CAROLINE FLINT MP, MR HUGH WHITTALL AND MR TED WEBB

12 JULY 2006

  Q80  Dr Harris: I do not think you are, that is my view. The Government has just brought in under the Equality Bill provision whereby there will be regulations to prevent discrimination of the provision of goods and services against people on the basis of sexual orientation. Do you think that clinics being able to discriminate, as they do, citing this provision, the welfare of the child with or without the need for a father, could survive such legislation which says, "You should not discriminate in the provision of goods and services, state or otherwise, in NHS services, health services and other services in respect of this, on the basis purely of sexual orientation without any evidence"?

  Caroline Flint: We are looking at a number of areas in relation to the equality legislation, and we are trying to work through a number of areas about advice in relation to goods and services.

  Q81  Dr Harris: It creates a challenge, does it not?

  Caroline Flint: It depends on if there is a challenge. In relation to NHS services, one of the considerations is about if there is a clinical infertility problem in terms of determining the priorities for fertility treatment. I wanted to clarify that. As I said, part of what we want to try to do through these discussions is to have a debate about what is necessary. The role of the state to intervene and the role of the state to pre-judge what may or may not happen is all part of this particular area.

  Q82  Dr Harris: Finally on this section, is your movement and thought on this influenced in any way by the fact that in this country clinics do discriminate against solo women—a baby wants a parent—against lesbian women and against older women, so effectively we have given carte blanche to being misogynistic in various ways? Are you happy that we have a law at the moment which gives carte blanche for discrimination against almost every kind of woman except the young heterosexual married woman?

  Caroline Flint: As I said, what we are looking at is what we think is appropriate in terms of the consideration given to providing fertility treatment but also the welfare of the child. What is important is that children are going to be, as far as we know, part of a loving family and that family may take different forms.

  Q83  Dr Harris: You agree with me that we should get rid of unnecessary sexism?

  Caroline Flint: Discrimination, if cases are brought forward, needs to be answered for. Clearly, in all walks of life there is still a certain amount of that, including sexism as well.

  Q84  Adam Afriyie: The decision to withdraw donor anonymity was before my time, and I understand it was not on a free vote. It was a major change from the 1990 Act and there is a risk to donor supply. What has been the impact of the removal of donor anonymity on the donor supply?

  Caroline Flint: I will ask Ted if he can say something a bit more about the donor supply, but the context of the discussion around donor anonymity was particularly about the representations made by a number of organisations, such as Barnardo's, the Children's Society, the British Association for Adoption and Fostering, the Church of England Board of Social Responsibility, who all, along with many grown-ups who were born through donors, wanted access to details about their donor parent.

  Adam Afriyie: Was the BMA among them in those representations? Were they of the same view?

  Dr Harris: They opposed it. Again, I will declare an interest.

  Q85  Adam Afriyie: What I am particularly interested in is the statistics you are tracking or collating since the decision was made? What has been the impact?

  Mr Webb: When the decision was made it was recognised from the start that there was a likelihood that donor numbers would drop. That is why the Government had its campaign to recruit donors. In some areas where steps are being taken to appreciate and value donors, you can see donors who are prepared to be identified can be recruited. Manchester is a case in point where they have got 40 sperm donors at the moment who are prepared to be identified.

  Q86  Adam Afriyie: But the numbers of donors have dropped since this decision was made, is that correct?

  Caroline Flint: That is correct. What we have seen as well is some areas where there has been successful recruitment. Manchester Fertility Services have got 40 sperm donors at present and part of that is because they have been working very hard in the way they recruit and the reassurances they give to donors. Again, this is an area that we are working with the National Gamete Donation Trust to do some work in terms of awareness. I understand in other countries—correct me if I am wrong on this, Ted—that brought in similar legislation donors dropped but then they picked up again. Clearly what we need to do is look at how we can work to improve donor's knowledge. One of the issues around donors was a concern that there would be financial liability in the future and that clearly is not the case in the law. We need to get some of those messages across more clearly.

  Q87  Adam Afriyie: It is the right of a donor conceived child to access information. Is that right absolute, even if it does mean that donor supply is cut off?

  Mr Webb: It is a right to approach the HFEA. They can ask for information on the register.

  Q88  Adam Afriyie: The rules have not been changed?

  Mr Webb: It is a right to get information from the register.

  Q89  Adam Afriyie: But I thought in the 1990 Act one already had that right to ask if there was information and the information could then be withheld if the donor did not want it provided.

  Mr Webb: No, it was an important change as the right was to be told if you were donor conceived.

  Caroline Flint: But nothing more.

  Q90  Adam Afriyie: What might cause you to review the decision on donor anonymity? I appreciate it is not open for review at the moment in your consultations, but what might the factors be?

  Caroline Flint: We keep an eye on it in terms of what is happening. I have met with the National Gamete Donation Trust. We have agreed some funding for them in terms of some work they can do following up from the legislation as well to improve public awareness of the law and what it does and does not say. I have to say, I think that is important in this. Again, some of the issues around donors are more complex and are necessarily around the issue of anonymity. I heard, for example, stories of how donors are not treated very well when they go and it is not necessarily explained to the people what might be involved as much as it maybe should. What we are looking at is organisations such as the one in Manchester to look at why they seem to be more successful than other places in the work they do and how we can share that practice.

  Q91  Adam Afriyie: Are there any particular factors you have identified which would lead you to review the decision on donor anonymity?

  Caroline Flint: Clearly, if there was some situation arising where donation became so low we would have to think about that. We had to take a decision about the children who are donor conceived, their needs in terms of wanting to know something about their donor parent, and it was felt, in line with other legislation on adoption and so forth, that we needed to bring this area into line in those other areas. It is not an easy situation, but I think our emphasis at the moment is on trying to make it work and do what we can with different organisations to improve people's understanding about donation and encourage them to come forward. Obviously science as well is moving on in different areas, so that raises another debate.

  Q92  Adam Afriyie: You spoke about the welfare of the child on many occasions, but what is the evidence that the donor conceived child benefits from having the legal right to know who their donor was? Where is the actual evidence?

  Caroline Flint: The evidence came through in a number of ways. First of all, from representations made to the Department from different organisations. We were asking clinics and donors about this and their views. We met with researchers, such as Susan Golombok to commission research, for example, on donor attitudes at King's College Hospital to find out what their views were about this. We also met with people who are experts in donor identification, such as the Director of the Sperm Bank of California and the Chief Executive of the Infertility Treatment Authority of the State of Victoria who have made progress in this area.

  Q93  Adam Afriyie: I am interested in the welfare of the child. Where is the evidence that a donor conceived child is damaged by not having access to the information on their donor?

  Caroline Flint: First of all, this is about choice here. It is not necessarily that the donor child is damaged, it is about the needs of the donor conceived child, at some point in the future, to have access to information about the person who contributed to their creation in the first place. The evidence for that was from a considerable body of organisations, including donor conceived children themselves, about what they wanted in terms of their rights, which also sits alongside the rights of the adopted children.

  Q94  Adam Afriyie: If the welfare of the child is your primary concern, then surely that is not the evidence you should be concerned with. The evidence you should be concerned with is what is the damage caused to a donor conceived child if they do not know who their donor is. That is the area we are interested in, surely?

  Caroline Flint: I think you are mixing up two slightly different issues. The issue around the welfare of the child is an issue we have been discussing in relation to when IVF treatment is provided and what should be taken into account. This issue arose out of a considerable body of opinion, not shared by all, granted, that this was an area, in terms of these individuals' rights of information and access, where there was a gap compared with other children who become adults in other circumstances who want to know something about their biological past. As I said, we had the views of those who are most affected by this as well as organisations that clearly have an interest in this area because they deal through it in other ways in terms of adoption. Also, we took soundings from other countries where they provide this information to see how it would work. This is something which I think has increasingly become an issue where it was felt that these young people, as they grow up, should have some access to some information about their biological past. I think part of our job is to make clear what the legislation says and does not say and reassure both those who want to donate about the limits of it, but also why it is important.

  Q95  Adam Afriyie: If it was shown that donors who did have access to this information got into more difficulties by receiving such information, or it played havoc with their psychology by learning things that were not helpful for them to know, would you then reconsider donor anonymity on that basis. That is, if the evidence shows that the donor conceived children are being damaged by receiving that information?

  Caroline Flint: Clearly there is consideration to thoughts about the age at which a child should have access to this information. One would hope that it could be done. It is one of the issues we have discussed with some of the organisations about when a young person comes forward for this information. Are they clear about what it would involve? Have they thought about how it will affect them and their family arrangements as they currently stand? Every case will be different, but that is a risk we need to take in terms of the needs of these children as they grow up and become young adults and want to know more about their past. To be honest, you could apply exactly the same rule in terms of adoption as well, in terms of young people wanting to have access to information about their adopted parents in a situation where we know, in terms of adoption, there may have been a series of very serious issues as to why that child was put up for adoption. This is a totally different situation in that there has been no relationship per se with the donor and the child. That is in stark contrast to an adoption situation where finding out more about your biological parents could raise a whole lot of issues about the relationship which led to your adoption in the first place.

  Q96  Chairman: Can I lead you on now to the issue of late terminations. The Committee was quite clear that it did not wish to hold an inquiry into this particular area, but did, in fact, recognise that there was huge public concern about the issue of late terminations and made what both the former Committee and certainly this Committee believe was a sensible proposal that there should be a review of the evidence of scientific, medical and social changes which have occurred since 1967. Various attempts by this Committee, and indeed others, to get an ad hoc committee or a joint committee to simply look at the evidence have been rejected by Government, why?

  Caroline Flint: Any proposed changes would have to be carefully thought through, and there would have to be an issue about whether the evidence is needed. As I have said to you before, when the revisions to the Act were considered in the late 1980s, it was the view of the medical profession that the age at which the foetus should be considered viable should be changed from 28 to 24 weeks. We have not been advised on a change of view on this. Indeed, both the British Medical Association and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists are not convinced that there is currently a need to change the time limits.

  Q97  Chairman: Minister, they are not opposed to reviewing the evidence.

  Caroline Flint: Yes, but the issue at the time was that the evidence suggested that there was a need for a change, and both these organisations have suggested that there is no evidence to suggest that there is a need for a change at this time. That is the difference. They have not come forward and said, "The evidence to us suggests that this is the time for a review". That stands in stark contrast to what I understand—obviously I was not in Parliament at the time—was the way in which the debate came forward in the late 1980s.

  Q98  Chairman: It is interesting that the architect in the original Bill in 1987, Lord Steel, has also called for this issue not to be put to rest but at least there should be a public satisfaction of saying that the evidence has been looked at, the evidence has clearly been put before Parliament and indeed the public to make whatever choices are necessary. If, in fact, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and the BMA are right that there is no new evidence, then that, in fact, would come out in an inquiry. I cannot for the life of me understand why you would not want that to happen as a representative of the Government; I cannot understand it.

  Caroline Flint: I cannot comment on Lord Steel's present position but, as I said, the ground on which the Government did seek to take action last time round was because of the pressure from the medical profession for a change based on their scientific and medical judgment. That is not the case today and that is why we see no reason to address this.

  Q99  Chairman: It does not matter what the public feel at all? They are irrelevant in this provided that the BMA say, "We do not want to change", that is it?

  Caroline Flint: No, what we are saying is there is not the view from within those organisations that there is medical evidence to suggest there should be a change at this time. There is no indication from them that there is new evidence to suggest that should be changed and, therefore, in those circumstances we do not feel that is necessary.

  Chairman: We exist as a parliament, do we not, Minister, not to satisfy the BMA or the Royal College of Obstetricians, we are here to satisfy the wishes, the needs and the feelings of our constituents, whether we agree with them or not. I am not making an opinion on this because I am not qualified to do so, but I find it unbelievable that Parliament should simply be bypassed because one particular group of medics say, "There is no reason to do this". It is the only area where that would happen.