Dawn
Primarolo: I agree with the points that the hon. Gentleman
has just made. I will answer specifically the questions I was asked by
the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness regarding the
Government’s position. The Bill allows for donor-conceived
people, on reaching the age of 16, to contact the HFEA to find out
non-identifying information about their donor. This information is,
rightly, accessible to donor-conceived people, and has a direct impact
on them.
The purpose
of allowing donor-conceived people access to information about their
donor is to fill a gap in the knowledge that they have about
themselves. Many donor-conceived people feel they are missing important
information about who they are and where they came from, because one
set of genetic information is missing. Information, including
identifying information about the donor, is intended to help to address
that, and it is for those reasons that provisions are made to allow
such people to find out about their donor. Donors sign up to donate on
the understanding that such information will be available.
The intention
behind the amendment is to shift down a further generation, to allow
children of donor-conceived people to contact the HFEA to obtain
information from the register regarding their parent’s donor, in
a situation where the parent has died and did not make contact with the
HFEA. The amendment would allow the child of a donor-conceived person
to find out
whether they are related to someone with whom they are having, or intend
to have, an intimate relationship. In effect, it means giving a child
access to details of their parent’s donor conception that the
parent had chosen not to access. We can envisage that a parent may well
have decided quite intentionally not to access that information, and
may have regarded it as personal and highly sensitive. It also raises
the question of situations in which the donor-conceived person is not
dead but is incapacitated. What do we do then? Should their children be
able to go to the HFEA? The
Government said that they would give the issue very careful
consideration since it was raised in another place. We remain of the
view, having looked again and considered the issues, that access to the
HFEA’s register should continue to focus on those directly
affected, and that it should be up to the donor-conceived person to
decide whether to access the information available to them and who they
subsequently choose to pass that information to—including their
own offspring.
While we
realise that there may be compelling circumstances, it would be
difficult to limit access to that specific situation, and wider access
to the register would raise broader issues around access to sensitive
and personal information. I am also of the view that, on donating, a
donor is able to prepare for possible contact from a donor-conceived
child, and to envisage the time span in which that may occur. I do not
think that it is reasonable for the donor to be much older and unable
to expect at what point in time a possible contact might be
made.
Although I
understand the point made by the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness,
we must allow a donor-conceived individual to decide to whom they pass
on information if they have accessed it. No one else should have the
right to access that information. I hope that that clarifies the
Government’s view for the hon. Gentleman. We consider this to be
fundamental in terms of the rights of the individuals concerned and I
hope that he will not press the
amendment.
Dr.
Harris: I rise briefly to say that I wholly endorse what
the Minister has said, the reasons that she has given and the thinking
behind it. The Government were right to say that they would reflect on
this as it was raised with a great deal of support in the House of
Lords. However, as I said, I do not think that the other place
considered some of the points that the Minister has just mentioned. It
was quite reasonable for the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness to
raise the issue, but the Minister’s comments apply not just to
this amendment, but to the whole area. I hope that we will have a
chance this afternoon, albeit briefly, to discuss the implication of
what she has just said for some of the other
arrangements.
Mark
Simmonds: I thank the Minister for her response. Sometimes
if one moves probing amendments in Committee, one tends to agree more
with the response rather than the initial amendment. At least the
Minister has kindly put on the record that detailed consideration of
the debate took place in the House of Lords, and she comprehensively
set out the reasons for the decision that the Department, and she as
the relevant Minister, have made in not changing the Bill. On that
note, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment,
by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment
made: No. 44, in clause 24, page 23, line 7,
leave out ‘any of’.—[Dawn
Primarolo.]
Mark
Simmonds: I beg to move amendment No. 36, in
clause 24, page 23, line 42, at
end insert— ‘(10) In this
section “reasonable period” means a period of no longer
than 3
months’. The
amendment relates to the definition of “reasonable
period”. In this section there does not seem to be any
definition of what is deemed to be a reasonable period, despite the
phrase being used in subsections (6)(b) and (7)(b). I would be grateful
if the Minister could clarify her perception of a reasonable period,
and whether it will be specified and set down in regulations or whether
it will be interpreted as and when appropriate by the
HFEA.
Dawn
Primarolo: We believe it right that if donors wish to ask
for specified non-identifying information about the child, they should
be able to do so. That right should be made clear in the Act. The
clause sets out two possible routes for finding out that information.
Information about the number, sex and year of birth of children born
from donations is held on the HFEA’s register.
Where donors
have donated through a licensed clinic or regulated sperm donation
service, the most obvious route for their inquiry will be through that
clinic or regulated service. Subsections (6) and (7) provide that the
HFEA need not comply with the request from a donor if the clinic or
regulated sperm donation service where the donor donated is still
operating. That is unless the donor has asked for the information first
and the clinic has failed to respond within a reasonable time period,
or if it has notified the donor that the information is not held. In
such cases, the donor can seek the information from the HFEA, which
must comply if it has the information.
4
pm The
amendment would specify a reasonable time period, which would not
exceed three months. If the clinic had not provided the information to
the donor within the specified time period, the donor would be able to
go straight to the HFEA. I recognise that three months might be
considered a reasonable period in which to receive the information, but
to specify it in the Bill would be over-prescriptive and bureaucratic,
and would not allow the HFEA to determine the policy in the flexible
manner that we have set out. I am sure that the hon. Member for Boston
and Skegness can understand that it might not always be able to comply
with three months, given the access points, the types of information
that might be held and the different places that donors might have to
go to. We would expect that to be done without unnecessary delay, but I
would ask him not to press for a three-month limit to be put in the
Bill.
Mark
Simmonds: I thank the Minister for that clarification. I
tabled the amendment to ensure that she and the HFEA understood the
importance of the speed of provision of information and of putting
pressure on clinics to provide it as quickly as possible. However, of
course I understand her sensible points about being over-prescriptive
in the Bill and thereby reducing flexibility.
I very much hope that the HFEA will take on board comments made and
perhaps even set out in guidelines an initial time scale for providing
such information wherever possible. On that basis, I beg to ask leave
to withdraw the
amendment. Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
Lord
Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury (Steve McCabe): I
am advised that we will probably not be able to complete the clause
stand part debate in the time that some of us might have hoped.
Consequently, I beg to move that further consideration of the Bill be
now adjourned.
The
Chairman: Let me make the position plain. These are
extremely complex issues and require a very high level of
concentration, if we are to do them justice. I speak for nobody other
than myself in saying that I find this quite difficult to follow, and
the Chair needs to follow it very carefully. I believe that three hours
in one sitting is long enough. I am perfectly happy to suspend the
sitting and come back, but it seems that we have covered a great deal
of ground today. I think that a period of reflection might refresh us
all and allow hon. Members to have a good stand part debate on Tuesday
morning.
Further
consideration adjourned.—[Steve
McCabe.] Adjourned
accordingly at two minutes past Four o’clock till Tuesday 10
June at half-past Ten
o’clock.
| 
