth rather than a lie. I want them to live without the fear that something unknown to them may have happened and to live without discrimination. For those reasons, I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will give careful consideration to the reasoned arguments presented by Conservative Members. They have a purpose beyond the desirability of knowing the facts : they relate to problems that will face people in later life if they are deprived of the right to know.

Ms. Harriet Harman (Peckham) : May I say to those on the Tory Back Benches who describe themselves as the awkward squad that we are not prepared to accept the implication that they care about the children and that we care only about the parents. That is unacceptable. We have to look at the question from all sides.

Mr. Wilshire : If the hon. Lady drew that implication from what I said, I apologise to her. When I spoke in the debate, that point was the furthest from my mind.

Column 1170

Ms. Harman : I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his clarification. We can therefore proceed on the basis that we all have an equal interest in the future of children who are born in these circumstances and that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues are concerned about the position in which parents find themselves. On the anonymity of donors, the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) referred to what I believe to be the key issue : would donors come forward if they felt that at a later date somebody would come knocking on their door and say, "Hi, Dad, I'm your son"? We do not want to jeopardise the artificial insemination by donor programme because people are worried that if they donate sperm they will be identified at a later date.

The hon. Member for Spelthorne said, in a kind of menacing way, "We'll keep bringing up this issue and bringing it back to the House of Commons." Of course it needs to be raised regularly. I do not doubt that the Government want it to be discussed regularly. The authority says in its report that it wants the issue to be discussed. The awkward squad need not therefore feel that they are beleaguered champions and that, were it not for them, nobody else would raise the issue. The authority highlights on page 27 of its report the fact that the Government are concerned about the issue. It also voices its own concern.

I hope that there will be more research into whether it might be possible to identify donors without deterring them from becoming donors. If the Government get it wrong and require donors to be prepared to be identified and the result is that donors do not come forward, an informal process will come into existence. It is easy to practise artificial insemination by donor. The awkward squad might not know that, but in fact it is very easy and--

Mrs. Ann Winterton : What the hon. Lady says is an insult to anybody's intelligence. First and foremost, not all my hon. Friends are members of the awkward squad. I am, unashamedly, a member of the awkward squad and I shall continue to be a member of it for as long as the good electors of Congleton are prepared to return me to this place to be as bloody-minded as I want to be.

Nobody believes what the hon. Lady says about her interest in children, because she supports abortion up to birth. No one who does that, for social reasons, can have a genuine interest in children. Nevertheless, some of my hon. Friends agree with the hon. Lady and not with me.

I am the first to admit that a very delicate and sensitive balance has to be achieved when it comes to the rights of a child who is born as a result of one of the infertility processes and the rights of a child who is conceived in the ordinary way. The hon. Lady has not yet, however, mentioned the rights of the child. She has referred to the rights of the donor, the feelings of the donor and the feelings of the parents. Has the child no rights at all?

Ms. Harman : When I said that I was not prepared to accept what had been implied by at least two of the self-styled members of the Tory Back- Bench awkward squad--that I am concerned only about the interests of the parents and that they are the custodians of the true interests of the child --the hon. Member for Spelthorne got up and asked me how on earth I could have got that idea. We know the answer now from the hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton). I shall not respond, however,

Column 1171

to her point about abortion. I want to deal with my concerns about the amendment. [Interruption.] I am afraid that I missed the point of the heckling by Conservative Members, so I shall proceed with my speech.

If the Government require donors to be prepared to be identified after they have donated sperm and the result is that people do not come forward to donate sperm, that will not kill the demand for artificial insemination by donors. It will simply drive it away from medical supervision. It will result in informal artificial insemination by donor. That will be far more risky when it comes to the health of the child. It is far better for artificial insemination by donor to be carried out under medical supervision.

5.45 pm

I hope that the debate about identification of donors will proceed. I am confident that it will. I hope, too, that there will be more research. However, this is a complex issue and, when we address it, we have to be sophisticated and intelligent. If we do not talk in terms of tabloid headlines, we may make progress. I take it that the hon. Member for Spelthorne intends to withdraw the amendment, but I look forward to debating the issue on future occasions. I am sure that I shall agree with what the Minister is about to say.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Tom Sackville) : That may be something that I shall not hear very often,Mr. Lofthouse, so I shall enjoy it.

This extremely lively debate has highlighted many of the issues that surround this extraordinarily difficult topic. The amendment, so charmingly moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight), was developed by my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire). The arguments that he put on both sides amounted to a veritable tour de force, although he put the arguments on one side more effectively, perhaps, than on the other. My hon. Friend asked whether the Bill provides for the formulation of regulations to achieve what he wants. It does not do so. However, the 1900 Act makes provision for a regulation-making power. That provision is still available.

My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) referred to a number of ethical concerns. All donors are screened for HIV. As my hon. Friend may be aware, no one with a history of genetic disease would easily be accepted as a donor of gametes.

Mr. Bowis : I am absolutely aware of that. My hon. Friend will also be aware that HIV could be contracted at a later stage, long after the donation had been made. It is at that stage that there appears to be no means of notifying the child, who might be affected through the bloodstream.

Mr. Sackville : I take that point.

We also heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton). Her views are well known and she put them eloquently. I was warned off mentioning any of the technical defects in the amendment, of which there are several. There are, however, substantial objections to it. The main one that springs to mind is that the 1990 Act already contains a provision that would allow part of what my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne wants to be brought into being. If any moves were to be made down this road, they would have to be considered carefully. They

Column 1172

would have to be the subject of wide consultation and debate in the House of Commons. Views on the subject differ widely.

My hon. Friend's amendment is defective in the sense that it appears to give clinicians the right to pass on this information. In effect, the HFEA would be charged with handling the information. Many other compromises could be considered along the route, such as the provision of information on physical characteristics, family background or whatever, stopping short of actual identification. All those matters would need to be debated at some length.

I do not believe that it would be easy to achieve a consensus. Perhaps that is why Parliament left the matter open, to be decided by affirmative resolution in the future. There are widely differing and passionately held views on both sides of the Committee, some of which have been aired today. In an ideal world, no child would be without an identifiable father or a chance to live in a proper family unit. We are all aware of that. In reality, there are infertile couples, and they have rights, too. It is thought by clinicians and many others that, if we were to identify donors, we would put enormous pressure on infertility treatment. That must be taken into account. This is a difficult subject and I can only tell the Committee that it will be kept under review by the Government. I am aware of the passionately held feelings on the subject, but I do not believe that the amendment is the way forward. A more appropriate mechanism for disclosure of information already exists in the 1990 Act and, for that and other reasons, I cannot recommend to the Committee.

Dame Jill Knight (Birmingham, Edgbaston) : Many of us were a little disappointed to hear one or two of the remarks by the Minister, especially the fact that nothing in the Bill would improve the status of the child. That is a matter of great concern. While listening to the debate, I was thinking about the sort of people who would object to having it known that they had been involved in this procedure. We have already mentioned a man who might object to someone coming up to him and calling him dad. I suppose there is also the issue of a wealthy man who might be afraid that a child might at some point ask for a share of his money. I do not have any sympathy for a man who does not wish to be identified for that reason.

It is a matter of balance--the rights of the child as against the rights of the donors or mothers. I can understand, in certain circumstances, the feelings of a woman who might want to have a child in this way and have it remain a secret. However, I cannot entirely accept that her feelings are more important than the child's rights. There are some women who do not want to have a husband. I can understand that in some circumstances, but I cannot accept that such a woman's rights are greater than those of the child she wishes to bear. [Interruption.] Opposition Members seem to find amusing the idea that children have rights too.

Ms. Harman : Will the hon. Lady give way?

Next Section

Home Page