Select Committee on Science and Technology Fifth Report


Formal minutes


Monday 14 March 2005

Members present:

Dr Ian Gibson, in the Chair
Paul Farrelly Mr Robert Key
Dr Evan HarrisDr Desmond Turner
Dr Brian Iddon


The Committee deliberated.

Draft Report (Human Reproductive Technologies and the Law), proposed by the Chairman, brought up and read.

Ordered, That the Chairman's draft Report be read a second time, paragraph by paragraph.

Paragraphs 1 to 31 read and agreed to.

Paragraph 32 read as follows:

This approach emphasises the importance of the individual, specifically the autonomy of the individual and the right to make private choices. This has been challenged by Professor Robin Gill from the University of Kent, who argues that "We live in the "time of the triumph of autonomy in bioethics" in which "the law and ethics of medicine are dominated by one paradigm - the autonomy of the patient". He argues that "conceptions of individual autonomy cannot provide a sufficient and convincing starting point for ethics within medical practice". However, it is worth bearing in mind that legal tradition is that decisions which fall into the private domain are generally regarded as not of interest to the state. Certain exceptions to this maxim do, of course, exist, but these generally arise in the sphere of criminal law. Thus, when the service to be provided is the implantation of an embryo with the intention of establishing a pregnancy, and in line with Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (incorporated into UK law by the Human Rights Act 1998) reproduction itself would seem to be firmly situated within the private domain. The primary consequence of this is that the right to private and family life espoused in Article 8 can be said to apply to reproductive decisions. Only if one of the possible derogations from that Article can be established (for example where there is a threat to public health or morals) would the terms of this Article be inapplicable.

Amendment proposed, in line 12, leave out the words "in line with" and insert the words "according to a libertarian interpretation of".—(Paul Farrelly.)

Question put, That the amendment be made.

The Committee divided.

Ayes, 1Noes, 4
Paul FarrellyDr Evan Harris
Dr Brian Iddon
Mr Robert Key
Dr Desmond Turner

Amendment disagreed to.

Another Amendment proposed, in line 14, before the word "reproduction" insert the words "some would argue that".—(Paul Farrelly.)

Question, That the amendment be made, put and negatived.

Another Amendment proposed, in line 15, after the word "this" insert the words "interpretation and approach".— (Paul Farrelly.)

Question, That the amendment be made, put and negatived.

Another Amendment proposed, in line 15, leave out the word "can", and insert the word "could".—(Paul Farrelly.)

Question, That the amendment be made, put and negatived.

Another Amendment proposed, in line 18, after the word "morals", insert the words "or for the protections of the rights and freedoms of others".—(Paul Farrelly.)

Question, That the amendment be made, put and negatived.

Another amendment proposed, in line 19, after the word "inapplicable" to add the words "Clearly, however, these derogations are very broad and capable of much interpretation and legal debate. Some of this debate overlaps with arguments in paragraphs 32-44 below, which examine arguments to limit and regulate reproductive freedom.".—(Paul Farrelly.)

Question, That the amendment be made, put and negatived.

Another Amendment proposed, in line 19, after the word "inapplicable" to add the words "In the absence of a body of court decisions, and therefore precedents, it would be possible for all sides of the debate about reproductive freedom to cite Article 8 to bolster their argument.". —(Paul Farrelly.)

Question, That the amendment be made, put and negatived.

Question, that the paragraph stand part of the Report.

The Committee divided.

Ayes, 4Noes, 1
Dr Evan HarrisPaul Farrelly
Dr Brian Iddon
Mr Robert Key
Dr Desmond Turner

Paragraph agreed to.

Paragraph 33 read and agreed to.

Paragraph 34 read as follows:

The Chair of the HFEA, Suzi Leather, stated to us that she thought it was the special status of the embryo justified regulation, although it could be argued that the special status of the embryo is currently achieved by provisions in the HFE Act and that it is possible to achieve this without further legislation. It is interesting to note that in the Warnock report, the idea of protecting the embryo in law arose from the discussion of embryo research rather than assisted reproduction. Professor Peter Braude from Guy's Hospital and a former member of the HFEA felt that it was the creation of a new life the justified intervention. He told us that "I do not think there is another area of medical practice that is like assisted conception. There is no other area I know other than drugs in pregnancy where, in satisfying the client […] who come along to you and say, 'We desperately want some children', to solve that problem is a child".

Amendment proposed, in line 2, leave out from the word "regulation" to the word "It" in line 4 and insert the words "It is important to draw a distinction between legislation and regulation and it is not clear that protection of the embryo requires oversight beyond that set out in legislation.".—(Dr Evan Harris.)

Question put, That the amendment be made.

The Committee divided.

Ayes, 4Noes, 1
Dr Evan HarrisPaul Farrelly
Dr Brian Iddon
Mr Robert Key
Dr Desmond Turner

Amendment agreed to.

Paragraph, as amended, agreed to.

Paragraphs 35 to 43 read and agreed to.

Paragraph 44 read as follows:

An alternative perspective to the balance between reproductive freedom and state intervention is provided by utilitarian ethics. Here the emphasis is on measuring the benefits over burdens of particular activities. This approach was rejected by the Warnock Committee. It said "Moral questions, such as those with which we have been concerned, are, by definition, questions that involve not only a calculation of consequences, but also strong sentiments with regard to the nature of the proposed activities themselves." Thus, for the Warnock Committee, even if evidence were available which could establish that the benefits (for example to the infertile) of unregulated access to assisted reproduction, there were underpinning moral or ethical considerations which also had to be considered, at least in some circumstances. However, the Warnock Committee did not view assisted reproduction in itself as a threshold that should not be crossed over. Thus, it would appear that both libertarian and utilitarian ethics would support the view that, in terms of the embryo intended for implantation, since the creation of a pregnancy is inherently to be regarded as a good thing, the state has no right to intervene in the choices of people to procreate unless evidence of harm can be shown.

Amendment proposed, in line 13, leave out from the word "would" to the word "in" in line 13, and insert the words "could support the view that".—(Paul Farrelly.)

Question put, That the amendment be made.

The Committee divided.

Ayes, 1 Noes, 4
Paul FarrellyDr Evan Harris
Dr Brian Iddon
Mr Robert Key
Dr Desmond Turner

Amendment disagreed to.

Question put, that the paragraph stand part of the Report.

The Committee divided.

Ayes, 4Noes, 1
Dr Evan HarrisPaul Farrelly
Dr Brian Iddon
Mr Robert Key
Dr Desmond Turner

Paragraph agreed to.

Paragraphs 45 to 46 read and agreed to.

A paragraph—(Dr Evan Harris)—brought up, read and inserted (now paragraph 47).

Paragraphs 47 to 49 (now paragraphs 48 to 50) read and agreed to.

Paragraph 50 (now paragraph 51) read as follows:

As we have seen, IVF procedures often produce spare embryos. These may either be surplus or of insufficient quality. While the Warnock committee was unanimous about the use of these embryos for research, four of the 16 members felt that there was a "clear moral distinction" between the use of spare embryos and the creation of embryos specifically for research. These views were based on the following arguments:

a)  That the creation of an embryo for research was inconsistent with the idea that it should be afforded special status.

b)  That, unless prohibited, it would lead to the use of embryos for routine and less valid research.

The majority of the Warnock Committee felt that the medical benefits from the creation of embryos were such that it was justified in certain circumstances. We also subscribe to this view. We believe that the research on human embryos can be undertaken without compromising its special status but that this research should have proper ethical oversight as set out in Chapters 8 and 9. We further conclude that, where necessary, embryos can be created specifically for research purposes.

Amendment proposed, in line 15, after the word "oversight" insert the words "and regulation".—(Paul Farrelly.)

Question put, that the Amendments be made.

The Committee divided.

Ayes, 1 Noes, 4
Paul FarrellyDr Evan Harris
Dr Brian Iddon
Mr Robert Key
Dr Desmond Turner

Amendment disagreed to.

Another Amendment proposed, in line 15, before the word "We" insert the words "Presently embryonic stem cell research, for instance, is thought to offer promising avenues for the alleviation of illness or disease and".— (Paul Farrelly.)

Question, That the amendment be made, put and negatived.

Another Amendment proposed, in line 16, leave out the words "where necessary" and insert the words "but subject to the same close ethical oversight and regulation and only where considered necessary".—(Paul Farrelly.)

Question, That the amendment be made, put and negatived.

Question put, that the paragraph stand part of the Report.

The Committee divided.

Ayes, 4Noes, 1
Dr Evan HarrisPaul Farrelly
Dr Brian Iddon
Mr Robert Key
Dr Desmond Turner

Paragraph agreed to.

Paragraphs 50 to 53 (now paragraphs 51 to 54) read and agreed to.

Paragraph 54 (now paragraph 55) read, amended, and agreed to.

Paragraphs 55 to 59 (now paragraphs 56 to 60) read and agreed to.

Paragraph 60 (now paragraph 61) read as follows:

The placing of a human embryo in an animal raises clear issues of animal welfare but the ethical problems relating to the special status of the embryo are less clear. We are aware of no possible treatment applications that should lead us to question the current prohibition. However, if a spare embryo has been made available for research, then it could be argued that respect for the embryo should prompt us to ensure that it is used for the best possible ends. It has been commented that very little is known about the development of the human embryo in vivo. There have been calls for the application of animal research work to human assisted reproduction. While we are aware of no interest from scientists in extending this work by placing human embryos in animals, it is conceivable that such research could yield valuable insights into the causes of infertility and miscarriage. Such a proposition would make many uncomfortable. Nonetheless, we have set ourselves the task of recommending new legislation that can cope with new technical advances and difficult issues must be taken into account.

Amendment proposed, in line 12, leave out the word "recommending" and insert the words "considering all difficult issues relating to".—(Paul Farrelly.)

Question proposed, That the Amendment be made:—Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Paragraph agreed to.

Paragraphs 61 to 65 (now paragraphs 62 to 66) read and agreed to.

Paragraph 66 (now paragraph 67) read as follows:

While a chimera is unlikely to be able to develop very far, it may have value as a research tool, possibly as a means of testing the ability of stem cell cultures to form all forms of tissue. Similarly, hybrids formed by cell nuclear replacement might have value in deriving embryonic stem cells for research purposes. There have been reports that Chinese scientists have harvested stem cells from embryos created by introducing human cell nuclei into enucleated rabbit eggs. Professor Robin Lovell Badge from the MRC's National Institute for Medical research told us that this technique might overcome the shortage of human cell lines, although he told us that some of this work was "to be taken with a pinch of salt". The 2000 Donaldson Report on stem cell research stated that the 1990 Act does not control the mixing of animal eggs with other human cells but that this should be prohibited. The Lords Stem Cell Research Committee expressed some surprise at the conclusion since it could raise fewer ethical questions than for the use of a human embryo created using CNR. It should be remembered that the HFE Act aimed to give protection to the human embryo and not gametes or other forms of embryo. Provisions to protect hybrids would require a different ethical basis. The ethical status of hybrids and chimeras is complex. While there is revulsion in some quarters that such creations blur the distinction between animals and humans, it could be argued that they are less human than, and therefore pose fewer ethical problems for, research, than fully human embryos. We recognise concerns that hybrids and chimeras could be used for reproductive purposes and recommend that new legislation defines the nature of these creations and makes their creation legal for research purposes only if they are destroyed in line with the current 14-day rule for human embryo cultures.

Amendment proposed, in line 14, to leave out from the word "embryo" to the end of the paragraph, and to add the words "The ethical status of hybrids and chimeras may be a complex issue for some and clearly there is also revulsion that such creations blur the distinction between animals and humans. New legislation, however, should not shy from addressing such advances in scientific technology and the issues involved should be properly debated. We have received no evidence, however, which suggests that - as with insertion of human embryos in animal wombs or vice-versa - that there are any benefits in new legislation permitting the creation of hybrids or chimeras for either reproductive or research purposes. Again, should the government receive expert advice to the contrary, given the ethical issues involved, any such change should be a matter for Parliament and primary legislation.".—(Paul Farrelly.)

Question put, that the Amendment be made.

The Committee divided.

Ayes, 1 Noes, 4
Paul FarrellyDr Evan Harris
Dr Brian Iddon
Mr Robert Key
Dr Desmond Turner

Amendment disagreed to.

Question put, that the paragraph stand part of the Report.

The Committee divided.

Ayes, 4Noes, 1
Dr Evan HarrisPaul Farrelly
Dr Brian Iddon
Mr Robert Key
Dr Desmond Turner

Paragraph agreed to.

Paragraphs 67 to 79 (now paragraphs 68 to 80) read and agreed to.

Paragraph 80 (now paragraph 81) read, amended and agreed to.

Paragraphs 81 to 92 (now paragraphs 83 to 93) read and agreed to.

Paragraph 93 (now paragraph 94) read, amended and agreed to.

Paragraphs 94 to 95 (now paragraphs 95 to 96) read and agreed to.

Paragraph 96 (now paragraph 97) read as follows:

The HFEA reported other concerns that the time and cost of carrying out the welfare of the child assessment is disproportionate to the benefit gained. Professor Allan Templeton of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists told us that "It has been a distortion of clinical practice; it has been absolutely beyond any effect at all in terms of trying to enhance the welfare of the child". He argues that there is no need for specific welfare of the child issues within any act as "it is good medical practice". Witnesses from the British Fertility Society and the Association of Clinical Embryologists told us that they had compared notes in advance of the session. Of the four clinics they represented, they said that their "hit rate" for stopping treatment based on welfare of the child was between 0% and 0.3%. This suggests that if the welfare of the child provision were abolished, we would, in theory, be exposing around 10 children a year to potential harm. It is possible, however, that the provision has had a deterrent effect or that patients have withdrawn from treatment when it became clear that inquiries were being made about their background. The HFEA reports that while clinics sometimes make further enquiries to other agencies, they very rarely turn patients down for treatment. When they do, the most common reasons are medical (because the patient has an infectious disease or they are being treated for cancer), psychiatric (because the patient has a mental illness or a drug or alcohol problem) or, occasionally, social (because the couple lives apart). The consultation document sets out a range of approaches for the implementation of the HFE Act's provision:

a)  The maximum welfare principle, which considers a child's welfare to be of paramount importance and places the burden of proof upon the prospective parents to demonstrate their competence;

b)  The minimum threshold principle, which places great importance upon the autonomy of the prospective parents and seeks to override their wishes only when their child would be at high risk of serious harm; and

c)  The reasonable welfare principle, which reflects a compromise position.

Amendment proposed, in line 12, after the word "harm" to insert the words "For many this in itself would be a persuasive reason to keep the welfare of the child provision.".—(Paul Farrelly.)

Question put, that the Amendment be made.

The Committee divided.

Ayes, 1 Noes, 4
Paul FarrellyDr Evan Harris
Dr Brian Iddon
Mr Robert Key
Dr Desmond Turner

Amendment disagreed to.

Question put, that the paragraph stand part of the Report.

The Committee divided.

Ayes, 4Noes, 1
Dr Evan HarrisPaul Farrelly
Dr Brian Iddon
Mr Robert Key
Dr Desmond Turner

Paragraph agreed to.

Paragraphs 97 to 106 (now paragraphs 98 to 107) read and agreed to.

Paragraph 107 (now paragraph 108) read as follows:

The welfare of the child provision discriminates against the infertile and some sections of society, is impossible to implement and is of dubious value in protecting the interests of children born as a result of assisted reproduction. We recognise that there will be difficult cases but these should be resolved by recourse to local clinical ethics committees. The welfare of the child provision has enabled the HFEA to make judgements that are more properly made by patients in consultation with their doctor. It should be abolished. Doctors should minimise the risks to any child conceived from treatment within the constraints of available knowledge but this should be encouraged through the promotion of good medical practice not legislation.

Amendment proposed, in line 1, to leave out the word "discriminate" and insert the words "may be considered to discriminate".—(Paul Farrelly.)

Question put, that the Amendment be made.

The Committee divided.

Ayes, 1Noes, 4
Paul FarrellyDr Evan Harris
Dr Brian Iddon
Mr Robert Key
Dr Desmond Turner

Amendment disagreed to.

Another Amendment proposed, in line 2, to leave out the word "impossible" and insert the words "is difficult".—(Paul Farrelly.)

Question, That the amendment be made, put and negatived.

Another Amendment proposed, in line 2, to leave out the word "dubious" and insert the words "questionable practical".—(Paul Farrelly.)

Question, That the amendment be made, put and negatived.

Another Amendment proposed, in line 7, to leave out the words "it should be abolished" and insert the words 'The government should, therefore, consider carefully the case for its abolition rather than retention in any new Act. It should also carefully consider the case that".—(Paul Farrelly.)

Question, That the amendment be made, put and negatived.

Another Amendment made.

Paragraph, as amended, agreed to.

Question put, that the paragraph stand part of the Report.

The Committee divided.

Ayes, 4Noes, 1
Dr Evan HarrisPaul Farrelly
Dr Brian Iddon
Mr Robert Key
Dr Desmond Turner

Paragraph agreed to.

Paragraphs 108 to 123 (now paragraphs 109 to 124) read and agreed to.

Paragraph 124 (now paragraph 125) read as follows:

The application of selection becomes more problematic when the expression of the gene is not 100% and when there are available cures. The use of PGD for cancer predispositions and to eliminate carriers of genetic conditions is likely to remain controversial. We took evidence from Dr Maureen McHugh, a contributor to our online consultation who has Parkinson's disease. She stated that "If it were possible to deselect an embryo at the very early pre-implantation stage to exclude the possibility of Parkinson's disease, then I think it would be morally wrong to allow that embryo to develop further. […] This is not discriminating against disabled people and it is not murder. It is simply trying to prevent disability, pain and misery". We have concerns about the criteria imposed by the HFEA. PGD is limited in that it can only be used to screen out disorders and thus it can never be used to create the "designer babies" We see no reason why a regulator should seek to determine which disorders can be screened out using PGD. Nevertheless, clinical decisions should operate within clear boundaries set by Parliament and informed by ethical judgements.

Amendment proposed, in line 10, to leave out from the word "misery" to the end of the paragraph, and to add the words "As the technology currently stands, PGD is limited in that it can only screen our disorders and cannot be used to create so-called 'designer babies' in the popular understanding of the term. Scientific advance, however, is rapid and the state, either through primary legislation or regulation, does have an interest in influencing those disorders which can be screened out or in using PGD. Clinical decisions should operate within clear boundaries set by Parliament and informed by ethical judgements and oversight.".—(Paul Farrelly.)

Question put, that the Amendment be made.

The Committee divided.

Ayes, 1Noes, 4
Paul FarrellyDr Evan Harris
Dr Brian Iddon
Mr Robert Key
Dr Desmond Turner

Amendment disagreed to.

Question put, that the paragraph stand part of the Report.

The Committee divided.

Ayes, 4Noes, 1
Dr Evan HarrisPaul Farrelly
Dr Brian Iddon
Mr Robert Key
Dr Desmond Turner

Paragraph agreed to.

Paragraphs 125 to 128 (now paragraphs 126 to 129) read and agreed to.

Paragraph 129 (now paragraph 130) read as follows:

The term "saviour sibling" has been coined, yet little attention has been given to the prospect of saviour sons or daughters, or even nephews and nieces. The HFEA ethics committee, while supporting the use of PTT for siblings, drew the line at the use of the technology to benefit other members of the family. To make this distinction implies that there is evidence to suggest the psychological impact on the child, and the nature of the family's relationship, would be different if the recipient of the stem cells were not a sibling. The HFEA's review of its policy acknowledged this issue but stated merely that it raised "distinct and significant issues" and should be the subject of further consideration. We conclude that there are no compelling reasons for a statutory authority to make judgements on whether or not a family can seek preimplantation tissue typing, provided they fall within parameters set by Parliament.

Amendment proposed, in line 9, to leave out from the word "We" to the end of the paragraph and to add the words "We recommend that Parliament does indeed consider the approach to such wider issues as part of any new Act.".—(Paul Farrelly.)

Question put, that the Amendment be made.

The Committee divided.

Ayes, 1 Noes, 4
Paul FarrellyDr Evan Harris
Dr Brian Iddon
Mr Robert Key
Dr Desmond Turner

Amendment disagreed to.

Question put, that the paragraph stand part of the Report.

The Committee divided.

Ayes, 4Noes, 1
Dr Evan HarrisPaul Farrelly
Dr Brian Iddon
Mr Robert Key
Dr Desmond Turner

Paragraph agreed to.

Paragraphs 130 to 141 (now paragraphs 131 to 142) read and agreed to.

Paragraph 142 (now paragraph 142) read as follows:

Doubts have been cast over the validity of the data gathered by the HFEA in support of its conclusions on sex selection. However, even if the HFEA exaggerates the public's hostility to sex selection for social reasons, we have little reason to doubt that a majority of the British public oppose it. Professor Tom Shakespeare from Newcastle University has provided confirmation of this from his own research. Nevertheless, we do not see this as adequate grounds for prohibition. In paragraph 46, we stated that while reproductive freedom needed to be balanced against harms to individuals and society, these claims of harm needed to be based on evidence. In 2001, the Ethics Committee of the American Society of Reproductive Medicine concluded that:

"Until a more clearly persuasive ethical argument emerges, or there is stronger empirical evidence that most choices to select the gender of offspring would be harmful, policies to prohibit or condemn as unethical all uses of non-medically indicated preconception gender selection are not justified."

Four years on there is still no compelling evidence of harms to individuals and society from social sex selection. The issue of sex selection requires greater analysis than has been afforded it by the HFEA. The onus should be on those who oppose its use for social reasons using PGD to show harm from its use. However, the use and destruction of embryos does raise ethical issues and there are grounds for caution. We urge greater efforts to establish the demographic impacts across all sectors of society and the implications for the creation and destruction of embryos in vitro.

Amendment proposed, in line 6, to leave out from the word "Nevertheless" to the word "In" in line 6, and insert the words "Clearly, public opinion needs to be taken into account by Parliament, but any prohibition should also be based on good ethical grounds and evidence of harm.".—(Paul Farrelly.)

Question put, that the Amendment be made.

The Committee divided.

Ayes, 1 Noes, 4
Paul FarrellyDr Evan Harris
Dr Brian Iddon
Mr Robert Key
Dr Desmond Turner

Amendment disagreed to.

Another Amendment proposed, in line 22, after the words "in vitro." add the words "On balance we find no adequate justification for prohibiting the use of sex selection for family balancing.".—(Dr Evan Harris.)

Question put, that the Amendment be made.

The Committee divided.

Ayes, 3Noes, 2
Dr Evan HarrisPaul Farrelly
Mr Robert KeyDr Brian Iddon
Dr Desmond Turner

Question put, that the paragraph stand part of the Report.

The Committee divided.

Ayes, 3Noes, 1
Dr Evan HarrisPaul Farrelly
Mr Robert Key
Dr Desmond Turner

Paragraph agreed to.

Paragraphs 143 to 153 (now paragraphs 144 to 154) read and agreed to.

Paragraph 154 (now paragraph 155) read as follows:

During our visit to Stockholm we were told that, in the 1980s, 250 children were born by donor insemination each year. We heard that, after the law ending anonymity was passed in 1985, the number of inseminations declined but that the practice did not end. Currently, around 60 children are born each year by donor insemination and it was estimated that another 200 are conceived abroad. We understand that the waiting list for donors is several years' long. The Department of Health said that the Minister's statement about the Swedish case was based largely on a report commissioned from Professor Eric Blyth at the University of Huddersfield. He reported that the change in legislation in Sweden resulted in a decline in donor recruitment, but that it was not possible to ascertain the scale of the reduction. He provided anecdotal data that recruitment had recovered following the change in legislation. It is difficult to reconcile the Department's statements with the comments we heard first hand in Stockholm. A possible solution is that the Department's evidence related to the number of donors rather than the number of children born through donation. A flaw in their approach is that it relied on input from existing clinics that offer donor insemination. We have heard that in the UK some clinics have ceased operating the service. In Sweden the same effect was observed, with five of the 10 clinics closing. Those that continued the service may have managed to maintain their own supplies despite an overall drop in the number of donors. This may seem a minor point but this has been used to provide a misleading picture of donation post-anonymity. We regret the Department's poor use of evidence in policy-making.

Amendment proposed, in line 21, to leave out from the word "We" to the end of the paragraph.—(Paul Farrelly.)

Question put, that the Amendment be made.

The Committee divided.

Ayes, 1 Noes, 4
Paul FarrellyDr Evan Harris
Dr Brian Iddon
Mr Robert Key
Dr Desmond Turner

Amendment disagreed to.

Another Amendment made.

Paragraph, as amended, agreed to.

Question put, that the paragraph stand part of the Report.

The Committee divided.

Ayes, 4Noes, 1
Dr Evan HarrisPaul Farrelly
Dr Brian Iddon
Mr Robert Key
Dr Desmond Turner

Paragraph agreed to.

Paragraphs 155 to 156 (now paragraphs 156 to 157) read and agreed to.

A paragraph—(Dr Evan Harris)—brought up, read and inserted (now paragraph 158).

Paragraphs 157 to 181 (now paragraphs 158 to 182) read and agreed to.

Paragraph 182 (now paragraph 184) read as follows:

Section 41 sets out the offences for breaching the provisions of the HFE Act or contravening licence conditions. In the cases of placing in a woman a live embryo other than a human embryo or any live gametes other than human gametes, mixing animal and human gametes, placing a human embryo in an animal or keeping or using an embryo after 14 days, the penalty is up to 10 years in prison. We have commented on the various prohibitions in the HFE Act and concluded that legislation should be more flexible, particularly with regard to research (see paragraphs 331-342). We are also concerned by the size of the maximum sentence. That the embryo only gradually acquires human rights is a widely accepted view. In this light, the maximum sentence of 10 years for breaching some of the prohibitions in the HFE Act seem unduly harsh.

Amendment proposed, in line 8, to leave out from the word "We" to the end of the paragraph and add the words "Once those boundaries have been set, however, it is right that breaches of the law or regulations should attract harsh sentences to a act as an effective deterrent in this age of rapid scientific advance and competition.".—(Paul Farrelly.)

Question put, that the Amendment be made.

The Committee divided.

Ayes, 1Noes, 4
Paul FarrellyDr Evan Harris
Dr Brian Iddon
Mr Robert Key
Dr Desmond Turner

Amendment disagreed to.

Question put, that the paragraph stand part of the Report.

The Committee divided.

Ayes, 4Noes, 1
Dr Evan HarrisPaul Farrelly
Dr Brian Iddon
Mr Robert Key
Dr Desmond Turner

Paragraph agreed to.

Paragraphs 183 to 359 (now paragraphs 185 to 361) read and agreed to.

Paragraph 360 (now paragraph 362) read as follows:

The HFEA's consultation on sex selection makes a good case history. As well as disappointing groups such as CORE for having ignored the opinion it elicited, it has been criticised for giving it too much weight. We were aware of these pitfalls in planning our own online consultation and hope we have been able to show how we have used the views put to us to reach our conclusions. At the same time, we made no efforts to quantify the views submitted. We commented above that when the Department sought the HFEA's view on sex selection, it was not necessarily asking for the public's view. We believe that the HFEA would have been well-advised to adopt our approach, for having found that a large majority did not wish to see sex selection for social reasons it would have been very brave to conclude otherwise, unless serious ethical debate was engaged in and principles could be identified which justified proceeding on the basis of these rather than the numbers opposed. The Medical Research Council has suggested that the HFEA should consider setting up a citizens council to help guide it through ethical decision-making. This has the attraction of providing ongoing public input. Surveys and opinion polls provide useful input to policy development, but are essentially anecdotal and represent the views of a self-selecting group of individuals; often activists. Additionally, we would caution about using the weight of response to determine the outcome of any policy review.

Amendment proposed, in line 5, to leave out from the word "conclusions." to the end of the paragraph and to add the words "At the same time we made no efforts to quantify the views submitted, which may be seen by some as a serious drawback to our approach.".—(Paul Farrelly.)

Question put, that the Amendment be made.

The Committee divided.

Ayes, 1 Noes, 4
Paul FarrellyDr Evan Harris
Dr Brian Iddon
Mr Robert Key
Dr Desmond Turner

Amendment disagreed to.

Question put, that the paragraph stand part of the Report.

The Committee divided.

Ayes, 4Noes, 1
Dr Evan HarrisPaul Farrelly
Dr Brian Iddon
Mr Robert Key
Dr Desmond Turner

Paragraph agreed to.

Paragraphs 361 to 399 (now paragraphs 363 to 401) read and agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put, That the Report, as amended, be the Sixth Report of the Committee to the House.

The Committee divided:

Ayes, 4Noes, 1
Dr Evan HarrisPaul Farrelly
Dr Brian Iddon
Mr Robert Key
Dr Desmond Turner

Resolved, That the Report be the Sixth Report of the Committee to the House.

Ordered, That the Chairman do make the Report to the House.

Ordered, That the provisions of Standing Order No. 134 (Select Committee (reports)) be applied to the Report.

[Adjourned till Wednesday 16 March at 9 o'clock .



 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2005
Prepared 24 March 2005