(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 3
Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill [Lords]
1:00 pm
Evan Harris (Shadow Minister, Innovation, Universities and Skills; Oxford West and Abingdon, Liberal Democrat)
As we have heard, this is an extensive group of amendments, and I have a number of questions in addition to those that have been asked. I shall try to go through them in the order of the amendments, but I hope that you, Mr. Gale, the Minister and the rest of the Committee will bear with me if my comments end up jumping about.
First, on Government amendment No. 65, I do not necessarily follow how proposed new sub-paragraph (2A) links to proposed new sub-paragraph (2)(c). Proposed new sub-paragraph (2A) states:
“A consent to the use of a person’s human cells to bring about the creation in vitro of an embryo or human admixed embryo is to be taken unless otherwise stated to include consent to the use of the cells after the person’s death.”
That seems fair enough, but proposed new sub-paragraph (2)(c) states that
“where the consent is given by virtue of paragraph 8(2ZA) or 14(2)”
it must
“state what is to be done with the embryo or human admixed embryo if the person to whom the consent relates dies”.
Proposed new sub-paragraph (2)(c) adds that the consent
“may (in any case) specify conditions subject to which the gametes, embryo or human admixed embryo may remain in storage.”
The position on proposed new sub-paragraph (2)(b) is straightforward because the person who gives consent and who then dies is the person from whom the embryos are taken, but the question is how the provisions relate to the death of the person who gives consent for that person. My hon. Friend the Member for Southport raised that question independently in a message to me, and I hope that I have done his question justice while raising my own. I hope, too, that the Minister will forgive me if she feels that she has already clarified how the provisions will work, but I did not spot her explanation, so it would be helpful if she clarified the point.
Amendment No. 67 is quite complex. Again, I would be grateful if the Minister clarified what effect the insertion of proposed new sub-paragraphs (3ZA), (3ZB) and (3ZC) will have. Those provisions are mirrored in other amendments, but it is not entirely clear—even reading the amendment in the context of the Bill and the Act as amended—exactly what their effect will be.
My next question relates to some of the Minister’s other amendments. The schedule raises another issue, but it is a matter for the schedule stand part debate, so it will be easier if I return to it then.
I turn now to the substantive Government amendments. It is appropriate at this point to speak to amendments (a) and (b)—