Surrogacy arrangements
285. Clause 66 of the draft Bill provides exemptions
from the provisions of the Surrogacy Arrangements Act 1985 for
not-for-profit bodies in two areas. First, not-for-profit bodies
may receive payments for carrying out activities in two categories:
initiating negotiations with a view to making a surrogacy arrangement;
and compiling information about surrogacy. It would remain unlawful
to receive payment for offering to negotiate a surrogacy arrangement
or for taking part in such negotiations (but these activities
are not unlawful if there is no charge). Second, such bodies may
publish or distribute an advertisement referring to activities
that may be legally undertaken on a commercial basis.
286. Both Professor Ann Buchanan, Director
of the Oxford Centre for Research into Parenting and Children,
and Professor Susan Golombok, Professor of Family Research
and Director of the Centre for Family Research at the University
of Cambridge, noted that surrogacy shared similar issues with
other forms of assisted conception, including issues about the
child's need to know of the circumstances of their conception
and parental understanding of preparing the child for issues about
identity (Q 915). However, Professor Susan Golombok,
who told us that she had carried out the longest study of surrogacy
families in the world, noted that the one thing that distinguishes
surrogacy families from other kinds of families created by donor
conception is that from the outset they "have to be open
with the children about the nature of their conception because
suddenly a child appears". (Q 915)
287. We received evidence from a number of witnesses,
mainly faith-based organisations, who were against surrogacy per
se and therefore against the provisions in the draft Bill.[149]
Others raised specific areas of concern in relation to surrogacy.
In particular, several echoed the concerns of Professor Brenda
Almond, that advertising and the payment of a range of fees represented
"a step towards commercialising surrogacy". (Ev65, para 10)[150]
Comment on Reproductive Ethics (CORE) argued that the procedures
entailed "significant risks" for the women involved.
(Ev79, para 6.1)
288. Others, however, were more positive about
the provisions in the draft Bill. Professor Sir Ian
Kennedy felt that the balance between maintaining an appropriate
response to infertility for some couples on the one hand and prohibiting
commercialisation of the practice on the other "does seem
about right". (Ev108)[151]
Professor Margaret Brazier, from the Centre for Social Ethics
and Policy, School of Law, University of Manchester, argued that
clause 66 simply sought to legitimise current practices in surrogacy
but expressed concern about "legitimising the role of surrogacy
agencies without any process for registering or controlling such
agencies" (Ev109, question 10). The British Association
of Social Workers Project Group on Assisted Reproduction (PROGAR)
and the British Association for Adoption and Fostering similarly
argued that such agencies should be formally registered with the
regulator.[152]
289. We support the balance that the draft Bill
is trying to achieve, but we do not think it goes far enough to
protect both children born as a result of surrogacy and surrogate
mothers. We recommend that the draft Bill be amended to bring
the regulation of surrogacy within the remit of the HFEA.
Internet sperm donation
290. Clause 11 of the draft Bill inserts a new
license category (following amendments to the 1990 Act by the
EU Directive) of "authorising activities in the course of
providing non-medical fertility services". This would allow
a licence for up to 5 years to be granted to authorise the processing
or distribution of sperm, other than the procurement or distribution
of sperm to which there has been applied any process designed
to ensure that any resulting child will be of one sex rather than
the other (Schedule 2, paragraph 1A). This is intended to include
a very small number of internet-based businesses that arrange
for donated sperm to be delivered to women at home for self-insemination.[153]
291. We had a limited amount of evidence on this.
The British Association of Social Workers Project Group on Assisted
Reproduction (PROGAR) welcomed the provisions bringing fresh gamete
and internet supply services within the regulatory framework (Ev29,
para 2.1). The Lawyers' Christian Fellowship and the Church and
Society Council of the Church of Scotland both opposed the internet-based
sale of sperm and the Lawyers' Christian Fellowship argued that
"Society should do all it can to prevent women from conceiving
children in this way" in the interests of the child. (Ev52,
paragraph 19 and Ev97)
292. We support moves to bring such practices
within the regulatory framework.
140 See also Ev51, para 16, Ev07, Ev29, para 2.1, Ev33,
para 8, Ev38, para 8, Q413 Back
141
See also Ev87, para 6, Ev63, Ev55, para 16, Ev62, Ev65, para 8.2,
Ev78, Ev74, Ev24, para 16 Back
142
Ev72, para 15, Ev87 para 6.4 Back
143
See also Ev103 Back
144
See also Ev44 , Ev103 Back
145
See also Ev105, Ev108, Ev43 Back
146
Ev56, section 1, Ev106, Ev25, para 17, Ev97, part 4 Back
147
See Ev24, para 17 and Ev26, para 19 Back
148
See also Ev09, part 4 Back
149
Ev24, para 19, Ev25, para 17, Ev52, paras 16 and 19, Ev65, para
10, Ev79. para 6.1, Ev87, para 3.1, Ev74, para 10 Back
150
See also Ev78 and Ev79 para 6.1 Back
151
See also Ev29, paras 2.9 and 3.10, Ev37, paras 2.8 and 3.14 Back
152
Ev29, paras 2.9 and 3.10, Ev37, paras 2.8 and 3.14 Back
153
Explanatory Notes, para 8 Back