Clause 26
Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill [Lords]
11:30 am

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

There may be a logical reason for it, but why is such a clause placed at this part of the Bill and not sequential to clause 3, because that was when we discussed mitochondrial donors? It does not seem to fit here.

I want to ensure that I, as well as other members of the Committee, understand the clause correctly. It deals with proposed new sections 31ZA to 31ZE. Will the Minister confirm that that means that the offspring has the right to find out about the mitochondrial donor and the donor’s children? Does the mitochondrial donor have the right to find out about the ensuing offspring, despite the fact that only 0.5 per cent. of their genetic material is in the child and does not have any defining characteristics whatever?

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

I can answer the second question; I do not know about the first. The hon. Gentleman might recall that we had an extensive discussion on the right to know and information about mitochondrial donations. The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon asked whether there would really be a need for the mitochondrial donor to be identified. We agreed at the time that, because regulations are connected with such information, such issues were exactly the type that would need to be consulted on, and that the regulations would need to be seen in draft.

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

I have a clear recollection of that discussion, but my reading of the Bill is that proposed sections 31ZA to 31ZE give the offspring the right to find out about the mitochondrial donor and the donor’s children. The Minister is suggesting that that is not the  case and that, subject to consultation, such matters will be dealt with in subsequent regulations. I accept that I might have misinterpreted the Bill, but I should be grateful if she could clarify matters.

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

I can clarify that that is the case. The regulations deal with that entire part, so it will be possible to take it forward. The requirement is not linked.

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

Proposed new section 35A(1) states that regulations

“may provide for any of the relevant provisions”,

and the hon. Gentleman has described some of the provisions. As I have said, I am dubious whether a system needs to be set up for a healthy child who has no relevant genetic parentage—in my opinion—to be invited to consult a register and so on. Arguably, it is part of the private medical history of the parent even though it impacts on the child, but children do not have the right to know that their mothers had tubal surgery, for example. Such matters will need to be debated before regulations emerge.

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

I absolutely agree. When the hon. Gentleman made that point, with justifications that he felt supported that view on access to information, he put it clearly. At the time I also said that in my view—this is certainly provided for as regards regulations—the issue is a matter for debate and consultation, which would need to take place before the regulations are drafted. There would then be consultation on the draft regulations before they went through the affirmative procedure in both Houses.

The measure appears where it does in the Bill because it contains regulation-making powers, and they tend to be placed at the back of an Act, in relation to the points that they connect to, so it is about drafting legislation. I say in all honesty to the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness that that is the advice from advisers, parliamentary counsel and all those who regularly write legislation. I tend to worry about the bigger issues of principle, rather than the consequential sequencing of the clauses. I hope he accepts that.