Dawn
Primarolo: The clause provides for regulations to ensure
that membership of the appeals committee is made up wholly or partly of
persons who are members of the authority. Regulations relating to the
appeals process will be forthcoming to deal with consideration under
the affirmative procedure, and they will come into force at the time of
the commencement of the relevant provisions in the Bill. In conjunction
with the HFEA, we are considering the details of those regulations,
which will be the subject of public consultation prior to consideration
by both Houses. The issue that the hon. Gentleman raises with regard to
appeals committees, who sits on those committees, and their connection
or otherwise to the original decision, will be addressed at that point.
I therefore hope he does not feel the need to press the amendment to a
vote.
Mark
Simmonds: I am pleased that the Minister has confirmed
that the matter will be addressed in regulations. It is clearly a very
important part of the appeal process, and there has to be confidence
that this is a fair process among those applying for licences or
appealing against the revocation or variation of licences, which is not
driven by themselves. Regarding future consultation, the Government had
an enormous amount of time to consult before the Bill was introduced in
Parliament, and in many cases they did so extremely thoroughly, and
with extreme diligence. Why has consultation about this particular part
of the Bill not taken
place?
Dawn
Primarolo: To remind the hon. Gentleman, the 1990 Act
prevents anyone who took part in proceedings resulting in the appeal
from taking part in the appeal. That is already the case. By ensuring
that the appeal is heard by different people, it reduces the potential
bias and makes certain that the process is impartial. Under the 1990
Act, members of the appeals committee would not have heard the initial
proceedings, although they would all be members of the authority. The
new power will enable the committee to be comprised, wholly or
partially, of non-authority members, thus allowing for further
improvements in the impartiality of the appeals committee. For those
reasons, and because of the difficulty of getting the balance that we
need, careful consideration is required. With respect, if we were
presumptuous and consulted on draft regulations, even though the House
had not agreed we had the power to do that before the Bill received
Royal Assent, that could cause confusion and difficulty. It is partly
about process, but also about the difficult and complex issues that we
need to take in a steady fashion.
Mark
Simmonds: I am grateful for that clarification and
explanation, and I understand the Minister’s points about
consulting on draft regulations before the Bill has completed its
passage through Parliament, but she will also be aware of the concerns
expressed earlier by the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon and
me that draft regulations are rarely amended in that sense when they
come before Parliament. However, I accept that they will have to be
debated under the affirmative
procedure.
Dawn
Primarolo: I assure the hon. Gentleman that they will be
thoroughly consulted on in draft form. It is such an important issue
that I would hope that we would reach consensus before Parliament has
its final approach under the affirmative procedure in both
Houses.
Mark
Simmonds: I am grateful for that intervention. Of course,
we all hope that consensus can be reached on such important issues, but
the Minister will certainly be aware from the passage of the Bill that
consensus on such complex issues is sometimes difficult to achieve.
None the less, I listened to what she said. I am pleased that the
matter will be clarified in future regulations and will undergo
detailed consultation. I hope that when the regulations come before
Parliament under the affirmative procedure, the issues will be
addressed specifically. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw
the
amendment. Amendment,
by leave, withdrawn.
Mark
Simmonds: I beg to move amendment No. 149, in
clause 21, page 17, line 32, at
end insert ‘within 28 days of the appeals
committee
meeting.’. Again,
the issue is the time scale. It concerns the appeals committee and the
appeals procedure. Any case that reaches the appeals committee is
likely to be lengthy and indeed costly, so it is right that the appeals
committee should give its judgment as swiftly as possible to resolve
the case either way, prevent undue delay and produce clarity. I do not
stipulate that 28 days is the correct figure—it may well be
longer than that—but I want to put on record the concern that
the appeals procedure could take too long. Will the Minister inform the
Committee how long appeals committees take from start to finish? What
gap exists between the time when it is clear that somebody wants to
appeal and the time when the process starts in
detail? Will
the Minister also confirm whether the regulations could be changed so
that during the appeals committee, the appellant and the HFEA can give
both oral and written evidence, and that that evidence can be made
public so that people can see exactly what the process is in a
transparent and effective way? Why will written and oral evidence be
given and made public only at the initial licensing committee stage and
not at the appeals
stage?
Dawn
Primarolo: On the question of time limits, the limit of 28
days, from the meeting and the point of the hon. Gentleman’s
amendment, is a reasonable period, to be perfectly honest, within which
an appellant should be informed of a decision. However, we understand
that in practice, it is likely to occur much sooner than that. Of the
two recent appeals, one took seven days and one took 18 days.
Although I
appreciate that the amendment would guarantee that the decision was
communicated within a specific time frame, given that practice is
already better than that, it is not an issue that needs to be put into
primary legislation. In the two cases concerned, when a decision was
reached, I am informed that the appellant was informed within 18 days.
In the appeals process, the whole decision is considered, and the
decision is challengeable. That means that the appeals committee would
have to be provided with the same information, and it is on that basis
that it needs to look at the information in a particular form. If the
hon. Gentleman is not satisfied with that
answer—
[Interruption]
May I finish my sentence? I am certainly
prepared to go back and clarify with the HFEA the point that the hon.
Member for Boston and Skegness is making.
Dr.
Harris: I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but it is
difficult to catch her attention, and I wanted her to finish her
remarks. Are the regulations under this section, and proposed new
sections 20A and B, under the affirmative or negative procedure? I did
not think that they were listed under the affirmative list on page 34
of the Bill, or relevant page of the Act as it will be amended,
although I may have missed something, and I apologise if I have done
so.
Dawn
Primarolo: I am happy to confirm for the hon. Gentleman
that they are the regulations would fall under the affirmative
procedure, and that they would be produced in draft for consultation. I
said in response to
a previous amendment that, although there is not always consensus on
some of the issues in the Bill, I hope to ensure, as the consultation
would, that before the draft regulations came to the House and the
other place for consideration under the affirmative procedure, there
was a great deal of agreement about their
provisions.
Mark
Simmonds: Again, I thank the Minister for her response. I
had been led to believe that they were affirmative
resolutions.
Dr.
Harris: I missed a little bit of the debate in which the
timing was discussed, but neither page 34 of the Bill, nor the Act as
it will be amended, includes the new section. Although I do not doubt
the Minister’s intention—it is right that the affirmative
procedure should be used—perhaps I have not quite understood
where affirmative regulations are listed.
Mark
Simmonds: I am grateful for that intervention, but when
the hon. Gentleman momentarily left the Committee Room, the Minister
confirmed that the regulations would be introduced on an affirmative
basis, as she has just done again in response to the hon.
Gentleman’s intervention. I am prepared to take the
Minister’s word for
it.
Dawn
Primarolo: Let me put it this way: if there was any doubt
that they were not affirmative, they are affirmative now, because I
said
so.
Mark
Simmonds: I am grateful to the Minister for that
intervention, and for the reassurance that she will seek further
clarity from the HFEA. I would be interested in the response that she
receives. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn. Clause
21 ordered to stand part of the
Bill. Clause
22 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
24Register
of
Information
Mark
Simmonds: I beg to move amendment No. 6, in
clause 24, page 20, line 10, at
end insert— ‘(5) A relevant
individual can also be an individual who has reached the age of 18
whose genetic parent was a relevant individual under subsection (4) but
did not themselves consult the register and is themselves
deceased.’. There
are many circumstances in which a child of a donor-conceived person
would like to know their genetic background, and it is now widely
accepted that knowing that background is beneficial. A person’s
sense of identity is tied up with where they came from, and an
increasing number of diseases and illnesses are found to have some
basis in our genes, so knowing one’s genetic background is
beneficial.
Some people
choose not to consult the register, and we should all respect their
decision. We would not allow anyone to consult the register if a living
donor-conceived person has themselves chosen not to. However, in a
specific case where a donor-conceived person has died, their children
might like to know their genetic background.
The amendment would allow for that person to consult the register only
in the case where the donor-conceived person has
died. 3.45
pm In
the other place, the matter was discussed extensively and the Minister
in the other place promised to consider that particular issue further.
That is why I tabled the amendment—to try to understand where
the Government have got to in their thought process with regard to that
point. I accept that it is a complex issue, and indeed I see why the
Government, after due consideration of the reading of the Bill in the
other place, have decided not to make an appropriate amendment in this
area.
Dr.
Harris: I want to raise questions about some of the
assertions made in respect of this matter. While I do not oppose the
provision of information to people who are interested where that
information is held, and it is quite clear in advance that the donor
understands that information might be made available, one has to
consider the privacy of parents and individuals who do not want their
children—that relates to the point raised by the
amendment—or people more generally to know that they were
donor-conceived.
It is
important to identify the key points. My understanding is that it is
clearly of benefit to know whether there is a genetic issue in terms of
health, that the Bill already provides for that, and that we are
talking in these provisions about identifying information generally
speaking. The amendment at least is about getting more information and
identifying information. Obviously, it is important that people
understand that they are not seeking to marry or enter a sexual
relationship with someone who is related to them.
One has to be
careful, however, before one asserts for sure that there is significant
benefit from knowing one’s genetic background, because there may
a disbenefit from discovering a family secret: for example, that there
was infertility and donor insemination, that that had been kept secret
from the person concerned, or that there may have been infidelity
involved. It is not clear to me from looking at what little evidence
there is in this area that it has been established that someone will
always benefit from being able to know their genetic identity and to
establish their genetic background; or, for that matter, that people
have an absolute right, or even a very strong arguable right, to have
that
information.
Mark
Simmonds: The hon. Gentleman is right to make those
points, and that is why it is important that the amendment can apply
only to those whose parent is deceased. I think that that makes a
significant difference, certainly with some of the “family
secrets” that the hon. Gentleman seems to be mentioning. I think
that they start to dissipate once the person involved has
died.
Dr.
Harris: I do not want to get too heavily involved in the
generational issue here, because the provisions are prospective, but
one can envisage a situation whereby the grandparents of the person
seeking the information did not want it known in their family that
infertility services had been used. I think that the provision will
have to be prospective since a couple of years ago, so we are talking a
number of decades hence, but the amendment would provide that those
people do not have any opportunity to prevent not just the child who
was conceived from finding out—as is the right under the Bill,
regardless of whether I think it is a strong right or always
beneficial—but a third party, and it is a third party from their
point of view. I will be interested to hear the Minister’s
response to the amendment. I understand the basis upon which the hon.
Gentleman has tabled amendment. One can imagine that it would be of
real interest and significance to an individual. That was said in the
House of Lords and I do not dispute the sincerity of people who believe
that, but I think that what is left out of these debates all the time,
especially in the House of Lords, is the right of the people who were
patients receiving fertility treatment to have some privacy.
I am a great
believer in people who are having fertility treatment telling their
children, at an appropriate age, that they were conceived through donor
insemination, but it is not my view that they must do that and it is
clearly not the Government’s view, because the Government are
not forcing them to do so or automatically releasing
information.
I think that
the Government are absolutely right, because family dynamics are
complex and it is not right for the state to wade in in that way. While
the amendment is relatively modest in that respect, here and in other
debates I urge consideration for the privacy and memory of the parents
and patients. If they have not told someone, the fact of it being found
out means that they have, essentially, concealed it. That has
implications for all sorts of things, including people being written in
and out of wills regardless of their legal entitlement to inherit. A
can of worms exists here, and I think that that is why we must have
caution in all these
areas.
|
