Proceeding contribution from Lord Alton of Liverpool (Crossbench) in the House of Lords on Monday, 21 January 2008. It occurred during Debate on bill on Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill [HL].
Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill [HL]
My Lords, I was just coming to that point. I am grateful to the noble Lord because it is relevant. I am glad that we do not permit so many babies to be born, as happens in the United States. Yet the noble Lord will see from the front page of yesterday’s Sunday Times that a young woman has become the record surrogate, having herself had eight babies under the procedure. The noble Lord is right that the HFEA says that a maximum of 10 may be permitted in Britain, but that is a significant number of siblings, half-siblings and cousins. When the Minister comes to reply, perhaps he can tell us whether the number 10 refers to successful treatment cycles or to children. Given that the HFEA states that one in four IVF births is multiple, that is highly germane. Since sperm donations would probably be at the same IVF clinic, or at least in the same city, and possibly all within a year or so—for example, in the case of a student at a university—there may well be a good chance that children born from those donations will grow up in the same city at around the same time, some of them possibly going to the same school or even being in the same year group. Without absolute knowledge of your genetic profile, the possibility of unwitting consanguineous or incestuous relationships is obvious. Three years ago, I pressed the Government to give children the right to know the identity of their biological parents. The donor anonymity that previously existed was lifted. I was grateful to the Government for that but, as the noble Earl, Lord Howe, said in Committee, that tells only half the story. We gave the right to inquire, but created no duty to tell. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child puts it well, stating that we must ensure that every child can preserve his or her identity. Let me conclude by citing one other person, who wrote to me to say: "““There is more to identity too. A sense of identity is of crucial importance to a balanced wellbeing. I know, since I’ve only gained one in my 39th year, and it’s changed my life profoundly. There was a sudden and profound seismic shift in my psyche. I became ‘connected’. To spend your life not knowing who your mother and father were is a torture only those that have experienced it can fully understand””." The amendment does not go as far as I—and others—would have liked to have gone. There was a thoughtful amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, that we considered in Committee about in some way marking birth certificates. There have been amendments from the noble Earl, Lord Howe. At this stage in this discussion, I think that the amendment and the way charted forward by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, is right, and I hope that the Government will give it a fair wind.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 698 c108-9
- Session
- 2007-08
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords chamber
- Subjects
- Children Codes of practice Counselling Fertility Human embryo experiments Donors IVF Fathers Parents Stem cells Human-animal hybrid embryos
- Legislation
- Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill (HL) 2007-08
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-16 00:34:21 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_437046
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_437046
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_437046