The
Committee consisted of the following
Members:
Chairmen:
Mr.
Roger Gale,
†
Mr.
Jim
Hood Clarke,
Mr. Tom
(Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill)
(Lab)
†
Gibson,
Dr. Ian
(Norwich, North)
(Lab)
†
Harris,
Dr. Evan
(Oxford, West and Abingdon)
(LD)
†
Iddon,
Dr. Brian
(Bolton, South-East)
(Lab)
†
Jones,
Helen
(Warrington, North)
(Lab)
†
Key,
Robert
(Salisbury)
(Con)
†
McCabe,
Steve
(Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's
Treasury)McCafferty,
Chris
(Calder Valley)
(Lab)
†
Moffatt,
Laura
(Crawley)
(Lab)
†
Morgan,
Julie
(Cardiff, North)
(Lab)
†
Penning,
Mike
(Hemel Hempstead)
(Con)
†
Primarolo,
Dawn
(Minister of State, Department of
Health)†
Pugh,
Dr. John
(Southport)
(LD)
†
Simmonds,
Mark
(Boston and Skegness)
(Con)
Streeter,
Mr. Gary
(South-West Devon)
(Con)
†
Turner,
Dr. Desmond
(Brighton, Kemptown)
(Lab)
†
Wright,
Jeremy
(Rugby and Kenilworth)
(Con)
Hannah Weston, Celia
Blacklock, Committee Clerks
†
attended the Committee
Public
Bill Committee
Thursday
12 June
2008
(Afternoon)
[Mr.
Jim Hood in the
Chair]
Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill [Lords]
(Except
clauses 4, 11, 14 and 23, schedule 2, and any new clauses or new
schedules relating to the termination of pregnancy by registered
medical
practitioners)
Schedule
6
Amendments
relating to parenthood in cases involving assisted
reproduction
Question
proposed [this day], That the schedule, as amended, be the Sixth
schedule to the
Bill.
1
pm
Question
again
proposed.
The
Minister of State, Department of Health (Dawn Primarolo):
I have one last point to make in response to the issues raised by hon.
Members.
My
hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East asked about whether the
fact that a child was donor-conceived should be on the birth
certificate. In recognising the difficulty that others, such as the
Joint Committee on Human Rights and the Royal College of Midwives, have
with that being on a public document, he raised the prospect of whether
one way round the problem would be to have two birth
certificates—one public and one private. The private one would
be longer and would indicate that the individual was
donor-conceived.
I
will not express an opinion either way, because we are discussing one
of the options that we would need to consider when carrying out a
review, which we have committed ourselves to doing within four years of
the Bill coming into force. The question is whether there is a way in
which the law can be changed to balance the issues that hon. Members
have raised—the right to know of the donor-conceived child
against the rights of the donor and anonymity—and to make
progress. That is certainly the sort of issue that could be explored,
and that was why the Government decided that it was better to consider
it in the context of a review and to report back to the
House.
The
schedule is long because it deals with England and Wales; where the law
varies in Scotland, it deals with Scotland, and it also deals with
Northern Ireland. Much of it is duplication, but for different
jurisdictions.
Dr.
John Pugh (Southport) (LD): In the previous sitting, the
Minister mentioned the pre-screening of embryos and that type of thing.
She made a perfectly valid point, but I think that she would recognise
that many diseases for which there is a genetic predisposition
cannot be properly screened for, certainly at the embryo stage. Also,
over the 18 years before the child can make inquiries about his genetic
background, there might be other discoveries that link genetic factors
with illness. It is therefore not a complete answer to say that the
embryo that is the subject of in vitro fertilisation is privileged in
that respect. It will be privileged in some respects, but there will
still be a
problem.
Dawn
Primarolo: I am sorry to disagree, but I do not think that
the hon. Gentleman’s point makes the case either. First, to say
“Well, something could happen in the future, but we don’t
know,” applies to us all. Secondly, the parents will have a duty
and all parents will want to do the best for their child. If something
happened before the individual was 18, the parents would clearly need
to think very carefully about what steps they might be able to take in
those circumstances. We are talking about screening for things that we
do not know that we need to be screened for. With respect, it is a
preposterous proposition to say that therefore this should apply to
somebody else. Of course, when the child gets to 18, they have an
absolute right to know the identity of the person. This is an
interesting debating point, but it does not shed any light on the
reasons why we would want to put the proposed information on the birth
certificate.
I
am not saying that the Government have set their face against the
proposal. I am saying that this is a highly complex issue, which
balances a whole series of rights, including those of the donor. We
need to consider the possibilities in the light of the new legislation,
and that was why the four-year review was
proposed.
Dr.
Evan Harris (Oxford, West and Abingdon) (LD): I agree with
both the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for
Southport—
[Interruption.] I know that that
is hard to do, but I am trying to bring members of the Committee
together.
There
will be advances—perhaps even genetic chips—in the
future, and we might be able to screen for diseases that we cannot
screen for at the moment. Nevertheless, the Minister is right that we
cannot future-proof things, and my hon. Friend’s point is not a
good enough argument for changing the current position. Indeed, I do
not think that it will ever be a good enough argument for invading the
privacy of families. There is always a risk that we will inherit
something—life is full of risks.
Dawn
Primarolo: There is no end to the hon. Gentleman’s
talents. He is—I say this genuinely, but also as a bit of a
joke, so I hope that he takes it in the right spirit—a
conciliator as well. He makes the important point that the distance
between what I and the hon. Member for Southport are saying is not that
great. We are both saying that we need to consider the issue properly
and balance the rights of all those involved, and we should not do that
in
haste.
Mark
Simmonds (Boston and Skegness) (Con)
rose—
Dawn
Primarolo: That was a good, conciliatory point to end on,
but the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness wants to intervene
first.
Mark
Simmonds: I understand what the Minister says, and
she is right that these matters are extremely complicated. Will she say
a little more, however, about how the Government came to the view that
four years was the appropriate length of time for the consultation?
Although these are complex issues, four years is still an
extraordinarily long time to take reaching a conclusion.
Dawn
Primarolo: We made a commitment to carry the review
forward within four years. As I said, the Government were seeking
common ground by making it clear that we had not set our face against
the proposal or decided on the issue in principle. We also clearly
needed time to assess things such as “telling and
talking”, the Donor Conception Network project and the extra
work on counselling. Equally, we were trying to meet the legitimate
concerns of Lord Jenkin, who proposed the four-year period in his
amendment in another place. We picked that up, but included the caveat
that the review would happen within four years. I assume that Lord
Jenkin was looking for a sunset provision to ensure that the review
would definitely be done by a certain time, although it could be done
earlier if necessary. That was why we settled on four years. To follow
on from the comments made by the hon. Member for Oxford, West and
Abingdon, let me say that the Government were trying to be
conciliatory—we were trying to find common ground.
Question
put and agreed to.
Schedule
6, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 57
and 58 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
59
Surrogacy
arrangements
Mark
Simmonds: I beg to move amendment No. 178, in
clause 59, page 49, line 23, at
end insert—
‘(2C) Not for
profit bodies can only recoup the costs
incurred—
(a) initiating
or taking part in negotiations with a view to the making of a surrogacy
arrangement, or
(b) compiling
any information with a view to its use in making, or negotiating the
making of, a surrogacy
arrangement.’.
Clause
59 brings us back to surrogacy arrangements, which are not enforceable
in law, as the Minister correctly said. The Surrogacy Arrangements Act
1985 prohibits organisations or people, other than intended parents or
surrogate mothers, from undertaking certain activities relating to
surrogacy on a commercial basis, and that is absolutely
correct.
Not-for-profit
bodies can charge a fee to initiate negotiations with a view to making
surrogacy arrangements and compiling information about surrogacy.
However, they are not allowed to receive payments for offering to
negotiate a surrogacy arrangement or for taking part in negotiations
about them. However, they are allowed to do such things if there is no
charge. There is thus potential for cross-subsidisation, with
not-for-profit organisations charging more for the activities for which
they are able to charge so that they can undertake those activities for
which they are not able to charge.
The amendment
would ensure that cross-subsidy was prevented, and that charges that
were allowed for initiating negotiations or providing information could
be commensurate only with the costs incurred in fulfilling those
specific roles, and not in generating revenue so that not-for-profit
organisations could get involved in other
things.
Dawn
Primarolo: We have discussed various elements of surrogacy
as it relates to the Bill. Clause 59 amends the 1985 Act to clarify the
position in law of non-profit making surrogacy organisations. It makes
clear that they may charge for their services on a non-profit making
basis, and enables them to advertise the services for which they may
charge. Such bodies get involved in initiating negotiations with a view
to making surrogacy arrangements, and compiling information about
surrogacy with a view to its use in making or negotiating a surrogacy
arrangement. We recognise that it is difficult for surrogacy
organisations to provide a service for a small number of people who
seek advice and help with surrogacy in the UK if they are unable to
recoup the costs of providing those
services.
The
amendment would ensure that non-profit surrogacy organisations could
recoup the costs incurred only for initiating or taking parting in
negotiations with a view to making surrogacy arrangements, or compiling
any information with a view to its use in making surrogacy
arrangements. I reassure the hon. Gentleman that that is what the Bill
does, albeit in a slightly different
way.
Clause
59 says that an organisation may charge for certain activities, but
only if it is
“not carried on
for
profit.”
It
may charge for: initiating negotiations with a view to making a
surrogacy arrangement; enabling interested parties to meet each other
to discuss possible surrogacy arrangements; compiling information about
surrogacy with a view to its use in making or negotiating a surrogacy
arrangement; and establishing and keeping lists of people willing to be
surrogates or intended parents.
I can
absolutely assure the hon. Gentleman that subsections (2), (4) and (5)
insert provisions into the 1985 Act that achieve exactly the intentions
behind his amendment. I make it clear that the measure will allow
organisations to recoup the costs of providing these services only on a
not-for-profit basis. The provisions would enable not-for-profit
organisations to charge for putting couples in touch with each other,
but not for any more direct intervention in the discussion. I
appreciate that that is a fine line—it is exactly the line that
the hon. Gentleman wants to ensure is in place—but I assure him
and the Committee that the amendments to the 1985 Act are not intended
to turn surrogacy into a commercial industry. The arrangements will be
kept exactly as they are. The 1985 Act contained firm steps to ban any
commercialisation of surrogacy and that principle has not been
changed.
I
hope that those strong reassurances will satisfy the hon. Gentleman
that we have stayed on the correct side of the fine line. I am grateful
for the opportunity to spell that out
clearly.
1.15
pm
Mark
Simmonds: I am grateful for the Minister’s
constructive response to my probing amendment and for her reassurance
that there is to be no movement
away from the principle that surrogacy is prohibited from becoming a
commercial activity in this country. I am assured from what she said
that the point behind the amendment is covered elsewhere in the
clause.
Before
I withdraw the amendment, I want to point out that I am still somewhat
concerned about something. I do not suggest that non-profit
organisations in the surrogacy field would do so, but I am aware that
there are other non-profit organisations that are good at increasing
their cost base to make sure that they do not make any profit and that
they therefore come within the guidelines, but they do so while
increasing their revenue streams. We certainly would not want to deter
people from participation in surrogacy for financial reasons and
financial
purposes.
