---

Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill [HL]

My Lords, this issue was not debated by the scrutiny committee and we did not debate it at Committee stage. My noble friend Lord Walton of Detchant has reminded us that we discussed this issue on Report, and we now have the amendment before us. I have grave reservations about it, although I fully understand the motives of my noble friend in bringing it forward. He is right to tell us that if genetic materials were available, they could be turned into human admixed embryos or into human embryos, but they would not be implanted. But of course they could be used for research, they would be created and they would exist for 14 days before we destroyed them. Many of us who would have profound misgivings anyway about the creation of human embryos in the first place, or human admixed embryos, would therefore be opposed to doing this. There is another issue that ought to unite Members of your Lordships’ House, even if they do not accept the premise that we should not create such entitites in the first place. No one who had given those tissues perhaps 40, 30, 20 or 10 years ago could have possibly known at that time that we would be considering in 2008 the creation of human admixed embryos. So it would not have been possible to have given consent at that time for this proposal. We simply could not have known. I can say that if I had given permission 10 years ago for any genetic material of one of my own children to be used—indeed, two of them had treatment at Liverpool’s Alder Hey hospital—I would have had no problem at all in those materials being used for scientific research, but I would have a profound problem with that material being used to create a human admixed embryo or human embryo for experimental purposes. It would be crazy to trade a list of horrendous diseases. All of us want to see disease conquered and want to use legitimate means to do that, but we should not blind ourselves to the other considerations when we think about issues of this kind. I particularly emphasise this question of consent. I want to take the House back for a few moments to the Alder Hey organ scandal. I have been a supporter and admirer of the wonderful work of that hospital, both as the father of children who were treated there and as a local Member of Parliament at that time. It grieved me to see that wonderful hospital mired in allegations of organ theft, body snatching, contemporary necromancy and the rest of it. It was a tragedy for that hospital which was wholly avoidable, if only some of those who were intent on pushing the boundaries in the way that they did had considered their actions at the time. Who in the House would disagree with the response to the Royal Liverpool Children’s Inquiry of Ministers who said: "““The traditional paternalistic attitude of the NHS, that the benefits of science and research are somehow self-evident, was no longer acceptable””?" It is not just Ministers who have held that view. The General Medical Council’s guidelines on consent for research state the following: "““Obtaining consent is a process involving open and helpful dialogue, and is essential in clarifying objectives and understanding between doctors and research participants””." The General Medical Council goes on to say that, "““one must not make assumptions about participants’ views, but discuss matters with them””," and it describes how participants should be presented with information that first includes, "““what the research aims to achieve””," and, "““an outline of the research method””." Can one retrospectively presume that previous approval for supposedly any research should necessarily encompass that which was utterly inconceivable at the relevant time? Perhaps the Wellcome Trust provides the best answer in a document entitled Public Perspectives on Biomedical Research, in which the following is stated: "““Implied consent was not welcomed as a model of the consent process. Implied consent was equated to no consent””." When we discussed this issue on Report many of your Lordships raised the question of human rights and my noble friend Lord Patel who is absent today for understandable reasons said at the time that he did not really understand human rights questions. Sometimes we can become myopic in the individual disciplines in which we live. We can sometimes become particularly absorbed with the ideas that influence the work we undertake in the disciplines in which we are involved. I do not think we should avoid the question of consent. We should not try to impute retrospectively to people who have never had the chance to give authority for this work something with which they might not have agreed. Certainly if it is possible to trace those who were involved at the time in giving such tissues, it might be possible to make this into a workable proposition; but without that I really do not believe that the amendment should be supported.