Chapter 6
303. We support the definitions in clauses 14
and 15 of the draft Bill and recommend that the detail in relation
to how these definitions will be applied be left to the regulator.
304. We consider that the Government's approach
on this issue is misguided and rests on no sound point of principle.
We can see no clear reason why certain categories of inter-species
embryo should be permitted under licence and 'true' hybrids proscribed.
We recommend that the HFEA should be left to judge which entities
may be created, kept and used for research purposes under licence.
305. We note that, when what is now the 1990
Act was before Parliament, the issue of embryo research was put
to a free vote. We consider that the creation and use of inter-species
embryos for research purposes is a comparable issue, and we recommend
that the issue is put to a free vote in both Houses.
306. If Parliament supports the provisions regulating
inter-species embryo research, we would make the following further
recommendation. In line with our recommendation supporting an
architecture of 'permitted regulation', we recommend that the
Government should revisit its approach to the definition of inter-species
embryos in the draft Bill with a view to providing a general definition
along the lines of the approach set out in paragraph 176, with
authority given to the regulator to interpret and apply that definition
to individual research applications, based on the principles set
out in legislation; statutory authority to exempt areas of research
from the licensing provisions where appropriate; and with a statutory
power for the Secretary of State to make regulations, only on
the application of the regulator, to make provisions in respect
of a particular research application.
307. We recommend that the Explanatory Notes
to the draft Bill be revised to make clear and explicit that a
"permitted embryo" cannot be created from the genetic
material of two women alone and that, in the case of mitochondrial
donation, the child will essentially have only two parents, one
male and one female. We also recommend that the Government gives
an ongoing commitment that, if the technology became available
to create an embryo only from the genetic material of two women
without the need for fertilisation by a sperm, any question of
whether such an embryo should be allowed to be inserted into a
woman should be a matter for Parliament to decide.
308. We recommend that the Explanatory Notes
to the draft Bill be revised to make clear and explicit that a
cloned embryo cannot be a "permitted embryo" and we
also recommend that the Government gives an ongoing commitment
that any question of amending these provisions should be a matter
for Parliament to decide.
309. We recognise that this is a delicate area.
However, given the Government's apparent acceptance of the principle
of selecting for 'saviour siblings' we do not understand why the
practice is limited to "life-threatening" conditions
capable of treatment using umbilical cord blood stem cells. We
recommend that the draft Bill be amended to substitute "serious"
for "life-threatening".
310. Although we have heard some arguments in
favour of sex selection for non-medical reasons and in some circumstances
we recognise that it may not do harm, on balance we recommend
that the draft Bill be amended in line with the HFEA's current
policy.
311. There is clearly some confusion surrounding
the Government's decision to omit from the draft Bill the current
provision which prohibits the genetic modification of embryos
for research purposes. We make no determination on this point
but we recommend that the Government clarifies its policy decision
to allay the concerns which have been expressed.
312. We recommend that the Government should
consider the concern raised by the HFEA in relation to donor gametes
and the withdrawal of consent to the storage of an embryo. Subject
to this, we support the provisions [on consent to storage and
use of gametes and embryos] in Schedule 3 to the draft Bill.
313. We agree with the Government that there
should be some mechanism for allowing the storage of gametes in
cases where an individual lacks the capacity to give consent,
either through temporary mental incapacity or because of legal
minority. We recommend that the Government consider more carefully
the technical point raised by the Royal College of Pathologists;
and consider making express provision for the circumstances in
which it would be lawful to take gametes without explicit consent.
This aside, however, we support the provisions on storage without
consent.
314. We recommend that the proposal to remove
the 'need for a father' provision from section 13(5) of the 1990
Act should be put to a free vote of both Houses of Parliament.
To inform that vote, the balance of view of this Committee is
that it would be detrimental to remove entirely the requirement
to take into account the 'need for a father'. Instead, we recommend
that the current provision in section 13(5) on "(including
the need of that child for a father)" should be retained
but in an amended form in a way that makes clear it is capable
of being interpreted as the 'need for a second parent' in line
with the parenthood provisions currently in Part 3 of the draft
Bill. In making this recommendation, we do not seek to discriminate
against single women seeking treatment and we recommend that in
such circumstances and the requirement to consider the need of
a child for a second parent should, as now, not be a barrier to
treatment.
315. We recommend that, in relation to gametes
or embryos created or donated for research, the ten year limit
should either be extended or removed.
316. We also recommend that there should be a
system of consent such that, at the commencement of fertility
treatment, couples are asked for their consent that any gametes
or embryos left unused for treatment at the expiry of the ten
years become the property of the HFEA and may then be used for
research purposes. At any point up to the 10 year limit, there
should be the ability to withdraw consent so that gametes or embryos
would be destroyed in accordance with patients' wishes.
317. We recommend that the draft Bill be amended
to extend to cohabiting couples and those planning intimate relationships
the right of access to the register to find out whether they are
related to the other person. We also recommend that the Government
amends the draft Bill to require consent from the other person
before access is provided.
318. We recommend that the draft Bill be amended
to allow the HFEA to set up a voluntary contact register [for
donor conceived people].
319. We recommend that the age of access to the
Register should be reduced to 16.
Chapter 7
320. We recognise the force of the argument that
the fact of donor conception should be registered on a person's
birth certificate. This would create the incentive for the parent(s)
to tell the child of the fact of his or her donor conception and
would go some way to address the value of knowledge of genetic
history for medical purposes. Moreover, unlike where children
are born through natural conception, assisted conception by its
nature involves the authorities and we are deeply concerned about
the idea that the authorities may be colluding in a deception.
However, we also recognise that this is a complicated area involving
the important issue of privacy, as well as issues of human rights
and data protection. We therefore recommend that, as a matter
of urgency, the Government should give this matter further consideration.
321. We recognise that, given the issues involved
in the practical application of these provisions, counselling
is important and we recommend that the Government should ensure
that counselling services in these areas are available and have
sufficient funding to provide services to all who require them.
322. We recommend that clause 65 should be removed
from the draft Bill.
323. We recommend that the draft Bill be amended
to bring the regulation of surrogacy within the remit of the HFEA.
