---

Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 111: 111: Clause 14, page 9, line 14, at end insert— ““( ) In subsection (5) after the words ““as a result of treatment”” insert the words ““including, in the case of a woman proposed to be treated with donated gametes or embryos, the need for that child to be told about his or her origins””.”” The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hope that this will be rather less controversial than the last amendment we considered about the need for a father, or the alternative words. We are addressing here the question of donor-conceived people. There is widespread agreement—it was apparent in the Select Committee and in Committee in this House—that it is highly desirable that a donor-conceived person be told of his or her biological origins at the earliest stage at which they can be expected to understand the situation. We spelled this out in the Joint Committee. I will not waste the time of the House by reading out the words because the report says just that. I was gratified that the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, made the same point on the third day of the Committee. In Committee, we canvassed the number of problems facing donor-conceived children, of which without any doubt the most serious is when they discover, perhaps at a late age, that their social father is not their biological father. We had some poignant evidence in Committee from people who had found themselves in that position. I should add that this amendment is not concerned with the question of putting information on birth certificates. I have tabled another amendment, Amendment No. 146—I am not sure we shall reach it today, so we will deal with that later. Amendment No. 111 seeks to include in Section 13(5) of the 1990 Act, among the conditions of licences for treatment, the words, "““including, in the case of a woman proposed to be treated with donated gametes or embryos, the need for that child to be told about his or her origins””." My aim is to put this in the Bill. It is regarded by all the witnesses we saw in the Joint Committee and by many people who took part in the earlier stages of the Bill as being so important that it has to be drawn to the attention of prospective parents who are considering having treatment with donated gametes. I entirely accept the importance of counselling—and there are other amendments in this group about counselling—but it cannot be anywhere more important than in the field of a putative donor conception. The amendment would ensure that this was written into the terms of the licence and it would therefore be bound to be at the forefront of the authority’s and clinicians’ minds. Also in this group is Amendment No. 130, which provides what I might call an additional safeguard by requiring that the guidance is in the code of practice maintained by the authority under Section 25 of the 1990 Act. Therefore, I am looking at taking a two-pronged approach to this matter: first, that the guidance should be in the Bill and, secondly, that it should be in the code. I shall certainly want to listen to the arguments on the other amendments in this group and at the end perhaps I shall be able to draw a conclusion as to whether I really need to press Amendment No. 111. However, that it is important I have absolutely no doubt at all, and I hope that the whole House will agree with that. The question is: how do we deal with it? Do we write it into the Bill or put it into the code or, as I should like, both? I beg to move.