New Clause 1
Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill [Lords]
1:45 pm
Mark Simmonds (Shadow Minister, Health; Boston and Skegness, Conservative)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause relates to the complex issue of birth certificates, which we touched on earlier. In the context of the debate surrounding part 2, new clause 1 relates to some of the issues raised when we discussed schedule 6. The new clause would ensure that the Secretary of State made regulations either to annotate a birth certificate or to provide two versions—as the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East suggested earlier in today’s proceedings. The Minister explained the Government’s view that there should be a four-year period of reflection, although if possible they should report earlier. I think that that is too long, and that we should get clarity as fast as possible.
There are significant issues surrounding birth certificates, and I would like to make a point about the new clause on the record. The welfare of the child should be paramount in the consideration of these issues, and it is important that the Secretary of State holds detailed consultations about this, particularly as regards the changes in the Bill. There are some anomalies. For example, if an unmarried couple, who may have known each other for only a short period, are treated with donated sperm, they are both recorded on the birth certificate as parents. However, a same-sex couple in a civil partnership are not both listed as parents and the woman who did not give birth to the child would have to adopt it in order to have any legal claim. Under the proposals, at least theoretically, although I suspect that in a small number of circumstances it could be the reality, neither of the people named on the birth certificate—mother and father or mother and other parent—will have a genetic link to the child.
The fulcrum of the debate is whether the birth certificate should be primarily a biological or a social record. That throws up all sorts of issues and the interesting thing is that the bodies that represent the donor-conceived community—if I can call it that—have differing opinions that are almost inversely opposed, and that makes these arguments even more complicated. I would like to suggest why the fulcrum should be moved towards the biological end of the spectrum, rather than the social end. Earlier, we discussed genetic diseases. That subject will become more and more prevalent and important as medical and scientific advancements take place and there is a greater understanding of inherited diseases, such as cancer and others that we have mentioned, which we hope will be circumvented by mitochondrial and other technologies.
Another issue is the deception of the state, and someone knowingly conniving—I use that word in its softest sense—in trying to remove the child’s genetic parentage from the birth certificate. There is the issue of sperm donors and donor anonymity, and the point raised earlier by the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon about donors having the choice to remain anonymous was pertinent. Inappropriate marriages may occur if people do not know, or at least have an indication, about their genetic history, and that goes back to some of the debates that we had about the age for obtaining the information from the HFEA.
Discrimination is another issue. Refusing to mark the birth certificates of those who are donor conceived, yet allowing two women to be shown as the parents of a child, inevitably makes a clear distinction between the two types of donor-conceived people. There are those who are donor conceived and for whom the information is made public—two women clearly cannot be the biological parents—and those for whom the information is not shown on their birth certificate. That seems to be an anomaly. The new clause, which I accept is not perfect, attempts to put on the record the great concern and strength of feeling about this issue.
Personally, I favour the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East of a dual birth certificate, although I accept that that could be bureaucratic. I see the sensitivities of people who might not want to have it marked on their birth certificate that they were donor conceived. They may think that an infringement of privacy—why should someone have to produce that information when applying for a passport, or whatever birth certificates are used for? However, it is important that a child has an understanding, wherever possible, of their genetic make-up. A child should not necessarily have to wait until the age of 18 to understand that they are donor-conceived, although most parents do make an attempt to inform the child about such matters.
There is conflicting legal opinion on this matter. There are questions about how the human rights of the child and the right to health safeguards in the United Nations convention on the rights of the child will be met if a child is brought up without the requisite knowledge to avoid particular health consequences. It is important for healthy family life that genetic defects and intermarriage of relatives are avoided if at all possible. There is a real danger that, unless some solution is found to this complex problem, we will exacerbate an already difficult issue.