Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Parental Orders) Regulations 2010

My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, for the customarily thorough way in which she introduced these two sets of regulations. Before I turn to the detail, I should like to thank the staff from the department for their extremely helpful explanations. When presented with both sets of regulations at the same time, it was rather difficult to see one’s way clearly through them. As in many aspects of the law in this field, many of the principles with which we are dealing are long established. However, it is the implementation of those principles in a very technical way that makes these statutory instruments appear to be much more complex than they are in many cases. I shall start with the regulations which apply to disclosure of information for research. The noble Baroness is right that in our very detailed passionate and heated debates on the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act, or Bill as it then was, there was agreement that, on balance, it would be to the betterment of humanity if there were potential to conduct research using the database held by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. It was also agreed, without dissent, that information relating to donors and donor-conceived children was of a different order and had to be subject to much more stringent protection. Nevertheless, it was agreed that principally for the purpose of longitudinal research into the effects of embryology and the development of certain conditions, it would be preferable to let researchers have very limited access. My recollections from the passage of the Act relate to the data held on the register. My understanding is that the register is a register of treatment; it is not a complete register of births that have resulted from treatment. I remember that when we talked at considerable length about issues relating to birth certificates and the rights of donor-conceived people to find out who their biological parents are, the briefings that we received from the HFEA pointed out that, because of the limited nature of the register, it is not possible to say that there is a complete register of all donors. For example, donors may have moved and the HFEA does not track the lives of donors after the point at which their information has been stored. It is therefore important to establish what we are talking about at the base level. That plays directly into the point that was made about consent by the noble Earl, Lord Howe. We are now talking about information that goes back over a very long time, to 1991. I agree with the noble Earl about a campaign to raise awareness about the change to the use of the register for research into possible medical conditions. We should not assume that people who have been involved in IVF treatment or donation would automatically wish to be part of that, but they might if they knew about it. I, too, wanted to ask why the department had ruled out the mounting of a campaign. Following on from that, I also wanted to ask about periods of authorisation for research. From Regulation 10, I understand that such authorisation would be for a period of five years. I am not the noble Lord, Lord Winston, but is it not the case that research programmes in this field can be quite lengthy and take a considerable amount of time? Therefore, can periods of authorisation be renewed and is there any limit on that renewal? I also wanted to talk about the destruction of information. The regulations are, in many ways, rightly prescriptive about what research institutions must do and cannot do with information. They are very prescriptive about the penalties for mishandling information. In Regulation 18, which deals with the destruction of information, I see that there is no penalty for the failure to destroy information. The HFEA might therefore be powerless in such circumstances and that might be an omission. Finally, I note in Regulation 21 the proposal to create an oversight committee. In an area as technical and sensitive as this that is probably a good thing. I see from the first three paragraphs of that regulation that the role of the oversight committee will be principally about the monitoring and granting of authorisations, the processing of disclosable information and looking at the annual reports of research establishments. Then there is a catch-all paragraph, to, ""consider such other matters relating to these Regulations as the Authority or the Committee may determine"." Can the Minister indicate the sort of things that that paragraph would be intended to cover and the sorts of things that it would not? I happen to believe that the HFEA does a difficult job extremely well, but the organisation is frequently subjected to criticism, not all of it fair or informed. Part of the protection that we as Parliament owe the HFEA is to be quite clear about what its remit is and is not. I welcome the parental orders regulations. As I was reading them, I was thinking about the discussions that the House had not only on the HFE Bill but going back to the Adoption and Children Act 2002. We discussed the importance of parental orders for families in which there is a clear and settled intent to create a family and for whom it is in the best interests of children to have a process that is swifter and lighter-touch than the full adoption process which involves going through a court. We should welcome that. I note that most of the order simply replicates parts of the law on adoption that have already been agreed by both Houses of Parliament and, therefore, should not detain us long. However, I have two questions for the Minister. In cases of civil partnerships or long-term, but unmarried, heterosexual couples, I presume that these orders will come into force only when they are enacted and therefore apply to children who receive a parental order after the passage of these regulations. Is it therefore right to assume that families who are in this position at the moment would have had to go through a process under the Adoption and Children Act? I ask that to go to the question asked by the noble Earl, Lord Howe. I assume that if families in this country have had children under surrogacy arrangements with surrogates abroad—anywhere, not just America—they would have had to go through an inter-country adoption process and, therefore, the children would be adopted, perhaps though a fast-track route. Can the Minister confirm that I am right and there is not a group of children in limbo waiting for the passage of these orders?