---

Summer Recess Adjournment

I wish to take part in this debate to raise several issues that have come out of my constituency mailbag and surgeries. The first of those issues came to my attention at my surgery last Saturday at Worcester Park library, when a couple of my constituents came to tell me about their niece who, at the age of 22, had been diagnosed with cervical cancer. She was given the necessary treatment: she had operations, and she also received chemotherapy and radiotherapy. Before the treatments proceeded, she was offered the opportunity of a cycle of ovary stimulation and egg harvesting, which meant that her fertilised eggs could be safeguarded by being frozen and stored so that they could be used in the future. The treatment made her infertile but the storage of those harvested embryos meant that she had the chance to have children. Thanks to a surrogacy arrangement, she now has a child. So far, so good—but, as was noted earlier in the debate, the law of unintended consequences sometimes operates when we in this place legislate. Back in 1990, this House passed an Act of Parliament dealing with the regulation and control of embryos that provided that embryos could be stored for up to five years. Just last year, in 2008, another Act was passed to change the framework and extend the storage period to up to 10 years. It also provided that new regulations could be made to allow for further extensions thereafter. The problem is that the five-year period under the old Act expires for my constituents' niece before the new Act comes into force. Her embryos are therefore in limbo, between one Act of Parliament and another. As a result, even though the embryos were stored well within the 10-year period specified by the new legislation, they will have to be destroyed in September of this year. With them will go the hopes of there being any further children for that family. The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority was consulted by the Government about this very issue. Its response was very clear, as the consultation documents show. It said:""An unfortunate matter of timing ought not to be grounds enough to deny access to extension for those who actively desire it"." I can tell the House that the people in this case do actively desire just that. There is a statutory instrument on this matter currently before the House. It has not been debated yet, although there has been a formal request that it should be. It is really important that people who find themselves in the limbo between the old Act and the new one should not be confronted with having their embryos destroyed before this House has had the opportunity to debate the matter. We need to persuade Ministers to change their minds and accept that, in this case, it is inappropriate for them to cite the wrongness of retrospection. This retrospection is about life and the opportunity for someone to have children.