Mark
Simmonds: I would also like to express my sympathy for the
new clause, although I am not sure that its wording is correct because
it might have some knock-on effects, which the Minister will probably
come to. I would like to explain three or four reasons why I am
sympathetic to the general thrust of what the hon. Members for Bolton,
South-East and for Norwich, North are trying to
do. First,
clearly, if this Bill is to last as long as the 1990
Act—18 years—it is going to have to be amended by a
subsequent series of regulations, provision for which is scattered
through the Bill. As we have discussed, many of the regulations will be
subject to the affirmative procedure, but we all know in the House that
it is very rare, despite consultation, for regulations to be altered
significantly. A Committee such as that proposed could have a remit of
examining the regulations that are subsequently used to amend the Bill.
That might be a reason for the Government not to want such a Committee,
but I think that that, among other functions, would be a good remit for
the
Committee. The
second reason for looking carefully at such a Committee is that it
would provide a positive and necessary link, both for the scientific
community and for those concerned about the ethical issues that
surround such complex areas. There is not a permanent body related to
Parliament that has that specific role at the
moment. The
third issue, which other hon. Members have touched upon, is that there
is understandable discomfort with the HFEA operating in a vacuum and
deciding and making up its own policy—almost as scientific
developments occur—because there is no other responsible body.
Indeed, the point made by the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon
was absolutely right: there is not inevitably a balance on the HFEA to
give the other side of the ethical dilemma of many of those scientific
advances. That is another strong reason for looking at the concern
closely. The
other issue, which was given as a defence as to why certain things are
in the Bill, is that we are merely catching up with scientific
advancements that the HFEA has already approved. That is primarily
because no detailed discussion from an ethical position has taken place
in Parliament since the passing of the 1990 Act, although obviously
regulations have been discussed in Committee. That provides another
very powerful reason for why the Committee should be set
up.
2.45
pm Three
or four difficult areas must be addressed with regard to the remit of
the Committee. The first is the ethical balance of who will sit on it.
I strongly believe that the Committee should be made up of
parliamentarians. It should not be extended beyond that for the reasons
set out clearly by the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East. The size of
the Committee must be carefully considered.
Mike
Penning (Hemel Hempstead) (Con): My hon. Friend makes the
good point that the Committee should be made up of parliamentarians.
However, with the greatest respect, it should not be made up of the
usual suspects. Its members should not be those who have always sat on
Committees considering such matters. It must reflect a broad view from
within the House.
Mark
Simmonds: My hon. Friend makes a sensible point. Having
said that, there is a balance to strike. If such a Committee were set
up, it would be important for people with expertise, knowledge and
experience to be on it, as well as those who could bring fresh ideas
and thoughts. I would a view a Committee of around 30 members, both
from this House and the other place, as too large to co-ordinate in any
sensible way.
We must also
do some detailed thinking about the remit and standing of the Committee
and its purpose and scope. What will it scrutinise, who will it advise,
and on what basis? It is a very strong argument that if we want the
Bill to survive for a long period, there must be a body based around
Parliament that has democratic accountability and that provides ethical
and scientific analysis as scientific advancement takes
place.
My final point
is that after the next general election, the Minister will have a lot
more time on her hands. She might wish to participate significantly in
such a Committee.
Dawn
Primarolo: Well, at least the hon. Gentleman acknowledges
that I have a safe seat.
A number of
issues have been raised, some of which I agree with and some of which I
do not. I will try and proceed through the points. We all echo the
point made by the hon. Member for Salisbury and my hon. Friends the
Members for Bolton, South-East and for Norwich, North about the
importance of Parliament deciding. We are elected to come to terms
with, and decide on, inevitably very important issues on behalf of our
constituents. The issues raised about matters of embryology, for
instance—although that is not the only ethical issue—are
matters that we as Members of Parliament must consider.
On a number of
occasions during consideration of the Bill, through the review of the
1990 Act and during pre-legislative scrutiny, there has been a debate
about whether we should have a wider bioethics commission, and whether
that should be independent of Parliament or made up from
representatives of both Houses. Clearly, as the Bill has proceeded, it
has raised ethical, legal and social issues giving rise to a diverse
range of views, some of which are very strongly held. How we in
Parliament and those elsewhere respond to such issues goes to the heart
of our existence as individuals and families in society. It is, quite
rightly, the place of Parliament to consider this.
In moving the
new clauses, I understand that my hon. Friends had to ensure that the
provisions were in the scope of the Bill. I do not think that this
matter should be limited only to the issues that have been raised
during the proceedings of this Bill, and I understand that my hon.
Friends have raised the issue to start a clear discussion in Parliament
about whether there is support for such a proposition. I am of the view
that the structure that we have set up with the HFEA, the way in which
it regulates—it is not the only source of information and advice
for us—and the way in which we have
proceeded with the Bill are correct. I absolutely do not accept that
there is something wrong with the HFEA. It is, frankly, not very
helpful to hear senior Members of Parliament talk about needing
“antis” on the HFEA, because that fundamentally
misunderstands the nature of the authority. The nature of
the authority is that it advertises for candidates, and
anyone—people of all faiths and cultures—can apply.
However, potential members must be prepared to accept the fundamental
principles behind the authority’s existence. That has served us
well over a period of time, but of course, the arrangements are further
reinforced by the fact that appointments are made by the Appointments
Commission on behalf of the Secretary of State.
While we are
debating an incredibly important issue, I hope that nobody outside our
proceedings here will read what has been said today and draw from it
that we do not have confidence in the process. I know that it is not my
hon. Friends’ intention to suggest that we do not have
confidence in the HFEA’s ability, as constructed by Parliament,
to discharge its
duties. Of
course, as the hon. Member for Salisbury pointed out—and I have
always been of this view—parliamentary scrutiny has demonstrated
very clearly that Parliament has the ability to discuss bioethical
issues effectively, whether in Select Committees, during
pre-legislative scrutiny or through consultation. The Science and
Technology Committee under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the
Member for Norfolk, North produced a very extensive report in
2005.
Dr.
Gibson: I will have that constituency too—it
happens to be a Liberal Democrat seat. Mine is Norwich,
North.
The
Chairman: Order. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to
intervene, he should do so. If not, the Minister can carry
on.
Dawn
Primarolo: I apologise to my hon. Friend if I have had his
constituency incorrectly recorded in
Hansard. A
very good and extensive report was produced in 2005, which was the
outcome of a year’s study of human reproductive technologies. It
had considerable influence on the Department of Health’s
subsequent public consultation. As has already been acknowledged, the
Bill has changed considerably from its draft form.
The real
point—my hon. Friends will correct me if I am wrong—is
whether we need a wider bioethics Select Committee or Joint Committee
of both Houses to consider not just issues that are pertinent to this
legislation, but wider matters. Personally, I want parliamentarians to
continue to do that, and I think that the Government would resist any
idea of anything independent.
As my noble
Friend Baroness Royall said in response to such a debate in the other
place, we see merit in a Standing Committee of Parliament on bioethics.
However, that is not something that it is appropriate to set out in
primary legislation, and it is not a matter for this Bill—we
certainly could not get the proposal in order, given the wider
considerations. That is ultimately a matter for Parliament to consider,
so let me gently suggest how a consensus may emerge.
The decision to
set up a new Select Committee is one for the House—or both
Houses, if it is decided that there should be a Joint Committee. Of
course, the Government would consider any suggestion for a new Select
Committee that had sufficient support from all parties. In addition to
taking account of the views that have been clearly expressed during our
deliberations in Committee, it might also be appropriate if views were
sought from the Modernisation Committee and the Procedure Committee
about why and how this step could be taken forward. I am advised that
this would be a matter for the House and that progress should be made
through the usual channels.
I hope that my
hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East will not push the new
clause to a Division, but as the Minister responsible for the Bill, I
will ensure that I draw the comments of all members of the Committee on
the wider issue to the attention of the appropriate authorities in the
House. Such a Committee, perhaps a Joint Committee, could strengthen
our understanding, and the way in which we discharge our roles as
Members of Parliament, when we address these important social and
ethical issues.
Dr.
Iddon: I am grateful for my right hon. Friend’s
comments, which are very acceptable. The other place asked for guidance
from this end of Parliament on the issue and it would have been remiss
of us if we had not discussed it this afternoon. I think that some
guidance has been given from this Committee to the other place and to
Parliament in general. As my right hon. Friend pointed out, we now need
to lobby outside this Committee.
The hon.
Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon referred to the Joint Committee on
Human Rights. My idea was to have a parallel Committee with a similar
membership. It has always amazed me that we discuss human rights in
this place, but we do not, in parallel, discuss ethics, which are
becoming much more important as Bills such as this pass through
Parliament. It might well be that 30 is too many members for the
Committee, but the figure of eight that was mentioned in the other
place would be too small. Somewhere in between those two numbers would
be acceptable, I am sure.
Obviously, the
new clause is too narrow; it had to be drafted in such a way that it
would remain within the scope of the Bill. My preference would be not
only to have a broader Committee for human bioethics, but to introduce
consideration of animal bioethics, because matters such as
xenotransplantation cross both the human and animal
spheres. It
has been good to have the debate and I thank my right hon. Friend again
for her comments. I am sure that we have given some guidance to the
other place as the Bill has proceeded, so I beg to ask leave to
withdraw the
motion. Motion
and clause, by leave,
withdrawn. Ordered,
That certain
written evidence already reported to the House be appended to the
proceedings of the Committee.—[Dawn
Primarolo.] Question
proposed, That the Chairman do report the Bill (except clauses 4,
11, 14 and 23, schedule 2, and any new clauses or new schedules
relating to the termination of pregnancy by registered medical
practitioners), as amended, to the House.
3
pm
Dawn
Primarolo: Before we conclude our proceedings, I would
like to make a few comments. I would like to thank you, Mr.
Hood, and Mr. Gale for the excellent way in which you have
helped us through the Committee proceedings. My thanks to the Clerks,
who are ever vigilant and have done their best to ensure that we debate
all the issues identified as necessary by the Committee. Thanks to the
Hansard staff, to the police officers and to those to whom I am
not normally supposed to refer: my officials. I thank them for all the
hard work—over a long time now—that they put into
producing an excellent
Bill. I
would like to thank the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness for his
measured, thoughtful and constructive approach, which I appreciated. We
have been considering subjects that were difficult and challenging for
me, as a Minister, but I know that that would be even harder in
opposition without such detailed support. The issues that he raised
helped our debate, as did those raised with considerable skill by his
hon.
Friends. I
also thank the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon, who turns out
to have many skills—all excellent. He truly has followed and
worked on the subject for a long time. He has considerable expertise.
We are glad that he shared some of that expertise with us, but we might
have been here longer had we heard it to its full extent. I thank him
because I know that he follows the debate with great diligence and
passion. His colleague, the hon. Member for Southport, has not always
agreed with him. It was interesting to see one intervening on the other
during speeches. They disagreed slightly, but they have been helpful to
the
Committee. Finally,
I thank my hon. Friends, who brought considerable knowledge, patience,
advice and consideration to their support of me as the Minister on the
Bill, even when they did not always agree with me. I am particularly
referring to my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge, Chryston
and Bellshill, who is not able to be here this
afternoon. This
has been an excellent Committee and I am grateful for our proceedings
and everyone’s participation. I look forward to further debate
on the Floor of the
House.
Mark
Simmonds: I join the Minister in expressing my thanks to
you, Mr. Hood, and to Mr. Gale for the excellent
way in which you have chaired the Committee and for the advice and
guidance that you have given as and when it has been appropriate. I
also thank, in particular, the Clerks who have been involved in the
Bill, who have provided support and advice to Opposition Members, who,
as the Minister rightly pointed out, do not have the support of the
expert civil servants that she clearly
has. I
thank members of the Committee, particularly my hon. Friends the
Members for Salisbury, for South-West Devon, for Hemel Hempstead and
for Rugby and Kenilworth, who have all participated in our proceedings.
In their individual ways, their informed and measured contributions
have been helpful and constructive in our
debates. I
wish to say how much I have enjoyed the contributions from, and the
interaction between, the hon. Members for Oxford, West and Abingdon and
for Southport. It is
always said that the Conservative party is a broad church, but we have
seen today that the Liberal party is even broader. It would be helpful
at some point to see whether the two hon. Gentlemen agree about
anything. I also thank Labour members of the Committee, particularly
the hon. Members for Norwich, North, for Bolton, South-East and for
Brighton, Kemptown who, again in their individual ways, made
significant contributions at different times in our
proceedings. Finally,
I thank the Minister for, most of the time, her extremely calm and
considered response to the debates. She has always been helpful,
constructive and clear, and she responded with great clarity to the
concerns that were expressed, the questions that were asked and the
amendments that were tabled. Such issues are complex and challenging. I
am sure that the right hon. Lady would acknowledge that neither she nor
I are scientists and that trying to try to get to grips first with the
science, and then overlaying the ethical issues, is extremely
challenging for anyone who does not have a grounding in such areas. I
wish to put on the record the fact that I thought that she did so with
great aplomb. She has obviously put a tremendous amount of work into
understanding the detail behind the Bill. While we might not agree on
every political issue, I hope that the constructive way in which the
questions have been put and the amendments have been explained have led
to a constructive response from the Government, and that that will mean
that the Bill, when enacted, will last just as long—if not
longer—than the 1990 Act.
| 
