Mark Simmonds (Shadow Minister, Health; Boston & Skegness, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 6, in clause 24, page 20, line 10, at end insert—

‘(5) A relevant individual can also be an individual who has reached the age of 18 whose genetic parent was a relevant individual under subsection (4) but did not themselves consult the register and is themselves deceased.’.

There are many circumstances in which a child of a donor-conceived person would like to know their genetic background, and it is now widely accepted that knowing that background is beneficial. A person’s sense of identity is tied up with where they came from, and an increasing number of diseases and illnesses are found to have some basis in our genes, so knowing one’s genetic background is beneficial.

Some people choose not to consult the register, and we should all respect their decision. We would not allow anyone to consult the register if a living donor-conceived person has themselves chosen not to. However, in a specific case where a donor-conceived person has died, their children might like to know their genetic background.  The amendment would allow for that person to consult the register only in the case where the donor-conceived person has died.

In the other place, the matter was discussed extensively and the Minister in the other place promised to consider that particular issue further. That is why I tabled the amendment—to try to understand where the Government have got to in their thought process with regard to that point. I accept that it is a complex issue, and indeed I see why the Government, after due consideration of the reading of the Bill in the other place, have decided not to make an appropriate amendment in this area.

Evan Harris (Shadow Minister, Innovation, Universities and Skills; Oxford West & Abingdon, Liberal Democrat)

I want to raise questions about some of the assertions made in respect of this matter. While I do not oppose the provision of information to people who are interested where that information is held, and it is quite clear in advance that the donor understands that information might be made available, one has to consider the privacy of parents and individuals who do not want their children—that relates to the point raised by the amendment—or people more generally to know that they were donor-conceived.

It is important to identify the key points. My understanding is that it is clearly of benefit to know whether there is a genetic issue in terms of health, that the Bill already provides for that, and that we are talking in these provisions about identifying information generally speaking. The amendment at least is about getting more information and identifying information. Obviously, it is important that people understand that they are not seeking to marry or enter a sexual relationship with someone who is related to them.

One has to be careful, however, before one asserts for sure that there is significant benefit from knowing one’s genetic background, because there may a disbenefit from discovering a family secret: for example, that there was infertility and donor insemination, that that had been kept secret from the person concerned, or that there may have been infidelity involved. It is not clear to me from looking at what little evidence there is in this area that it has been established that someone will always benefit from being able to know their genetic identity and to establish their genetic background; or, for that matter, that people have an absolute right, or even a very strong arguable right, to have that information.

Mark Simmonds (Shadow Minister, Health; Boston & Skegness, Conservative)

The hon. Gentleman is right to make those points, and that is why it is important that the amendment can apply only to those whose parent is deceased. I think that that makes a significant difference, certainly with some of the “family secrets” that the hon. Gentleman seems to be mentioning. I think that they start to dissipate once the person involved has died.

Evan Harris (Shadow Minister, Innovation, Universities and Skills; Oxford West & Abingdon, Liberal Democrat)

I do not want to get too heavily involved in the generational issue here, because the provisions are prospective, but one can envisage a situation whereby the grandparents of the person seeking the information did not want it known in their family that infertility services had been used. I think that the provision will  have to be prospective since a couple of years ago, so we are talking a number of decades hence, but the amendment would provide that those people do not have any opportunity to prevent not just the child who was conceived from finding out—as is the right under the Bill, regardless of whether I think it is a strong right or always beneficial—but a third party, and it is a third party from their point of view. I will be interested to hear the Minister’s response to the amendment. I understand the basis upon which the hon. Gentleman has tabled amendment. One can imagine that it would be of real interest and significance to an individual. That was said in the House of Lords and I do not dispute the sincerity of people who believe that, but I think that what is left out of these debates all the time, especially in the House of Lords, is the right of the people who were patients receiving fertility treatment to have some privacy.

I am a great believer in people who are having fertility treatment telling their children, at an appropriate age, that they were conceived through donor insemination, but it is not my view that they must do that and it is clearly not the Government’s view, because the Government are not forcing them to do so or automatically releasing information.

I think that the Government are absolutely right, because family dynamics are complex and it is not right for the state to wade in in that way. While the amendment is relatively modest in that respect, here and in other debates I urge consideration for the privacy and memory of the parents and patients. If they have not told someone, the fact of it being found out means that they have, essentially, concealed it. That has implications for all sorts of things, including people being written in and out of wills regardless of their legal entitlement to inherit. A can of worms exists here, and I think that that is why we must have caution in all these areas.

Dawn Primarolo (Minister of State (Public Health), Department of Health; Bristol South, Labour)

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.

Evan Harris (Shadow Minister, Innovation, Universities and Skills; Oxford West & Abingdon, Liberal Democrat)

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 (Shadow Minister, Health; Boston & Skegness, Conservative)

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.

Mark Simmonds (Shadow Minister, Health; Boston & Skegness, Conservative)

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 (Minister of State (Public Health), Department of Health; Bristol South, Labour)

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.

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 (Shadow Minister, Health; Boston & Skegness, Conservative)

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.

Stephen McCabe (Government Whip (technically a Lords Commissioner, HM Treasury); Birmingham, Hall Green, Labour)

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.

Roger Gale (North Thanet, Conservative)

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.]