HC Deb 23 November 1984 vol 68 cc528-44

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Lang.]

9.46 am
Mr. Speaker

Before I call the Secretary of State, I should inform the House that because of the number of hon. Members who wish to speak I intend to apply the time limit of 10 minutes between the hours of 11.30 and 1 o'clock. However, I ask those hon. Members who are fortunate enough to be called before 11.30 to bear in mind that many other colleagues are waiting to take part in this very important debate.

The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. Norman Fowler)

I too, will seek to work towards what you have just suggested, Mr. Speaker.

When the world's first test tube baby was born in Oldham in 1978 the event was seen as a significant advance for medical science and represented new hope for many couples who wished to have children. It marked the first time that the public had been made aware of what the technique of in vitro fertilisation, or fertilisation outside the mother's body, had made possible.

Just how rapidly events have proceeded since is demonstrated by the fact that some 600 babies have now been born as a result of this technique, more than 200 of them in Great Britain. Those figures are an indication of the pace of development and the spread of the technique.

Despite the acclaim excited by the birth of Louise Brown, it was apparent from an early stage that this and other developments in the field of infertility raised moral, legal and ethical issues which could not be left to be decided by default by those working in the field. Public debate had not developed to anything like the stage that it has today. But in July 1982, given the critical nature of the issues involved, I decided that it was essential to have the benefit of a wide-ranging inquiry and advice in that area. Therefore, I announced the establishment of an independent inquiry under Dame Mary Warnock. It was almost exactly two years later, in July of this year, that I published the inquiry's report.

I am of course aware of the extremely strong feelings which the issues covered by the report raise, both here and among the public, and I respect them, but I think that we can all agree that Dame Mary Warnock and her committee have done a great service in setting out clearly and cogently the issues to which we should all address our minds.

I published the report as soon as possible after receiving it because it was clear to me that, while the inquiry had reached detailed conclusions and made some 63 specific recommendations, it was essential that we should give the widest opportunity to the public, both individuals and organisations, to express their views on them.

It does not seem to me that this is the traditional kind of consultation exercise that we have known in the past, for it is not just a matter of deciding on each of those 63 individual recommendations. The debate goes much wider and it embraces fundamental moral issues. As the Warnock committee said: Barriers, it is generally agreed, must be set up; but there will not be universal agreement about where these barriers should be placed. The question must ultimately be what kind of society can we praise and admire? In what sort of society can we live with our conscience clear? That is why it is important for there to be a wider public debate on the report. That is also why the Government were anxious for the House to have this early opportunity to debate the report.

We have already had a substantial number of comments on the report which, as with the debate that took place three weeks ago in another place, have demonstrated the wide differences of view about many of the issues raised and the strength with which those views are held. While obviously I recognise the strength of those feelings, I hope that the House will agree with me that the issues should be debated with tolerance to other views, with some humility and with the aim of reaching as much agreement as possible. I recognise that full agreement will not be obtained, but I believe that the House and the Government would be failing in their duty if they did not aim to provide a satisfactory framework within which we can release the benefits of medical advance while at the same time guarding against abuses that would undermine the special respect that is owed to the family and children and to the creation of human life.

My main purpose this morning will be to listen to the debate. I do not intend to delay the House for long. My intention is to allow hon. Members to express their views. My right hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Health, who will be in overall charge of consultation here, will sum up at the end of the debate. I do not, therefore, propose to set out in detail the whole range of issues addressed by the Warnock report. I should like to dwell briefly on some of the major questions which I expect to be of concern to the House.

Mr. W. Benyon (Milton Keynes)

Do the Government accept that developments are occurring so quickly that there is a strong need for legislation to be enacted quickly?

Mr. Fowler

I think that the Government would accept that. I would go a little further and say that, whatever happens in terms of legislation, it will be necessary to examine some areas to ascertain the interim arrangements that can be made before the introduction of that legislation.

I shall consider the standpoint from which we have to approach this debate. The impetus for the development of techniques which the Warnock committee considered is twofold. There is the demand from childless couples for help in achieving what they would regard as their right—the right to have children of their own. There is also the capacity of modern medicine and science to delve ever further into the complexities and origins of life. Those pressures have opened up new opportunities but, in considering how to use them, we must take account of other and more fundamental issues—our duty to face up to the moral dilemmas that clearly exist and to ensure, perhaps above all, that the rights of children are satisfactorily protected.

The two main techniques in infertility treatment with which the Warnock committee had to concern itself are artificial insemination and in vitro fertilisation. Artificial insemination has been practised for many years, but its use still gives rise to substantial issues, particularly in relation to the rights of children born after artificial insemination when the semen used is not provided by the mother's husband— artificial insemination by donor, or AID. Perhaps the simplest issue relates to the legitimacy of an AID child. The committee concurred with the view of the English Law Commission which recommended in 1982 that such a child should be treated as the legitimate child of its mother and her husband. That is something about which, I imagine, there is some agreement.

There are other recommendations that flow from that one concerning the legal position of children born following some types of in vitro fertilisation procedure. he issues in those cases may seem more complex, but I think that it is clear that in our decisions we should be guided above all by what is in the best interests of the child.

The second issue arising mainly from artificial insemination which has recently increasingly become a matter of public concern is surrogate motherhood—

Sir John Biggs-Davision (Epping Forest)

Is my right hon. Friend accepting that artificial insemination by donor is legitimate and that that goes without saying? That is not the opinion of everyone.

Mr. Fowler

I am not accepting anything. We will debate this matter. I make it absolutely clear that I am trying to introduce the issues to the House. Clearly the Government will have to come to the House, having heard the debate in the country and in the House, to make their position clear. Nothing that I say now should indicate a preconceived view.

Dr. Alan Glyn (Windsor and Maidenhead)

Surely, if the legitimacy of the AID child is accepted, it would mean that the whole of the law on inheritance and responsibility would have to be revised.

Mr. Fowler

That is clearly the case. That issue was dealt with by the English Law Commission.

The second issue arising from artificial insemination which has increasingly become a matter of public concern is surrogate motherhood, where a woman bears a child for a childless couple with the intention that it should be adopted after birth by the couple concerned. The Warnock committee's view on that issue was basically that surrogacy is, in general, undesirable on moral and social grounds and that where any commercial element is involved it is simply unacceptable. That is a view on which I think there will be widespread agreement in the House and outside.

The committee recommended that commercial surrogacy should be illegal. In line with what I have just said to my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison), that is a matter that the Government will have to decide urgently. I remind the House, and especially anyone thinking of entering into such an arrangement, that at present there are provisions under the Adoption Act 1958 which provide criminal sanctions against payment for the transfer of custody of a child with a view to adoption. The Government are therefore considering how far those provisions will apply in relation to commercial surrogacy and what further clarification of the law would be desirable.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield)

For the first time in his speech my right hon. Friend has mentioned adoption. Does he agree that if abortion, which I deplore, were not so available there would be more children to adopt for people who, sadly, cannot have children of their own, and that would be a much more acceptable way of enabling people to have a child? Does my right hon. Friend agree that abortion is wrong as is the killing of a child? Does he agree that those children should be permitted to be adopted by people who cannot have their own children?

Mr. Fowler

I certainly agree with my hon. Friend on the importance of adoption, but the House will have to decide whether the opportunities for adoption preclude anything in terms of infertility and treatment of infertility. After all, that is the matter with which the debate is concerned.

Mr. Harry Greenway (Ealing, North)

My right hon. Friend appears—I may be doing him an injustice; we shall see—to have come to the question of children who are in this world and to have jumped the stage of the embryo. May I have an assurance that my right hon. Friend will cover that aspect and assure us that the Government regard the embryo as totally sacred from conception, made in the image of God and something to be protected by the law?

Mr. Fowler

It is difficult to cover every issue within the first five minutes of my speech. It is inconceivable that I could make a speech without coming to that issue. If I may, I shall continue with my speech. If I am continually interrupted, I shall still be talking at lunch time.

I think it likely that there will be a large measure of agreement both in the House and outside with the Warnock committee's recommendations on surrogacy, but I am well aware that views on the whole question of in vitro fertilisation are much more divided. That applies not only to the question of research involving human embryos but to the implications of some of the developments in methods of handling embryos whether intended for research or reimplantation.

I have in mind, for example, the whole range of issues raised by the possibility of freezing embryos, and indeed not just the possibility but also the fact that frozen embryos are now being kept and subsequently used for implantation where a previous implantation has been unsuccessful. The potential problems are already beginning to be revealed in other countries. There have been cases involving embryos left in storage following the death of one or other of the parents. Self-evidently such questions will require to be addressed in any arrangements we make to regulate in vitro fertilisation. What we must recognise is that this is a fast-changing field in which the frontiers of what is possible are being moved frequently and in which we cannot necessarily expect to reach conclusions which will hold for all time.

The advance of science in this field has raised the acutest moral dilemmas— so fundamental that they involve judgments about the nature of life itself. It was a passage in the recent report of the Church of England Board for Social Responsibility, under the chairmanship of the Bishop of Birmingham—I hope Ministers may still quote the words of bishops— that set out particularly clearly the complex and fundamental nature of the moral issues that scientific advance has raised. That report asked: Should the traditional Christian heritage be modified in the light of modern knowledge concerning the progressive stages through which the embryo develops into an individual foetus? On the one hand there are those among us who believe that there is doubt about the significance of the progressive stages through which the embryo develops into an individual foetus, and (on the principle that the safer view should prevail) they hold that full protection should be afforded an embryo from the beginning. The majority of us however believe that modern embryology enables us to make a judgment of value and believe that (on the view that the more probably view should prevail) until the embryo has reached the first 14 days of its existence, it is not yet entitled to the same respect and protection as an embryo implanted in the human womb and in which individuation has begun. That is the decision that the House and the Government must come to. It was not possible for the whole board to unite behind a single conclusion. Certainly I recognise that there would be stongly differing views on that conclusion in the House, but I believe that each of us must be prepared—as the Church of England board was prepared— to acknowledge and to take into account the full range of moral, as well as scientific, arguments that are involved in deciding the legitimacy of research. In other words, the issue cannot just be one of research; there is most clearly, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) said, a moral issue which must be decided and which goes to the centre of the debate.

Mr. Patrick Cormack (Staffordshire, South)

It is important to have on record the fact that many members of the Church of England think that the bishops would be far better sticking to the virgin birth than to the test tube birth.

Mr. Fowler

That confirms my view that I should never have quoted the bishops, but I take my hon. Friend's point.

Mr. Leo Abse (Torfaen)

Some of us may find the somewhat squeamish attitude adopted by some of the churches extraordinary in the light of the fact that parthenogenosis— virgin birth— has had such benign results as to give us Jesus Christ. I should have thought that there would be some hesitation, when Christian doctrine is founded on that belief, before there was sweeping condemnation from some quarters about the whole idea of in vitro fertilisation.

Mr. Fowler

I am not sure that that was the point that was being put. May I leave that issue to the debate?

On the issue of research, the pace of development in research is likely to be rapid in other countries even if it were not permitted here. That is also something that must be taken into account. Indeed, before the first test tube baby was born, a substantial amount of research on human embryos had already taken place. It was necessary first to develop the fertilisation techniques and then to study the implantation process to reduce the risk of subsequent miscarriage. Research is being conducted in other areas. I have in mind two types of abnormality— there is Down's syndrome and congenital abnormalities such as haemophilia and muscular dystrophy—where research is taking place.

There is no certainty that such research will be successful, and that also must be put in the balance. I mention—let me emphasise this—such considerations, not to imply that I or the Government have a fixed view about research, or that I regard the utilitarian case for research as outweighing the case that is clearly to be put against it but to remind the House that desirable outcomes from research are possible. That also is something which must be held in the balance.

The Warnock committee devoted a substantial part of its report to consideration of the ethical and moral arguments about research on human embryos. Not all members of the committee were able to agree on all points and clearly the Government will need to consider carefully all the comments they receive. The committee's uncertainty was perhaps enhanced by the fact that the backcloth against which it was attempting to reach a view was constantly changing. The pace of development is such that during the course of its inquiry some novel concepts were brought forward in terms of treatment and research on which the committee had to form a view.

That saw its task as being to establish limits to what would be permitted, but it recognised that in a changing world new issues would arise which would require existing limits and understandings to be changed to meet them. It therefore recommended that a new statutory body should be established to regulate the provision of infertility services, research and all other aspects of this matter. There is a practical point here, and I return to the first point raised with me in an intervention. Even if at the end of the consultation we decided to create such a body there would clearly be a delay before the necessary legislation could bring it into effect, but the infertility services exist now and are expanding rapidly now. Research work is also taking place. Research and clinical activities are subject to some controls in the form of guidlines issued by the Medical Research Council in 1982 and by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and the British Medical Association last year. It is to the credit of those organisations that they took the initiative in establishing such guidelines. But those are purely professional and scientific bodies. I believe the Warnock committee was quite correct— I believe the view is echoed outside— in saying that there should be a substantial lay involvement in the supervision of work in this field. That is not the case at present. I shall therefore want to consider carefully— I say this directly to my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes (Mr. Benyon)— not only whether a statutory body should be established but how we can introduce more broadly based supervision arrangements in the short term. Developments in this field are moving too fast for us not to be ready to move with them.

Today's debate provides the House with an opportunity to discuss a matter which has been of growing public concern in recent years.

Mr. John Evans (St. Helens, North)

Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Fowler

I hope the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not give way. I shall listen very carefully to what is said in the debate and the Governent will consider not only today's debate but all the comments that they receive in response to the Warnock report before announcing their conclusions.

The debate which is taking place in Britain is paralleled by similar debates in other countries. In approaching that debate, I believe that we start with the advantage of the analysis that the Warnock committee has provided. Not only has the committee pointed out the difficulties; it has pointed to our duties. That is a fundamental point. The techniques which gave rise to the Warnock report, and the many difficult moral issues involved, cannot be wished away. The problems will not simply disappear. The responsibility rests with us in this House and with the Government.

Mr. Evans

rose—

Mr. Fowler

The responsibility of this House. and of society as a whole, is to find some ground for agreement on the legal framework that will be necessary to control developments in this area in the future.

10.11 am
Mr. Michael Meacher (Oldham, West)

I have always had a rather special interest in human fertilisation and embryology because the world's first test tube baby was born in my constituency in Oldham several years ago through the pioneering work of Dr. Steptoe. As a result of all the scientific advances that that event set in train, there is another much more important reason why this must surely be a unique debate in this House.

We are the first generation in the history of the human race to be faced with such ultimate questions as, "What is the nature and status of the human being?" and "Is there an absolute right to parenthood, whatever the cost?", when the answers to such questions are not merely theological or philosophical dissertations but will be reflected in scientific reality. Moreover, whatever answers or guidelines we may adopt now, I agree with the Secretary of State that we shall probably have to accept that changes in knowledge, techniques and cultural attitudes may well mean that medical codes of practice and legal sanctions will require constant review.

It is a subject that is fraught with fantasies of futuristic horror. Lurid associations with "Brave New World" embryology, Nazi medicine or Frankenstein experimentation, make debate between irreconcilable moral positions very difficult. It is to the credit of the Warnock committee that in this religious, philosophical, legal and ethical minefield its approach has been to accept the fundamental social and moral need for limits to be drawn, on the ground, stated in the foreword, that A society which had no inhibiting limits, especially in the areas with which we have been concerned, questions of birth and death, of the setting up of families, and the valuing of human life, would be a society without moral scruples. And this nobody wants. The committee goes on to say, in paragraph 7 of the foreword: We realise that some people may think that we have set the limits, or have suggested that the barriers be erected, in the wrong places. But at least we hope that we have stated clearly what we think should be done, and exposed, as far as possible, the reasoning that lay behind our recommendations. I believe that that is the right approach.

I should like to make it clear at the outset that, although I speak from the Opposition. Front Bench, the views I express are my own personal 'views. These are not matters of party political contention; they are ultimate issues that in the end can be determined only by individual conscience. On that basis, it seems to me that there is not only an elegance and lucidity in the logical presentation of the report—no doubt befitting the Oxford philosopher who chaired it—but a certain coolness and rationality which, perhaps for the same reason, is sometimes slightly detached from the uncomfortable social world that 'we actually inhabit, where unequal relations of power between the classes, genders and races threaten to make an untidy mockery, in some respects, of some of its abstractions.

The most contentious issues in the report are research on live embryos, and surrogate motherhood. On the former, the committee was clearly divided, as is revealed by the two expressions of dissent, B and C, on the issue, signed between them by seven of the 16 members of the committee. The majority recommended that experimentation be limited to 14 days after fertilisation, while a minority recommended a complete ban.

The question of when protection should be extended to the embryo— I repeat this most firmly— is at root a religious and moral decision, involving consideration of when life begins, what exactly constitutes life, whether life is defined by physical or spiritual concepts and, indeed, what protection itself actually means.

For those—I am sure that there will be many in this House—who believe that life begins at fertilisation and that full protection should be afforded from that point, the issue is clear. However, I have to point out that others take the view that the mere existence of the fertilised egg does not entail that it has the necessary and sufficient conditions for development to humanness, since it will need, for example, a sympathetic womb. On this view, the capacity to grow, achieved through nidation, marks the beginning of human life.

Others would postpone the beginning of life to the first growth of cerebral cells, at about 40 days. Others, again, highlight quickening— the point at which the mother begins to relate to the foetus as her baby—as the point at which they believe it acquires its absolute right to existence as a human person. All those latter opinions subscribe to the long established moral tradition that, sacred and precious though human life is from the beginning—whenever that exactly is—the protection afforded to it grows with the embryo's growth towards maturity.

However, even if the view is accepted that some time-limited experimentation on the human embryo should be allowed, there is inevitably a discrepancy of opinion about where that limit should lie. The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecology recommends 18 days after fertilisation, as that marks the beginning of the development of the brain and nerve cells. The Medical Research Council similarly proposes two to three weeks. Others recommend 30 days as the point at which the forebrain and eye develop, which herald the possibility of feeling.

The Council for Science in Society, in its important report entitled "Human Procreation", published in May this year, proposed six weeks, on the ground that the foetus could feel pain only when the complex nervous system was established.

It is clear from those different views that the issue is a moral one, that cannot, in the last analysis, be resolved by rational argument alone. The Warnock committee's case for the 14-day limit is that individuation is not complete until about 14 days. It appears that up to that point the embryo could split and form twins. On that view, the affording of full protection to the embryo flows from the point where, in a meaningful way, it has achieved status as an individual. Individuation is a significant factor in the delineation.

For those reasons, it seems reasonable that, subject to some such time limit—and as long as respect for human life is demonstrated by not allowing research except for the purposes of alleviating infertility or genetic disorder—research for those purposes should be accepted. I appreciate—it has already been made clear in the debate —that there are those who, from religious, philosophical or moral conviction, take the a priori position that all research on the human embryo is wrong and should be banned. I readily acknowledge the depth of their convictions and the strength of their feelings. However, for those of us who are not imbued with such inner certainty about those ultimate questions, the benefits of controlled research, closely monitored and regulated by a licensing body of the sort recommended by the Warnock committee, seem to be compelling.

First, and most importantly, the techniques have a great potential for remedying infertility. It is estimated that one in eight couples in Britain is infertile, which represents about 1 million people. That is an extremely large number. Infertility strikes at the essence of what is culturally defined as femaleness, and reproduction has been interpreted as the biological difference between men and women. Whether or not it is desirable, women are reared in a society which, in word and deed, implies that a woman is someone who has a baby.

Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman (Lancaster)

I accept that it is important to try to help infertile women to have babies. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, sadly, enough material exists in the form of stillborn babies or involuntary abortions?

Mr. Meacher

I do not believe that that is so. That source should be fully utilised, but further valuable and important advances could be made through research that goes beyond what the hon. Lady has referred to. For the reasons that I have given, I believe that to be justified.

Research that holds the prospect of reducing this blight on so many lives must be welcomed. Moreover, such work can reduce the incidence of miscarriage. At present, about 20 per cent. of natural pregnancies abort. Research in Edinburgh suggests that chromosomal irregularities are associated with the causes of miscarriage. But the potential for research goes much wider. Information could emerge on how a range of birth defects arises or on how cancer cells become malignant. It may also help to remedy genetic disease, which affects one in 50 children. One such disease— thalassemia— can now be identified in the foetus as a result of early work on embryonic tissue. Many treatments that we take for granted today derived partly from such work. The conquest of polio was partly achieved as a result of work on the aborted foetus.

For the future—it may be a distant future, but it is foreseeable—it could be possible to use cells, which divide to form specific organs in the embryo, to correct blood disorders or repair damaged tissue in the pancreas or even the heart, the brain or the liver of an adult.

However, I must express doubt as to whether it is wise to enshrine in statute a precise time limit for experimentation, whether 14 days or any other limit, for fear that it might be too rigid. There is as yet little consensus about when the cut-off point should be, and as we know well in the House, legislation could be notoriously difficult to alter if the general climate of opinion later was that the 14-day limit was too early or too late. Criminalisation of experimentation after what appears to be a relatively arbitrary date would seem inappropriate when, as the Secretary of State said, the matter involves rapid scientific change and calls for regular reappraisal. That was poignantly illustrated by the remark attributed to Mrs. Jean Walker, a member of the Warnock committee, who said: Frozen embryos did not exist when we started the inquiry, but by the time we finished, the first baby had been born. Some flexibility is needed and can be built into the system without compromising control, which I would not wish to do.

Such a balance could be achieved by a licensing authority such as that recommended by the Warnock committee, with a lay chairperson and lay representation taking account of occupation, age, sex and differing religious, ethical and cultural views. It should be equipped with statutory powers to maintain the research and therapy within strict and enforceable boundaries of control. It should be required to publish an annual report setting out in detail current developments in the area, the guidelines being operated for approval and rejection of projects, and perhaps an assessment of research into the needs of families brought into being by the use of this technology, especially the needs of children born through AID or in vitro fertilisation.

The other central issue of the report is Warnock's proposal to outlaw surrogate motherhood. The committee's objections were based on the belief that bearing a child should be a personal and intimate relationship between mother and child, and that to embark upon a pregnancy without that commitment is somehow unnatural. Another objection is based on the breaking of the traditional sexual and parenting relationship that can be fulfilled only in marriage. There is also a question about deception as to the parentage of the child, and the objection that the surrogate might become corrupted by the money to be made from the activity.

The idea of surrogacy has been soured and abused by commercial exploitation, which is already widespread in the United States. The attempt of an American woman earlier this year to set up a scheme in London charging childless couples £16,000 to provide them with a baby, and offering a fee of £6,500 to the surrogate mother, caused widespread revulsion, I believe rightly so. Moreover, reports from the United States demonstrate the practical problems of breakdown where a handicapped baby is born or where the mother defaults. In several cases the biological mother has refused to honour the contract and hand over a perfect baby, while damaged babies have been rejected by both parties to the scheme.

The present legal position in Britain is that although surrogate motherhood is not illegal—it is difficult to see how it could be enforced—no contract between a couple and a surrogate mother has any legal validity. The Warnock report wishes to criminalise the commercialisation of the practice through surrogate motherhood clinics and to make liable at law professionals who assist the establishment of a surrogate pregnancy. Certainly, surrogacy and womb leasing make reproduction as marketable for women as sexuality has always been historically. Warnock's proposals to criminalise the procuring aspects of surrogacy, as opposed to surrogacy itself, has parallels with the present law of soliciting that are not happy ones.

The Council for Science in Society report "Human Proceation" to which I have referred, took the view that surrogate motherhood might be justifiable when the intending mother is physically unable to carry a baby herself. In those circumstances, it recommends that it should be arranged through a non-profit-making adoption agency. My view— I stress again that this is my personal view—is that with the possible exception of that very limited circumstance, Warnock's wish to ban surrogacy for profit is probably right and should be upheld.

This debate has been held in the course, and therefore before the completion, of the consultation period, for the reasons that the Secretary of State set out. It is my firm belief that there needs to be a good deal further public debate.

Mr. Tom Clarke (Monklands, West)

My hon. Friend has made a thoughtful speech, during which he said several times that it is a personal statement, and I appreciate that. However, given the large number of representations that hon. Members have received— I have certainly received many from my constituents—opposed to the major recommendations of the report, will my hon. Friend make it clear that when the House of Commons votes on these issues, this matter, as it traditionally would be, will be conducted on the basis of a conscience vote, and that therefore there will be a free vote?

Mr. Meacher

I fully recognise the strength of feeling behind my hon. Friend's view. As my hon. Friend will know, a decision on that has not yet been taken—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I would be surprised if my view did not have universal acceptance throughout the House.

Mr. A. J. Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed)

How can the hon. Gentleman say that such a decision has not been taken, when the real decision is the decision for every Member of Parliament individually as to how he votes on this issue?

Mr. Meacher

The hon. Gentleman is making an obvious point. I was merely saying that the matter has not been discussed, but I cannot believe that there could be any other conclusion than that there should be a free vote according to the individual consciences of every hon. Member. That follows from everything that I have said, and I cannot believe that anyone could take a different view.

There should be further public debate on this, and am sure that there will be. For those reasons, I take the view, which is slightly different from that taken earlier, that there should be no hasty or precipitate legislation. However, it seems to me—again this is my view—that there is a need for action by Government in the fairly near future on certain limited points. I would define those as the outlawing of surrogacy, the banning of the sale of semen, the securing that babies born through AID are accepted as legitimate and the establishment of the licensing authority to exercise control through the setting and enforcing of standards for agencies in both therapy and research. Perhaps also, the Government should provide resources to ensure that professional counselling in this sector can play its proper and potential role. The latter is very important.

Such a package of measures, while wholly respecting the ultimacy of human rights, would offer a properly enforceable framework, in which, above all, there would be assistance to remedy infertility, so that many more childless families would be enabled to experience the richness of parenthood and a full human life. If the Warnock report helps to achieve that alone, it will have been well worth it.

Several Hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong)

I remind the House that, even if speeches are limited to 10 minutes, the number of hon. Members anxious to catch my eye is such that not all will be able to speak.

10.34 am
Sir Bernard Braine (Castle Point)

I agree with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services that the Warnock committee has performed a valuable service. Its report has brought to the attention of Parliament and the people activities now taking place under the cloak of helping to overcome the disturbing and distressing problem of infertility, and not a moment too soon. The report reveals developments in embryology that are already under way that will have dire legal, social, ethical and eugenic consequencs for our nation and perhaps for all mankind.

Astonishingly, the committee performed its task without first considering the very question on which all else depends—the nature of the human embryo. It did so without any guiding moral principles. It has failed to recognise the human embryo as worthy of protection in all its stages of development. On the contrary, the embryos may be bought, experimented upon, sold, mutilated, frozen for up to 10 years, or simply killed when they are no longer of any use.

The Warnock report fails to defend marriage as the only proper framework within which children should be conceived and brought up. It views children as a product that can be born to unknown fathers, or even to fathers who have been dead for many years. One looks in vain for any reference to love or, more importantly, to the needs of children, who are our lifeline to the future.

True, the report makes proposals for curbing the worst excesses; for example, there are to be licensing arrangements. True, there is a welcome recommendation in regard to the commercial exploitation of surrogacy. True, it is recommended that experimentation on the human embryo should cease on the 14th day; and there is even an expression of dissent from three members of the committee on the use of human embryos in research. However, the general effect—I must speak as I feel—is repellent. Like the other place, I hope that the House will leave the Government in no doubt that that is its view.

I have been privileged to be a Member for almost 35 years, and never in all that time have I approached any subject with a greater sense of fear than this. As Lord Denning said in the other place: there is at the moment no law and no restriction whatever. Medical scientists and medical men can do as they like…without any control. These are dangers to our society."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 31 October 1984; Vol. 456, c. 541.] On this the Warnock report offers us no comfort. It considers that the human embryo should have some status in law, but this is to be waived in certain specific circumstances. It argues that unless such a waiver is made, research for what it calls "beneficial purposes" will be frustrated. It used to be said that necessity is the tyrant's plea for every infringement of liberty. Necessity for research is a plea for snuffing out the life of human beings and is something that we should reject.

In the past, common law has protected the child who has quickened in the womb, and that was generally thought to be somewhere about the third or fourth month. We know now, as a result of genetic research, that that is not so, and that the human embryo from conception is growing and developing all the time.

Mr. Keith Speed (Ashford)

Does my hon. Friend agree that this goes to the heart of the matter? If we accept that life begins at conception, as many religions through the ages have told us and as modern genetic science tells us, is it not arrogant to put ourselves in the position of God and be prepared to experiment or traffic in life?

Sir Bernard Braine

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and has put his finger on the crucial point. Practising Christians and Jews will recall the message that the Lord God delivered to the prophet Jeremiah: Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou cameth forth out of the womb I sanctified thee". But if we are to speak solely in scientific terms, that can be put another way. We now know from genetic science that all the characteristics of the human person are found in the embryo from the moment of conception, so what right has anyone, however brilliant, to tamper with human life—

Mr. Peter Thurnham (Bolton, North-East)

Will my hon. Friend give way?

Sir Bernard Braine

I am under an injunction to be brief, although, with respect, Mr. Speaker said that the time limitation would operate only from 11.30 am. I do not wish to delay the House unduly.

Lord Denning asked the key question about the human embryo in the other place, and his words need to be repeated: Is it a thing? God forbid! It is not a thing…I would suggest that the only logical point at which the law could start is that the child, the human being, starts at the moment of conception and fertilisation. From that point onwards there is a gradual development in its environment. So I would hold—and I would hope the judges would hold— that from that moment there is a living, human being which is entitled to protection just as much as the law protects a child. If it does protect it in this way, it cannot be sold or bought, it cannot be destroyed, it cannot be experimented upon for research or the like."— [Official Report, House of Lords; 31 October 1984, Vol. 456, c. 542.]

Six medical practitioners were members of the Warnock committee, in addition to the director of the Medical Research Council mammalian development unit. Yet, despite those seven experts, the report does not anywhere bother to tell us how it would define a human being. It tells us instead that the point at which a human embryo becomes a human being is purely a matter of arbitrary decision. But it cannot be a matter of arbitrary decision for hon. Members, who will have to provide protection at law.

Warnock comes up with a compromise that is based on no principle whatever, and says that experiments on the human embryo should be permitted up to 14 days but not beyond then.

How can any civilised society accept that on the 13th day the embryo does not count, it is just a piece of jelly; but that at one minute past midnight on the 14th day it suddenly becomes a human person who is entitled to the full protection of the law? Let the House reflect for a moment on the suggestion by Warnock that there might be all manner of magic cures for human beings if such experimentation is allowed. It says, for example, that there is no substitute for the use of human embryos in research into diseases such as Down's syndrome. But that is simply not true. The world's greatest expert on that disorder, Professor Jerome Lejeune, submitted evidence to the Warnock committee. In the normal way, one would have thought that his evidence would have been noted. After all, it was Professor Lejeune who first established that Down's syndrome was due to an error in the chromosomes. Thus, he became the first scientist in the world to identify chromosomal disease. Since then, he has identified at least 20 more such diseases, and is generally recognised as one of the foremost geneticists in the world. Professor Lejeune's evidence made it clear that successful research is being carried out into possible cures for such disorders in centres all over the world, but without the use of human embryos.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls (Teignbridge)

Even if Professor Lejeune were wrong and the only way of carrying out research was by experimenting on embryos, does my hon. Friend agree that if the destruction of human life is wrong, the fact that a benefit might flow from it cannot justify it?

Sir Bernard Braine

Of course, that is the central moral point. That is why the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) was right to demand some sort of assurance from the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher). Although the hon. Member for Oldham, West seemed to be speaking for himself, he was speaking from the Opposition Front Bench. If he wanted to speak solely for himself, he should have done so from the Back Benches. But the hon. Member for Monklands, West had the moral courage to stand up and ask for freedom to vote in accordance with his conscience.

Mr. Tom Clarke

I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) behaved quite properly, and I was very proud of the speech that he made. I accepted the general tone of his remarks in the way that he intended the House to receive them.

Sir Bernard Braine

The hon. Member for Monklands, West is having to wrestle with his conscience and will have to make his own decision at some point, just like the rest of us.

Mr. Clarke

Nonsense. There is no conscience problem.

Sir Bernard Braine

There is for the rest of us.

The plain fact is that Lejeune's evidence was ignored because it did not fit in with the committee's preconceived ideas. It would surely have upset the apple cart to have to admit that there are far more efficient ways of finding cures than by the use of embryos. But the deception went further. There had to be members of the committee who would recognise that it was arrant nonsense to suggest that research on embryos up to 14 days would produce significant results. I shall explain why.

I am advised that the chances of accidentally producing an embryo with a genetic disease are very slight. That means that scientists would have to begin by deliberately trying to induce disease in the embryo. Having created an embryo with chromosomal abnormalities, they would then have to set to work to find a cure, which would involve waiting a considerable period of time, and far longer than 14 days. So, having taken the trouble to produce a diseased embryo or having poisoned one with drugs—which is another of Warnock's recommendations— is it really logical to stipulate any specific time at which its life should be terminated? Indeed, it is not.

Dame Mary Warnock herself seemed to recognise that when, in a BBC television broadcast on 18 July, she told millions of viewers: Of course, the 14-day rule may be changed. The hon. Member for Oldham, West gratuitously implied that there are many learned bodies in this country that want it to be changed. In their view a 14-day limit is nonsense. I have little doubt that unless Parliament acts promptly, the rule will be changed. Indeed, it is highly probable that experimentation of an improper kind is already taking place.

Let us consider the framework within which such laboratory work is being done. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State knows that research is now being carried out within the guidelines 'Aid down in 1982 by the MRC. There are six guidelines, but I shall quote just one, which states: Studies on interspecies fertilisation are valuable in providing information on the penetration capacity and chromosome complement of sperm from subfertile males, and should be supported. That is where research is already leading us. The Warnock committee was plainly worried about that, and in paragraph 12.2 the report states: Both the hamster tests and the possibility of other transspecies fertilisations, carried out either diagnostically or as part of a research project, have caused public concern about the prospect of developing hybrid half-human creatures. A little later, the report slates that another cause for concern is the suggestion that a human embryo might be transferred to the uterus of another species for gestation. While the available animal work does not suggest that it is at all likely that human embryos could be nurtured in the uterus of another species, the possibility that such an experiment might be attempted must be recognised. The report at least suggests that the latter possibility should be made a criminal offence. Good, but it is nevertheless clear that the report is happy about the existing MRC guidelines. It is prepared to recommend that the human embryo should be used up to 14 days on the strict conditions that the researchers abide by a new commandment— "On the 14th day, thou shalt kill." That is what the report recommends. That is what, according to Warnock, should be the law of the land.

It has long been accepted that war is far too serious a matter for generals. It is manifest that medical research Of this nature cannot safely be left to medical scientists. It is supremely important that legislation on this aspect alone— never mind anything else— should be introduced without delay. The use of the embryo for experimentation is an affront to humanity, and there is no room whatever for compromise on the matter.

There is a further consideration which should be at the forefront of our minds. Parliament does not always speak with one voice, but, at least m the present century, it has had a keen interest in protecting children from exploitation, cruelty and neglect. Nowhere does Warnock pay any regard to the needs of children produced by the new techniques. It concerns itself solely with the need of individuals—not necessarily married couples—to have a child. Even Warnock admits that we do not know what is likely to be the long-term effect on the child of the freezing of the embryo. The truth is that we do not even know what the short-term effects of freezing may be. Medical scientists are not infallible. They make mistakes, like the rest of us. Some years ago, women threatened with miscarriage were given oestrogen. Not until the children of those pregnancies reached puberty was it discovered that the oestrogen given to the mothers had, in some of the children, caused cancer of the vagina. My right hon. Friend knows perfectly well how many other such disastrous instances could be quoted. Nowhere in the report are those problems investigated. Nowhere does the report discuss what legal recourse the children would have if—God forbid—they found themselves faced with a tragic disability as a result of being frozen at the start of their lives—I repeat, "at the start of their lives".

We need to ask a simple question: if it is discovered that in vitro fertilisation causes damage which is detected later in life, who will be held responsible in law? Will it be the parents, one of whom may have been dead for many years? Will it be the donor, the doctors, or perhaps the storage authority? I hope that my right hon. Friend will share with us his thoughts on that horrendous question. Meanwhile, I share my thoughts with him. It is time to call a halt to this wickedness and to outlaw, for good, experiments on the human embryo.

10.53 am
Mr. Leo Abse (Torfaen)

I listened somewhat wryly to the opening comments of the Secretary of State about expedition and delay. It is now six and a half years since, with the hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine), and on the day following the birth of the Oldham baby, I initiated a debate in Committee considering the genetic manipulation regulations in which I put forward a demand for a committee such as the Warnock committee. That was not all. I repeatedly asked for such a committee in questions to the Prime Minister, but it was not until March 1982, when I demanded in an Adjournment debate that such a committee should be set up, that any move was made.

I do not complain of delay on the part of the present Government. The delay was the responsibility of successive Governments. I do not complain of the delay on the part of the Warnock committee, which, in my view, has acted heroically and with extraordinary expedition in wrestling with complex problems.

I do not comment on the delay in order to show my own prescience but because I believe that there is now a need for expedition in precisely the areas specified by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher). I believe that this is an area where decisions could be taken by the House, and that there is a further decision that should be taken. We should immediately set up the proposed central committee to ensure that the opportunity to have in vitro babies is not confined to patients in private clinics in the west end of London but exists throughout the National Health Service. I am profoundly concerned that womenfolk of Wales should have the same rights and opportunities to have a baby as do wealthier women who can make use of the facilities in private clinics.

In my view, the generosity of spirit of the hon. Member for Castle Point has been exploited by the familiar antiabortion lobbies, which, whatever their value may be, have been unable to distinguish between the problems of abortion and those of in vitro fertilisation. The bad example set by the hon. Member for Castle Point and, in my view, by the House of Lords should not be followed. The debate should not be a wake. It should not be full of forebodings and woe. It should be a celebration. We should never forget the agony endured by the many women who are infertile. One married couple in 10 do not have children after many years, and most of that infertility is involuntary. That gives some idea of the scale of the problem.

I have my prejudices. I am prejudiced in favour of the family. I want to ensure that all who wish to enjoy an anchored and stable family life should be able to make use of the opportunities which science now affords. If one starts with that prejudice, one takes a very different view from that of the hon. Member for Castle Point.

The hon. Member for Castle Point has referred to the Bible. I remember the story of Abraham and Sarah. Sarah suggested to Abraham that Hagar should give him a son he lacked because Sarah was barren. The good Lord told Abraham that he would have a child by Sarah. The Bible records that Abraham laughed, and fell upon the ground with laughter. Perhaps that was not surprising. Abraham was 100 years old and Sarah was 90. However, a great miracle came about. The agony of Sarah, we should remember, is the agony that is suffered by all those in our community who are childless. If the myth is true, and if the good Lord had not been bountiful towards Abraham and Sarah, perhaps I would not have been here.

It was not only Abraham who laughed and mocked when he was told that a miracle could happen. People in this country laughed and mocked at Bob Edwards and Mr. Steptoe and all those engaged in the work. I am not thinking only of the churches. The Medical Research Council attempted to sabotage the work of those clinicians. The MRC insisted— and the Government were foolish enough to listen to it—that no funds should be given for the research that needed to take place. The secretary of the British Medical Association wanted to place a moratorium on the work of Professor Craft and others. If we had listened to such authorities, hundreds of children would not have been born to those who yearn to enjoy the greatest boon and blessing that anyone can be granted—the blessing of parenthood.

Unhappily, infertility seems to be increasing. That may be the consequence of too easy access to abortion facilities, of the coil or of the pill. It is certainly a consequence of the change in sexual conventions. Such factors lead to infections of the fallopian tubes and to other conditions. This is certainly not a time when the House should stand back and say that under no circumstances should we permit research which will make a greater degree of success available to all who long for the blessings of parenthood.

By what moral right does the hon. Member for Castle Point or anyone else say that we should stop research when thousands, perhaps millions of our womenfolk cannot have children? People must think the issue through more and not, in a spirit of moral censoriousness, believe that they should take a superior stance over those of us who most definitely take a contrary view.

It being Eleven o'clock, MR. SPEAKER interrupted the proceedings, pursuant to Standing Order No. 5 (Friday sittings).