| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: This amendment seeks to define what an embryo is for the purpose of the Bill. The way in which the Bill is drafted means that if an embryo is created other than by fertilisation, whatever the means, that embryo may not be transplanted into a woman. My concern is that the amendment could restrict the class of embryos that may not be placed in
a woman. Of particular relevance is a reference to a totipotent embryonic stem cell, which has no relevance as it simply cannot develop into an embryo. But it could be used to stop therapeutic research, which the Government are anxious not so to do.
Baroness Blatch: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Does he agree that the case in the High Court argued by the Government's lawyers relied upon the fact that the one-cell CNR entity is not an embryo? The case hinged on that. So to that extent the judge, as I read out in paragraph 49, agreed with that. If it is not an embryo, the answer just given by the Minister does not apply.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The Government lawyers did not concede that one-cell embryos created by CNR are not embryos. The Government's view is that a one-cell embryo is in fact an embryo.
Lord Winston: Perhaps I can help the Minister. I know that earlier we were told that we may not use common sense in the debate, but it seems to me that anything that grows in the uterus and becomes a foetus is, by definition, an embryo. Therefore this Bill covers that in the wording and there is no need for further clarification.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The Government want to ensure that the ban encompasses all methods of creating embryos, including those methods not considered possible today. It is clearly essential that we restrict, as this Bill does, embryo implantation to those created only by fertilisation, which are fully regulated by the 1990 Act. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, asked when embryos become foetuses. That is open to debate. Some authorities say two months and some say more. On the issue of the HFEA inspection distinguishing between CNR and fertilised embryos—
Lord Winston: Perhaps I can try to help my noble friend. All noble Lords are clear that we do not want to see reproductive cloning. At the time of the Xembryo transfer" it is true that we may not know whether something is an embryo or not. In my view, the chance of a single cell implanting and becoming a baby is very small. I agree that it could be transferred to the fallopian tube where, under the current type of procedure that is available, such as zygote transfer, it might become an embryo. It would have a small chance of doing so and then might become a baby.
However, the truth is that, if the matter were pursued through criminal law, anything not produced by fertilisation would automatically be covered. Once the embryo became a baby, we would know that reproductive cloning had taken place. Therefore, there is no need for further clarification. It is very clear that the current wording of the Bill is perfectly adequate to cover the purposes of the Government and, indeed, I believe, to cover the purposes of everyone in this House.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I am grateful to my noble friend. At the end of the day, either the embryo has
been fertilised and is therefore covered by the 1990 Act and by the role of the HFEA in regulating and licensing or the embryo has not been fertilised and will be covered by this Bill. That is the essential point of what we are seeking to legislate for.I say to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, that the issue of exports depends on the outcome of the judicial review. If the Government eventually lose the case in relation to that review, that will clearly be one issue to which we shall need to return when we consider what the Government should do.
In general, it seems that, again, the risk is that if the noble Baroness's amendments were passed, in effect, legitimate therapeutic research would be inhibited. I believe that we need to rely on the general intent of this Bill, which, coupled with the 1990 Act, should ensure that human reproductive cloning is caught one way or the other.
Baroness Blatch: The Minister made an interesting comment at the end. We are creating a criminal act. We are creating the conditions under which individuals could go to court and receive sentences of up to 10 years. When it comes to court procedure, the idea that we should have no definitions of this or of that, that we should be general and that the more one specifies issues the more difficult it will be is not good enough. If the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, were in his place now, I would remind him that his earlier arguments were very potent. When it comes to a judge making a judgment about whether or not someone has committed a criminal act, very precise definitions will be placed on some of the terms within the Bill.
Perhaps I may also say to the Minister that he has argued quite contrary to his lawyers in court. If the Government argue, as they did in court, that the one-cell, CNR entity is not an embryo, my amendment is indeed required. However, if, as the Minister argues tonight, it is an embryo, all cloning would be banned. If the Government won their case on appeal, the one-cell, CNR entity would remain outside the governance of the Bill. I do not believe that that is what the noble Lord expects. I hope that, on reflection of the arguments that he has given tonight, he will return to me on this point, preferably before the Bill is considered in another place. I believe that this matter may well be the subject of further action in court.
The way in which the Bill has been put before the House and the way in which we must deal with all its stages in one day makes matters almost impossible for Members of this House. Over the past weekend, I and, indeed, my noble friends have experienced difficulty in getting to grips with some of the technicalities and with some of the ethical, moral, technical and scientific issues of the Bill. It has been extremely difficult. Therefore, I am not surprised that there will be a great deal of confusion, especially as we have eminent scientists who say, XThe definitions do not matter. Trust us; it will all be all right".
We have had highly unsatisfactory answers from the Government on most of the amendments. I hope that Members in another place will take heed of at least some of the arguments that have been advanced in the House this evening and make the Government come up with better clarification and better answers. Very sadly, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 [Short title and extent]:
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment: Report received.
Bill read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure to await a message from the Commons regarding the anti-terrorism Bill. Rather than specifying a particular time at which to resume, I suggest that the House adjourn during pleasure until after midnight. We shall place a notice on the Annunicators some five minutes before the House resumes.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 10.57 p.m. until 12.30 a.m.]
Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.
- House adjourned at twenty-seven minutes before one o'clock.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |