| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
11.24 am
Dame Jill Knight (Birmingham, Edgbaston): The hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) deserves to be paid great tribute for the way in which he has presented his constituent's case. He has been very factual, but he has also been very moving. He has demonstrated what the House is all about, and has undermined the arguments of those who constantly attack hon. Members and think that they do not do their jobs. The overwhelming majority of hon. Members, from both sides of the House, behave honourably and do their utmost in serving their constituents. The hon. Gentleman has done his utmost, and I can pay no higher tribute to him than that.
The Blood case is very sad, and no one can help but be moved by Mrs. Blood's plight. I sometimes think that only those who have lost a beloved husband can understand what such a loss means. I have lost a husband, and I understand. I have the greatest possible sympathy for Mrs. Blood. Moreover, from what the hon. Member for Bassetlaw has told the House, I have no doubts about Mrs. Blood's excellent character, her experience and interest in children or the fact that, if she and her husband had been able to have a child in the normal way, they would have been extremely good parents.
I cannot help thinking, however, of the old adage about hard cases making bad laws. The only aspect of the speech by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw that worried me was that not one word was said about the child. I am very concerned about children. I am concerned that, when children are brought into the world by methods that I can describe only as "unnatural"--that sounds unkind, but it is not meant to be; it is meant to be factual--or by a scientific procedure, they have the right to expect the law to protect them, because they are so utterly vulnerable. They have no say in whether they are to be born.
Some years ago, when the House considered such children, we rightly said that the child's interests should be paramount. There were no two ways about it: we said that their interests are paramount. After hearing the tragic circumstances of the Blood case, which the hon. Gentleman has explained so well, in my heart I still cannot believe that the child's position should be downgraded because of the mother's tragic despair. I am extremely sorry for Mrs. Blood, but I should be very sorry for a child who would be bound to know when his father had died.
All hon. Members understand that a child might not be born in this case at all, and that it is not correct to say that a child would definitely be born if Mrs. Blood were successful in her request and underwent the procedure. If it were successful and a baby were born, however, the child might grow up to be imaginative. For him to have to take on board the fact that he was born as the child of a dead man, and not until many months after his father's death, would be enough to cause nightmares in that child.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman (Lancaster):
Will my hon. Friend give way on that point?
Dame Jill Knight:
No; I should like to finish this argument first.
All hon. Members understand that children are sometimes born and their fathers then die. We weep about such desperately sad cases, although the mothers in such tragic cases often bring up their children very well. Surely, if the interests of the child are paramount, there cannot be any doubt that the best way to have a child is with a father and a mother. Sometimes, that is not possible because something terrible happens, such as the father being killed in an accident. Of course I am not saying that a single mother or father--it could be the mother who dies--cannot bring up a child well. Many single parents do a marvellous job of bringing up their children.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman:
Will my hon. Friend give way?
Dame Jill Knight:
Forgive me, but I must finish this point. My hon. Friend must be a little patient.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman:
Please do not sit down without letting me in.
Dame Jill Knight:
I shall let my hon. Friend make her point, but I must say that there can be little doubt that the ideal way to bring a child into the world is with a father and a mother. It is no use saying that that is not the best way just because tragedies can occur.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman:
I rarely disagree with my hon. Friend on such matters, but I cannot for the life of me understand her strong objection in this case. Given the fact that the mother will clearly adore the child and bearing in mind the history of the family, with the father also having wanted a child, why should the child have nightmares? He should be thrilled that his parents so wanted him.
Dame Jill Knight:
How can a child be thrilled that he has no father? How can a child be thrilled that he has only one parent? He can be sad about that, but he cannot be thrilled about it.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman:
He will not have nightmares.
Dame Jill Knight:
A sensitive child might well have nightmares at the certain knowledge that he was born from a dead man. That frightens me.
Mr. Eric Illsley (Barnsley, Central):
Will the hon. Lady give way?
Dame Jill Knight:
Yes, but this is the last time, because we do not have much time.
Mr. Illsley:
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. Is not consent the issue? If Mr. Blood had given written consent before he died, the child would have been born to a single parent. The issue is consent, not the effect on the child of being born by a particular procedure.
Dame Jill Knight:
The hon. Gentleman's point is reasonable, but it does not address the whole situation, which is as I have described. We do not know what the gentleman might have done. We think that we know, but
The hon. Member for Bassetlaw rightly made some important and sympathetic points, but those points cannot give the child a father, which is what I am worried about. It cannot be right to say that fathers do not matter much or that it does not make two bits of difference whether a father is there. If the interests of the child are paramount, we must consider the fact that a child needs a father.
The hon. Member for Bassetlaw said that the birth was prevented by the state. It was not. It was prevented by the tragic death of the poor man. The situation is not the same as for kidney, hearts or livers because, as I am sure that the hon. Member for Bassetlaw knows, such organs can be used only if they come from a virtually living man. Hearts or livers cannot be frozen. The two situations are not the same.
Mr. David Alton (Liverpool, Mossley Hill):
The debate so far has been conducted thoughtfully. We should all be grateful to the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) for the way in which he has put the harrowing details of the case before the House--details that illustrate the moral choices that we have to make as a result of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990. The hon. Gentleman will know that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) and I voted against that legislation because, as we said at the time, it opened a Pandora's box. The fact of being scientifically possible does not necessarily make certain actions right. We said then that the Act would inevitably lead to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority having to consider circumstances such as those of this tragic case.
I echo the words of the hon. Member for Edgbaston on how hard cases can sometimes make bad law. However, that does not relieve us of the responsibility of examining the conduct of an authority established by Parliament. I entirely agree with the remarks of the hon. Member for Bassetlaw on the conduct of the HFEA and the need to reform that body. Most of my speech will address that.
Before I come to that, I shall follow the hon. Member for Bassetlaw in addressing some of the issues raised by Mrs. Blood's case. The hon. Gentleman cited Lord Winston, with the example of someone giving consent for their kidneys, lungs or any other organ to be taken. Many of us carry organ donor cards because we recognise the need for medicine to have access to organs to save lives. However, there is a distinction to be drawn between the organs that we give to help maintain another person's life and those elements that create new life. That is the distinction that the House and the HFEA must examine carefully.
Many people have argued that Mrs. Blood's desire to have her husband's child should be satisfied and that it is harsh and pedantic to use the law to prevent that, but it is important to consider all the ethical issues raised by the
case, particularly in view of the fact that the interests of Mrs. Blood may not be as clear cut as has sometimes been suggested.
Great emphasis has been laid on personal choice. I have never accepted that the word choice should be paramount above the right to life. In his moving introduction to the circumstances behind the case, the hon. Member for Bassetlaw mentioned the fact that Mr. Blood was opposed to abortion. He believed, as I believe, that there must be limitations on choice. People do not have the right to do certain things. Our rights language has become one of the biggest problems that we suffer. Everything is considered to be a claimed right. We do not say enough about our responsibilities, duties and obligations. The right to create or destroy life is highly contestable. Parliament has a duty to protect the interests of a child and to weigh them carefully alongside the rights claimed by parents, doctors or scientists.
Mrs. Blood's case is not simply about rights. It raises issues of consent, but it also concerns respect for human generation, the posthumous generation of children from dead parents and, as the hon. Member for Edgbaston said, a child's need for a father.
An act of artificial insemination after the father has died cannot represent a couple's on-going commitment to each other, nor can it lead to the welcoming of new life into an existing relationship. The father is obviously no longer present as a living human being. To use a part of him to make a child is a travesty of normal, conscious human procreation.
The need of the child for a father is one aspect of the case which has been neglected in the public discussion despite the fact that the HFEA specifically requires that need to be taken into account in giving fertility treatment. Indeed, that was the decision the House took when we considered the 1990 legislation. It is a provision that we laid down, so the HFEA is acting on something that Parliament insisted on.
Mrs. Blood has argued that she could have had sperm from an anonymous donor who could, indeed, be dead by the time his sperm was used in fertility treatment. It is true that single women are sometimes given fertility treatment. However, that practice is of doubtful legality and it is a matter to which the House should return in due course. I hope that the debate that has been instigated by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw today will open a review of the legislation and of the workings of the HFEA.
To treat a father simply as a source of genetic material and as someone whose presence will not be required at any stage is to ignore the strong interests of children in forming relationships with those who bring them into being. It is well known that adoptive children who, of course, are usually adopted by couples, frequently develop a strong desire to know their birth parents. The child of a single woman is deprived not simply of his or her genetic father, but of any father, genetic or social. Children need a male as well as a female parent in order to learn about human relationships, and boys in particular need a male role model at home.
It has been claimed that Mrs. Blood has a right to the use of her husband's sperm, but that is very doubtful. Society has a strong interest in the creation of children
in circumstances that are conducive to those children's well-being, especially when health care professionals are involved in their procreation.
Whatever a person's desire to have a child, a single woman faces a difficult task in bringing up a child single-handed. If the father is not present at any stage, not even during the pregnancy itself, the woman is deprived of an irreplaceable source of support. Two people, in a committed marriage relationship, should be involved in the creation of a child and two people should be involved, as far as is possible, in caring for the child so created. That is a perfectly reasonable demand for Parliament to make, even though it means that from time to time there will be terribly tragic cases of the sort described today.
It would be wrong to breach the principle that wherever it is reasonably possible, if we are deliberately creating life, there should be a father and a mother to bring up that child. That is clearly in the best interests of the child, and in saying that, I am not making any judgment about people who, through other circumstances, are having to bring up children by themselves. Most people who are in that situation would say that they would much prefer to have the support of the father or the mother, depending on who is absent.
The hon. Member for Bassetlaw has a strong point when he talks about the conduct of the HFEA. A year or so ago, the HFEA began the process of public consultation on the use of eggs from aborted girls who were to be selected by a scientist in Edinburgh who had sought permission to do so. The HFEA felt that it was a reasonable enough proposition to go out to public consultation. It failed to take an immediate stand on the principle of the deliberate selection of unborn baby girls and the harvesting of their eggs for use in subsequent fertility treatments, which would mean that the child's mother would be an aborted foetus and the grandmother the person who allowed the abortion to take place. That was a pretty hideous proposal which, as a result of the amendment tabled to subsequent legislation by the hon. Member for Edgbaston, which I supported, was outlawed.
That proposal contrasts with this case, and it is no wonder that people are confused. To place such importance, as the HFEA has done, on the issue of sperm donation, whereas a fertilised egg is not to be treated in precisely the same manner, raises the question of the basis on which the HFEA operates.
The constitution of the HFEA is the genesis of its dilemmas. On 18 November 1993, BBC Radio 4 broadcast the "Analysis" programme. The presenter, the admirable columnist from The Observer, Melanie Phillips, laid bare the way in which Parliament was manipulated into passing the 1990 Act. One example concerned the way in which membership of the Warnock committee of inquiry was determined.
On 23 July 1982, the Government had announced the terms of reference for an inquiry into the ethical issues associated with human fertilisation and embryology. That was done largely to spike an attempt by Enoch Powell, then a private Member, to ban human embryo experimentation. The Oxford philosopher Baroness Warnock was appointed to chair the committee, which reported on 18 July 1984.
During her interview with Miss Phillips, Baroness Warnock admitted that she vetoed the appointment of a particular member of the committee because of that person's religious and moral beliefs. Miss Phillips had referred to the constitution of the committee, saying that
Baroness Warnock got her committee and she got her report. However, difficult ethical questions were ruled out of court from the beginning. In her own words, the committee deliberately excluded
The report was widely cited in both Houses of Parliament during the passage of the 1990 Act. The Government, having established the committee, laid the committee's proposals before Parliament and hid behind the august figure of Lady Warnock as if the Bill had nothing to do with them.
The 1990 Act for the first time permitted destructive experiments on human embryos. The debate today is in sharp contrast with the decision this summer to destroy up to 3,000 fertilised human eggs. This debate is an extraordinary contrast to the way in which the HFEA dealt with that issue.
The relative ease with which the Warnock committee secured its objectives became the model for the composition and operation of the HFEA. Apart from loading its membership with people who share the Warnock view of ethics, the HFEA finances itself from
the very clinics it is supposed to police. Fees account for 70 per cent. of the authority's income. That is utterly incestuous. It means that people cannot afford to say no too often and, in the case of the HFEA, ever.
The HFEA earns money from the creation of spare embryos, because it is funded through the licences it grants to the clinics that create the spares and then undertake the experiments. In terms of job security and future funding, it has a built-in incentive to make the situation even worse. That is no basis for good ethics.
The members of the HFEA were chosen so that there would be no squeamishness about the practices that it was established to regulate. Its members are a mixture of the politically and religiously correct. They include Liz Forgan, the managing director of BBC network radio, and the Bishop of Edinburgh, who said that
There is not and never has been a single member of the HFEA who upholds the sanctity of human life from fertilisation. Such old-fashioned religious belief is thought of as quaint at best and as dangerous bigotry at worst.
"the shape these committees take is so important in determining their eventual conclusions."
Baroness Warnock replied:
"The potential chairman is approached either by the Minister or by the permanent secretary or both. But, of course, one doesn't know how many other people have been approached.
In the interview, Baroness Warnock then said that she used the veto to exclude one nominee on the ground of that person's religious and moral convictions. She said:
I sometimes get the feeling really that they sort of wade through dozens of names and then come up with someone who's a sucker and says yes. But, at any rate, after that, the thing is shrouded in mystery really.
I was then given a kind of draft list and asked whether there were any other people I thought would be obvious choices.
Maybe people who were not yet among the great and the good. And was, with some difficulty, allowed a power of veto."
"I just knew that I couldn't work with him. We went right up to the day before publication with the civil servant saying, 'But there's nobody else in the world.'
I subsequently wrote to the Prime Minister to protest at the way in which a parliamentary committee had been rigged and to call for a better balance on committees considering ethical questions, between those who believed that ethical actions carried consequences and those who believed that there were no consequences. My letter received a courteous enough reply, but no action was taken.
So, in the end, the night before publication, I said, 'Well, will you please tell the Minister that it's a very bad way to embark on working on a committee when you know that there's somebody you're not going to find easy to work with.'
The following morning two names were suggested. So I did win on that but it was very, very hard and it took a lot of persistence."
"questions of when life or personhood begins."
That comes back to the point made by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw. As that question was one of the central ethical issues in determining the new law, it seemed an extraordinary omission.
"we are all born with adulterous genes"
and that
"genetic engineering may be compared with corrective medicine, such as the fitting of a pair of glasses."
Another member is the actress Penelope Keith, best known for her starring role in "The Good Life". She is a neighbour of the former Secretary of State for Health, now Secretary of State for National Heritage.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |