(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
Mark Simmonds (Shadow Minister, Health; Boston and Skegness, Conservative)
I do not want to rehearse points that the Minister raised this morning and go over old ground, but I have a couple of questions on the Government amendments. The first relates to Government amendment No. 65. Will she clarify whether the expectation under proposed new sub-paragraph (2)(b) of paragraph 2 of schedule 3 to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 is that the gametes, embryos and human admixed embryos will be retained unless consent is withdrawn? Is it a presumption of consent or a presumption of withdrawal?
My second question relates to Government amendment No. 67. Of course, I welcome parents being able to consent on behalf of their children, as we discussed earlier; otherwise, there would be a class of illnesses that was never researched in this way, as, due to the illness, adulthood would not be reached and thus consent would not be obtained. It is absolutely right that these provisions are inserted in the Bill, but what will happen if one parent consents and the other does not? What will happen if one parent disagrees strongly with the consent? Can parents or a parent ultimately withdraw consent after it has been given?
On Government amendment No. 82, I have a simple question. Under the law in Scotland, a child is considered to be under 16, whereas in England it is under the age of 18. What is the reason for that difference?
The issue to which Government amendment No. 102 relates was debated at length in the other place. I thank the Minister for tabling this very long amendment, which I understand supersedes and overrides amendment No. 7, which stands in my name. I am delighted that the Government have taken on board some of the concerns that were expressed by me and by others, but I would like to raise a couple of specific points. One is the interrelationship between proposed new paragraphs 15C(2) and 15C(6)(a), which limits research on the original debilitating disease. What will happen if the individual has another disease that is proven to be scientifically linked to the original disease? That may come about as a result of scientific advances. Will we have to return and alter primary legislation or can the change be made in regulations? Is there a need to alter the Bill?
The other provision in the Government amendment that I am very concerned about is proposed new paragraph 15D(3), whereby if a researcher cannot find a carer who is willing to be consulted on the use of an adult who is unable to give consent in respect of cells, the researcher can nominate someone to act on their behalf, who may not know the adult lacking the ability to consent and may not have that adult’s interests at heart. I am not sure that there are enough safeguards to ensure that such people, who will not necessarily be related to the person who cannot give consent, have the necessary ability and have in mind the interests of the potential patient and person who cannot grant consent. It is very important that sufficient safeguards are in place to ensure that that is the case.