House of Commons Hansard Debates for 23 Apr 1990

Mr. Alton : Does the hon. Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson) acknowledge that the Warnock committee never once used the phrase "pre- embryo", but that it has been invented since? The hon. Lady states that babies are born at 40 weeks, but does she accept that babies have been born at only 23 weeks in this country and have survived? Does she also accept that at a much earlier stage than birth--if she charts birth as occurring at 40 weeks--rights should be given to the unborn child? Does she agree that a point should be reached between fertilisation and birth at which the child has rights?

Ms. Richardson : I thought for a moment that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) was going to make his full speech now. I acknowledge that Warnock did not use the phrase pre-embryo, but I use it because I need to clarify in my own mind the various stages of development. The arguments as to the point at which

Column 44

the foetus is capable of independent life will be dealt with in tomorrow's debate. I do not want to introduce now-- and never have done--issues relating to abortion in debating embryo research. Over the past 20 years, scientists have limited their research to embryos no more than 14 days old. Up to that point, a woman who had conceived naturally might not know of her pregnancy if she had not missed her period. It is only when a woman misses her period that she suspects that she might be pregnant. Research that may assist infertile couples or women who frequently miscarry, or which may identify hereditary genetic defects, is undertaken during the period when the fertilised egg may or may not become an embryo, then a foetus, and finally a baby.

Opponents to research on the pre-embryo or embryo before 14 days argue that everything that needs to be known can be learned from research on animals-- but that is not true. There is ample evidence that there are vast differences in the physiological make-up of human and animal pre-embryos. Recently, New Scientist reported that a technique to identify the genetic defect that causes the Lesch-Nyham syndrome in the mouse embryo was completely unsuccessful when applied to a human pre-embryo. Lesch-Nyham affects only boys, who rarely reach adolescence. It is a particularly painful and distressing condition for their parents too, as those suffering from it practice self-mutilation by biting their lips and arms. We must hope that at some time in the future a way will be found of helping sufferers from that disorder.

Let us be clear what pre-embryo research could achieve. Opponents say that we claim that it will produce a cure for genetic disorders. No scientist has ever claimed that. It will not produce a cure. It is not on offer as a method of screening for general genetic disorders. The objective is to identify and offer help to people who are at risk of passing on a genetic disorder. Normally such people are identified only after they have had a child with a genetic disease or if there is a family history of that disease. We allow the amniocentesis test at 16 weeks of pregnancy and the chorionic villus test at 10 weeks and we give women under the present law the option of an abortion if they are found to be carrying an affected foetus.

It is difficult to understand why we should now seek to stop research projects which could detect affected genes before pregnancy is established by taking a single cell from the developing conceptus after fertilisation in vitro before replacing the pre-embryo in the mother. Only pre-embryos which were free from genetic disease would be replaced so that the woman could start her pregnancy knowing that her baby would not be affected, thus avoiding the painful and difficult decision at a later stage--10, 11 or 12 weeks or between 17 and 20 weeks--of whether to have an abortion.

5 pm

Mrs. Ann Winterton : Perhaps the hon. Lady will recall the point that I made to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health. There is provision in the Bill to ensure that pre-implantation techniques such as she has described can be carried on in the best interests of the baby and of the mother. I do not think that any Conservative Member would wish to stop those techniques. I hope that the hon. Lady will not spend too much time chasing a rabbit that will not run.

Column 45

Ms. Richardson : The hon. Lady should consider her own research. I am aware of what she is trying to tell me, but if we stopped the research that is now being carried out, and which we are seeking to enshrine in law, we should not be able to carry out the techniques that I am describing which seek to help people.

Frankly, I do not understand people who suggest that research at that stage stops a human life beginning. It is all about helping to create a healthy pregnancy and healthy children.

Another claim that is frequently made is that pre-embryos could be screened by observation. I am sure that we would all be pleased if that was the case. As many as one third of developing pre-embryos can be genetically disordered and will fail to implant. Visual inspection is a highly unreliable method of assessing the normality of the pre-embryo.

During my contribution to the Second Reading debate, I dealt with another myth--that cross-fertilisation leads to the creation of human-animal hybrids. The Bill allows the use of the hamster test under strictly controlled conditions. It is a useful test, but hamster eggs are not viable and cannot possibly be used for hybridisation, as they are not genetically compatible and never can be. Please do not let us have that myth hanging about, raising emotional feelings in people outside the House who do not have the advantage of knowing the facts.

Other myths are bandied about to hide the beneficial effects and the importance of research. Another myth is that each IVF baby costs £25,000 to produce. There is no evidence for that. In 1989, Hammersmith hospital spent £392,054 on all IVF treatments including salaries, materials and drugs. During that period, the Hammersmith programme produced 247 on-going or delivered pregnancies. Each successful pregnancy therefore cost £1,587. That comparatively low figure may be reduced if research is allowed to continue and if IVF success rates, which are low at present, improve. I am surprised that people who call themselves pro-life should seek to put a price on a baby's head. For some parents almost any price would be worth while. Of course we know that resources are limited, but to prevent parents from having the chance of a baby by suggesting that it is too expensive to give them help seems to be callous in the extreme. Another mischievous and slanderous statement is that to support the development of pre-implantation research implies a lack of respect and regard for people with disabilities and for the parents who look after them. Members of the Genetic Interest Group--I hope that hon. Members have read the list because they are a prestigious group including the Dyslexia Institute, the British Tay Sachs Foundation, the Research Trust for Metabolic Diseases in Childhood, Support after Termination for Abnormalities, SENSE, the Tuberous Sclerosis Association and the UK Thalassaemia Society as well as members of Progress, of which I am a member --are deeply involved with meeting the needs of disabled people. They do not simply exist to discuss research. They participate to help disabled people now. Some of their members have disabilities themselves or are parents of disabled children.

Parents do not positively opt to have a disabled child. Their love for such children is possibly greater than that of parents of children with no handicap and they go to extraordinary lengths to make their children happy.

Column 46

Sometimes people point to the wonderful example that handicapped people are to the rest of us. Indeed they are, but those with severe disabilities--often life-threatening--did not ask to be born with a handicap. Life had dealt them a cruel blow, which they and their carers try to cope with as successfully as possible. Let us not suggest that such people chose to be dealt that nasty blow. If a youngster suffers an accident after a healthy beginning and is left severely disabled --to make a simple analogy--he or she and the family would not have chosen to have that accident. Many families with severely disabled children sometimes see them die a painful death and would dearly love the chance to have another child free from pain and suffering. Most parents want to avoid the possibility of passing on a hereditary gene which would mean that they had another handicapped child, with all the pain and distress that that causes.

Please let us not continue the nasty and divisive suggestion that people who support research lack respect and care for those with disabilities. There should be choice, and pre-embryo research offers that prospect to particular groups of parents. No one is forcing anyone to participate. The choice, quite rightly, is entirely theirs.

Three women carriers of severe genetic disorders have been in the news recently. They are proud and happy because research has meant that they can have a baby free from handicap. As the House will be aware, that was announced in Nature last week and the research was carried out at Hammersmith hospital. Two of those families already have handicapped sons whom they love very dearly, as we saw in the press. However, they are now delighted to learn that they will be able to have girls who will be free of the genetic disorder that affects boys. That is a breakthrough by Hammersmith hospital. It is a world first and we should be proud of that achievement.

If our crucial vote tonight had taken place last year and research had been banned, those happy mothers and their husbands would have been denied that chance. So much again for the so-called pro-life stance. It is restrictive and, I believe, the antithesis to life. The market research conducted by National Opinion Polls shows clearly that public opinion is in favour of research continuing.

Mr. A. E. P. Duffy (Sheffield, Attercliffe) : That was carried out for the hon. Lady's association.

Ms. Richardson : I would like to refer to the results of that poll, but I cannot find them among my papers. However, I have distributed the details to many hon. Members and they show how positively public opinion is in favour of research continuing.

Mr. Duffy : Will my hon. Friend confirm that that NOP survey was commissioned by Progress which she identified a few moments ago? That poll makes an interesting contrast with the Gallup poll carried out only last December which yielded entirely different results. However, as always, the questions were different.

Ms. Richardson : I believe that opinion has been changing even since last December. More information has become available as we have approached Second Reading and this debate. More and more members of the public are looking closely at what has been happening and are deciding for themselves. Far from the NOP survey being of my creation--

Column 47

Mr. Duffy : I did not say that.

Ms. Richardson : Well, something that seemed to belong to me. I believe that the results of that poll should be of great interest to the House and something of which we should take note.

Mr. Peter Thurnham (Bolton, North-East) : I shall help the hon. Lady with some of the figures for public opinion. Every opinion poll has shown that the public are in favour of research that would help to reduce the incidence of congenital handicap. Even the report commissioned by the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children, which tried to conceal that figure, revealed that 58 per cent. were in favour of research. The latest opinion poll by NOP shows that 71 per cent. of the public are in favour of embryo research for that purpose.

Ms. Richardson : Although I am not often grateful to a Conservative Member, I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) for finding the piece of paper that I had misplaced. It is rather curious that I have now found that piece of paper as well.

Mr. Burt : Will the hon. Lady give way?

Ms. Richardson : No, I have been speaking for too long already. Our responsibility tonight is very heavy. Their Lordships have shown the way by voting 3 : 1 in favour of research continuing under strictly controlled and accountable conditions. They clearly saw, as the public now see, that research can be beneficial to humankind and that it can be creative rather than destructive. Some of that research will not bear fruit for many years, perhaps not until after we in this House have retired or passed on. Therefore, we are legislating for the future and for the future of later generations. I hope that those generations will not have to say in years to come that on the night of 23 April 1990 the House of Commons turned its back on them by banning research and progress for better lives for people with problems. I hope that the House will vote decisively--as decisively as, or even more so than, the House of Lords did--for research to continue.

5.15 pm

Sir Bernard Braine : May I first thank the Government for arranging our business in such a way that we can discuss the momentous issue of embryo research on the Floor of the House rather than in Standing Committee? In doing that, the Government have rightly recognised the sincerely and deeply held views on both sides of the House, and for that we are all--and particularly the pro-life movement--truly grateful.

On Second Reading I made clear the position of the all-party pro-life group on this issue but I hope that hon. Members will forgive me if I reiterate two basic points. First, I said that the subject of our debate is the embryonic human, a living dynamic being having its origin in the meeting of human sperm with the human egg. At the point of fertilisation an irreversible process of human development begins. It is here that our clock starts. Before that point a new life is a possibility ; thereafter, it is an actuality. Human life begins then at conception. That is not a philosophical point, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health seemed to suggest. A

Column 48

well-known embryology textbook entitled "The Developing Human", which was published as recently as 1988, states :

"Human development is a continuous process that begins when an ovum from a female is fertilised by a sperm from a male. Cell division, growth and differentiation transform the fertilised ovum, into a multicellular adult human being."

That is the technical explanation and the point at which we should start this debate. In short, we are not talking about a cluster of cells. We are talking about human life and it should be treated as such.

Secondly, I established on Second Reading just what we are opposing and what we are not opposing. I said that we are not against all scientific research. We oppose destructive or non-therapeutic research on human embryos of a type that does not help the individual embryo to live and grow. We object to experimentation which kills the patient. We hold that that is the only moral and responsible position to take.

The practice or provision of in vitro fertilisation as treatment for infertility is not at stake. We are considering here whether we should allow destructive or non-therapeutic research to continue. In vitro fertilisation as such will continue and will not be stopped. That is not the issue we should be discussing. It is important also to recognise that, repugnant though it is for some, the method of detecting defective embryos will continue to be allowed.

Schedule 2(1) states that licences may be granted for a course of treatment containing

"practices designed to secure that embryos are in a suitable condition to be placed in a woman or to determine whether embryos are suitable for that purpose".

So hon. Members who are concerned that embryos bearing certain defective genes are unlikely to be detected before insertion into a woman's uterus, need not be worried about voting for a ban on research. That practice would not be stopped even if we voted for a ban. The Bill clearly sets this out. Infertile couples can still be helped through IVF.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke : I have a couple of genuine questions for my right hon. Friend. I am not sure of his position. For example, what would be his position if the sex of embroys has been established and there is a genetic disorder that can be suffered by male children and not by female children? Does he accept that the female embryo should be re-implanted and the male embryos allowed to perish, or does he say that all the embryos, including those that may carry a genetic disorder, should be re-implanted?

Sir Bernard Braine : I shall not be drawn on that. [Interruption.] We are dealing here with questions of life and death --

[Interruption.] Therefore, I have an open mind on that subject. I think that we need to go into it in detail. The general proposition that I have made is either accepted by the House and by my right hon. and learned Friend, or it is not : that IVF can continue even if there is a ban on research. I shall deal with that in a larger sense later, because there was an absence from my right hon. and learned Friend's speech--I shall refer to him in a moment--which suggested that the matter has still not been thought through.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman : There is a difference between allowing an embryo to perish and deliberately killing it.

Column 49

Sir Bernard Braine : Certainly. Perhaps when the laughter has subsided, some of our hon. Friends will regret having made the interventions that they did. The point I am making is that we are constantly told that, if research were to be banned, then in effect IVF would cease because further research would be outlawed. That is simply not true.

Mrs. Edwina Currie (Derbyshire, South) : I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Father of the House, for whom I have the utmost respect. How can he possibly will the results so that IVF should continue and not will the research that produced IVF in the first place?

Sir Bernard Braine : If my hon. Friend and the House will permit me to develop my argument, they will see that, although I say that IVF may continue, I do not put my faith about finding a solution to the larger problem of infertility in IVF alone. If I may be allowed to develop my argument, it will be seen that there has been a gap in the provision of information on other methods. Then perhaps we can see the matter in perspective. It would be better if I were allowed to develop my argument.

Mr. Alton : Before the right hon. Gentleman develops his argument, does he accept that it is one of the cruel paradoxes that in this country today one in five pregnancies now end in abortion? Some 184, 000 children are aborted each year, and sadly only 10 per cent. of couples will ever be helped by IVF. For the other 90 per cent., if only those children were available for adoption, that would be one way in which many families could provide loving homes for many wanted children.

Sir Bernard Braine : I agree. That is one of the moral conundrums we face. Since the passage of the Abortion Act 1967, 2 to 3 million children, most of whom, if allowed to be born, would have been perfectly fit and healthy, have been destroyed. There are alternatives, such as finding happy homes with loving adopted parents. However, we shall discuss the scandal of late abortions tomorrow.

I now come straight to the point that I wanted to make. I have had a letter from a husband and wife who state :

"As an infertile couple we are anxious to correct the seriously misleading impression that human embryo experimentation is necessary to help people like us. This is not only completely false--it is also giving cruelly false hope to infertile people throughout the country.

The truth is that even the Warnock Report admitted that test-tube technique (IVF) is suitable for only about 5 per cent. of infertile couples. Furthermore, in countries where embryo experimentation is banned, it is totally wrong to claim that the IVF success rate will not be improved. In fact, in the State of South Australia where embryo research is against the law, the success rate is reported to be higher than in Britain."

I did not leave my reading of that moving statement there. I checked with my parliamentary medical scientific advisers. Dr. John McLean, senior lecturer in embryology and anatomy at the university of Manchester, tells me :

"The fact is that since legislation outlawing embryo research was passed the development of IVF in both Victoria and South Australia continues on a par with anywhere else in the world and the results as measured by livebirths in South Australia are the best in the world by about 1 per cent.-2 per cent. The livebirth rate from IVF, judged from the egg pick-up stage achieved by Professor Colin Matthews at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Woodville, South Australia, at 17 per cent.-18 per cent. per treatment cycle is considerably better than the figures for Britain given in the Fourth Report of the Interim Licensing Authority."

That is why hope for the future lies in this direction. I am not saying that there should not be experimentation

Column 50

here which has the effect of helping infertile couples, but for God's sake we must surely look at the world situation as a whole and see what is being done elsewere. I should hope that the chief medical officer is able to ascertain for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State what is happening in Australia, where there have been considerable advances.

Mr. Thurnham : Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Sir Bernard Braine : I shall not give way to my hon. Friend because of the misleading information that he gave the House in his earlier intervention.

Indeed, the 1989 report of the interim licensing authority states :

"There have been substantial improvements in the efficiency of IVF mainly through better methods for regulating the development of eggs in the ovaries and simple procedures for collecting eggs." I am advised that further research could be carried out on the sperm and the egg, which we certainly would not oppose, rather than killing and disposing of human embryos. One of my advisers, an embryologist, has written to me to make the following point--this is not my view but that of a practising embryologist- -

"In vitro fertilisation as a technique has probably reached its acme as far as the in vitro part of the procedure is concerned. The low success rate of the procedures measured by the birth of a live healthy baby lies primarily with the failure of the embryos produced by fertilisation in vitro to implant successfully in the uterus." Even Professor Robert Winston, an active and respected figure, told us in 1982 in the medical journal Hospital Doctor that tubal surgery was much more successful than IVF. In that year, he would have offered microsurgery rather than IVF as a treatment for infertility.

My right hon. and learned Friend said that no other method of treatment showed the same result. Not so. I have given two examples of where other treatment is available, and it is showing good results. We are also led by numerous newspaper articles and by television to believe that IVF is a tried and tested procedure and that it can guarantee parents who may be at risk that they will have a normal child. That is a cruel deceit. Hon. Members may consider it to be unreasonable of me to say this--I allow that there are sharp differences of opinion across the Committee--but I do so in full knowledge of the facts.

The pro-experimentation lobby is not able to name a single genetic disease, the treatment of which has been helped by human embryo research. Note also that, with them, new discoveries are always around the corner, just about to emerge. The pro-experimentation lobby claims that it may soon be possible to perform pre-implantation diagnosis, examining cells from an embryo to discover whether a specific disorder is present and then destroying the affected embryo. But researchers have been saying for years that that technique is imminent. In 1985 it was just around the corner ; in 1987 it could be introduced within months if embryo research were allowed to continue. I remember, when the Warnock report was published, Lady Warnock saying in subsequent discussion that 14 days would do for a beginning. What we are being led to legislate for is the beginning since no great success is likely to be achieved in the first 14 days. After that, perhaps, but then we would be in a different ball game. A six-year study of normal IVF published in Australia in 1988 found that the incidence of spina bifida was five times higher than normal ; that of congenital heart disease

Column 51

was six times higher than normal and perinatal mortality was four times higher than normal. How can pro- experimenters say that couples can guarantee that any pregnancy achieved by that method would be unaffected?

A paper published in The Lancet --a respected journal--last October warned :

"The public health position requires that efficacy and risks be known before the procedure becomes standard. We should heed the lessons of the Dalkon Shield and thalidomide".

We should take that warning seriously.

5.30 pm

If so much can be achieved without using human embryos for the treatment of infertility, why is there such pressure for us to sanction it? Will research using the human embryo up to 14 days--which the Bill provides-- reveal the answer? Is embryo research vital to find cures for genetic disease? The plain answer to these two questions is no. It has certainly not been necessary to make vital discoveries for the treatment of cystic fibrosis and muscular dystrophy, to name but two. My advisers have told me that to pursue research into any of those conditions it is logically obvious to examine cells from adults who have given their consent and who are known to have the disorder, or cells obtained for legitimate reasons from children with the disorder. Such methods would not be fatal and we on the pro-life side--which stretches across all parties--welcome such research. That would be true therapy.

Mr. David Tredinnick (Bosworth) : I am following my right hon. Friend's argument with interest, but I find it mystifying that the Royal College of Surgeons and the Royal Society should support such research. Can my right hon. Friend explain to the House how it is that his views and theirs are diametrically opposed?

Sir Bernard Braine : If I had more time, I would give my right hon. Friend and the Committee a list of the distinguished advisers whom we have attracted from every branch of medicine. Most of them are professors emeritus. They include Professor Hubert Campbell, emeritus professor of medical statistics at the Welsh National School of Medicine, Dr. McLean, to whom I have already referred, Professor Sir John Dewhurst, emeritus professor of obstetrics and gynaecology at Queen Charlotte's hospital, Dr. Jarmulowicz, lecturer in histopathology, at the Royal Free hospital school in London and Professor John Marshall, emeritus professor of clinical neurology at the university of London who signed a minority report.

We should remember that the Warnock committee was not unanimous--it was split--and Professor Marshall, a distinguished neurologist, one of the most famous in the world, took a contrary view, coming out against experimentation. I cannot answer why it is possible for the pro-life movement to attract some of the most distinguished, internationally known and respected figures while the royal colleges and other bodies take a different view, although I could hazard a guess.

Ms. Richardson : I have been listening with great care to the right hon. Gentleman, but with respect to the eminent people whom he was quoting, are they carrying out research now or is it not a fact that most of them have retired?

Column 52

Sir Bernard Braine : That is a very unworthy remark. Most of them are still active and are highly respected in the world of research. The hon. Lady might care to write to them and find out. I have not quoted the distinguished figures in France, the United States and Australia who also advise us. Just as the Committee is divided, so may be the medical and scientific professions, and that greatly disturbs me. I remember when the German medical profession was sharply divided on certain issues. But for us the buck stops here. It rests not with those learned bodies, but here in this House, and we have to make up our minds.

Mr. Tredinnick : Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Sir Bernard Braine : No. I shall not give way again, because other hon. Members wish to express their views.

I have reached some conclusions and I should like to put them to the House. Let me return to my original question. If so much can be achieved without using human embryos in research, why are so many eager to conduct such research? I have a suspicion that I should mention in the House. For the big drug companies, for example, embryo experimentation could unlock the door to unlimited riches and provide the means of finding the perfect contraceptive. Even the Warnock committee concluded that there might be a case for allowing human embryos to be used for drug testing--subject, of course, to scrutiny by a licensing body. However, that committee was not unanimous. Professor John Marshall and two other members of the Warnock committee made it quite clear in their minority report that human embryos should not be subjected to such experiments.

Where will the experimenters get sufficient eggs to fertilise for their research? Tens of thousands will be needed to provide sufficient for research projects. Of necessity, that would require the use of super- ovulatory drugs, to be given to women to produce more eggs than the one that is part of their normal cycle. IVF practitioners have already expressed concern that fertility drug regimes led to the production of immature or abnormal ova and caused disturbance of the inner wall of the womb, which would make it difficult for the embryo to implant.

I am making a serious charge, and I should like to hear someone responsible in Government address the matter. I am advised that the use of such drugs can cause serious problems for women. It is no more than treating women, as well as the human embryos used in the research, as guinea pigs. Will women waiting for IVF treatment or sterilisation be encouraged to donate their eggs and use such drugs with promises of being moved up the waiting list if they agree? Let us be given an answer to that by the scientists and let the Minister tell the House just what the Government have in mind.

Let it not be said that talk of egg and embryo banks is futuristic and hysterical, as was the suggestion behind some of the interventions by my hon. Friends. It emerged at the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology conference in 1987 that large numbers of frozen human embryos were stockpiled at IVF centres in Britain, France and Australia, and at least one delegate predicted that embryos would be marketed.

The Bill is so phrased in clause 14(1)(b) that it would allow the trading of gametes or human embryos between licensed persons, even if they were not needed for treatment services. What does that mean? Let Ministers explain that horrendous inclusion in the Bill, if they can.

Column 53

Those of us in the pro-life movement are often accused of certainty about the beginning of life and its value whereas others are not quite so sure. We have heard an example of that from my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State this afternoon. While I do not believe that such certainty is mistaken, what approach should the House take? I believe that the safest, most reasonable and most moral course to take is to say no to destructive

experimentation. Why do I say that? Because, surely, if there is any reasonable doubt about the status of the human embryo, we should give it the benefit of the doubt. The human embryo has an overwhelming call upon our conscience and duty.

We have heard a great deal recently about the views of the Archbishop of York, but he does not speak for the majority of Christians. [ Hon. Members :-- "Shame."] He does not. The Anglican Bishop of Peterborough does not support the Archbishop of York. I should like to quote him and I should like the House to weigh his words carefully. He said :

"I have always taken the view that when in doubt it is safer to say no. Those who would seek change must discharge the full burden of proof and that they have not done."

Those who favour experimentation have not proved beyond reasonable doubt that the human embryo is not a human being. They have tried to cloak the fact that it is a human being by calling it a pre-embryo. We had an example of that this afternoon. Perhaps the hon. Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson) will tell the House in which dictionary she found that term. Words such as pre-embryo and conceptus--

Mrs. Teresa Gorman (Billericay) : Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Sir Bernard Braine : Although I do not wish to give way in the middle of a sentence, I shall give way.

Mrs. Gorman : On a point of information, the term pre-embryo was coined by the voluntary authority in order to establish the presence of a cell mass before it begins to differentiate. That is why the term was established.

Sir Bernard Braine : That body has no real status. The Secretary of State told us so this afternoon. It invented the term precisely in order to confuse, as the hon. Member should know. There is no such thing as a pre- embryo in medical terms. After this debate it may begin to find its way into medical dictionaries, but it is not there now. These are changes in nomenclature, not in fact.

Finally, we have been regaled with promises of what embryo experimentation might achieve in terms of advances in the treatment of genetic diseases and infertility treatment but nowhere, and at no time, has the experimentation lobby proved beyond reasonable doubt that the subject is not a human being. Indeed, it would not want the embryo if it were not human and did not have the innate capacity to develop as a human being. It would be of no use. It concedes its own case by referring to human embryos to distinguish them from animal embryos. The case for experimentation is no more than a cruel deception with false hopes constantly being paraded to encourage supporters to its side.

One must have some humility in trying to resolve this question. The overwhelming number of scientists in this country and elsewhere are highly motivated in an honourable quest for improvement in the human condition. Several have said to me--it is right to speak

Column 54

frankly and openly--"Surely we should have learnt something from the descent of Nazi medicine into awfulness, when some doctors claimed that it did not matter how they acquired knowledge because the end justified the means." I mention that not in order to excite passions but deliberately. With that awful example before it, it is not surprising that the German Parliament has just banned such research. Perhaps awareness of what was done by perverted science remains stronger there than here.

What then is the only responsible course of action open to this Committee and this House? It is surely to give the human embryo the benefit of the doubt and to vote for a ban on research.

Mr. Duffy : The vital decisions that we reach tonight on human fertilisation and embryology and tomorrow on pregnancy termination must affect how we regard the status of each individual, his or her human rights, the treatment of the handicapped and the fate of the senile and terminally ill. Therefore, we must proceed with the greatest care.

Embryo research is complex and involves a spectrum of medical, scientific, ethical and moral issues. It also abounds in myths and partial truths, as I said on Second Reading. For example, like the Father of the House, I invited hon. Members present then who were in favour of human embryo research to give the House one example of what has been discovered in research into genetic diseases that could not have been discovered in any other way. I now invite hon. Members present who believe that scientists need human embryos for worthwhile research to explain why the practice has been forbidden in Denmark, Ireland, Norway and Portugal, as well as parts of Australia, as the Father of the House reminded us. It is also soon to be forbidden in West Germany. They should also tell us why the European Council of Ministers has recommended the same course of action.

5.45 pm

Mr. Robert Key (Salisbury) : In answer to the hon. Gentleman's question, that says more about the politicians in those countries than about the scientists. It speaks volumes about the ignorance and timidity of the politicians. It does not stop the scientists from benefiting from the research done in this country and all round the world.

Mr. Duffy : That intervention will be judged by hon. Members present on its merits. The hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), for whom I have the greatest respect and whose important speech on Second Reading I remember, will regret those remarks on reflection. The only response that I received at the end of my speech on Second Reading was from my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). I gave him notice that I would raise this matter. He began his speech--with a little relieved support from some of my hon. Friends--by saying :

"My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy) will understand that some of us were pained and distressed by his speech."-- [Official Report, 2 April 1990 ; Vol. 170, c. 976.] I pressed him later to explain what parts of my speech had distressed him, as did some of my hon. Friends, and I have written to him, but so far I have received no response.

Next Section

Home Page