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

I have one last point to make in response to the issues raised by hon. Members.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East asked about whether the fact that a child was donor-conceived should be on the birth certificate. In recognising the difficulty that others, such as the Joint Committee on Human Rights and the Royal College of Midwives, have with that being on a public document, he raised the prospect of whether one way round the problem would be to have two birth certificates—one public and one private. The private one would be longer and would indicate that the individual was donor-conceived.

I will not express an opinion either way, because we are discussing one of the options that we would need to consider when carrying out a review, which we have committed ourselves to doing within four years of the Bill coming into force. The question is whether there is a way in which the law can be changed to balance the issues that hon. Members have raised—the right to know of the donor-conceived child against the rights of the donor and anonymity—and to make progress. That is certainly the sort of issue that could be explored, and that was why the Government decided that it was better to consider it in the context of a review and to report back to the House.

The schedule is long because it deals with England and Wales; where the law varies in Scotland, it deals with Scotland, and it also deals with Northern Ireland. Much of it is duplication, but for different jurisdictions.

John Pugh (Shadow Minister, Treasury; Southport, Liberal Democrat)

In the previous sitting, the Minister mentioned the pre-screening of embryos and that type of thing. She made a perfectly valid point, but I think that she would recognise that many diseases for which there is a genetic predisposition  cannot be properly screened for, certainly at the embryo stage. Also, over the 18 years before the child can make inquiries about his genetic background, there might be other discoveries that link genetic factors with illness. It is therefore not a complete answer to say that the embryo that is the subject of in vitro fertilisation is privileged in that respect. It will be privileged in some respects, but there will still be a problem.

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

I am sorry to disagree, but I do not think that the hon. Gentleman’s point makes the case either. First, to say “Well, something could happen in the future, but we don’t know,” applies to us all. Secondly, the parents will have a duty and all parents will want to do the best for their child. If something happened before the individual was 18, the parents would clearly need to think very carefully about what steps they might be able to take in those circumstances. We are talking about screening for things that we do not know that we need to be screened for. With respect, it is a preposterous proposition to say that therefore this should apply to somebody else. Of course, when the child gets to 18, they have an absolute right to know the identity of the person. This is an interesting debating point, but it does not shed any light on the reasons why we would want to put the proposed information on the birth certificate.

I am not saying that the Government have set their face against the proposal. I am saying that this is a highly complex issue, which balances a whole series of rights, including those of the donor. We need to consider the possibilities in the light of the new legislation, and that was why the four-year review was proposed.

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

I agree with both the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Southport—[Interruption.] I know that that is hard to do, but I am trying to bring members of the Committee together.

There will be advances—perhaps even genetic chips—in the future, and we might be able to screen for diseases that we cannot screen for at the moment. Nevertheless, the Minister is right that we cannot future-proof things, and my hon. Friend’s point is not a good enough argument for changing the current position. Indeed, I do not think that it will ever be a good enough argument for invading the privacy of families. There is always a risk that we will inherit something—life is full of risks.

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

There is no end to the hon. Gentleman’s talents. He is—I say this genuinely, but also as a bit of a joke, so I hope that he takes it in the right spirit—a conciliator as well. He makes the important point that the distance between what I and the hon. Member for Southport are saying is not that great. We are both saying that we need to consider the issue properly and balance the rights of all those involved, and we should not do that in haste.

Mark Simmonds (Boston and Skegness) (Con) rose—

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

That was a good, conciliatory point to end on, but the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness wants to intervene first.

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

I understand what the Minister says, and she is right that these matters are extremely complicated. Will she say a little more, however, about how the Government came to the view that four years was the appropriate length of time for the consultation? Although these are complex issues, four years is still an extraordinarily long time to take reaching a conclusion.

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

We made a commitment to carry the review forward within four years. As I said, the Government were seeking common ground by making it clear that we had not set our face against the proposal or decided on the issue in principle. We also clearly needed time to assess things such as “telling and talking”, the Donor Conception Network project and the extra work on counselling. Equally, we were trying to meet the legitimate concerns of Lord Jenkin, who proposed the four-year period in his amendment in another place. We picked that up, but included the caveat that the review would happen within four years. I assume that Lord Jenkin was looking for a sunset provision to ensure that the review would definitely be done by a certain time, although it could be done earlier if necessary. That was why we settled on four years. To follow on from the comments made by the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon, let me say that the Government were trying to be conciliatory—we were trying to find common ground.