---

Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 30: 30: Schedule 2, page 55, line 30, after ““serious”” insert ““and potentially life-threatening”” The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I have had a message from my noble friend Lady Finlay, who has put her name to this amendment. She says that her train from Cardiff this morning was unfortunately cancelled. She is travelling up by taxi which, apparently, can go almost as fast as the train, and hopes to be here before the end of the debate. When we were debating saviour siblings in Committee, there were two main concerns about the drafting. The first was the inclusion of the words ““other tissue”” in paragraph 3 of Schedule 2, which seemed to be far too wide. That concern has now been met by the Government in the next amendment, so I will say no more about that. The second cause for concern was the word ““serious”” in the context of ““serious medical condition””. The reference is to page 55, line 30. I prefer the term ““life-threatening”” which is, as I understand it, the current test. To my mind, ““life-threatening”” is better because it indicates, with some precision, the right degree of seriousness—neither too broad nor, as I hope to suggest, too restrictive. The trouble with the word ““serious”” on its own is that it is much too vague and imprecise. For example, one meaning given in the Oxford English Dictionary is: giving cause for anxiety; not light or superficial. I do not suppose that anyone in the House would argue that a condition which gives cause for anxiety is a sufficient ground for creating and testing embryos. Clarity and precision, if one can achieve them, are always important in legislation but never more so than when one is dealing with matters as sensitive as human embryology—a point made very well this time last week by the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury. I am of course aware that the Joint Committee recommended a change from the term ““life-threatening”” to ““serious”” and it did so on the basis of evidence of two experts, as was made clear in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding. The view of the Joint Committee is obviously entitled to great weight but I suggest that it should not be regarded as conclusive. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, himself acknowledged that when he said—he will forgive me for quoting: "““There is a huge difference between the conduct of a joint pre-legislative committee, which we had, and the importance of a debate such as the one that we have had this afternoon. Both serve their purpose, but the pre-legislative committee can never be a substitute for debate in the House””.—[Official Report, 4/12/07; col. 1663.]" In this House, we have had the huge advantage of hearing from two other great experts—notably, my noble friend Lord Walton of Detchant and the noble Lord, Lord Winston. My noble friend Lord Walton said that he preferred the term ““life-threatening”” to ““serious””, "““because it is crucial that something of this nature could be used only for the amelioration of conditions that are life-threatening—which are genetically determined and occur in infants, are progressive and utterly devastating in their effects””.—[Official Report, 4/12/07; col. 1661.]" The noble Lord, Lord Winston, agreed with that. He said that he preferred the term ““life-threatening”” because ““serious”” is, "““open to all sorts of interpretations and is much looser. ‘Life-threatening’ is a better definition and would cover genetic diseases””.—[Official Report, 4/12/07; col. 1664.]" Not surprisingly, I agree with both noble Lords. I hope only that they have not changed their minds, and I do not see that they have. Their expertise in this field is of course beyond all question, but I suggest with humility in passing that, if they had not become doctors, they would almost certainly have made very good lawyers. At the end of the debate in Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, seemed to be receptive to the argument that ““serious”” was too wide a term and she said that she intended to come back at or before Report. I hope that she, too, has not changed her mind and that she is equally receptive today. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, challenged me to think of something better than the word ““serious””. That was a challenge which, coming from that source, I could not have declined. The clue, I suggest, is to be found in something said by the noble Baroness, Lady Tonge. She said that a serious condition in this context meant, or should mean, "““one which could become life-threatening if not treated””.—[Official Report, 4/12/07; col. 1660.]" That, it seems to me, hits the nail on the head and is exactly what we have tried to encapsulate in our amendment by adding the words ““potentially life-threatening””. I do not know whether it is in order to anticipate the amendment in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Howe, as the two amendments are not grouped together. In his original amendment, the noble Earl proposed a definition of ““serious”” as likely to shorten life or significantly impair quality of life. I had no quarrel with the first part of that definition—““likely to shorten life”” seems to me to mean much the same as life-threatening. However, I had difficulty with the second half of the definition because ““significantly”” is no better a word than ““serious””. Indeed, I believe that it is less precise; we get no further by defining one word in terms of the other. The revised amendment of the noble Earl includes ““life-threatening””, which is fine, but it goes on to add a reference to the ““quality of life””. The word, ““severely”” in his revised amendment is better than ““significantly”” in that context, but I am still concerned about ““quality of life””. Of course I understand and sympathise with the motive behind that part of the definition, but once we start talking about the quality of life, we are entering a very subjective area, which is better avoided. I invite your Lordships to stick with ““potentially life-threatening””, which can be added easily to ““serious””. Surely, that will give the scientists enough scope for their important research, for the time being at any rate. I hope that we might all come together on the amendment. I beg to move.