House of Commons
Friday 17 November 2000
The House met at half-past Nine o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. Speaker in the Chair]
Motion made and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.--[Mr. McNulty.]
Embryology
9.33 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Yvette Cooper): I am pleased to open today's debate on stem cell research and the human fertilisation and embryology regulations. These are important issues, and the debate will be extremely interesting.
The Government announced last August that they intended to introduce regulations to extend the purposes for which human embryos may be used in research in response to the report by the chief medical officer--the Donaldson report--entitled "Stem Cell Research: Medical Progress with Responsibility". I shall say more about that report later.
The regulations will be placed before both Houses and decided on a free vote. Although the timing of the regulations has yet to be decided by business managers, the Government felt that it was important for these complex and emotive issues to be fully aired in Parliament before any votes took place. That is why I am pleased that the House has a chance to debate the matter today. We regard this as the beginning, not the end, of the debate.
Mr. Desmond Swayne (New Forest, West): Given the emotive nature of the issue and the prejudices that many people rightly hold, would it not have been better to have avoided the use of regulations, which are unamendable, and to have introduced primary legislation, which is amendable?
Yvette Cooper: The issues were fully aired in the House during the passage of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990, which provides for such regulations to be made. The possibility of allowing regulations to be made was fully debated at that time, so making regulations is in keeping with the conclusions that were reached in 1990.
Mrs. Ann Winterton (Congleton): I was a Member of the House at that time, but I cannot recall a debate on cloning. Will the Under-Secretary refer me to that provision in the Act and confirm that the vote will be taken on the Floor of the House, not in a Delegated Legislation Committee upstairs?
Yvette Cooper: I can confirm that there will be a debate on the Floor of the House and a free vote--the
matter will not be decided in Committee. I shall later discuss cloning, therapeutic cloning and stem cell research.
Mrs. Winterton: I asked the hon. Lady a straight question. In her opening remarks, she asserted that the 1990 Act provided for cloning--the misuse of the word "therapeutic" is neither here nor there--and the letter circulated by the Department of Health also says that that was so. Where is that provision in the Act?
Yvette Cooper: No, I did not say that at all. I said that provision was made in the 1990 Act for regulations to be extended in such a way. The regulations do not make therapeutic cloning legal or illegal; nor do they refer to therapeutic cloning or the technique known as cell nuclear replacement. They do not differentiate between cell nuclear replacement and embryos created through in vitro fertilisation. I will cover those complex issues later. However, the 1990 Act clearly allowed for the regulations to go ahead in their current form.
Mr. Peter Bottomley (Worthing, West): It is perfectly clear that if recommendation 1 of the Donaldson report were brought before the House through the regulations, and if the regulations were not within the 1990 Act, progress could not be made on that basis.
I strongly support the request of my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton), which was granted by the Under-Secretary, for a debate on the Floor of the House, not tucked away in a Committee. Will the Under-Secretary also confirm that Acts of Parliament would be required to implement many other recommendations in the report? I suspect that she will confirm that the real reason for using regulations is that the proposals would probably pass through the House more easily than if implementing recommendation 1 involved an Act of Parliament. That would involve a re-run of many of the issues that were properly discussed in the House during the passage of the 1990 Act.
Yvette Cooper: I disagree with the hon. Gentleman's last point. We are using regulations because the 1990 Act gives us the power to do that. He rightly said that other issues raised in the Donaldson report could not be implemented through regulations. The principles behind those issues have never been discussed by the House and it would be right to do so in a debate involving primary legislation. However, that does not affect our decision to use regulations in this context. Clearly, a free vote in the House is necessary. If the House and the other place reject the proposal, the regulations will not be made. All hon. Members will have the chance, in today's debate and in that which will precede the vote on the regulations, to consider the issues and to decide the right thing to do. If Members do not want to proceed through regulations, they can vote to that effect.
Rev. Ian Paisley (North Antrim): Will the Minister give way?
Yvette Cooper: I give way for the last time on the process issues because I want to get on to the substance of the debate.
Rev. Ian Paisley: The Minister will be aware that this matter was discussed recently in the European Parliament,
when many contrary statements were made about the state of law in the various member nations of the European Union. Will she take time to comment on that debate and the state of law within Europe?
Yvette Cooper: It is true that the matter has been aired in discussions throughout Europe and that different member states have different positions on all the issues. Many other member states are going through discussions around the issues, too. If the hon. Gentleman allows me, I will cover that matter in my closing speech. I have more information to give to the House, but I would like to make some progress on the nature of the regulations that will be before the House.
Like the 1990 Act, which the regulations will amend, the issue will be decided on a free vote. It is not a party political issue. There are Members from all parties with strong views on both sides of the issue. I hope that Members will have the chance to consider the complex questions before deciding how to vote.
Difficult scientific and moral questions are at stake. Some Members will be opposed to the regulations as a matter of strongly held principle. Those who oppose the 1990 Act will doubtless oppose the regulations, too. Those who oppose any form of research with embryos will oppose the regulations. Those who oppose the creation and, inevitably, the destruction of embryos through IVF treatment will also oppose the regulations.
I have considerable respect for those views and I shall listen with attention as they are raised and aired in debates in the House. However, I disagree with them. I recognise and respect the fact that many Members will feel, as a matter of conscience, that they need to vote against the regulations, but the moral arguments cut both ways and there are strong ethical arguments in favour of the regulations, given their potential to relieve the suffering of many thousands of families. Many hon. Members like me feel that, as a matter of conscience, we need to vote in favour of the regulations. For those who support the 1990 Act and IVF treatment, there is a strong case for supporting the regulations, too.
Before I return to the arguments surrounding the regulations, let me set out the current law and the changes that the regulations would introduce. Under the 1990 Act, the use of human embryos in research is permitted, but only under certain strict conditions. Embryos may be used in research for only one of five clear purposes: advances in the treatment of infertility; increasing knowledge about the causes of congenital diseases; increasing knowledge about the causes of miscarriage; developing more effective contraception techniques; or developing methods for detecting the presence of gene or chromosome abnormalities in embryos before implantation. The research is permitted only up to 14 days, or before the beginning of the first sign of neural development, and if the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority is satisfied that the use of embryos is necessary for the purposes of the research; otherwise, the HFEA will not grant a licence for the research project.
In most cases, the alternative to research would be to let the embryos perish. Thousands of embryos created for IVF each year are not used in treatment. Perhaps they are not the right standard for treatment; perhaps they are
surplus to the needs of the couple concerned. Ultimately, many of those embryos will need to be destroyed. Between 1991 and 1998, 763,000 embryos were created for IVF. A total of 48,000 were used in research and 237,600 were destroyed. The remainder were used in IVF treatment or stored for future use.The proposed changes to the 1990 Act form the Government's response to the Donaldson report. The expert group that drew up the report was set up last year, following a report from the HFEA and the Human Genetics Advisory Commission, to examine the scientific, health and ethical issues surrounding stem cell research. The regulations that the Government will lay before the House will be to implement the report's main recommendations. The regulations will introduce a sixth category to the currently permitted purposes of embryo research--increasing understanding about human disease and disorders and their treatment.
It is important to be clear that the strict constraints of the 1990 Act will remain. The HFEA must still license every research proposal and it will remain illegal to use embryos in research after 14 days. The HFEA will also have to ensure that the use of embryos is necessary for the research and, therefore, that the research cannot be carried out in any other way.
The Donaldson report says that we have no reason to believe that that will lead to a large increase in the number of embryos used for research. A separate application must be made to the HFEA for each individual research project, but the aim is to produce stable collections of embryonic stem cells that can be used as a replaceable resource without having to use, or to create, embryos for each study. The Donaldson report set out a series of reasons as to why it believed that that was so valuable and such an important thing to do.
The new category of research would allow research into embryonic stem cells. Stem cells are early cells that have not yet differentiated into any particular sort of tissue. They have huge potential because, if scientists can understand how they work, it may be possible to re-programme adult cells, providing the potential to develop treatments and cures for all sorts of degenerative diseases.
The chief medical officer's report listed a range of new therapeutic possibilities for the repair of diseased and damaged tissue to which stem cell research could give rise. They include: replacing lost heart muscle cells; replacing bone cells lost through osteoporosis; replacing liver cells lost in cases of hepatitis; repairing nerve cells lost through Parkinson's disease and stroke; replacing insulin-producing cells lost through diabetes; and changing the outcome of spinal cord injury and multiple sclerosis.
It is important to recognise how many people's lives could be transformed by such a breakthrough. A total of 50,000 people in this country suffer spinal cord injuries. Most, when those injuries occur, are aged between 15 and 35. If the spinal cord that the bones protect is damaged, paralysis is likely. There is as yet no cure. A total of 120,000 people suffer from Parkinson's disease and could potentially be spared the debilitating and distressing effects of the disease, and the impact on 1 million family members and carers. A total of 1.4 million people with insulin-dependent diabetes could be spared the regular routine of injections and all the complications of that
illness. The prospect of an early death from childhood onset diabetes could be ended. Should the stem cell research lead ultimately to treatment for Alzheimer's, nursing homes throughout the country could be emptied.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |