| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Chris Grayling: If the Bill is to work, the clinics involved will be an important factor, whether in the NHS or not. They should make a point of drawing the measure to the attention of patients when they go for their initial treatment and say, for example, "In the event of the unthinkable happening, you need to get something down on paper." Can the Minister assure the House that the Department, in its communication efforts to the NHS, will make sure that that happens?
Ms Blears: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. I understand that it is already in the code of practice that consent in writing to all procedures is to be sought from people undergoing treatment. We are due to issue a revised form of the code of practice in the autumn, and we can ensure that that message is as strong as it can possibly be. It is good practice that consent is obtained. It is also good practice that people should think long and hard, and engage in proper discussion and deliberation about what might happen.
The requirement in the Bill for written consent prospectively rather than retrospectively ought to enhance the possibility of further deliberation and
discussion between partners about "what might happen if". I can give the hon. Gentleman the commitment that the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, which is responsible for such matters, will ensure that it is brought to the attention of NHS clinics, private clinics and clinics in the voluntary sector. It is an important aspect for us to be sure about.With reference to the human rights provision, the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst raised the question of the class of people that we are dealing with, whether the commitment was open-ended, or whether it was a closed class of people so that we had a fairly definitive view of how many people might be affected. It is a closed class. In future people will need written consent, so the class of people that we are dealing with are those from 1991—after the 1990 Act was passed—up to the passage of the Bill. There will also be those whose sperm has been stored.
The normal period for the storage of sperm is about 10 years, so for a period of years following the Bill there may be cases where sperm has been stored. That could extend the class, but it is still very limited and closed. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green said, we think about 30 to 40 children are affected.
Even within that closed class, I understand that the majority had written consent. What they might not have is written consent to having the name registered in the births and deaths registry. They may well have consent to the use of the sperm, but the Bill provides not only that consent is needed to the use of the sperm, but that the man must specifically consent to the fact that he will be registered as the father. It is important that that should be in the couple's contemplation. Even in the closed class of 30 or 40 individuals, many have written consent to the use of the sperm, so the effect will be marginal.
We discussed whether there could continue to be human rights challenges even to the provisions of the Bill, because article 8 is engaged, and whether the court would hold that the Bill is a proper and proportionate response in human rights terms to the problem that has been identified, concerning the rights of the children and the possible rights to marriage and family life. We said previously that we could not prevent a legal challenge or pre-empt the judgment of the court, but the Bill serves three purposes.
First, it makes sure that the requirement for written consent is clear. There was some debate about whether it was clear under the 1990 Act. Secondly, it serves a
legitimate aim by encouraging discussion about the use of the sperm before procedures are undertaken. That protects the rights of donors. Thirdly and probably more fundamentally, it reflects the right balance between the interests of children, donors, families and society. It meets a pressing social need and is necessary in a democratic society.For those three reasons, we believe the law is defensible against any possible challenge under the human rights legislation, and I hope that we are in the process of making good, valuable, well founded and technically effectively law. It is always much more satisfying to all of us as legislators when we feel that we are meeting a situation with law that is not messy—that is not lazy legislation—but is designed to achieve the end upon which we are all embarked.
The Bill is fairly short. It deals admirably with complex technical provisions. Above all, for me and for my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Hall Green and for Northampton, South, it will improve the lives of the children and families concerned, bring to an end the distress that they have suffered over a considerable number of years, and make a real difference to their future. I am tremendously grateful for the support of all Members of the House, including the Opposition, in giving the Bill a fair wind. I hope that we are able to bring it into law.
2.24 pm
Mr. McCabe: I should like briefly to thank everyone who has given me help and support—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I appreciate that the hon. Member simply wishes to pay tribute to those who have assisted him, but he should seek the leave of the House to speak again.
Mr. McCabe: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
With the leave of the House, I simply want to thank all those who have given me help and support in the preparation of the Bill, and I particularly thank hon. Members here today for their comments. I am also grateful for the welcome advice and assistance of the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling).
The Bill will help people who have already suffered tragedy and it is in the interests of the children concerned. Today we are doing something that we all came here to try and do at some time in our life.
Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.
Pensioner Trustees and Final Payments Bill
Order for Second Reading read.
2.26 pm
Mr. Jim Cunningham (Coventry, South): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I was quite taken aback to find that I would have four or five minutes to introduce the Bill. This is the second, not the first, time that I have brought it forward, but I hope that today I can generate support among hon. Members to take it further. However, before I attempt to do so, I should like to thank all those hon. Members who have supported me during those two attempts.
The majority of the trade union movement supports the Bill. In particular, Derek Simpson, the new general secretary of the Amalgamated Engineering and Electrical Union side of Amicus, and the general secretary of Amicus support the Bill. In addition, I must thank the Coventry Rolls-Royce retired members group, particularly the chairman and secretary, and the British pensioners group in Coventry, which, over the years, have provided tremendous support, not only for the Bill but in a number of other areas. I was quite surprised when, a couple of months ago, I attended a Rolls-Royce retired members meeting in Coventry, and roughly 400 people turned up on a Friday afternoon. That says something about the interest in and the need for the Bill.
The Bill simply means that retired members can nominate and elect a trustee of the various pension fund schemes throughout the country. That person would have the usual role of a trustee, but would take a special interest in relation to decisions that could affect any benefits that the members would receive.
We all know about the mis-selling of pensions, certainly under the previous Government, and I drew attention to that the last time that I spoke in the House a couple of weeks ago in the pensions debate. However, we must also recognise that two or three years ago the Government set up a new financial services regulator. That will obviously take time to have an impact, but one interesting statistic is that, in redressing some of the issues in that regard, about £11 billion has been paid back in compensation. That gives an idea of the magnitude of that problem.
I know that the Bill is only one step in a particular direction. Pensions, occupational pensions and issues that affect old-age pensioners in general terms are a far bigger area than I can deal with today. Nevertheless, it must be addressed and it is vital that the Bill receives the support that is necessary for it to complete its passage. I do not have time to go through all the arguments, but I ask hon. Members to support the Bill—
It being half past Two o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
Debate to be resumed on Friday 11 July.
Remaining Private Members' Bills
GREENBELT PROTECTION BILL
Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [21 March], That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Debate to be resumed on Friday 11 July.
COMPANY DIRECTORS (HEALTH AND SAFETY) BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
To be read a Second time on Friday 11 July.
LOCAL COMMUNITIES SUSTAINABILITY BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |