Read this in context in Hansard

My Lords, I had the very considerable privilege of being a member of the Joint Committee which met for a few brief weeks in the early Summer of this year. I would want to put on record, not only my appreciation of the chairmanship of Mr Phil Willis, but also the work of the Clerks of the Committee. We were all working under great pressure – and they were outstanding.

In order to meet deadlines we had to put to one side some of the ethical issues which underlie this Bill. We had to do that, though in the time available we were able to consider a few of them.

It is relatively easy to expose what the ethical issues are by asking a simple question: “Does the kind of scientific endeavour and therapeutic treatment which this Bill allows, actually need regulation at all? Why not let scientific and therapeutic market forces rip?”.

As soon as you ask that question you realise what the ethical questions are.

Put it this way: unregulated research and treatment could jeopardise

• our common understanding of what it means to be human.

It could jeopardise

• our complex understandings of what we believe to be the meaning and purpose of human life.

It could jeopardise

• our understanding of human relationships; and an unregulated free-for-all could and might lead to the unscrupulous treatment of the most vulnerable, and could and might lead to some appalling abuses of power.

Those four major philosophical areas, (1) the meaning of our humanity; (2) the meaning and purpose of our lives; (3) the meaning, purpose and value of human relationships; (4) the right use of power; those four are accompanied by others. For example, because we have the ability to carry out research and treatment, how do we decide whether we should? What criteria should be used to determine this?

How are we to decide whether the kind of research and treatment outlined by the Bill is likely to harm or enhance individuals and society? and conversely, what might be the effects on individuals and society if we fail to carry out the proposed research and treatment?

The moral questions inherent in this Bill tumble over each other in rapid succession.

Our ability to tackle some of these questions in the Joint Committee was hampered by three things:

firstly, as I have said, we were hampered by lack of time;

secondly, we were hampered by having to spend time on the issue of whether HFEA and the HTA should be coalesced into RATE. That proposal has since been abandoned – but the time spent on that could have been spent on some of the ethical questions;

thirdly, some of us also became aware of the significance and accuracy of what Sir Liam Donaldson described as the deficit in medical ethics in this country.

There are some, of course, who consider that medical ethics are somehow subservient to the science being undertaken: As the then Minister said in her evidence: “It is a mixture of science and ethics in these areas and part of getting the ethics right is taking public opinion with you in terms of support for the science”. I do not share that utilitarian view of ethics.

Our lack of time as a Committee also meant that we were unable to explore, in as much depth as we should have liked, not only the questions I have already outlined, but also one which is the key to this whole enterprise and that is: “What is the moral status of the embryo?”. Does every embryo, from the moment of fertilisation, have a unique, indelible moral status – or does the moral status of the embryo change as the embryo develops?

I recognise that the Warnock Report, and many philosophers and theologians before and since, have debated this question. But it lies at the very heart of this Bill and, therefore, needs to be debated again.

My Lords, I have read something about the science involved in human fertility research and treatment and I have found much of that science breath-takingly interesting – and being carried out, in some instances, with remarkable humility. But I am amongst those who believe that this Bill is of such fundamental importance that greater and further consideration of the ethical issues should be given.; I share the view of the Joint Committee that a Joint Bio-ethics Committee of Parliament should be set up. I would hope that that recommendation will be acted upon as a matter of urgency – so that if this Bill continues on its journey, the ethical insights of such a Committee could be heard.

I recognise, of course, the beauty and humanity of much of the science but it would be tragic if that beauty and that humanity were to be damaged by any deficit in ethical thinking in this Parliament. And it would be even more appalling if generations yet to come (including those who might be brought to birth through the proposal outlined) - if they asked of us: “Why were they in such a rush? Why did they not have the courage or the wisdom to give deep and long consideration to the morality of the proposals before rushing into law?.

This Bill is not only about us in our generation, it is also potentially, about generations of people yet to come; we owe it to them to ensure that we give as much attention to the ethics as to the science and to the regulatory mechanisms. My Lords, for their sake, we must get it right.