| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Walton of Detchant: I make a brief comment which does not relate to Scotland but to a comment made by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. Michael West of Advanced Cell Technology in Massachusetts
gave an interview in which he made it perfectly clear that the technique he had used was one of cell nuclear transplantation in order to create stem cells for research. He had not the slightest intention of creating a new human being or of proceeding to reproductive technology. I simply comment that it is for that reason that I regard the headline in today's Daily Express of a new baby being cloned as quite outrageous. It is totally contrary to what that company is doing.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Perhaps I may say to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, that Scotland is not peripheral to our debates and discussions, but the way that the Bill is constructed follows normal convention. I confirm, as I did at Second Reading, that the Bill extends to the whole of the UK in the same way as the 1990 Act.
I understand the concern that the Bill does not appear to extend to Scotland, but the convention is that Westminster Bills extend to Scotland unless it is made explicit in a Bill that they do not. The converse is the case for Northern Ireland. The extent of the Bill mirrors that in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990, including the provisions in Section 42 of that Act which concern consent to prosecution.
I can tell the noble Baroness that the devolved administrations have been consulted and have agreed to the Bill being extended in the way that it has.
I can say to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, that in Scotland prosecutions would be at the discretion of the Lord Advocate, as he suspected at Second Reading.
The noble Lord, Lord Alton, mentioned the word Xsteamrolling". I stress again that the Government see the Bill as a short, focused Bill which deals with the most immediate gap in the law following the 15th November judgment. I agree with the noble Lord that we need proper time to consider many of the matters raised in debate today. I think that the proper process will follow both the outcome of the appeal and also the House of Lords' Select Committee. I feel as strongly as he does that your Lordships' House will then need proper time to consider all the issues that have been raised.
I agree with the noble Lord's remark that the UK will do best when it combines good science with good ethics. The great strength of the 1990 Act and the performance of the HFEA has been to do just that. It is for that reason that we want to make sure that the whole arena is properly regulated.
Baroness Blatch: I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. I shall have to take his word that the issue is implicit in the Bill. To use the argument of convention is frankly rather a weak argument. The Parliament in Scotland has not been established long and its conventions are new. If the noble Lord was referring to the previous decade or so then I could understand the matter, but this is a new parliament.
If the Scottish Parliament was consulted and gave a considered view on the issue, can the Minister tell me whether discussions took place with the Scottish
Parliament before Members of this House knew that all stages of the Bill would be taken in one day? We only learned that we should be doing that late last week. Is the noble Lord saying that a considered parliamentary view was made to the Government about the Bill before this House knew what the Government were going to do?Finally, the Minister said that the rationale for the Bill is to deal with a gap that needs to be urgently plugged. No one who has spoken today—at Second Reading or in Committee—has argued against the need to plug the gap. But the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, made a powerful argument to convince me, and I suspect other Members of the Committee, that that gap is not being properly plugged. Here is an opportunity to plug it, which the Government have set their face against. I believe that we are all out of order, as that is not relevant to my amendment, but I would be pleased to hear the answer about who was consulted and in what form the Scottish Parliament responded to the Government ahead of today's debate.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My understanding is that the devolved Administrations were consulted and agreed to the Bill. I am not aware that it was debated within the Scottish Parliament. It is of course for the Scottish Parliament and Administration to decide their own affairs. It is quite proper for there to be discussions between the various Administrations in the United Kingdom when Bills such as this come before Parliament; nothing improper or untoward has occurred.
Baroness Blatch: I was not suggesting that anything improper occurred, but it would seem that one official spoke to another official and that that was deemed to be a formal parliamentary response. I simply cast doubt on that.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: With the greatest respect, the degree to which the Scottish Parliament has been involved must be a matter for Scotland. From the Government's point of view, the important thing is that the necessary contacts were made with the different Administrations.
Baroness Blatch: I am not arguing with that, but simply saying that if I were a Member of the Scottish Parliament—or, more significantly, a member of the Scottish public—I would certainly have challenged the way in which the decision was made. But I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Alton of Liverpool moved Amendment No. 3:
- Page 1, line 10, at end insert—
The noble Lord said: I explored this point with the Minister on Second Reading, and he gave some clarification in his reply, for which I was grateful. The
I think that we would all agree that there would be a great feeling of repugnance if a woman went out of her way deliberately to create circumstances in which she helped to bring about the cloning of a human embryo. My concern is for a woman who goes for in vitro fertilisation treatment and falls into the hands of an unscrupulous person—perhaps someone like Severino Antinori, who wants to push the borders of science just for the sake of it—or for a woman who undergoes treatment out of desperation and subsequently changes her mind. The Bill contains considerable penalties—we are talking about a 10-year period of imprisonment or the equivalent, if we consider it as a tariff, of a fine of up to #1 million. I am sure that none of your Lordships would want such penalties targeted at a woman in the circumstances that I have just described. Earlier, the Minister said that that could occur.
This is a probing amendment; I do not want to push the Government to the wire, as it were, on this today. Because of the way in which we are dealing with the Bill, Report comes immediately after the Committee—I must say in parenthesis that in 18 years in another place and four years here, I cannot recall any occasion, except when we dealt with emergency powers in Northern Ireland, on which we have dealt with a Bill in quite this way and at quite this speed. Therefore, the only way in which I can reserve my position is to say that no doubt honourable Members in another place can pursue the matter with the Government. I hope that the Government will at least take time to reflect on the implications if something like the amendment's provisions are not incorporated into the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: First, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, for the way in which he moved the amendment. I certainly accept that the time constraint is a problem for all of us in this debate. The Government intend to reflect on points raised in your Lordships' House today.
I understand that the amendment is a probing amendment, so it may be unfair of me to point out its technical flaws. However, it would introduce an obvious ambiguity, as it suggests that only a man could be prosecuted for placing in a woman an embryo that has been created other than by fertilisation. Setting that aside, it must be said that in the context of the Bill the principal offender will be the person who places in a woman a human embryo which has been created other than by fertilisation.
However, under other provisions in the criminal law the woman in certain circumstances could also be prosecuted, but only if it were proved to the criminal standard of proof that she intended to assist or encourage the commission of the offence. Accepting what the noble Lord, Lord Alton, said, it is important that we have that ability. It would be aiding and abetting a criminal offence and one cannot ignore that.
I hope that I can reassure the noble Lord that that will occur with a woman who actively or knowingly seeks to have implanted in her an embryo created other than by fertilisation. I also hope that the noble Lord will recognise that in the circumstances I have described the circumstances he described would not face the kind of penalty he suggests. I believe that there would be a proportionate response and that it would have to be proved that a woman, involved actively and knowingly, sought to have implanted into her an embryo. On that basis, it is important to keep the provision.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: I am grateful to the Minister for the way in which he has replied to the points. It would be good for me to go away and reflect on what he has said and to consider further whether the amendment should be pressed in another place. If that is appropriate, I shall speak to honourable Members and ask them to raise the matter again on Thursday. On the basis of the Minister's reply, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
X( ) against a woman in the circumstances defined in subsection (1)."
10 p.m.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page