Dr.
Pugh: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment. Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn. Clause
60 ordered to stand part of the
Bill. Clauses
61 to 65 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Schedule
7Minor
and consequential
amendments Amendment
proposed: No. 105, in schedule 7, page 99, line 24, at
end insert— ‘2A In section 7
of the 1990 Act (reports to Secretary of State) for subsection (1)
substitute— “(1)
The Authority shall
prepare— (a) a report
for the period beginning with the 1 August preceding the relevant
commencement date (or if that date is a 1 August, beginning with that
date) and ending with the next 31 March,
and (b) a report for each
succeeding period of 12 months ending with 31
March. (1A) In subsection
(1)(a) “the relevant commencement date” means the day on
which paragraph 2A of Schedule 7 to the Human Fertilisation and
Embryology Act 2008 comes into
force. (1B) The Authority shall
send each report to the Secretary of State as soon as practicable after
the end of the period for which it is
prepared.”’.—[Dawn
Primarolo.]
Mark
Simmonds: It would be helpful if, when responding to my
brief contribution, the Minister will explain the amendment. My
understanding is that it will merely necessitate a report being
produced by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority to the
Secretary of State. I want to be sure that the annual report will be a
public document and that it will be available for scrutiny, hopefully
at the appropriate time for debate in Parliament. I clarify that the
necessity to produce a report is not insisted on under the 1990 Act. It
is a new provision that has been inserted into the
Bill.
Dawn
Primarolo: Section 7 of the 1990 Act requires the Human
Fertilisation and Embryology Authority to produce an annual report.
Currently, section 7(1) requires a report covering the year from August
to July, reflecting the fact that the HFEA came into operation on
1 August 1991. The amendment is a technical, administrative
provision. The Treasury’s financial reporting manual requires
non-departmental public bodies, such as the HFEA, to produce an annual
report to accompanying the body’s annual
accounts. It
is therefore practical that we amend the reporting period to cover the
financial year April to March, in line with the requirements of
financial reporting manuals. It is a purely administrative requirement.
There will be no change to the requirement that the Secretary of State
lays the annual report or any other report under the schedule before
Parliament. There has never been a requirement that the report will
automatically be put down for debate, but it must be laid before
Parliament after which time it will be open through the normal
procedure in Parliament for hon. Members to debate
it.
Because such a change was not worth making in legislation in its own
right, we are making such an amendment now to bring matters into
line. Amendment
agreed
to. Amendments
made: No. 106, in schedule 7, page 99, line 27, at end
insert— ‘ In section 14A of
the 1990 Act (conditions of licences: human application), in subsection
(1)— (a) omit the
“and” at the end of paragraph (a),
and (b) at the end of paragraph
(b) insert “, and (c)
every licence under paragraph 3 of that Schedule, so far as authorising
activities in connection with the derivation from embryos of stem cells
that are intended for human
application.”.’. No.
107, in
schedule 7, page 99, line 27, at
end insert— ‘ In section 15
of the 1990 Act (conditions of research licences) after subsection (4)
insert— “(5) If
by virtue of paragraph 15F of Schedule 3 (existing cell lines)
qualifying cells, as defined by paragraph 15F(2) of that Schedule, of a
person (“P”) are used to bring about the creation in
vitro of an embryo or human admixed embryo without P’s consent,
steps shall be taken to ensure that the embryo or human admixed embryo
cannot subsequently be attributed to
P.”’. No.
108, in schedule 7, page 100, leave out
line 1 and insert— ‘(1)
Section 31A of the 1990 Act (the Authority’s register of
licences) is amended as
follows. (2) In subsection
(1)— (a) omit the
“and” at the end of paragraph (a),
and (b) at the end of paragraph
(b) insert “, and (c)
every licence under paragraph 3 of Schedule 2 authorising activities in
connection with the derivation from embryos of stem cells that are
intended for human
application.”. (3)
In’. No.
109, in
schedule 7, page 100, line 41, at
end insert— ‘(4ZB) A person
under the age of 16 years shall have legal capacity to consent to the
use of the person’s human cells in accordance with Schedule 3 to
the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 for the purposes of a
project of research where the person is capable of understanding the
nature of the research; and in this subsection “human
cells” has the same meaning as in that
Schedule.”’. No.
110, in
schedule 7, page 101, line 28, at
end insert— ‘84B Application
to use of human cells to create an embryo in vitro without
adult’s consent (1) The
use of an adult’s human cells to bring about the creation in
vitro of an embryo or human admixed embryo for use for the purposes of
a project of
research— (a) without
the adult’s consent,
and (b) where the adult is
incapable, is to be treated as
an intervention in the affairs of an adult under this
Act. (2) Sections 2 to 5, 8,
11, 14 and 85 of this Act apply to decisions made under paragraphs 15B
and 15D of Schedule 3 to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act
1990 (when consent to the use of human cells is not required due to
adult being incapable of consenting) as they apply to decisions taken
for the purposes of this
Act. (3) Section 51 of this Act
does not apply to the use of an adult’s human cells to bring
about the creation in vitro of an embryo or human admixed embryo for
use for the purposes of a project of research.
(4) Section 83 of this Act applies to a decision
made under paragraphs 15B and 15D of Schedule 3 to the Human
Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 as if the person making the
decision were exercising powers under this
Act. (5)
Expressions used in this section and in Schedule 3 to the Human
Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 have the same meaning in this
section as in that
Schedule.’. No.
111, in
schedule 7, page 102, line 14, after
‘embryo)’ insert
‘or would require such consent but
for paragraphs 15B and 15F of that
Schedule’. No.
112, in
schedule 7, page 102, line 18, leave
out from beginning to ‘in’ in line 21 and
insert ‘requirements
imposed by Schedule 3 to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act
1990’. No.
113, in
schedule 7, page 102, line 28, at
end insert ‘or would
require such consent but for paragraphs 15B and 15F of that
Schedule’. No.
114, in
schedule 7, page 102, line 34, at
end
insert— ‘Mental
Capacity Act 2005 (c. 9) In
section 30 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (research), after subsection
(3) insert— “(3A)
Research is not intrusive to the extent that it consists of the use of
a person’s human cells to bring about the creation in vitro of
an embryo or human admixed embryo, or the subsequent storage or use of
an embryo or human admixed embryo so
created. (3B) Expressions used
in subsection (3A) and in Schedule 3 to the Human Fertilisation and
Embryology Act 1990 (consents to use or storage of gametes, embryos or
human admixed embryos etc.) have the same meaning in that subsection as
in that Schedule.”’.—[Dawn
Primarolo.] Schedule
7, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 66
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Schedule
8Repeals
and
revocations Amendments
made: No. 115, in schedule 8, page 103, column 2, leave out lines
15 and 16 and insert— ‘In
section 12— (a) in
subsection (1)(c), the words “or non-medical fertility
services”, and (b) in
subsection (2), the word “and” at the end of paragraph
(a).’. No.
116, in
schedule 8, page 103, line 21, column
2, at end insert— ‘In
section 14A(1), the word “and” at the end of paragraph
(a).’. No.
117, in
schedule 8, page 103, line 26, column
2, at end insert— ‘In
section 31A(1), the word “and” at the end of paragraph
(a).’.—[Dawn
Primarolo.] Schedule
8, as amended, agreed
to.
Clause
67Extent Amendment
made: No. 62, in
clause 67, page 52, line 9, at
end insert— ‘( ) Subsection
(2) is subject to paragraph A1(2) of Schedule
6.’.—[Dawn
Primarolo.] Clause
67, as amended, ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
68Commencement Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill. 1.45
pm
Dr.
Pugh: I have a question about new clause 7, which has been
tabled, but tabled too late. I am advised that it would be appropriate
to raise that issue at this stage. If I am wrong, I stand to be
corrected. I
simply wanted clarification about the whole thrust of the
legislation—what is banned and what is not? It is fairly clear
that the Bill bans placing animal gametes in a woman, placing human
admix embryos and animal embryos in a woman, placing human embryos in
an animal and placing human admix embryos in an animal. However,
neither the 1990 Act nor the Bill expressly ban the placing of human
gametes in an animal. There may be a good reason for
that—perhaps to allow the possibility of human ovarian tissue
being matured or whatever—but the legislative loophole, if it is
one, would also allow the potential development of a human or
part-human embryo in a non-human primate, by a gamete intra-fallopian
transfer. That loophole has been spotted. If it is not a loophole, I
would be grateful for any clarification that the Minister can give on
the
issue.
The
Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman has raised a question
about a new clause that was not selected, so the Minister need not
respond, unless she wishes
to.
Dawn
Primarolo: I shall write to the hon.
Gentleman. Question
put and agreed
to. Clause
68 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
69Short
title
Dawn
Primarolo: I beg to move amendment No. 63, in
clause 69, page 52, line 31, leave
out subsection
(2). The
amendment removes the privilege amendment that was made in another
place. As hon. Members are aware, the financial powers of the other
place are restricted by the rights and privileges of the House and by
the Parliament Acts. As the Bill originated in another place and
contains financial provisions, a privilege amendment was added to the
Bill before its introduction in the House, to ensure that the House
financial privileges were not infringed. It is therefore necessary to
have a purely technical amendment to remove the privilege amendment,
which provided that nothing in the Bill should impose or vary any
charge on the people or public funds. It is a straightforward
requirement under parliamentary
rules. Amendment
agreed
to. Clause
69, as amended, ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
New
Clause
1Birth
certificates in cases involving assisted
reproduction ‘The Secretary
of State shall by regulation make provision for the birth certificate
of a person born as a consequence
of— (a) treatment
services other than basic partner treatment services,
or (b) the procurement and
distribution of any sperm (other than partner-donated sperm that has
not been stored) in the course of providing non-medical fertility
services, to indicate these
facts, either
through— (a) a symbol to
denote the fact of donor conception,
or (b) the provision of a
detailed birth certificate to include the fact of donor conception and
an abridged certificate that does not.’.—[Mark
Simmonds.] Brought
up, and read the First
time.
Mark
Simmonds: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second
time. The
new clause relates to the complex issue of birth certificates, which we
touched on earlier. In the context of the debate surrounding part 2,
new clause 1 relates to some of the issues raised when we discussed
schedule 6. The new clause would ensure that the Secretary of State
made regulations either to annotate a birth certificate or to provide
two versions—as the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East suggested
earlier in today’s proceedings. The Minister explained the
Government’s view that there should be a four-year period of
reflection, although if possible they should report earlier. I think
that that is too long, and that we should get clarity as fast as
possible.
There are
significant issues surrounding birth certificates, and I would like to
make a point about the new clause on the record. The welfare of the
child should be paramount in the consideration of these issues, and it
is important that the Secretary of State holds detailed consultations
about this, particularly as regards the changes in the Bill. There are
some anomalies. For example, if an unmarried couple, who may have known
each other for only a short period, are treated with donated sperm,
they are both recorded on the birth certificate as parents. However, a
same-sex couple in a civil partnership are not both listed as parents
and the woman who did not give birth to the child would have to adopt
it in order to have any legal claim. Under the proposals, at least
theoretically, although I suspect that in a small number of
circumstances it could be the reality, neither of the people named on
the birth certificate—mother and father or mother and other
parent—will have a genetic link to the child.
The fulcrum of
the debate is whether the birth certificate should be primarily a
biological or a social record. That throws up all sorts of issues and
the interesting thing is that the bodies that represent the
donor-conceived community—if I can call it that—have
differing opinions that are almost inversely opposed, and that makes
these arguments even more complicated. I would like to suggest why the
fulcrum should be moved towards the biological end of the spectrum,
rather than the social end. Earlier, we discussed genetic diseases.
That subject will become more and more prevalent and important as
medical and scientific advancements take place and there is a greater
understanding of inherited diseases, such as cancer and
others that we have mentioned, which we hope will be circumvented by
mitochondrial and other technologies. Another issue
is the deception of the state, and someone knowingly conniving—I
use that word in its softest sense—in trying to remove the
child’s genetic parentage from the birth certificate. There is
the issue of sperm donors and donor anonymity, and the point raised
earlier by the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon about donors
having the choice to remain anonymous was pertinent. Inappropriate
marriages may occur if people do not know, or at least have an
indication, about their genetic history, and that goes back to some of
the debates that we had about the age for obtaining the information
from the HFEA.
Discrimination
is another issue. Refusing to mark the birth certificates of those who
are donor conceived, yet allowing two women to be shown as the parents
of a child, inevitably makes a clear distinction between the two types
of donor-conceived people. There are those who are donor conceived and
for whom the information is made public—two women clearly cannot
be the biological parents—and those for whom the information is
not shown on their birth certificate. That seems to be an anomaly. The
new clause, which I accept is not perfect, attempts to put on the
record the great concern and strength of feeling about this
issue.
Personally, I
favour the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East of
a dual birth certificate, although I accept that that could be
bureaucratic. I see the sensitivities of people who might not want to
have it marked on their birth certificate that they were donor
conceived. They may think that an infringement of privacy—why
should someone have to produce that information when applying for a
passport, or whatever birth certificates are used for? However, it is
important that a child has an understanding, wherever possible, of
their genetic make-up. A child should not necessarily have to wait
until the age of 18 to understand that they are donor-conceived,
although most parents do make an attempt to inform the child about such
matters.
There is
conflicting legal opinion on this matter. There are questions about how
the human rights of the child and the right to health safeguards in the
United Nations convention on the rights of the child will be met if a
child is brought up without the requisite knowledge to avoid particular
health consequences. It is important for healthy family life that
genetic defects and intermarriage of relatives are avoided if at all
possible. There is a real danger that, unless some solution is found to
this complex problem, we will exacerbate an already difficult
issue.
Robert
Key (Salisbury) (Con): I endorse entirely what my hon.
Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness has said. I would like to
press him a little and to concentrate on the second paragraph (b) in
the new clause, on the provision of a detailed birth
certificate.
I am grateful
to a number of organisations and individuals who have been in touch
with me—the partnership focus group, the British Association of
Social Workers Project Group on Assisted Reproduction, and the Donor
Conception Network, to name but three. I am particularly grateful to
Professor Eric Blyth, professor of social work at the university of
Huddersfield, with whom I have had some correspondence on this
matter. It seems to me that, in view of the discussion in the other
place and what my hon. Friend has said, there is a problem that we must
crack with the short birth certificate and the so-called long birth
certificate. In the other place no proposal has been made that does not
involve extra bureaucracy, which would risk compromising the privacy of
parents or donor-conceived people, or other members of their family.
The principle risk to privacy is the fact that birth certificates are
public documents. Not only is the long birth certificate, which
provides details of the individual’s parents, increasingly
required for a range of legal and other purposes, but anyone who is
armed with minimal information and prepared to pay a modest fee can
obtain a copy of the long birth certificate of any other person in the
country. I shall not repeat what I said earlier about the discussion in
the other place, but I wonder if my hon. Friend would agree that all
certificates of birth—in other words, the short birth
certificate—could include this text: “Further
information relating to the individual whose birth is recorded on the
certificate may be held on the Human Fertilisation and Embryology
Authority register of information, the parental order register or the
adopted children register.”
All certified copies of
an entry pursuant to the Births and Deaths Registration Act
1953—in other words, the long birth certificate—could
have this
text: “Further
information relating to the individual whose birth is recorded on this
certificate may be held on the Human Fertilisation and Embryology
Authority register of
information.” Adopted
people and people subject to a parental order as a result of a
surrogacy arrangement already have an adoption certificate or a
parental order certificate, respectively, in lieu of a long birth
certificate, clearly indicating their status. The proposal I am making
would mean that all individuals had access to a birth certificate that
alerted them to the existence of other registers. It would not single
out any one individual or, by implication, their parents or family
members; everybody would have this. Thus, the information could act as
a trigger for the individual to make their own inquiries of the
registers, subject to the legally mandated age limits for accessing
such information. Both in advance of undergoing a donor procedure and
as part of the new provisions for parent education, adults who are
contemplating building their family through donor conception would in
the future receive a clear message about the merits of early disclosure
and would be advised about the new text on birth certificates. That
would provide parents with an added incentive for early disclosure,
rather than risking later and possibly traumatic disclosure. That seems
to be something that both Houses have thought is the best way
forward. Dr.
Brian Iddon (Bolton, South-East) (Lab): I have given this
a lot of thought, but it seems to me that the hon. Gentleman’s
proposal would increase the bureaucracy that he was trying to avoid by
the previous suggestion. Most of us would want to know whether other
information was available. We would want access to all those registers
to find out whether we were donor conceived and to see whether they
contained other information about us. That would result in a huge
bureaucracy. 2
pm
| 
