| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Winston: It seems to me that the amendment would prevent the production of experimentally used embryos for therapeutic cloning. As such, of course, that would be a major problem. With this amendment my noble friend Lord Brennan seeks, either intentionally or unintentionally, to prevent further research in this field.
Lord Brennan: I am very grateful to my noble friend for giving way. The amendment—I did not deal with that part of it because I considered that it was self-evident—refers to a person who acts in this way,
- Xwithout a licence from the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority".
Lord Winston: Then, of course, we come to the position of Dr Antinori and Dr Zavos. I believe that it is worth looking at the 1990 Act of Parliament as it stands. The fact is that since embryo research was permitted under legislation in this country, so far as I am aware there has been no single occasion on which a research worker, working with human embryos under any circumstances, has had his licence withdrawn. The reason is that every single person performing in vitro fertilisation and carrying out experimental work in this country has done so in very good faith. Clearly such people have been extremely reticent about trying to do anything which might be even remotely considered to be beyond the law.
That certainly applied in relation to the embryo research issue. That is one reason why people have not applied for licences to carry out cell nuclear replacement therapy. They were concerned to be sans reproche. I believe that the idea that Antinori could come to these shores and suddenly operate with human eggs and human cells is unthinkable. He would need to have collaborators, but such collaborators would lose their licence under the 1990 Act. It would be impossible for such a person to start to practise in this country on that basis. Therefore, I believe that the amendment would simply not be needed under the Act.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I am grateful to my noble friend. Certainly I very much understand the point that he raises with regard to fortifying the purpose of the Bill. At present, the Bill addresses the issue of reproductive cloning, which involves placing in a woman an embryo created other than by fertilisation. As my noble friend Lord Winston pointed out, I believe that a problem arises from that. If it were
accepted, the amendment would make it an offence to create or to keep any embryo created other than by fertilisation.The problem is that that would apply whether the purpose was to create an embryo or to keep it for research or for any purpose other than reproductive cloning. Therefore, the effect of the amendment would always be that anyone who created or kept a cell nuclear replacement embryo would be deemed to have intended to commit an offence, whether or not he so intended. I do not believe that that is an appropriate approach to take. The focus of the Bill is on reproductive cloning. The amendment would extend the scope of the Bill to cover anyone creating or keeping an embryo, even though he had no intention of committing an offence; in other words, it would apply to people involved in therapeutic research cloning.
As a result of the 15th November judgment, the HFEA cannot give a licence to allow cell nuclear replacement embryos because the judge found that there was no jurisdiction over such embryos.
The noble Lord asked me about the specifics relating to possible offences involving the placing in a woman of an embryo that has not been fertilised. My understanding is that under normal criminal law, a person could be prosecuted for aiding and abetting or counselling and procuring. Essentially, that follows from the 1990 Act. He also asked about issues involving the creation and keeping of cell nuclear replacement embryos. First, the amendment is directly aimed at therapeutic cloning. Secondly, on the regulation of cell nuclear replacement embryos in relation to creation and keeping, the Government's view is that we wish to wait for the court's judgment on appeal before deciding on the way forward. On that basis, I ask my noble friend to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Brennan: I regret that my short attempt at legal learning for the Committee's benefit turned out to be so unproductive. My noble friend Lord Winston and the Minister interpreted the provision in a way that was not intended and which the amendment does not, on the face of it, suggest. It is directed not at therapeutic cloning but at embryos,
- Xto which this Act applies";
It may well be that given more thought and the benefit of discussion with a non-lawyer, such as my noble friend Lord Winston, I could think of better terminology. However, my question remains unanswered. How does the law of this country currently stop Antinori and anyone else from creating and keeping an embryo that is designed to be used for human reproductive purposes? That is a rhetorical question, but the public will ask it. It would be a shame if there were no answer and such an occurrence eventually took place.
I have listened carefully to what has been said and I have registered my concern. I hope that in the short time that is left to the Government, they will give
thought to prohibitions involving the acts that are more than merely preparatory but which do not amount to an actual attempt or the full commission of the offence. I hope that they will frame the legislation accordingly. I also hope that I have provoked consideration of a genuine concern, which will have to be met. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 2:
- Page 1, line 10, at end insert—
The noble Baroness said: I am baffled about why this issue should be a reserved matter. If I were a Scottish person residing in Scotland, I should want these fundamental issues to be discussed by my Parliament and the people who represent me there. However, that debate was lost some time ago.
Having heard the Minister's response at Second Reading, I ask, in all innocence, why does Clause 1(3) make specific reference to England, Wales and Northern Ireland? Clause 2 deals with the extent of the Bill. It will extend the legislation to Northern Ireland, and we know that it will apply to England and Wales. The clause also refers to the legislation's implementation in the Channel Islands. There is a distinction between the situation in 1990, to which the Minister referred, and today—the difference is that there was not a separate Parliament then and there is one now. It would seem that when we pass primary legislation in this House there should be a specific reference on the face of the Bill under the extension clauses to say that the provision would apply in Scotland.
My next point is that there is a strong Scottish interest in the Bill. For the benefit of Members of the Committee, Scotland is hardly a peripheral issue to the debate. The Roslin Institute in Edinburgh, where Dolly the sheep was created following 277 attempts, has now been bought out by the Geron Corporation, which is an American company founded by Michael West the scientist, who was in the news today, coincidentally, for having cloned the first embryonic human being.
A director of Geron, Mr Simon Best, shared a platform with the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, at the Labour Party Conference in 1998 when the noble Lord publicly announced his support for experimental embryonic cloning. The significance of that piece of information is that the noble Lord at the time was Minister for Science and was in the middle of a consultation process on this matter. It would have been important for the noble Lord at that stage to have remained neutral. If it had been a planning inquiry and the Minister had publicly declared a bias in favour of one side or the other, that would have been inadmissible and the inquiry would have been declared invalid. To complete the connection, Geron has a substantial investment in the Roslin Institute. If it is
This is material to the people of Scotland. As I have said, this is not merely a peripheral issue. I should be far happier if there was a reference to Scotland on the face of the Bill. The Minister may say that this implicitly applies to Scotland, but does it not implicitly apply to England if we are passing legislation in the UK Parliament and, because it is primary legislation, to Wales and Northern Ireland? If it is good enough to make reference to England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Channel Islands, why should it be deemed necessary not to make any mention of Scotland? I beg to move.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: I explored this matter with the Minister at Second Reading. I am grateful to him for his reply. Can he clarify at this juncture whether in Scotland it will be the Lord Advocate who will have the role which the Director of Public Prosecution is designated as having on the face of the Bill?
Perhaps I may briefly commend the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, with which I entirely agree, not least her point about the issue of reserved powers and how this is properly a question which the Scottish Parliament should address. Even though that might delay our process, surely it would be better to reach agreement, not just between England and Scotland, but also for there to be international agreement, which is rather more to the point, on these vexed issues, rather than steamrollering through legislation, especially as the European Parliament has now, in a move which will affect Scottish scientists as well as scientists working elsewhere in the United Kingdom, acted to prevent them being in receipt of European funds if they proceed with either reproductive or therapeutic cloning. In addition, given the announcements today by the White House that it will specifically outlaw all forms of human cloning, the new moves being made in the Senate to bring that about, and the recent vote in Congress which by a majority of 100 decided to outlaw the measures, this is clearly an issue which the Scottish Parliament will also properly want to consider.
The only other point I wish to make, again in support of the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, concerns the way in which huge vested interest has played its part in this debate. A few months ago the Prime Minister stated that he now believes that the European XEurotech" industry is worth some #70 billion and he hoped that we would be at the hub of that. Although one wants to safeguard British interests, such interests are best protected when good science and good ethics march hand in hand. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for tabling the amendment and look forward to the Minister's reply.
X( ) in Scotland, except with the consent of the Lord Advocate."
9.45 p.m.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page