---

Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill [HL]

I do not need to add a great deal to what my noble and learned friend has said about the purpose for which we tabled our amendment. We did so not necessarily with a view to removing the power, but to open up the discussion about the apparent conflict between the procedures under the Bill and those under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. The purposes of the two bits of legislation are entirely different. Whereas we are concerned with protecting the human embryo and regulating the circumstances in which it can be used, whether for therapeutic care, therapy or research, the Home Office legislation is concerned with animal protection, animal welfare, good husbandry and so on. Of course it envisages that there may be transgenic experiments, but, as my noble and learned friend has explained, the regulation comes in only at a later stage. As the witness from the Department of Health, Mr Edward Webb, put it to us: "““You are quite right, we have produced this definition for our purposes, that is what we are here for. We are also working in conjunction with the Home Office to make sure that the two bits of legislation do butt up against each other and do not contradict each other. There may be more work to be done on that””." I think we would all agree with that. Mr Webb highlighted a problem in response to another question from my noble and learned friend: "““Lord Mackay of Clashfern: What is the requirement so far as using embryonic material to implant into animals is concerned?""““Mr Webb: That depends on the embryo””," and then the telling words: "““That, again, is Home Office territory rather than human fertilisation””." Anyone who has been in government and has had to deal with the Home Office will recognise that completely. The Home Office has always had a strong instinct to defend its boundaries. That has been its culture. I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Darzi, will find that for himself if he has to try to sort out how we will deal with this in the context of the Bill. As my noble and learned friend has said, I have been in touch with one of our principal witnesses, Professor Martin Bobrow, who chaired the committee of the Academy of Medical Sciences and gave us valuable evidence on how the medical scientific world views this difficulty. In answer to my noble and learned friend, Professor Bobrow said: "““The idea of a single, general definition is very attractive. The problem for me in this area is that we do have this bifid system where we regulate animals and things that come from an animal in one way and things that start as human in another way. We are trying to deal with the meeting of it””." He then went on to comment on the amendment that my noble and learned friend had put to him. It is clear that at the moment we are in a difficult and unsatisfactory situation. My first proposition is that it is for the Government to sort this out. If the Bill says ““the Secretary of State””, the convention is that that means any Secretary of State—including, of course, the Home Secretary—not just the Secretary of State for Health. That is the pattern of the legislation. It rests firmly upon the Government to find a solution to the problem, otherwise the regulators will find great difficulty, as my noble and learned friend has said, in knowing what to regulate. Professor Bobrow, with whom I have had a long discussion today, said that the Academy of Medical Sciences has been sympathetic to a suggestion, made some while ago, that early in the new year a workshop should be convened, followed by a new working party to consider the status of animal embryos with some human admixture. That would allow widespread debate and perhaps deliver some new thoughts into the discussion about the definition of what constitutes a human embryo. That, of course, is the question. What is ““human””? We are very concerned to defend humanity in this. The reason why we attach such importance to the embryo is that it is human. The profession is now going to sit and work on that. It will not be just the academy; it will be the Medical Research Council, the Wellcome Trust and, I suspect, the Royal Society. The question is: will they do it in time for Parliament to be able to amend the Bill? In other words, it may well be that a regulation-making power of the sort contained in this clause will be the only way to deal with it. However, I hope the Minister can give us an assurance that his officials will work closely with the Academy of Medical Sciences and the others in order that they may proceed in tandem and learn from each other. It is abundantly clear that this is not a problem that can be left to drift.