COMMONS AMENDMENT (Hansard, 18 October 1990)

§ The Lord Chancellor

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2. I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 7 and 21. The House will be aware that during the passage of the Bill a number of amendments were moved both here and in another place which, if accepted, would have had the effect of bringing the technique of GIFT—gamete intra fallopian transfer —within the ambit of the Bill. These amendments were defeated in this House and in Standing Committee in another place. The Government recognise the concerns of those such as Dame Mary Donaldson, the chairman of the Interim Licensing Authority, and the Maternity Alliance, who wish to see GIFT licensed by the statutory authority, but we are also aware that the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists takes the opposite view.

In response to the debate in this House and in another place, the Government brought forward in another place a three-point package contained within Amendments Nos. 2, 7 and 21. I believe that this will recognise the concerns that have been expressed and hope that it will also be accepted by this House as a sensitive way of dealing with the matter.

The noble Lord, Lord Walton, earlier told the House, in anticipation of the amendments, that he supported them. The main effect of the amendments is to provide powers to bring GIFT within the licensing system if the Government consider that to become necessary in the future. Amendment No. 2 would provide that regulations could specify circumstances in which a person would be prohibited from placing sperm and eggs in a woman unless authorised to do so by a licence.

That regulation-making power could be used to bring the placing of sperm and eggs in a woman within the scope of the licensing system provided by the Bill. The regulations may provide that Clauses 12 to 22, which deal with conditions of licences, grant, revocation, variation and suspension of licences and appeals against the decisions of licence committees, would have effect with such modifications in respect of GIFT as may be specified in regulations. Regulations 1111 could therefore specify, for example, that a woman could not receive GIFT unless she has been given a suitable opportunity to receive proper counselling about the implications of being treated using the GIFT technique. Amendment No. 24, which I shall be dealing with later, will make those regulations subject to affirmative resolution.

The second effect of the package is that Amendment No. 21 would create an offence if regulations under Clause 4(2A) were made and any person placed sperm and eggs in a woman in any circumstances specifed in these regulations where he was not authorised to do so by a licence.

The third effect of the package relates to the code of practice which the authority is required by Clause 25 to maintain. The code will give guidance about the proper conduct of activities carried on under a licence. Amendment No. 7 would allow the authority to give guidance in its code of practice about the use of any technique involving the placing of sperm and eggs in a woman; whereby or not the technique was brought within the scope of the Bill by regulations. In other words, it may be possible to give guidance about the activities without going to the full length of regulating. If the guidance does not prove effective then the power to make regulations exists.

Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2.—(The Lord Chancellor.)