HL Deb 13 March 1990 vol 516 cc1476-511

3.59 p.m.

The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern)

My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.

Moved, That the Bill be further considered on Report.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Clause 29 [The Authority's register of information]:

Lord Prys-Davies moved Amendment No. 58: Page 15, line 43, leave out ("of that") and insert ("non-identifying").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the House will be sad to learn that the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, is ill in hospital. At his request I therefore beg the leave of the House to move the amendment.

It seems to me that the purpose of this amendment is to ensure that only non-identifying information is made available to an applicant for information who is seeking to know whether or not he was born in consequence of treatment services. I am far from sure whether or not that is already adequately covered by Clause 31(3)(c). That represents an amendment moved by the Government at Committee. However, even if it is covered, Amendment No. 58 would reinforce the principle that only non-identifying information is to be made available. Whatever the position today, there is always the risk that identifying information may be kept by a licensed holder by virtue of directions to be made under Clause 13(2)(c) by the authority and that disclosure of such information could subsequently be authorised by regulations yet to be made, even if that is not the intention of the present Government.

If the amendment were acceptable to the House, it would not only be consistent with Clause 31(3)(c), but would make it difficult, if not impossible, for regulations to be made authorising the disclosure of information which would enable the donor to be identified. I beg to move.

The Lord Chancellor

My Lords, I am sure that all of your Lordships will be sorry to learn that the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, whose amendment it is, is in hospital. I am sure that we all wish him a speedy recovery.

Noble Lords

Hear, hear!

The Lord Chancellor

My Lords, the noble Lord has taken much interest in the matters that we are discussing.

The amendment would have the effect of making it impossible for regulations to be made requiring the authority to give an applicant information which would enable him or her to identify a genetic parent. The Government's policy on the disclosure of information to children born as a result of treatments regulated by the Bill is that they should be given access to non-identifying information about their genetic parents. The majority view of those who responded to the consultation document that we sent out following the report of the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, and her colleagues also shared this view. But this is a matter on which views may change and we recognised that in the White Paper which stated: Attitudes to the anonymity of donors, however, may well change over time as happened with adoption. The Government therefore proposes to keep the position under review. The Bill will include powers to amend the categories of information to be made available to children born following donation, so that the possibility of granting access to identifying information in future remains open". It is our firm intention that the regulations should specify that the authority may not disclose identifying information, but we believe that the possibility of change in the future should not be ruled out.

It is for that reason that the Government do not accept the amendment. As we said in the White Paper, we believe it right, in the light of developments, to keep open the possibility that identifying information should be made available.

The current balance as a result of consultation is against it, but it is the possibility of change in this respect that we wish to recognise. I hope that the noble Lord may feel in the light of this answer that the amendment should not be pressed.

The position on the clause to which the noble Lord referred is Clause 31(3)(c) which is intended to qualify the application of Clause 31(1). That is its purpose. However, the Bill would still enable regulations to be made if it were thought right to allow identifying information in future, although the present intention is to restrict that information to non-identifying information.

Lord Prys-Davies

My Lords, I believe that the response of the noble and learned Lord is a little worrying. It leaves the door open for regulations to be made in the future which would enable the identification of the donors to be made available. It is feared that that could have a serious impact on the supply of donors. Nevertheless, at this stage I do not propose to press the amendment to a Division. I beg leave to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

4 p.m.

Lady Saltoun of Abernethy moved Amendment No. 59: Page 16, line 15, at end insert— ("() Where any question arises with respect to the effect of section 28(3) of this Act, the Authority shall provide at the request of the College of Arms or the Lord Lyon King of Arms any relevant information on the register kept in pursuance of this section.").

The noble Lady said: My Lords, the amendment is to enable those whose duty it may be to ascertain that a particular person is the right person to inherit under Clause 28(3) to have access to the minimum information necessary to enable them to carry out that duty. It may be that Clause 30 covers the situation and that it is therefore unnecessary. However, it is important that the necessary information is available to those who need to know if Clause 28(3) is to be capable of being implemented. I cannot believe that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor would have moved Amendments Nos. 55 to 57 last Tuesday if they had not been capable of being implemented. In my stupidity I find the Bill very confusing and I should like to be clear as to the mechanism. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord could enlighten me.

The Lord Chancellor

My Lords, Clause 29 of the Bill requires the authority to keep information about the keeping or use of gametes of identifiable donors and identifiable persons for whom treatment services were provided or which shows that an identifiable individual might have been born as a result of treatment services. It also regulates circumstances under which that information may be disclosed to persons who were or may have been born in consequence of treatment services. Subsection (3) of Clause 28 provides that Clauses 26 and 27, which deal with the meaning of "mother" and "father" under the Bill, shall not affect any rights of succession to any dignity or title of honour. The amendment would, where any question arose with respect to the effect of Clause 28(3), require the authority to provide the College of Arms or the Lord Lyon King of Arms with any information kept on the register under Clause 29. This information comprises information about treatment of individuals and storage of gametes and embryos from an identifiable individual, together with information that an individual was, or might have been, born as a result of treatment services.

The College of Arms and the Lord Lyon King of Arms, as your Lordships know, deal with the pedigrees of persons who may be connected with the succession to a coat of arms, and with certain other questions on titles of honour. The amendment would not affect the question of succession to peerages which is, of course, a matter for your Lordships' House.

Under the Bill as it stands, the disclosure of information held by the licensing authority is very strictly controlled. Clause 30 provides for the special case where the Registrar General is concerned that a man is not the father of the child. With this one exception, release of information can be made only to the person who was or may have been born as a result of licensed treatment services in two types of case. The first is when after age 18 he seeks information on his genetic origins. The second is if he asks for informaton about whether he and an intended spouse are or may be genetically related. There is no provision for the disclosure of information to individuals to whom the information does not relate.

The amendment would make an important exception to the general provision that information is not available other than to the person who is or may have been born as a result of licensed treatment. It would enable the College of Arms or the Lord Lyon King of Arms to obtain freely information held by the authority which either the college or Lord Lyon considers relevant. There would be no limit to the extent to which this information could be published either by the college and Lord Lyon, or by those to whom the college or Lord Lyon gave it, since the restrictions on disclosure by persons to whom Clause 31 applies do not apply to information disclosed in accordance with Clause 29.

It is necessary to recall that this is personal and medical information of a kind which has always been regarded as a matter of the strictest confidentiality between doctor and patient. To accept the amendment would mean two things: first, that the college and Lord Lyon had a right to this information which was equal to the rights of the person who was or may have been born as a result of treatment; and secondly, that the college and Lord Lyon had a right to this information that was greater than any other person whose access to that information is restricted by the Bill.

I find it difficult to accept either of these propositions. In particular I have to bear in mind that on the matters with which the college and Lord Lyon are concerned, the Bill does not alter the present position; that is, that dignities and titles of honour pass through the blood line and are not covered by Clauses 26 to 28 of the Bill. The college and Lord Lyon already face the problem of having to decide succession in cases where parentage may be disputed for whatever reason, including treatments provided for infertile couples. In many of these cases, medical information about the putative parents and the child may be relevant to the issue. But whether medically confidential information can and should be disclosed for these purposes is a matter to be decided under the existing laws of England and Wales, and of Scotland, and is ultimately a matter for the courts to consider if a case is brought to them.

At present, I see no sufficient reasons to disturb this position. I fear that the amendment, although very well intentioned, would open up a series of claims from other people who would find it helpful to have confidential medical and personal information about people which derived from medical records. The basis for the Government's policy is that it would be wrong to make special provision in the very specialised context of succession issues involving children born as a result of the treatments licensed by the Bill. Where these issues arise in nature, so to speak, the college and the Lord Lyon would need to consider arguments brought on the basis of such evidence as was available and to determine the matter as best they could. I do not see any difference in principle which should alter the position for AID children and the like.

The Bill, after careful thought by the Government in the consultative document and the White Paper, does make some special provisions, especially for the person who is or may have been born as a result of licensed treatment. But that information is personal to him or her unless he or she chooses to disclose it more widely. I believe it is not justified to go further than the Bill does and for that reason, I do not feel able to accept the amendment.

Baroness Phillips

My Lords, I find the logic of the noble and learned Lord very curious. It does not seem unreasonable that someone should want to know who is their father. Whether we are tallking about this instance or any other situation, this only adds more unreality to the Bill. We are talking about something which is so precious. Every human being should have the knowledge as to who is their father and mother.

Whatever the reason, it seems to me that if we deny this, we are doing something which is quite wrong under the law but also under the religion which we all say that we practise. Because the noble Lady has raised it in this context does not mean that it is not right in any other context. I believe that she raises a very important point and I hope that the noble and learned Lord can produce some reasons which are more interesting than those given so far as to why the amendment is not acceptable.

Baroness Elles

My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord replies, I very much support what the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, has said. We have already discussed in Committee the question of whether the name of the father should be revealed to the child at any particular time. I believe that we have had very little evidence of any good reason why that name should not be given except, as I understand it, that there may be a shortage of gametes. So far, that is the only valid reason which has been produced. If I was a child in that situation I would find that a totally unacceptable reason as to why I should not know the name of my father.

Those of us who have the good fortune to know the identity of our father must realise how terrible it is for a child not to be able to know who is their father, particularly in circumstances where there will be no father. My noble and learned friend said that there would be circumstances in which there would be no father known to the child, where perhaps there was no husband or the husband was dead or something had happened to him. For a Government who claim that the family is the basis of society, I find it very hard as a Member who has always supported that Government to find that we are totally destroying the concept of family by destroying the possibility of a child, in many circumstances, ever knowing who or what is his or her father.

Lord Ennals

My Lords——

The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead)

My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will give way. We are all out of order. The Companion is quite clear that no noble Lord should speak after the Minister has replied except the mover of the amendment, who in this case is the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun. There is a rider in the Companion which states that if the Minister intervenes early in order to assist the House, then it is quite natural that noble Lords will wish to speak. However, with great respect to noble Lords, that was not the case on this occasion.

Lord Strabolgi

My Lords, it was.

Lord Belstead

My Lords, my impression was that my noble and learned friend quite deliberately waited, as is his custom, in order to see whether noble Lords wished to speak, and when no noble Lord spoke my noble and learned friend replied.

I suggest that on this occasion, now that this line has started, we finish this debate by allowing all noble Lords who wish to speak to do so and my noble and learned friend, if he so wishes, with the leave of the House can reply. The noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, will then finish the debate. However, this is a one-off and we should try to stick to the Companion in the future.

4.15 p.m.

The Earl of Lauderdale

My Lords, without wishing to take up the time of the House I should like to support what has been said by my noble friend Lady Elles. This is a very serious matter and I am sorry that we did not understand that my noble and learned friend was intervening to close the debate. I entirely agree with what has been said by my noble friend Lady Elles and the noble Baroness opposite. It is quite intolerable that we should proclaim our support for the family and that the Government should do that and then deny to a child or even an adult the knowledge of the identity of his father.

The Earl of Erroll

My Lords, I should like to ask a question of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor as a result of what he said. I do not see how the Lord Lyon and the College of Arms can discharge their duties properly—and the Lord Lyon has to determine matters which relate to succession of many things, sometimes titles and sometimes other matters pertaining only to Scotland—without some of this information. I fully understand the noble and learned Lord saying that the full medical information should not be disclosed to the Lord Lyon nor should it be disseminated more widely by the Lord Lyon. However, I cannot see how the Lord Lyon can possibly carry out his duties effectively without having access to some part of this information. Surely it may be possible to include a similar but more restrictive clause in the Bill which would perhaps satisfy the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor.

Lord Ennals

My Lords, does not this amendment apply only to information which might be made available to the College of Arms or the Lord Lyon? It does not relate at all to the question of whether a person has access to that information from the age of 18 onwards. Am I right?

The Lord Chancellor

My Lords, I think it is important, in view of the interventions of the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, my noble friend Lady Elles and my noble friend Lord Lauderdale, to say that the point which they are raising does not appear to me to be relevant to this amendment.

Noble Lords

Hear, hear.

The Lord Chancellor

My Lords, in a sense it may have been extremely relevant to the last amendment which was proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies. I indicated the situation with regard to that amendment. At the risk of being somewhat out of order I shall explain that the amendment dealt with the question of whether, for example, it would ever be proper to disclose the identity of a donor.

We are now dealing with a different question: that is whether the College of Arms or the Lord Lyon should have the right to obtain information from records kept by the licensing authority which might have a bearing on the discharge of their functions. The successions with which they are concerned are to be by blood rather than, for example, as a result of one of the treatments licensed under the Bill.

My comments in relation to that matter in no way cut across the points which were raised later. They are completely different matters and if I were to deal with them fully I should need to go back further than the last amendment. However, the question posed in the amendment is: should the Lord Lyon or the College of Arms have access to the particular records?

As was said by the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, the College of Arms and the Lord Lyon have responsibilities which they discharge on the basis of the evidence available to them. The evidence properly available to them can be circumscribed by law if appropriate. As I said earlier, the Lord Lyon and the College of Arms must deal with cases in which the evidence may be scarce. It may not be easy to establish exactly the circumstances of a particular individual's birth. However, they have no particular or special rights to require information.

If there is a question about a particular treatment and succession the person asking the Lord Lyon or the College of Arms to make a grant or declaration could well be asked to deal with the matter. After the age of 18 a person affected has the right to obtain such information. In that situation the College of Arms could make it a condition that the information should be disclosed by the person making the request in order that a check can be made.

I must emphasise—and sometimes it is forgotten—that no information on the register can ever be conclusive on that question for reasons which I have explained. At best it would be information about a treatment; it could not produce information with regard to the birth. More detailed information might then be required and in that case the ultimate test would probably be genetic testing.

I hope that I have answered the points raised. In view of the interventions I must point out that in our debates on this Bill and others I have sought never to intervene at the Report stage until I have given all noble Lords who wish to intervene a chance to do so. I believe that that makes for orderly debate, although sometimes I have been almost invited to intervene because the general feeling has been that the debate had exhausted its subject matter. However, apart from such circumstances I have sought to ensure that all noble Lords who wish to speak do so before I speak.

Lady Saltoun of Abernethy

My Lords, I remain in a state of confusion. It appears that the resolution of a claim might be considerably delayed if it had to wait until the claimant was aged 18 before he could obtain the information to prove or disprove his case. However, I shall read most carefully what the noble and learned Lord said and take legal advice. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Teviot moved Amendment No. 60: Page 16, line 15, at end insert— (" (7) A person who has attained the age of eighteen ("the descendant") may by notice to the Authority require the Authority to comply with a request under subsection (8) below and the Authority shall do so if— (a) the information contained in the register shows that a named ancestor of the descendant was, or may have been, born in consequence of treatment services, and (b) the descendant has been given a suitable opportunity to receive proper counselling about the implications of compliance with the request. (8) The descendant may request the Authority to give the descendant notice stating whether or not the information contained in the register shows that a person other than a parent of the named ancestor would or might, but for sections 26 to 28 of this Act, be a parent of the named ancestor and, if it does show that—(a) giving the descendant so much of that information as relates to the person concerned as the Authority is required by regulations to give (but no other information), or (b) stating whether or not that information shows that, but for sections 26 to 28 of this Act, the descendant, and a person specified in the request as a person whom the descendant proposes to marry, would or might be related.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I intervene in the debate somewhat quietly bearing in mind what was said previously in respect of Amendment No. 58. The views are not opposite but they are differing. Noble Lords put forward certain views in respect of the amendment tabled by the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun. There will be plenty of opportunity to discuss them more appropriately in respect of these amendments.

Before doing so I wish to remind your Lordships of the Committee stage when you may have thought that I was smacked. I took the Committee to a Division and was beaten by 97 votes to 35. However, bearing in mind the Government Whip and the Opposition views, I was glad to have 35 votes and the opportunity of putting forward a point of view. The Committee took a certain view about the birth certificate which I regret. This afternoon I have tabled two amendments—Nos. 60 and 62—which I shall ask your Lordships to consider in their entirety despite what happened in Committee.

Clause 29(3) and (4) provides that an applicant may seek to discover whether he or she is about to marry a parent, sister or brother. That is entirely right and proper. However, at present there is no right for a donor child to make enquiries about whether the person he or she is about to marry is his aunt or her uncle. Nor can the worried person ask his or her parent to make an application under Clause 29(3) and (4) on his or her behalf because the parent is not about to marry the other party. My amendment seeks to remedy that defect.

My amendment also gives the descendants of donor children the right to the same information about the genetic parents of named ancestors as the donor children have about the genetic parents. That appears to be fair and reasonable because at least some of the genes inherited by a donor child from his or her genetic parent will be passed on by the donor child to his or her children. The amendment does not seek to provide any fuller identification about the genetic parent of a named ancestor than is provided under subsection (4)(b) to the donor child about his or her genetic parent. In both instances regulations will fix the amount of information provided. I beg to move.

Baroness Elles

My Lords, I apologise for having spoken to the earlier amendment at the wrong time. However, I hope that now is the right time to speak to the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Teviot. I seek clarification because I am concerned to know how, at the age of 18, anyone will know that they have the right to ask the authority about their origin. I am sorry to return to this point, but it is a basic matter in relation to the amendment.

Any child who is in possible line for succession to a title or grant, particularly in Scotland, would be concerned as to his position until he becomes 18. He might be counselled at the age of 14 and told: "Look, James, you cannot go to an authority and ask what your mother or your ancestor did before you were born, because nobody will tell you anything until you are 18 years of age; and therefore the matter will be held in abeyance until you are 18 when you can verify your genetic origin and situation".

I may have completely misunderstood the purpose of the amendment, but it seems to me that there is a lacuna in the system whereby children will be born by AID and they will never have the possibility of knowing their donor. That is the Government's policy which has been accepted by the House. How do children know that eventually, at the age of 18, they may have the right to inquire of the authority what their position is at that date in order to succeed to some title or grant?

I should be most grateful for clarification. I apologise if I am making a meal of the matter; it is something which worries me.

4.30 p.m.

Lady Saltoun of Abernethy

My Lords, I am worried by the idea that at the age of 18 a person who wants to marry somebody should find out whether or not that person is their brother or sister, or whatever, in view of the way in which young people live. Nowadays very often they have been living together since the age of 16, or illegally from before the age of 16. They may have a child or two to their names. It is thoroughly unrealistic to say that then, if they find out that they are brother or sister, they cannot get married, but if they are not so related they can get married. That situation could cause untold misery.

Either people should be able to find out whether they have been born by any of those processes at a younger age than 18, or they should not be able to obtain the information simply because they want to get married.

The Earl of Erroll

My Lords, I agree with the principle of the amendment. It is right that someone should know whether they are about to marry someone to whom they are genetically related. I agree with my noble friend Lady Saltoun that 18 is probably not the correct age, but that matter can be looked into later. The principle of the amendment is correct in that people can discover whether or not they are genetically related. That situation should be extended beyond the first generation. In other words, one should be able to find out not only about brothers and sisters, but also whether one is related as a result of sharing grandparents.

The Duke of Norfolk

My Lords, I have listened to this debate and to other matters connected with it. As a nation we are getting into awful muddles about childbirth. People have children without being married when they are very young. I think that your Lordships should consider whether the truth should be known. Behind my feelings is the thoughts that if somebody is the son or daughter of a donor, the truth should be known. We will get into a deeper and deeper muddle by trying to protect people in a charitable way. The truth is the important matter.

Lord Prys-Davies

My Lords, some noble Lords may have overlooked Clause 29(5). A young person under the age of 18 years who intends to marry may appoint an agent to apply to the authority for the information which is required. As I understand the matter, the authority will disclose the information to the young person.

The Earl of Erroll

My Lords, that section refers to parents. The amendment relates to grandparents.

The Earl of Lauderdale

My Lords, I agree with my noble friend the Duke of Norfolk. At the end of the day the truth is more important than fiction. Surely we, as a state, have a duty to respect and honour the truth? That is all I should like to say in support of my noble friend.

The Lord Chancellor

My Lords, I should like to point out that Clause 29(5) provides that: A person who has not attained the age of 18 ('the minor') may by notice to the Authority specifying another person ('the intended spouse') as a person whom the minor proposed to marry require the Authority to comply with a request under subsection (6) below, and the Authority shall do so if— (a) the information contained in the register shows that the minor was, or may have been, born in consequence of treatment services, and (b) the minor has been given a suitable opportunity to receive proper counselling about the implications of compliance with the request. Subsection (6) states that: The minor may request the Authority to give the minor notice stating whether or not the information contained in the register shows that, but for sections 26 to 28 of this Act, the minor and the intended spouse would or might be related. That is as high as the matter can be put. The point is that the person need not be 18. I think that the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, and to some extent the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, have not fully taken that aspect of the provision into account.

I entirely agree with the view that truth is vitally important. However, there are situations in which confidentiality requires to be respected. Such a situation is dealt with by the amendment. The effect of the amendment would be to allow the descendants of children born as a result of the treatments to be licensed by the new authority the same rights as the children themselves to obtain information to which their ancestors would be entitled, that is to such non-identifying information as the authority may determine in regulations or to information which would tell them on application to the authority whether or not they had been born as a result of one of the licensed treatments. I understand the intention of the amendment very well and can see that it would assist children of future generations born to those who came into the world as a result of one of the treatments to be licensed under the Bill. It would, however, be a very wide ranging provision and I think that the Bill should confine the availability of sensitive and private information about the donor to those who result immediately from the donation.

They would be entirely free to pass on that medical and genetic information to their own children if they chose to do so. In many cases they might well want to do so, particularly, where information about genetic history was involved.

Your Lordships will remember the amendment which was agreed to on the last occasion. It concerned the need for the welfare of any child who was possibly born as a result of treatments to be considered before the treatment was given. That aspect of the matter will be elaborated upon in guidance. It may be that it would be right for a person born as a result of one of those treatments to pass on the information to his or her children who were born in the ordinary way. However, that is a different matter from giving, without limit, any descendants of theirs a right to that information by application to the authority. It is best to put this matter on the basis that the person immediately affected would be able to acquire the information. We would have discharged the obligation that would arise by making it possible for those born as a result of treatment to have access to such information. It would be better to leave the transmission of that information to succeeding generations—to the initiative of individual parents.

My noble friend asked how people would know whether or not to go to the authority. The application could be made by anyone. The authority is bound to respond to anyone, once the age of 18 has been attained, in respect of such information as the authority possesses. It would only occur to most people to seek information if they had been given an indication in some way or other that such was their circumstances. If one wanted to be sure, however, or one felt doubtful for any other reason, it would be open to go to the authority and obtain the information once one was 18 and had been counselled about the effect that that would have.

No doubt the sort of circumstances that would give rise to a special desire to find out would be that the parents had told the child, or that the child had learned it from some other source or had come to suspect it in some other way. I believe I heard schools suggested, and that is possible. Sometimes information is transmitted at school that would not be transmitted in other circumstances. The reliability of such information may be affected to some extent, so no doubt it would be wise to check up on information received in that way. The opportunity for doing so is certainly contained in the Bill.

It is important to keep in mind, in relation to the consideration that my noble friend the Duke of Norfolk and others have mentioned, that we are talking about a very small proportion of births as a result of treatments regulated by the Bill. The figure is about 2,000 a year, while in the population at large it is thought that about 5 per cent.—I have mentioned this figure previously—are not aware that their social father is not their genetic father.

In these circumstances we have records under which, if a person wishes to make a check on this aspect, he or she is able to do so within the limits that the Bill provides. No such possibility exists in the ordinary case, as I have mentioned. That appears to me to be the best way of handling what is, on all counts, a difficult and delicate situation where parents have found it desirable, in the ordinary case, to go to their doctor and have special arrangements made and special help given in order to have children whom they are prepared to treat as their own.

As I said earlier in our debates on this Bill, generally speaking the children who are born by such treatments are highly wanted children because the treatments are not particularly pleasant for those involved. Here we have, as a typical case, a wanted child for whom the parents will wish very much to do their best as that child develops in the world. I believe that we may with some confidence leave it to the people who have brought these children into the world to look after them properly. As I said, they have the possibilities that the Bill gives but to go further would be to go too far and I therefore hope that my noble friend Lord Teviot will not press his amendment.

4.45 p.m.

Lord Teviot

My Lords, I have to say that obviously I shall not press the amendment but I hope your Lordships will bear with me if I briefly explain why I do not intend to do so.

Some of my noble friends spoke in favour of the amendment as they are very unhappy about this matter. It is an unhappy chapter. On one point we are all agreed—that it is a highly sensitive area. We are all seeking to do our best, but we hold differing views. As I said previously, they are not opposing views but differing views.

I hope that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor answered the point raised by my noble friend Lady Elles. I hope that he did because I am not clear as to the position and I do not think I could give an answer.

I am grateful to my noble friend the Duke of Norfolk, who spoke about truth and confidentiality. I think that question must be left to your Lordships to make up your own minds. Perhaps I may just tell one very short story which was given to me by the British Agencies for Adoption and Fostering. A couple had a child by this treatment. On a second occasion, as they did not know the parents, they felt it totally unfair to have another child where they could not ascertain details about the treatment, so they adopted. That may be a good thing.

We have had a very fair discussion but I think at this point we should leave the matter for another occasion. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 30 [Information to be provided to Registrar General]:

Lady Saltoun of Abernethy moved Amendment No. 61: Page 16, line 17, after ("child") insert ("or a woman is not the mother of a child").

The noble Lady said: My Lords, in Committee, reported in Hansard at col. 1270 on Tuesday 13th February, the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, said in reply to amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, and myself: I think my noble friend Lord Teviot is asking that the authority should have records from which it can be determined whether a particular person has in fact been subject to one of these treatments at some time which might be related to the birth of a particular child. That is certainly something that one would want to consider".

It would appear that the records kept by the authority under Clause 13(2) would probably be adequate for identification purposes. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord will give an assurance that that is so.

It would also appear that Clause 30 may be adequate to meet the case where a person may have been born as a result of sperm donation but it does not appear to cover the case of a person born through egg donation. In certain cases, particularly in Scotland where succession through the female line is not unusual, it could be of some importance. Amendment No. 61 closes that gap by amending Clause 30(1). I beg to move.

The Lord Chancellor

My Lords, subsection (1) of Clause 30 requires the authority to provide information to the Registrar General in cases where it is alleged that a man is not the father of a child and the Registrar General needs to have that information to determine whether the claim is well founded. For example, if a man who has been registered as the father of a child by virtue of being married to the child's mother subsequently denies being the father the Registrar General will need to find out whether the child might have been born as a result of treatment involving the use of donated sperm to which the man did not consent.

This amendment attempts to extend this provision to cases where it is alleged that a woman is not the mother of a child. However, such extension is unnecessary. It is a question of fact whether a woman has given birth to a child and the Registrar General would not need to have access to records held by the authority to establish that fact. If the entry in the Register of Births is incorrect, the registrar of births and deaths has power to correct the error in accordance with regulations made under the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953.

Therefore, as regards registration, which is what we are dealing with here, the woman from whom the child is born is the mother. Therefore, the extension is not necessary. I hope in the light of that explanation the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

Lady Saltoun of Abernethy

My Lords, the trouble is that I cannot accept that a child born by egg donation is the child of the woman to whom the child was born. I regret that this is an area where I fundamentally disagree with the Government. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 31 [Restrictions on disclosure of information]:

Lord Teviot moved Amendment No. 62: Page 16, line 43, at end insert— ("(cc) more than one hundred and fifteen years after the event to which the disclosed information relates,").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment requires the authority to keep the contents of the register strictly confidential, apart from defined exceptions, while a person is given treatment services and the children born are still alive. However, there comes a time when all concerned are dead and there is no need to continue confidentiality. I draw an analogy here with the individual consensus records which, apart from certain narrowly defined exceptions, are kept strictly confidential for 100 years after the event but which can be freely consulted after 100 years.

Genealogists are eagerly awaiting the release of the 1891 census records on 2nd January 1992. Surely we can agree that the register held by the authority does not need to be kept confidential for all time. My amendment states that the ban Clause 31(1) on disclosure of information in the register does not apply 115 years after the date of the event to which the information relates. After 115 years everyone concerned will be dead, as far as the normal experience of survival shows, apart from an example which my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham mentioned.

That is why I have picked such a timespan. From then onwards those having historical, genealogical or other interests in the information can be allowed to have that information. I add to that the fact that this authority will be known as a fringe body. It will not fall under the aegis of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor of that time unless the situation alters. It is not a public record. Many years ago I sat on the Advisory Council for Public Records and I felt very unhappy about the various fringe bodies of all kinds. They did not have an archive policy. I believe that the period of 115 years is perfectly in order. I also wish to remind your Lordships of an event which occurred 115 years ago, which was the Supreme Court of Judicature Act. Their Lordships did think of posterity. I beg to move.

The Lord Chancellor

My Lords, it is true that an important event occurred 115 years ago which was by no means confidential. As regards this amendment and as my noble friend has explained, it has the effect of allowing everyone access to records held by the authority 115 years after the events to which they relate. I expect that it would in practice, if it were accepted, assist great-grandchildren of children born as a result of these techniques possibly to acquire new information about their ancestry. No doubt it would also benefit those who wish to follow genealogy in an academic sense.

However, it would mean that, at an arbitrary date, what had not been revealed to anyone except the authority and possibly the Registrar General, would at an instant in time become available generally. When I say it would not have been revealed to anyone, I mean to anyone other than the people immediately affected. The effect of this could be quite marked not merely in giving information to the descendants of children born after licensed treatment, but also in giving information to descendants of gamete donors. These descendants of donors, even more than the descendants of children born after licensed treatment, would be faced with a new world, since, unlike the latter, they would hitherto have had no means of discovering that they were affected by the Act.

It is obvious that to give access to these records even after 115 years, might well open up great possibilities of litigation and the like. I believe that, by the time 115 years have gone by, a sufficient experience of the working of this Act will have been obtained for people to have a better view about what should be done than we have now. For my part I hope that your Lordships may feel that, if we can settle the essential ingredients of the control system for the present time, we can happily leave this matter to be dealt with by those who succeed us under whatever name or whatever circumstances. I believe that the subject may then be better understood.

While I perfectly understand my noble friend's motive in moving this amendment and also why he has selected the period of 115 years, particularly in the light of his experience in advising on public records, I believe that we should be wise to leave this matter out of the Bill, at least for the time being. In the light of that explanation, I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Teviot

My Lords, obviously, I am slightly disappointed, but I understand. I hope that people who are around in 115 years' time will read this debate, realise that we are not stiff and starchy and that we have dealt with this matter cheerfully and with humour and that we have thought of them. In that light, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hooper) moved Amendment No. 62A: Page 17, line 30, leave out from beginning to end of line 41 and insert— ("35A. Personal data consisting of information showing that an identifiable individual was, or may have been, born in consequence of treatment services (within the meaning of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990) are exempt from the subject access provisions except so far as their disclosure under those provisions is made in accordance with section 29 of that Act (disclosure of certain information by Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority)."").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment has been introduced to clarify the exemption from the subject access provisions of the Data Protection Act 1984 which is provided for at present in Clause 31(8) of the Bill. This amendment substitutes a new provision in Part IV of the 1984 Act for that which Clause 31(8) at present provides. The effect of the amendment, which has been drawn up after detailed consultation with the Office of the Data Protection Registrar, is to widen the range of information which it is legitimate for subjects to gain access to.

As Clause 31(8) is at present drafted, persons receiving one of the treatments to be licensed by the new authority would have been prevented from seeking information which would be held on computers by the authority in the register it is required to keep under Clause 29. There seems no good reason why they should be prevented from seeking this information, and accordingly this amendment seeks to confine the exemption to information which would identify children born as a result of the treatments to be licensed by the Bill. I am sure it is right that this provision targets as accurately as possible the information which should not be made available—that is to say, information which should be exempt from the subject access provisions in the Data Protection Act 1984—and I am happy to commend it to the House. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 32 [Amendment of Surrogacy Arrangements Act 1985]:

The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 63: Page 18, line 3, after ("embryo") insert (", of an egg in the process of fertilisation").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is one of the amendments introduced in clarification of the definition in Amendment No. 1 to which I have already spoken. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 36 [Offences]:

Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 63A: Page 20, line 33, at end insert— ("(7A) Where a person to whom a licence applies or the nominal licensee makes or receives any payment in money or money's worth, other than a payment authorised by directions, in respect of any supply of gametes or embryos, he is guilty of an offence.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendment No. 63A provides that it shall be an offence to make or receive payment in money or money's worth in respect of any supply of gametes or embryos, unless the payment is authorised by directions. Amendment No. 65, which has been debated with Amendment No. 72, provides for a penalty of up to six months' imprisonment or a fine not exceeding level 5 for the offence. At present a fine on level 5 amounts to £2,000. I spoke to these two amendments together with Amendments Nos. 12 and 19 on the first day of Report stage.

At that time the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson of Lymington, raised an interesting point. He queried whether the phrase, payment in money or money's worth",

would cover all possible situations and suggested that another form of words might be preferable. I am grateful to him for that contribution to the debate. We are examining the point and if we find that the current wording is unsatisfactory we shall bring forward a government amendment at Third Reading to rectify it.

Amendment No. 63A is in substitution for Amendment No. 64, to which I spoke last week. The previous amendment provided that an offence could be committed only by the person holding the licence. The current amendment provides that the offence can be committed either by a person to whom the licence applies or the nominal licensee. The expression, a person to whom a licence applies", has a special meaning in the Bill and includes the person responsible, any persons designated by him or the nominal licensee, or any person acting under the direction of the person responsible or a designated person.

We made this change because it seemed wrong to the Government that some person other than the person holding the licence could, for instance, receive money for gametes without being in breach of the law, whereas the person holding the licence would have committed an offence if he or she had done the same. I commend the amendment to the House. I beg to move.

Baroness Phillips

My Lords, I shall no doubt be told by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, that I am wasting time, but I should like to ask how this offence will be discovered.

Viscount Caldecote

My Lords, I should like to say how much I welcome this amendment, which is relevant to earlier discussion at Report stage. It is most important to ensure that there is no trade in embryos, gametes and the like.

Lord McGregor of Durris

My Lords, I too should like to welcome this amendment.

Baroness Hooper

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend and the noble Lord for their support of this amendment. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, that the offence would be discovered in the normal course of registration of the licence by the authorities, as it seems to me.

Baroness Phillips

My Lords, I think we all know that illegal abortions were never registered or notified. It seems to me that anybody who will do this for money is hardly likely to register.

Baroness Hooper

My Lords, with the leave of the House, perhaps I may say that my intention was to clarify that in the course of the process of inspection this information would come to light.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 64 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]

5 p.m.

Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 65: Page 20, line 34, leave out ("or (7)") and insert ("(7) or (7A)").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment was discussed with Amendment No. 12. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 42 [Short title, commencement, transitional provision and repeal]:

Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 66: Page 23, line 18, leave out ("other").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 41. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 67: Page 23, line 18, at end insert— ("(6) Her Majesty may by Order in Council direct that any of the provisions of this Act shall extend, with such exceptions, adaptations and modifications (if any) as may be specified in the Order, to any of the Channel Islands.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendment No. 67 would make it possible for Her Majesty the Queen by Order in Council to extend the provisions of the Bill, either in whole or in part, to any of the Channel Islands. This provision is required in case the islands decide that they wish to be covered by this legislation and that it was not appropriate for them to enact legislation of their own in this matter. The amendment does not include the Isle of Man, as the authorities there have indicated that they wish to enact their own legislation on the matter. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Schedule 1 [The Authority: Supplementary Provisions]:

Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 68: Page 24, line 29, at end insert ("and (c) any person who is, or has been, directly concerned with commissioning or funding any research involving such keeping or use, or who has actively participated in any decision to do so.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 68, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 69 and 70. These amendments reflect the spirit of the amendment moved in Committee by my noble friend the Duke of Norfolk.

Amendment No. 68 would add to the groups of people who are disqualified for appointment as chairman or deputy chairman of the authority any person who is, or has been, directly concerned with commissioning or funding any research involving the keeping or use of gametes or embryos outside the body, or who has actively participated in any decision to do so.

Amendment No. 69 adds the group mentioned in Amendment No. 68 to the groups from which the Secretary of State is required to appoint at least a third but less than half of the other members of the authority.

Amendment No. 70 preserves the existing provision which requires the Secretary of State to appoint at least one member from each of the two original groups. He will therefore not be under a duty to appoint a person who has been involved with commissioning research to the authority.

The combined effect of these amendments, by adding persons who have been actively involved in commissioning research to those who are disqualified from being appointed as chairman or deputy chairman of the authority (that is to say, doctors and scientists involved in keeping or using embryos outside the body), ensures the majority of members will be persons who are not in any of these categories. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Hooper moved Amendments Nos. 69 and 70: Page 24, line 31, leave out ("a) or (b)") and insert ("(a), (b) or (c)"). Page 24, line 32, leave out ("those paragraphs") and insert ('paragraphs (a) and (b)").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 69 and 70.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Viscount Caldecote moved Amendment No. 70A: Page 25, line 29, at end insert— ("() The Authority shall appoint to its staff competent inspectors in such numbers and with such qualifications as the Authority considers necessary to enforce the conditions of the licences granted to the premises and any other relevant provisions of this Act.").

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, at Committee stage I moved an amendment to Clause 33 dealing with the annual inspection of licensed premises and the appointment of inspectors. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor promised to consider these points and on that basis I withdrew my amendment.

I understand that the issue with regard to annual inspections is to be dealt with by an amendment to Clause 9 at Third Reading, about which I am very happy. However, the problem of the appointment of inspectors has not so far been dealt with and I understand that there is no intention to do so. I therefore tabled this amendment as I believe it to be of considerable importance. Perhaps I may draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that in Schedule 1, paragraph 8(1) states: The Authority may appoint such employees as it thinks fit".

Amendment No. 70A to Schedule 1, to insert a new sub-paragraph after sub-paragraph (1), gives strength to that first sub-paragraph.

The amendment received widespread support from all parts of the Chamber at Committee stage. It is important because many of us who, after very considerable thought, voted for research did so on the basis that there would be the strictest possible regulation and control of the licences granted and of the premises to which licences were granted for conducting the research.

I should like to make the point that there is no possible implied criticism of the authority or the members who may be appointed to the authority. The object of the amendment is to strengthen their arm against imposed economies in the future and to ensure that there will be a strong core of inspectors available to carry out the duty of proper inspection, laid on the authority.

The amendment is intended to ensure that the authority has competent inspectors. It will have members who are expert in these affairs, as well as lay members, but they will be part-time. They may, to some extent, be involved in these affairs themselves, although one of the amendments which we have just passed gives good protection against that. However, they will be part time and not paid. In my view it is essential to have a small core—I emphasise "small"—of highly qualified expert inspectors in sufficient numbers to ensure the most rigorous and unbiased inspection to prevent any abuses—a point which has concerned many noble Lords during the passage of this Bill.

I emphasise "highly qualified". Many scientists who are knowledgeable in this field have emphasised to me that it would be very easy for someone who is not highly qualified in this field to have the wool pulled over his eyes and for work to be done which should not be done in accordance with the provisions of this Bill. We must ensure, in every possible way, that that does not occur.

I emphasise also that the amendment makes clear that, The Authority shall appoint to its staff competent inspectors in such numbers and with such qualifications as the Authority considers necessary".

If it believes that only one or four inspectors should be appointed, that is entirely up to the authority. It will strengthen the arm of the authority if we make absolutely clear, without a shadow of doubt, that it is its duty to appoint qualified people to undertake the inspection of licensed premises. I understand that an amendment will shortly be introduced which will provide for such inspections to take place annually. The purpose of this amendment is to clarify and strengthen the arm of the authority to enable it to carry out its duty. I commend it to your Lordships. I beg to move.

Lord McGregor of Durris

My Lords, I supported the noble Viscount in Committee and I support him now. The authority is the key to securing public confidence in the operation of the Bill. Therefore it must be clear that if the authority does not have the capacity to appoint the sort of inspectors that the noble Viscount mentioned, its utility in this respect must be diminished. In my view, anything which would imperil the ability of the new body to secure public confidence would be tragic. I very much hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to accept the amendment.

The Earl of Perth

My Lords, I rise to express my support for the amendment. The Government may say that this issue is already covered by paragraph 8(1) of Schedule 1. However, although I understand the words in the subparagraph, they are nonetheless worrying. It reads, with the approval of the Secretary of State and the consent of the Treasury". The amendment makes it more difficult for the Treasury to say, "Oh, you must economise. We cannot allow this". It gives greater strength to the authority in pleading its cause. I believe that a great number of licences are issued of which some of your Lordships may not be aware; for example, I am told that at the Manchester medical school there are no fewer than 100 licensees, and perhaps more. I only mention that figure—I hope that it is correct—to show that this is a very wide field and that the authority must be able to fulfil its duty. Therefore, although it could be pleaded that the existing provision covers the issue, I think that if the amendment as drafted by the noble Viscount were to be accepted it would give us all a great deal of comfort.

5.15 p.m.

Lord Houghton of Sowerby

My Lords, I must warn the House against creating more government inspectors. They are a terrible nuisance not only to the people they inspect but also to the bodies to which they belong. What should we call them—this is one of the important questions—embryo inspectors? I warn noble Lords that if we start a cadre of embryo inspectors they will be looking for a career. Then we shall be asked to create senior embryo inspectors. They will want to build empires and have superintendent embryo inspectors. I know about this from experience because I have been in the field of government inspectors all my life. There are never enough of them, they are difficult to recruit and they want a career. Even in the upper echelons of the legal profession in the Civil Service they want a career and an outlet.

Another consideration is the fact that these inspectors must know what it is that they are inspecting. That is not always easy to define. They must know more about embryos than those who are engaged in experimenting with them, otherwise they will not know whether the terms of the licences are being exceeded. Noble Lords have no idea what a complete nonsense this proposal is. It is no good the noble Viscount shaking his head in disagreement. I believe that this is entirely a matter for internal discipline.

One of the creations we achieved under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986—and I shall return to that subject in regard to another amendment—was the discipline of the laboratory in which the work was being carried out. There is an appointed officer to carry some responsibility for what goes on. I imagine that that could be the case with embryo research. However, despite my levity, I am quite serious about this issue. It is not the sort of inspection which can be covered by the conventional type of inspector.

Finally, who will employ these people? The Home Office has a whole range of inspectors; for example, factory inspectors and Home Office inspectors appointed under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act. There are never enough of them. Those are the details which we must not lose sight of in this connection. In my view, if it can be self-regulating now, it can be self-disciplined in the future. That is my feeling on the matter.

In any event, if the authority is given some power to appoint staff for its purposes I should have thought that that provision was sufficient. Again I warn the House that if we start creating another lot of government inspectors we shall find that they will behave like the ambulance men in the end: they will go around with their buckets and get a lot of money.

Baroness Ryder of Warsaw

My Lords, I should like to express my support for the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, and the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, in their deep concern in the matter. I share that concern. I do not think that this is a frivolous matter or something to be laughed about outside the Chamber, as we have seen on television or read about in the press. It is a sacred and difficult decision. It is something about which many of us feel extremely deeply.

We are talking about human beings in embryo who are created, we believe, by God. I believe this as a Catholic and I know that many other people in their own faiths believe that these are human beings created by God, whether or not others agree. With respect, I must ignore the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby. I do not share his views. I support the views which I have tried to outline in just a few minutes.

I should like to know whether there really are enough inspectors to carry out the work. We are told that they will be appointed, but will they be people who have compassion for and understanding of what they are asked to inspect, or shall we be told later that there are not enough inspectors because it is difficult to recruit them? In such a situation the whole matter becomes even more of a shambles.

Lord Dainton

My Lords, I should like to follow the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, by disagreeing with him partly on the basis of my experience as chairman for many years of the National Radiological Protection Board, which is a body that sets standards to protect people from ionising and other radiations. My experience in that connection throughout many difficult incidents has led me to believe that if this Bill were to become law it would succeed only if it achieved two aims, and only two aims.

First, the Bill must satisfy the public at large that what it permits to be done is not an affront to certain human and religious values which are implicit in the legislation. Secondly, within the prescribed limits of the legislation the doctors and scientists who are licensed are not impeded in their beneficial work. Those two themes have run through your Lordships' discussions during the debate on the Bill.

For both these requirements to be met and for the judgment of the public to be that this is good, the issue will be critically dependent in my view on the conduct of the employees of the authority. If their work is not above reproach the Bill and its procedures which will be discussed later tonight will come into disrepute, with adverse consequences for future potential beneficiaries of the research and for the advance of knowledge itself. In short, the Act and what it seeks to achieve will be entirely frustrated. Therefore it seems to me absolutely essential that the employees should be of the highest quality of competence and also of commitment. They must feel that their actions are animated by those human values which I mentioned earlier.

Noble Lords and the public will want assurance on this point. It seems to me that it would be entirely salutary and beneficial to incorporate the amendment of the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, into the Act where it would stand constantly to remind the authority of its duty and that the key to its successful discharge lies in its staff I hope therefore that the amendment can be accepted and that if it is not accepted some other form of equally satisfying reassurance can be given not only to your Lordships' House but to the public. I feel deeply that this will be a matter of great significance to everyone who examines the Bill and its final outcome and its workings.

Earl Jellicoe

My Lords, I wish to express my total agreement with what the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, has just said and to support my noble friend's amendment. I am delighted that both at Committee and Report stages your Lordships' House has supported research into the early embryo, but subject to strict statutory control by the proposed new authority. That qualification has been vital to me. It is important that when the new authority is set up it should have adequate staffing and teeth.

I know that the interim licensing authority has done marvellous work but it has found it extremely difficult to cover all the work of carrying out the frequent inspections of the various centres where the work is being done. It is important that the new authority, when it is established, should have adequate skilled staff able to carry out the kinds of inspections that my noble friend envisages in his amendment.

It may be, as the noble Earl, Lord Perth, has said, that this is covered by paragraph 8(1) of the schedule. However, I think that to accept the amendment would be a good indication of the strong feelings of many of us in your Lordships' House who very much support research. It would be a good indication of the strength of our feeling about the statutory licensing authority.

Lord Prys-Davies

My Lords, I believe that the amendment moved by the noble Viscount is wise and should be supported. Under paragraph 8 of the schedule the authority may appoint inspectors, but the point of the amendment is that it should be under a statutory duty to do so. The authority should be under such a duty, first, in order to ensure that the licence holders comply with the terms of the licence. The inspectors would be the eyes and ears of the authority. Secondly, we need the provision in order to reassure the public. For those two reasons I very much support the amendment.

Baroness Phillips

My Lords, I also support the amendment. I do not like the reason we have to have such an amendment, like my noble friend Lady Ryder. If we are dealing with such a Bill we must be quite sure that any inspectors are available when needed and that there are enough of them.

I find the view expressed by my noble friend Lord Houghton extraordinary, although I have always sympathised with him when he did not want experiments on animals. However, for some curious reason we are now surrounded by people demonstrating against experiments on human embryos. That seems to me to be a slight contradiction.

If we are to have this, for heaven's sake let us have a proper inspectorate so that people do not go mad. With due respect to the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, scientists are not known to be all that worried about the effect on the public outside. If the scientists become enthusiastic about their experiment, that is what counts. When passing such legislation it is important that there should be proper and adequate inspectors at all times.

Lord Sefton of Garston

My Lords, I wish to repeat the words of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, and add a note of warning. I believe that once the authority is set up, it will be carefully watched. When anyone—whether or not in public life—finds the authority making a mistake, he will be only too ready to come forward and make the authority's life difficult.

I have not previously spoken on the Bill but I have sat here and heard all the learned contributions. I was not worried about this amendment until the noble Lord referred to, among other things, the religious issue. I do not know whether the mover of the amendment intended that the words "competent" and "qualifications" should somehow include religious conviction. I am not prepared to let pass without opposition the idea that somebody is sufficiently qualified and competent in religious matters to satisfy me. Many other people in the country feel the same.

This is Report stage and I am not sure whether the mover is entitled to reply. If anyone else supports the amendment I wonder whether they would do me a favour. When they impose upon the authority the responsibility of appointing, competent inspectors in such numbers and with such qualifications as the Authority", may determine, will they kindly tell the House what they think are the competent qualifications required? Unless we know that I think it is just as well to leave the Bill alone and give the authority a fair run.

Lord Ennals

My Lords, I wish to add a brief word to what has been said by my noble friend. This is an important amendment and I do not think that we should prescribe what "competent" means. Normally an inspection team consists of three people with qualifications. I should have thought that we should have a scientist, a doctor and a lay person. Each of those three is as important as the others. Probably the fourth member should be a secretary to take notes of what happens in that inspectorate.

In answer to my noble friend Lord Sefton, certainly one of the experts should not necessarily be competent in religion but competent in what the team is required to inspect.

Baroness Hooper

My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Caldecote has explained, he moved two amendments in relation to the inspection functions of the authority at Committee stage. The first of these was aimed at requiring the authority to visit annually premises which it licensed. I am happy to confirm to my noble friend that the Government will bring forward an amendment at Third Reading to deal with this point.

In Amendment No. 70A he returns to the second leg of his earlier argument. His amendment would require the authority to, appoint … inspectors in such numbers and with such qualifications as the Authority considers necessary to enforce the conditions of the licences granted to the premises and any other relevant provisions in the legislation.

We take this matter seriously. I can appreciate the views of my noble friend. It is clearly essential that the authority is able to carry out its licensing function effectively. That must be common ground. Clearly to achieve this the authority will need to appoint well trained and experienced staff and have enough of them. I hope that goes some way to reassuring the noble Baroness, Lady Ryder, and others. I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, that the authority will need inspectors as well as other appropriate staff. However, we shall bear some of his strictures in mind.

As has already been pointed out, the authority already has powers under Schedule 1 to appoint such staff as it thinks necessary. The authority's work will, rightly, be subjected to careful public scrutiny and Parliament will have the opportunity to receive its annual reports. We had thought that, given the nature and responsibility of the authority, those safeguards would be adequate to protect the interests involved. However, I appreciate the arguments that have been advanced. I do not believe that an amendment on these lines is essential, but I shall look at the point further to see whether, in the light of the concerns that have been expressed, some amendment can be made to place specifically on the face of the Bill what we believe is already its clear intention with regard to inspectors of premises licensed under the Bill. With that assurance I trust that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

5.30 p.m.

Viscount Caldecote

My Lords, I am most grateful to those who have supported this amendment. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor and my noble friend Lady Hooper have given careful consideration to the points that I have raised. I normally admire the speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, both as regards their logic and their sincerity. However, today, I was only able to admire his sincerity. As other noble Lords have said, if we do not have inspectors all the provisions for enforcement in this Bill are null and void.

I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, and to the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, who is chairman of the Medical Research Council, for supporting the point of this amendment. I listened carefully to what my noble friend Lady Hooper said as regards giving further consideration to the matter. I should say in fairness that this was precisely what my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor said last time. He said that he would give consideration to the points that I raised. That turned out to be a decision to take no further action.

However, I understood the noble Baroness to say that it was not a question of giving consideration to whether the provisions of the amendment will be put in a more suitable form but how they will be put in a form that meets the points that have been made from all parts of the House. So this is recognised by the whole House as an important point. On the understanding that an amendment will be tabled on Third Reading that deals with the substance of the amendment, and that it will not simply be considered and perhaps no action taken, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Lord Chancellor

My Lords, if Amendment No. 70B is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 72 to 76 as they will have been pre-empted. I now call Amendment No. 70B standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant.

Schedule 2 [Activities for which licences may be granted]:

Lord Walton of Detchant moved Amendment No. 70B: Page 26, line 44, leave out from beginning to ("and") in line 46 and insert ("mixing sperm with the egg of a hamster, or other animal specified in directions, for the purpose of testing the fertility or normality of the sperm, but only where anything which forms is destroyed when the test is complete and, in any event, not later than the two cell stage").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the two amendments standing in my name, Amendments Nos. 70B and 81A are closely linked and relate to proposed changes to Schedule 2 of the Bill. Amendment No. 70B seeks to substitute the words of the amendment for those of paragraph 1(1)(f) of Schedule 2. The amendments relate to the hamster test which was fully discussed in Committee. At that time a number of noble Lords, particularly the noble Earl, Lord Perth, expressed concern about the provision in the Bill, as it stood, relating to the mixing of human sperm with the egg of another species of animal. I explained that this related solely to the hamster test used at present to test the fertility of human sperm and also used to assess the normality of human sperm. I described how the test simply involved the mixing of human sperm with hamster eggs from which the outer capsule had been removed. Hamster eggs are particularly useful and appropriate for that test because of the ease with which the capsule can be removed.

The provision in the Bill, as it stood, referred to the resulting embryo. I was concerned about the use of those words because, as is clear from the nature of the test, there is no prospect that this mixture could ever form a viable embryo. That is true first because the genetic constitution of human and such animal cells is completely incompatible; secondly, because the incubation period is far too brief; and, thirdly, because even if the period of incubation were extended—that would be specifically precluded by the amendment which I have proposed—the eggs would immediately degenerate spontaneously as they have no developmental potential.

After the Committee had considered the issue, I had some discussions with the noble Earl, Lord Perth. He told me that he would be willing to support a revised amendment if the test were restricted to the use of hamster eggs only. However, when I subsequently had discussions with scientists they told me that there was a possibility that the eggs of some other animals may become more appropriate for use in this extremely important test of male fertility and of the normality of human sperm. They considered that it would be unfortunate to say the least if the use of eggs from other animals were to be precluded legally and such a change were to require amending legislation. I have tabled this amendment in the hope of clarifying the nature of the test and making it clear that anything which forms, certainly not an embryo, would be destroyed when the test was complete. In any event it would be destroyed not later than the two-cell stage. I beg to move.

Lord Houghton of Sowerby

My Lords——

The Earl of Perth

My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord will allow me to speak first. As Amendments Nos. 74 and 81 standing in my name are related to this amendment, it is appropriate, I believe, that I should speak first. As the noble Lord, Lord Walton, rightly explained, when we discussed this matter in Committee I found the idea of human sperm being mixed with the eggs of another animal so repugnant that I tried to move an amendment to delete the practice altogether. However, your Lordships argued strongly that the hamster test was an important method of testing fertility. I took my amendment to a Division but lost.

As the noble Lord, Lord Walton, said, I discussed with him whether we could limit such tests to hamster eggs only. Again, as he explained, he advised me that we should allow for the possibility of some other animal also being used. We drew up a joint amendment expressed in the terms of my Amendment No. 81; namely, that after approval by the Secretary of State and after Parliament had been informed, the use of other animals in such tests could be allowed. In other words the noble Lord, Lord Walton, and I were at one.

The noble Lord's amendment differs from mine in only one respect; namely, he uses the words "in directions" as to whether the use of the egg of another animal should be allowed. That would mean that for at least a year Parliament might not know what had happened. I believe that the issue of the use of an animal other than the hamster is very important. Therefore, I hope that my amendment will be accepted by your Lordships. I feel confident in saying that the noble Lord, Lord Walton, would support that if the Government agreed to it.

I hope that what I am seeking is acceptable and that if the use of the egg of another animal is to be permitted parliamentary approval would be obtained for such action. Therefore I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Walton, and I are at one.

Lord Zuckerman

My Lords, I am confused by two words in Amendment No. 70B, which we are now discussing, which reappear in Amendments Nos. 81 and 81A. Those words are "or normality". I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Walton, can explain how one can test sperm for normality merely by the fact that it is able to penetrate the outer coating of an egg, especially since the noble Lord has indicated that under his amendment, whether there is penetration or not, the test is complete not later than the two-cell stage. What conclusions are we to draw from those words "or normality of the sperm"?

5.45 p.m.

Lord Kilbracken

My Lords, in speaking to the amendment I should like to refer to Amendments Nos. 72 and 75, standing in my name, although those are not officially grouped with Amendment No. 70B, while reserving the right to mention them again if the amendment is not approved and they can be called.

I put down my Amendment No. 72 as a probing amendment to discover in more detail, if possible, the precise nature of the procedure that is used for testing human sperm by using it in conjunction with the eggs, or oocytes, if the noble Lord prefers the Greek word, of the hamster or some other species. Paragraph 1(1)(f) speaks of, testing the fertility of any human sperm by the penetration of the egg of another species". I think that that is asking too much of the preposition "for". I should prefer to say, as I have put in Amendment No. 72: observing its efficacy in penetrating", the egg of another species, if those are the right words and if that is what is done when this procedure is carried out. Whether "observing" or "efficacy" or "penetrating" are the right words I am not certain, and I should like to know.

The words proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Walton, in Amendment No. 70B certainly seem to me to be preferable to the wording in the Bill from that point of view, but I feel that it is unsatisfactory and unnecessary to specify the hamster species here. I should prefer to say simply: mixing the sperm with the egg of any animal specified in directions". I do not see the need to specify the fortunate or unfortunate hamster.

As the noble Lord has himself pointed out, his wording also removes any reference to any resulting embryo. As I understand it, and as I think he has just confirmed, no embryo can ever result from this procedure and so such a stage is never reached. There is never a resulting embryo. Amendment No. 70B goes on to require that anything which forms should be immediately destroyed when the test is complete. I am not happy about the phrase "anything which forms", which does not appear to be a very exact definition.

My own understanding had been that when the procedure is carried out there is no possibility of any viable product forming, so that no embryo can ever develop. Therefore, if that were the case, I see no reason for including in paragraph 1(1)(f) the words: but only where any resulting embryo is immediately destroyed". That is why I put down Amendment No. 75 to delete that passage. Either there can be a resulting embryo, in which case we have been led astray, or if a resulting embryo cannot form we do not need to make any reference to the need to destroy it.

Viscount Caldecote

My Lords, I should like to support the point of view put forward by my noble friend Lord Perth. This is a very important issue and Parliament should be kept informed. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Walton, will withdraw his amendment, provided the Government will accept the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Perth.

Lord Houghton of Sowerby

My Lords, I have a small but serious point to raise. There are many things mentioned in this Bill which I have never seen before in any Act of Parliament. We are all embryologists now. We have read in a Bill which will become an Act of Parliament many things that we scarcely knew about before. I have never seen any previous Act of Parliament which mentioned a hamster by name. This is not a laughing matter; it is a serious one. I ask: what happens to the hamster? The mixed embryo is to be immediately destroyed. What happens to the hamster?

I do not know why your Lordships are so amused by this. I have a small constituency in the animal world and I must stand up for the hamster. I have never regarded guinea pigs as expendable or considered that rats and mice do not matter. They are all animals, some of them with remarkable intelligences. It is amazing what the human species has to learn from animals if it would only pay attention.

I want to know, quite seriously, whether the laboratories are covered by the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. That Act imposes very stringent conditions on the use of animals in research laboratories. I shall not elaborate on the conditions which apply to animals because it might be said that the conditions which apply to living animals are much stricter than those which apply to living embryos. However, I do not want that to become too complicated.

Quite seriously, what happens to the hamster? Is it destroyed or is it used again? It is important that we should know. The only other reference to animals that I have heard throughout the debates on the Bill occurred much earlier when one noble Lord said that we should not do this at all and that we should use more animals. That is the point. Someone must stand up and say that an animal should not be used as long as a human being will do. We must keep the matter in balance.

I am all in favour of the amendment because I agree with everything that the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, has said. He has been a remarkable man in all our debates. I am not in any sense weakening what is proposed. I am simply asking, on behalf of the hamsters of this world, what happens to them when the embryos have been taken away and immediately destroyed. We shall have to overcome the suggestion that they would be in a mournful mood. I am most serious about the matter.

Lord Hunter of Newington

My Lords, I think I understand why the noble Lord, Lord Walton, has gone into explicit detail in his amendment. However, listening to the discussions, I do not see anything wrong with paragraph 1(1)(f) of Schedule 2 as drafted by the Government.

The Lord Chancellor

My Lords, in moving his amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Walton, indicated how it had developed. It arose from the concern expressed by the noble Earl, Lord Perth, in Committee. The idea is to make more explicit the proposal contained in paragraphs 1(1)(f). I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hunter of Newington, for his commendation of the sub-paragraph, but, having considered what the noble Lord, Lord Walton, has provided we believe that it may be more express and therefore easier for noble Lords generally to understand.

The amendments to which I refer—Amendments Nos. 70B and 81 A—would make clear that the test to be authorised by a licence for treatment in paragraph 1(1)(f) of Schedule 2 and by a licence for research in paragraph 3(4) of Schedule 2, is primarily the "hamster test". The amendments would ensure that a licence for treatment or research could not authorise mixing sperm with the eggs of any species of animal other than the hamster unless that animal was specified in directions given by the authority under Clause 22.

In response to the point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Perth, I believe that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Walton, is correct in dealing with the matter as one of direction by the authority rather than of direction by the Secretary of State. However, I well understand the point that he wishes to make; namely, that Parliament should be informed of that approach. I am certainly willing to consider whether we should seek to engraft something of that kind in view of the concern that has been expressed. There is nothing hidden or under the counter about that. If it helps to tell people before one does it, that should be done. I believe that it is possible to work that into the structure of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Walton. That is the first purpose of the amendment. It would make it clear that the animal was a hamster unless there was a direction. I assume that that direction would be reported to, but not approved by, Parliament.

The second object of the amendments is to clarify the purposes for which the test may be used. They would make clear that a licence for treatment may authorise the test for the purpose of testing the fertility or normality of human sperm and that a licence for research may authorise the test for the purpose of developing more effective techniques for determining the fertility or normality of human sperm. The amendments would make clear that that was the purpose. They would make clear that the test may only be authorised by a licence for treatment or research where anything which forms as a result of the mixing of human sperm with the egg of a hamster is destroyed when the research is complete or the test is completed, according to which part it is in and, in any event, not later than the two-cell stage.

That approach is perhaps more accurate than that which was originally proposed. We were concerned that nothing should remain, as it were, and our information was that no embryo should be allowed to develop from it. The noble Lord has indicated that that is not quite the right way to go about it. I believe that his proposal is better than ours in that respect in order to assure Parliament and the public that there is no question of allowing a mixture of human sperm with that of the hamster to develop in any way whatever. That is the main object of the proposal. Even if it is not strictly necessary because the embryo might not develop anyway, it is as well to emphasise that point. That is why I believe that it is right to do so.

I shall leave the noble Lord, Lord Walton, to reply to the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, about the definition of normality for the purposes of the Bill. It seems to us to be all right but perhaps we are more easily satisfied on that scientific matter than is the noble Lord and perhaps there is good reason.

On the question of the hamster, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, I should point out that we are dealing with the egg of the hamster. The hamster himself—

Noble Lords

Herself!

The Lord Chancellor

My Lords, I apologise. The hamster herself will be subject to the regime to which the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, referred. The laboratory animal would be subject to that regime in any event. There will be no damage to the hamster by the use of the hamster's egg, so the problem about which the noble Lord was concerned does not arise.

We should be able to deal with the amendments, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Perth, and we shall see how best that can be done. One way would be to deal with the matter in the annual report but not allow it to happen until after the annual report had been laid. The noble Earl was also concerned about the terms of the annual report which I am considering in any case. It might be possible to deal with that aspect.

Having listened to my comments, noble Lords may feel that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Walton, should be acceptable. There may be questions about the precise detail requiring further refinement, but no doubt Third Reading could cope with that if it were necessary.

Lord Walton of Detchant

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for his careful consideration of this and the linking amendment. Essentially, the only difference between the noble Earl, Lord Perth, and myself is that he wishes to make it clear in the amendment that, if an animal other than a hamster were to be used for the test by direction of the proposed licensing authority, that would have to be reported to Parliament rather than being reported one year late in the report of the licensing authority. I am grateful for the noble and learned Lord's suggestion that it would be possible so to modify my amendment in order to make that a feasible possibility.

In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, the position with respect to normality is that it is now becoming clear from the research being done that the test, particularly at the two-cell stage, allows the research worker to study more effectively than any other method permits the chromosomal constitution of human sperms. This enables study of the male contribution to genetic abnormalities in the human embryo and the influence of environmental factors such as radiation. That is particularly relevant in the light of concerns expressed recently about radiation and human sperms in the neighbourhood of power stations. It is, I think, the reason for including the words "or normality" in this document.

In answer to the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, about the words "anything which forms", I included those words specifically on legal advice because any other definition seemed to be singularly inappropriate. It is certainly not an embryo. It is very difficult to know what it is.

Finally, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, it is just as feasible to remove eggs from the female hamster, indeed for study in the course of this test—licensed obviously under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act—as it is to remove eggs from female human subjects. In the light of the assurance given by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor I shall withdraw the amendment.

6 p.m.

The Lord Chancellor

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down perhaps I should say that I had intended that he should move his amendment. I would commend acceptance of the amendment and then any detail which might emerge could be settled at Third Reading.

Lord Walton of Detchant

My Lords, with that assurance from the noble and learned Lord I beg to move the amendment.

The Earl of Perth

My Lords, perhaps I may rise to say a few words about what I understand is a matter of procedure. I was very happy that Amendment No. 74 was to be taken with Amendment No. 70B, the amendment that we are now discussing. However, that was done on the understanding that the words "in directions" would be further considered in the light of the assurance that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has given. I rise because I understand that under the procedure, if the amendment is accepted I cannot talk about Amendments Nos. 74 and 81. That is why I intervened at this point.

The Lord Chancellor

My Lords, if Amendment No. 70B is agreed to I cannot call Amendments Nos. 72 to 76, including Amendment No. 74. Perhaps I should just make it absolutely clear that I have undertaken to consider how the special point made by the noble Earl, Lord Perth, in Amendment No. 74 should be dealt with. Although I am subject to advice about it, I propose something along the lines that directions would be effective only after they had been reported to Parliament.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 71 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]

[Amendments Nos. 72 to 76 not moved.]

The Lord Chancellor had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 77: Page 27, line 2, at end insert— ("Section 1(1)(b) of this Act does not apply for the purposes of paragraph (f) above.").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is not moved because it was an attempt to tidy up what we had. That has been superseded by the much better effort of the noble Lord, Lord Walton.

[Amendment No. 77 not moved.]

[Amendments Nos. 78 to 80 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]

[Amendment No. 81 not moved.]

Lord Walton of Detchant moved Amendment No. 81A: Page 27, line 41, leave out sub-paragraph (4) and insert: ("(4) A licence under this paragraph may authorise mixing sperm with the egg of a hamster, or other animal specified in directions, for the purpose of developing more effective techniques for determining the fertility or normality of sperm, but only where anything which forms is destroyed when the research is complete and, in any event, not later than the two cell stage").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move this amendment.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Lord Chancellor had given notice of his intention to move Amendments Nos. 82 and 83: Page 27, line 42, leave out ("another species of") and insert ("any"). Page 27, line 44, at end insert— ("Section 1(1)(b) of this Act does not apply for the purposes of this subparagraph.").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 82 was also part of the tidying up operation. The same applies to Amendment No. 83. I do not propose to move either of them.

[Amendments Nos. 82 and 83 not moved.]

The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 84: Page 28, line 2, leave out from ("licence") to end of line 6.

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to Amendment No. 84. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Schedule 3 [Consents to use of gametes or embryos]:

The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 85: Page 28, line 46, at end insert— ("(4) A consent under this Schedule may apply— (a) to the use or storage of a particular embryo, or (b) in the case of a person providing gametes, to the use or storage of any embryo whose creation may be brought about using those gametes, and in the paragraph (b) case the terms of the consent may be varied, or the consent may be withdrawn, in accordance with this Schedule either generally or in relation to a particular embryo or particular embryos.").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 87, 89, 90, 91 and 93. These are drafting amendments which have been prepared in response to the criticism made by the noble Lord, Lord Meston, that the drafting of Schedule 3 was difficult to follow. I hope that he will be pleased with Parliamentary Counsel's second effort.

The point is that if one is providing gametes one cannot give consent in respect of a particular embryo but only to an embryo that may be made. In the event a number of embryos may subsequently be made. Amendment No. 85 makes clear that the consent applies to each of these embryos so that, for example, the reference to consent to the storage of the embryo in paragraph 8(2) includes a general consent given before any embryo was created.

This amendment also makes clear that one cannot revoke or vary such a general consent as it applies to any particular embryo. The remaining amendments in this group are consequential. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 86: Page 29, line 31, leave out ("is") and insert: ("was").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, with Amendment No. 86 I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 88 and 92.

These amendments seek to clarify the consents which are required for the use of gametes for in vitro fertilisation and the subsequent use of embryos for storage of gametes and embryos. When prohibiting the use or storage of an embryo unless there is effective consent, paragraphs 6 and 8 of Schedule 3 refer to an embryo the creation of which is brought about in vitro. The use of the verb "is" implies that the consents which are required apply only to an embryo during the period of its creation. That is not what was intended, and by changing the drafting so that these paragraphs refer to an embryo, the creation of which was brought about in vitro, the amendments ensure that the consents are ongoing and apply to any embryo which has been created in vitro. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos. 87 to 93:

Page 29, line 34, leave out from second ("of") to end of line 35 and insert ("the embyro").

Page 29, line 36, leave out ("is") and insert ("was").

Page 29, line 39, leave out from first ("of") to ("and") in line 40 and insert ("the embyro").

Page 29, line 41, leave out sub-paragraph (4).

Page 30, line 5, leave out ("obtained") and insert ("taken").

Page 30, line 10, leave out ("is") and insert ("was").

Page 30, line 14, leave out ("obtained") and insert ("taken").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I have spoken to Amendment No. 87 with Amendment No. 85, to Amendment No. 88 with Amendment No. 86, to Amendments Nos. 89, 90 and 91 with Amendment No. 85, to Amendment No. 92 with Amendment No. 86 and to Amendment No. 93 with Amendment No. 85. With your Lordships' leave I shall move these amendments en bloc. I beg to move.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 94:

After Schedule 3, insert the following new schedule:

("STATUS: AMENDMENTS OF ENACTMENTS

Family Law Reform Act 1969 (c.46)

I. In section 25 of the Family Law Reform Act 1969 (interpretation) at the end of the definition of "excluded" there is added to "section 27 of the Family Law Reform Act 1987 and to sections 26 to 28 of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990".

Adoption Act 1976 (c.36.)

2. In section 15 of the Adoption Act 1976 (adoption by one person), in subsection (3)(a) (conditions for making an adoption order on application of one parent) after "found" there is inserted "or, by virtue of section 27 of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990, there is no other parent".

Family Law Reform (Northern Ireland) Order 1977 (S.I. 1977/1250 (NI 17))

3. In Article 13 of the Family Law Reform (Northern Ireland) Order 1977 (interpretation) at the end of the definition of "excluded" there is added "and to sections 26 to 28 of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990".

Adoption (Scotland) Act 1978 (c.28.)

4. In section 15 of the Adoption (Scotland) Act 1978 (adoption by one person), in subsection (3)(a) (conditions for making an adoption order on applicaton of one parent) after "found" there is inserted "or, by virtue of section 27 of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990, there is no other parent".

Adoption (Northern Ireland) Order 1987 (S.I. 1987/2203 (NI 22))

5. In Article 15 of the Adoption (Northern Ireland) Order 1987 (adoption by one person), in paragraph (3)(a) (conditions for making an adoption order on the application of one parent) after "found" there is inserted "or, by virtue of section 27 of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990, there is no other parent".

Human Organ Transplants Act 1989 (c.31.)

6. Sections 26 to 28 of this Act do not apply for the purposes of section 2 of the Human Organ Transplants Act 1989 (restrictions on transplants between persons not genetically related).

Human Organ Transplants (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 (S.I. 1989/2408 (NI 12))

7. Sections 26 to 28 of this Act do not apply for the purposes of Article 2 of the Human Organ Transplants (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 (restrictions on transplants between persons not genetically related).").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, these are consequential amendments designed to ensure that certain provisions in the Bill are reflected in other Acts of Parliament. This is a matter of consequential detail which I am in a position to explain should your Lordships wish a further explanation. They are consequential. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.