| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
4.26 pm
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement and associate myself with the expressions of condolence to the families and friends of those who lost their lives in this tragic accident. We should also thank the noble Baroness for indicating that further inquiries will go on into this accident, and for admitting, as she did in the Statement, that some of the fault lies within the Ministry of Defence. That is a frank admission and we should recognise it as such.
One difficulty for the Nimrod force is that it has had to operate at a high intensity and it will continue to operate at a high intensity. It is clear that age is not the reason for this accident, but aircraft of that age do present one with potential further problems. Therefore my question refers to the Nimrod MRA4, which is
4 Dec 2007 : Column 1630
Baroness Taylor of Bolton: My Lords, I appreciate the comments that the noble and gallant Lord has made and I am sure that the families will, too. I am glad that he recognises that the Secretary of State has taken an important step by acknowledging that responsibility for parts of the problem lies within the MoD and the RAF. It is right that when problems of this scale arise, we should do that. I appreciated his comments. It has been a very difficult time for everybody involved, and the board of inquiry report will be read thoroughly and be considered carefully by everybody who has been involved at every stage of the development of this aircraft.
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, is quite right to talk about the high intensity of the work that the Nimrod undertakes in Afghanistan and elsewhere. It is important work and quite critical to many of the operations we undertake there. I understand why the noble and gallant Lord would like the MRA4 to be in operation as soon as possible; I am sure that that is the case with everyone in theatre. However, it cannot go into operation—the noble and gallant Lord knows this better than I—until it has undergone all the tests, all the assessments and all the work, and we have all the assurances we need. Yes, it would be good if we could have it earlier, but we cannot have it in operation until we are fully satisfied that all the technical challenges that were so difficult in the early days have been completed and that we can safely deploy it.
I appreciate the remarks of the noble and gallant Lord about age not being a simple factor and the reason for the problem. He knows that the situation is more complex than that, and I am grateful to him for pointing that out.
Lord Selkirk of Douglas: My Lords, the Minister will be aware of my connections with the Royal Auxiliary Air Force and of the non-pecuniary interest I have recently mentioned in the Chamber. Does she accept that all our sympathies and thoughts are with the families of those who lost their lives and whose professionalism and bravery is well accepted by us all?
Looking to the future, the Minister has already this afternoon given a timescale for the replacement of the Nimrod fleet. Can she say a little more about how long it will take to upgrade the existing Nimrod fleet, which is obviously extremely important in terms of what she has already said?
Baroness Taylor of Bolton: My Lords, there will be some overlap between the new MRA4 coming online and the existing Nimrods being phased out. The phasing out will start in 2012.
4 Dec 2007 : Column 1631
Lord Ramsbotham: My Lords, it is natural that our thoughts should be with the families of those most concerned with this incident and that attention should be focused on the continuing serviceability of this aircraft. I am extremely glad that the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, mentioned the strain on the servicing crews and those who must maintain our equipment. I remember, during the first Gulf War, that every morning I had to sign aircraft tickets sending specialists out to the Gulf to repair equipment which previously would have been repaired by people in service. The more complicated, and older, our equipment gets, the more care will be needed. Can the Minister assure the House that the same care will be taken to ensure the viability of the servicing crews of these aircraft as well as the serviceability of the aircraft themselves?
Baroness Taylor of Bolton: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, makes a valid point. It is important that we get all stages of our operations right, including the servicing crews to ensure that we maintain the viability of aircraft once they have been deployed. He will know that there is a large community of people based up in Kinloss who provide a great deal of background support for the Nimrod. I give an assurance that we will do all we can to ensure that servicing crews are carefully considered and that we take the necessary steps to maintain viability of these aircraft throughout their operational life.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking the Minister for repeating the Statement made in another place. I welcome the board of inquiry’s report, which is not only thorough but extremely frank. It does not—I suppose because of the circumstances surrounding this awful tragedy—answer all the questions that many of us would wish to ask. However, it clearly and specifically covers the point that no fault, blame or criticism can be levelled at any of the 14 members of the Nimrod crew who lost their lives in this awful accident.
The report does not totally remove the concern that some may have that funding pressures played a role in the issues that came together to cause this accident. I accept that, as the report makes clear, it is too simple to say that the age of the aircraft caused the accident. I join other Members in extending sincere condolences to the families of the crew. They live with the emotional strains and concerns that come from losing a loved one in such a situation. I welcome the further review; many of us will follow it very closely. What ongoing communications will there be with the families? I welcome the fact that issues that have caused concern in the past—delays in pensions and compensation—have been addressed by the Secretary of State, but for those families today is not the end but just the end of one stage. Will the Minister explain to the House what ongoing arrangements are in place to keep in touch with them and to support them?
Baroness Taylor of Bolton: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for her comments and for her welcome for the work of the board of inquiry. I agree that the report is frank. It is frank when it does not know all
4 Dec 2007 : Column 1632
I am glad that my noble friend welcomed the review. I am sure that many people will watch what happens in detail. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State will shortly be making a statement about who will be heading this inquiry and the terms of reference. It is intended that the families will be kept informed about developments so that they will feel that any remaining concerns they have can be expressed and that they will be taken on board and followed through.
However, I disagree with my noble friend about funding and this accident. The board of inquiry makes it clear that maintenance, servicing and operational pressures were not factors in this accident. They are the three areas where there could have been resource implications. It is clear that resources were not a factor in this, and we should say that clearly from the start. The House has been united in its appreciation of the work undertaken by the Nimrod crew and its back-up staff. On a day such as today we should think of the families and what we can do for them. We should continue to agree that this is a serious issue, that lessons can be learnt for the future and that people are accepting their responsibilities. If we can help the families by involving them and keeping them informed of what is happening in the further review, we should clearly do so.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, does the Secretary of State’s Statement not make it perfectly clear that three of the contributions to this tragic accident, which caused the loss of 14 British service lives, were, first, the underestimation of the hazard of fuel and hot air components being present together in the No. 7 tank dry bay; secondly,
I am of course quoting from the Statement. Does that not suggest very strongly—indeed, perhaps make it crystal clear—that this Nimrod aircraft was not fit for the purpose for which it was being used? Do not the Government have a very simple choice to make: they either provide the resources required for our military commitments, or they adjust our military commitments to the resources which they are prepared to provide? Which do the Government intend to do?
4 Dec 2007 : Column 1633
Baroness Taylor of Bolton: My Lords, I cannot agree with the conclusions that have just been reached. It is true that the issue of underestimating the hazards was a factor. It was one factor over many years, complicated by all the changes that have taken place, such as the introduction of air-to-air refuelling and its consolidation in the later 1980s. Some of these problems go back a very long way, and we have to look at every aspect from the design of the original plane to any of the changes that have since taken place.
The fire was caused by the hot air and the fuel. That was the source of the ignition. We have closed that hot air pipe so that that cannot be replicated in the future. So far as the suggestion that there could be fire suppression just in that area, it is far more complicated that that. It was suggested that there should be fire suppression in the bomb bay when the aircraft were being altered and fuel tanks were established. The bomb bay is a big space, and the combination of the tanks taking some of that space and proper suppression could have made the difference in certain circumstances. This fire did not start in the bomb bay, so that is not the focus at the moment.
Mention was made of the age of some components. That is true. The age of two components was mentioned as a possible—but only a possible—factor in this. The two components are the couplings and seals, which over time may have deteriorated. It is suggested that all the seals should be replaced. But there is a contrary view that if you disturb seals you might create a greater problem and another risk, because research shows that seals do not act consistently and predictably. That is being looked at further, and further comment will be made about it in due course.
The second issue about possible deterioration was in respect of the insulation. Where two different types of insulation around that pipe came together, a gap had developed. It is not known whether that gap developed because the components had not been replaced or whether it had been there from the start, so it is clearly not as simple as saying, “Some components were old—therefore they caused this problem”. These aircraft are audited and serviced frequently. It is important that we understand that the Nimrod’s overall safety record is very good indeed.
Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill [HL]
4.44 pm
Clause 11 [Activities that may be licensed]:
Lord Walton of Detchant moved Amendment No. 25:
“(a)”The noble Lord said: In the absence of my noble friend Lord Patel—I must confess that I did not expect to be invited to move this amendment—I ask the Minister whether the present structure of the Bill is sufficient to fulfil the objectives discussed when the new regulations amending the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 were passed by this House
4 Dec 2007 : Column 1634
Amendment No. 26, tabled by my noble friend Lord Patel, states that licences under the schedule should authorise activities in the course of providing therapy. My question, therefore, is whether the present structure of the Bill is sufficient to fulfil that objective, or whether it is necessary to amend it. I beg to move.
Lord Patel: I thank my noble friend for moving the amendment for me, and I apologise to the Committee for having been caught up.
The amendment is intended to increase the scope of licences to include creating stem cell lines for therapy. The current provision under Schedule 2 to the Act sets out the activities for which licences can be granted by the HFEA. There are three categories: treatment, storage and research. Schedule 2(1) lists the activities that may be authorised under a treatment licence. It states:
“A licence under this paragraph may authorise any of the following in the course of providing treatment services”.
Section 2(1) of the Act defines treatment services as,
- “medical, surgical or obstetric services provided to the public or a section of the public for the purposes of assisting women to carry children”.
That provision remains the same in the Bill.
Paragraph 3(1) of Schedule 2 provides that a licence may authorise the creation and use of embryos for a project of research which has been held to include authorisation of the creation and use of embryos for the derivation of embryonic stem cell lines. Paragraph 3(2) then lists the purposes for which the research licence may be granted.
The Bill includes a new purpose:
However, it is a condition of all research licences that embryos created for research purposes may be used only for the purpose of that project.
The problem with that is that there are no provisions in the 1990 Act or the Bill that provide for the creation or use of embryos for the derivation of embryonic stem cells, particularly for the purpose of treating conditions other than reproduction. At present, embryonic stem cell lines from embryos and nuclear transfer for the derivation of embryonic stem cell lines is carried out under a research licence. That will continue until the technology is optimised. However, it is anticipated that, within the next five to 10 years, it will be necessary to derive such ES cell lines specifically for treatment, rather than research. Our current embryonic stem cell lines are all created using rabbit sera as feeder lines.
It is assumed that these lines will not be useable for treatment. I say assumed because they will use such lines in the United States for the first-stage trial in the treatment of spinal injuries. Regenerative medicine treatments will require the ongoing provisions of therapeutic-grade embryonic stem cell lines. These may be derived from surplus embryos from IVF treatment
4 Dec 2007 : Column 1635
We now also have the UK Stem Cell Foundation, which is a government/privately funded enterprise to try to take stem cell therapy to treatment. There are problems with regulatory issues. There is, for example, a high probability that the first clinical trials using ES-derived cells may be approved by the FDA and commence in the US. Due to the differences between the United States and the EU in the regulations that govern standards and the compliance of good manufacturing practice, it will be necessary for any embryonic stem cell for clinical use in the UK to be derived under EU/UK regulations and standards; that is, the cells proposed for the US trial would not be acceptable for use according to the EU cells and tissue directive, which came into force in the United Kingdom in July this year. Many universities and hospital trusts are upgrading their laboratories, even those for in vitro fertilisation treatment, to comply with the current GMP regulations for cell therapy. Our own UK Stem Cell Bank has already been given accreditation for GMP standards by the MHRA and the regulatory authorities.
UK scientists and clinicians are discussing a co-ordinated approach for deriving clinical-grade embryonic stem cell lines for future therapeutic use. At this stage, we do not know how many lines we might require, but we are not talking about thousands. Discussions are going on somehow to identify how many lines of clinical-grade embryonic stem cell lines will be required to satisfy the need for research and treatment. Because of the characteristics of embryonic stem cell lines—some people refer to them as being immortal—they can, if kept in ideal conditions, survive and grow for a very long time.
I do not think that defining the potential therapeutic use of ES cells derived either from surplus embryos from IVF or through cell technology research is satisfactory, or that legislation keeps pace with scientific and medical developments, and I realise that the amendment goes further than allowing licences for research. I am told that some commercial institutions already have clinical-grade embryonic stem cell lines, but they are not produced in this country. Following the report on stem cells by the committee chaired by the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth, some noble Lords recommended that all embryonic stem cell lines created in the United Kingdom should be deposited in the UK Stem Cell Bank and be available to all scientists for research and developing therapy. That applies here too. My amendment would extend this licence to allow this under licence and under regulation: my proposed new Section 3ZA defines the kind of regulation that would be required, so that the HFEA controls the licences that are awarded.
4 Dec 2007 : Column 1636
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: As the noble Lord, Lord Patel, has informed us, the HFEA currently has the power to issue licences for four types of activities: for treatment, for non-medical fertility services, for storage and for research. The Bill does not change this. Amendments Nos. 25, 26 and 49, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Patel, would however extend the remit of the HFEA. It would enable it to license the creation and use of embryos for therapy. For instance, it could, as the noble Lord described, be used to derive personalised stem cells from embryos created for that specific purpose. It is important to distinguish that from the use of embryos in a research project, for instance, that seeks to understand how stem cells work. That is rightly within the remit of the HFEA. However, to provide for embryos to be created specifically for treatment or therapy that is not connected in any way to infertility or is part of a research project would be a highly significant development in the use of embryos. It would require very careful consideration. It is a step that the Government are not convinced should be taken in the Bill.
The HFEA’s scope to issue treatment licences is restricted to treatment to help a woman to have a child. Most people would agree that that is a right and proper use of embryos. It recognises the special status of the embryo and acknowledges concerns that embryos should not be created for inappropriate purposes. The use of embryos in research—subject to the research being necessary or desirable for a specific purpose, and the use of embryos for the research being necessary—is also a well established principle within the 1990 Act. The scope could extend to embryos being created and used for therapy in limited circumstances under clinical trials as part of the research licences. However, the introduction of a new type of licence that would allow embryos to be routinely created for therapy if the use of embryos for the therapy was considered to be necessary is an issue of a different order of magnitude altogether.
The noble Lord, Lord Walton, asked whether the Bill fulfils the purpose of the 2001 research purposes regulations. Yes, the Bill incorporates and builds on the research purposes as amended by the 2001 regulations. The list of research purposes is found in Schedule 2(6).
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |