Passion For Life.

“Cases where human cells etc. can be used without consent of person providing them

After paragraph 15 (as inserted by paragraph 13 above) insert-

15A(1) In relation to a person who has not attained the age of 18 years (“C”), the parental consent conditions referred to in paragraphs 6(3ZA) and 13(4) are as follows.

(2) Condition A is that C suffers from, or is likely to develop, a serious disease, a serious physical or mental disability or any other serious medical condition.

(a) C is not competent to deal with the issue of consent to the use of C's human cells to bring about the creation in vitro of an embryo or human admixed embryo for use for the purposes of a project of research, or(b) C has attained the age of 16 years but lacks capacity to consent to such use of C's human cells.

29 Oct 2008 : Column 1653

(4) Condition C is that any embryo or human admixed embryo to be created in vitro is to be used for the purposes of a project of research which is intended to increase knowledge about-

(a) the disease, disability or medical condition mentioned in sub-paragraph (2) or any similar disease, disability or medical condition, or(b) the treatment of, or care of persons affected by, that disease, disability or medical condition or any similar disease, disability or medical condition.

(5) Condition D is that there are reasonable grounds for believing that research of comparable effectiveness cannot be carried out if the only human cells that can be used to bring about the creation in vitro of embryos or human admixed embryos for use for the purposes of the project are the human cells of persons who-

(a) have attained the age of 18 years and have capacity to consent to the use of their human cells to bring about the creation in vitro of an embryo or human admixed embryo for use for the purposes of the project, or(b) have not attained that age but are competent to deal with the issue of consent to such use of their human cells.

(6) In relation to Scotland, sub-paragraphs (1) to (5) are to be read with the following modifications-

“(3) Condition B is that C does not have capacity (within the meaning of section 2(4ZB) of the Age of Legal Capacity (Scotland) Act 1991) to consent to the use of C's human cells to bring about the creation in vitro of an embryo or human admixed embryo for use for the purposes of a project of research.”,

(b) in sub-paragraph (5)(a), for “have capacity to consent” substitute “are not incapable (within the meaning of section 1(6) of the Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Act 2000) of giving consent”, and(c) in sub-paragraph (5)(b), for “are competent to deal with the issue of” substitute “have capacity (within the meaning of section 2(4ZB) of the Age of Legal Capacity (Scotland) Act 1991) to”.Adults lacking capacity: exemption relating to use of human cells etc.

15B(1) If, in relation to the proposed use under a licence of the human cells of a person who has attained the age of 18 years (“P”), the Authority is satisfied-

(a) that the conditions in paragraph 15C are met,(b) that paragraphs (1) to (4) of paragraph 15D have been complied with, and(c) that the condition in paragraph 15D(5) is met,

the Authority may in the licence authorise the application of this paragraph in relation to P.

(2) Where a licence authorises the application of this paragraph, this Schedule does not require the consent of P-

(a) to the use (whether during P's life or after P's death) of P's human cells to bring about the creation in vitro of an embryo or human admixed embryo for use for the purposes of a project of research, (b) to the storage or the use for those purposes (whether during P's life or after P's death) of an embryo or human admixed embryo in relation to which P is a relevant person by reason only of the use of P's human cells.

Consent to use of human cells etc. not required: adult lacking capacity

15C(1) The conditions referred to in paragraph 15B(1)(a) are as follows.

(2) Condition A is that P suffers from, or is likely to develop, a serious disease, a serious physical or mental disability or any other serious medical condition.

29 Oct 2008 : Column 1654

(3) Condition B is that P lacks capacity to consent to the use of P's human cells to bring about the creation in vitro of an embryo or human admixed embryo for use for the purposes of a project of research.

(4) Condition C is that the person responsible under the licence has no reason to believe that P had refused such consent at a time when P had that capacity.

(5) Condition D is that it appears unlikely that P will at some time have that capacity.

(6) Condition E is that any embryo or human admixed embryo to be created in vitro is to be used for the purposes of a project of research which is intended to increase knowledge about-

(a) the disease, disability or medical condition mentioned in sub-paragraph (2) or any similar disease, disability or medical condition, or(b) the treatment of, or care of persons affected by, that disease, disability or medical condition or any similar disease, disability or medical condition.

(7) Condition F is that there are reasonable grounds for believing that research of comparable effectiveness cannot be carried out if the only human cells that can be used to bring about the creation in vitro of embryos or human admixed embryos for use for the purposes of the project are the human cells of persons who-

(a) have attained the age of 18 years and have capacity to consent to the use of their human cells to bring about the creation in vitro of an embryo or human admixed embryo for use for the purposes of the project, or(b) have not attained that age but are competent to deal with the issue of consent to such use of their human cells.

(8) In this paragraph and paragraph 15D references to the person responsible under the licence are to be read, in a case where an application for a licence is being made, as references to the person who is to be the person responsible.

(a) references in sub-paragraphs (3) to (5) to P lacking, or having, capacity to consent are to be read respectively as references to P being, or not being, incapable (within the meaning of section 1(6) of the Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Act 2000) of giving such consent, and(b) sub-paragraph (7) is to be read with the following modifications-(i) in paragraph (a), for “have capacity to consent” substitute “are not incapable (within the meaning of section 1(6) of the Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Act 2000) of giving consent”, and(ii) in paragraph (b), for “are competent to deal with the issue of” substitute “have capacity (within the meaning of section 2(4ZB) of the Age of Legal Capacity (Scotland) Act 1991) to”.Consulting carers etc. in case of adult lacking capacity

15D(1) This paragraph applies in relation to a person who has attained the age of 18 years (“P”) where the person responsible under the licence (“R”) wishes to use P's human cells to bring about the creation in vitro of an embryo or human admixed embryo for use for the purposes of a project of research, in a case where P lacks capacity to consent to their use.

(2) R must take reasonable steps to identify a person who-

(a) otherwise than in a professional capacity or for remuneration, is engaged in caring for P or is interested in P's welfare, and(b) is prepared to be consulted by R under this paragraph of this Schedule.

(3) If R is unable to identify such a person R must nominate a person who-

(a) is prepared to be consulted by R under this paragraph of this Schedule, but(b) has no connection with the project.

29 Oct 2008 : Column 1655

(4) R must provide the person identified under sub-paragraph (2) or nominated under sub-paragraph (3) ("F") with information about the proposed use of human cells to bring about the creation in vitro of embryos or human admixed embryos for use for the purposes of the project and ask F what, in F's opinion, P's wishes and feelings about the use of P's human cells for that purpose would be likely to be if P had capacity in relation to the matter.

(5) The condition referred to in paragraph 15B(1)(c) is that, on being consulted, F has not advised R that in F's opinion P's wishes and feelings would be likely to lead P to decline to consent to the use of P's human cells for that purpose.

(6) In relation to Scotland, the references in sub-paragraphs (1) and (4) to P lacking, or having, capacity to consent are to be read respectively as references to P being, or not being, incapable (within the meaning of section 1(6) of the Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Act 2000) of giving such consent.

15E(1) Paragraph 15B does not apply to the use of P's human cells to bring about the creation in vitro of an embryo or human admixed embryo if, at a time before the human cells are used for that purpose, P-

(a) has capacity to consent to their use, and(b) gives written notice to the person keeping the human cells that P does not wish them to be used for that purpose.

(2) Paragraph 15B does not apply to the storage or use of an embryo or human admixed embryo whose creation in vitro was brought about with the use of P's human cells if, at a time before the embryo or human admixed embryo is used for the purposes of the project of research, P-

(a) has capacity to consent to the storage or use, and(b) gives written notice to the person keeping the human cells that P does not wish them to be used for that purpose.

(3) In relation to Scotland, the references in sub-paragraphs (1)(a) and (2)(a) to P having capacity to consent are to be read as references to P not being incapable (within the meaning of section 1(6) of the Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Act 2000) of giving such consent.

Use of cell lines in existence before relevant commencement date

15F(1) Where a licence authorises the application of this paragraph in relation to qualifying cells, this Schedule does not require the consent of a person (“P”)-

(a) to the use of qualifying cells of P to bring about the creation in vitro of an embryo or human admixed embryo for use for the purposes of a project of research, or(b) to the storage or the use for those purposes of an embryo or human admixed embryo in relation to which P is a relevant person by reason only of the use of qualifying cells of P.

(a) were lawfully stored for research purposes immediately before the commencement date, or(b) are derived from human cells which were lawfully stored for those purposes at that time.

(3) The “commencement date” is the date on which paragraph 9(2)(a) of Schedule 3 to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 (requirement for consent to use of human cells to create an embryo) comes into force.

15G(1) A licence may not authorise the application of paragraph 15F unless the Authority is satisfied-

(a) that there are reasonable grounds for believing that scientific research will be adversely affected to a significant extent if the only human cells that can be used to bring about the creation in vitro of embryos or human admixed embryos for use for the purposes of the project of research are-

29 Oct 2008 : Column 1656

(i) human cells in respect of which there is an effective consent to their use to bring about the creation in vitro of embryos or human admixed embryos for use for those purposes, or(ii) human cells which by virtue of paragraph 15B can be used without such consent, and(b) that any of the following conditions is met in relation to each of the persons whose human cells are qualifying cells which are to be used for the purposes of the project of research.

(a) it is not reasonably possible for the person responsible under the licence (“R”) to identify the person falling within sub-paragraph (1)(b) ("P"), and(b) where any information that relates to P (without identifying P or enabling P to be identified) is available to R, that information does not suggest that P would have objected to the use of P's human cells to bring about the creation in vitro of an embryo or human admixed embryo for use for the purposes of the project.

(a) the person falling within sub-paragraph (1)(b) (“P”) is dead or the person responsible under the licence (“R”) believes on reasonable grounds that P is dead,(b) the information relating to P that is available to R does not suggest that P would have objected to the use of P's human cells to bring about the creation in vitro of an embryo or human admixed embryo for use for the purposes of the project, and(c) a person who stood in a qualifying relationship to P immediately before P died (or is believed to have died) has given consent in writing to the use of P's human cells to bring about the creation in vitro of an embryo or human admixed embryo for use for the purposes of the project.

(a) the person responsible under the licence (“R”) has taken all reasonable steps to contact-(i) the person falling within sub-paragraph (1)(b) (“P”), or(ii) in a case where P is dead or R believes on reasonable grounds that P is dead, persons who could give consent for the purposes of sub-paragraph (3)(c),but has been unable to do so, and(b) the information relating to P that is available to R does not suggest that P would have objected to the use of P's human cells to bring about the creation in vitro of an embryo or human admixed embryo for use for the purposes of the project.

(5) The HTA consent provisions apply in relation to consent for the purposes of sub-paragraph (3)(c) as they apply in relation to consent for the purposes of section 3(6)(c) of the Human Tissue Act 2004; and for the purposes of this sub-paragraph the HTA consent provisions are to be treated as if they extended to Scotland.

(6) In sub-paragraph (5) “the HTA consent provisions” means subsections (4), (5), (6), (7) and (8)(a) and (b) of section 27 of the Human Tissue Act 2004.

(7) In this paragraph references to the person responsible under the licence are to be read, in a case where an application for a licence is being made, as references to the person who is to be the person responsible.

(8) Paragraphs 1 to 4 of this Schedule do not apply in relation to a consent given for the purposes of sub-paragraph (3)(c).””

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 92.

Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 92.—(Baroness Thornton.)

29 Oct 2008 : Column 1657

Baroness Knight of Collingtree moved, as an amendment to the Motion, Amendment No. 92A, leave out “agree” and insert “disagree”.

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, there can surely be no dispute that the subject we are debating, touching as it does on life and death, conscience and ethics, with the losing of freedoms and rights that we once thought were ours without question thrown in, is one of monumental importance. I am not alone in the view that, in a matter of such gravity—and there can be few subjects of greater gravity—this House and the other place should have been granted more time to debate and consider exactly what we are being asked to sanction in what is before us.

Amendment No. 92 is very long indeed. It stretches over six and a half pages and its very first words have a shadow of menace when they refer to:

“Cases where human cells ... can be used without consent of person providing them”.

This amendment is the main amendment allowing researchers to create cloned human or animal-human embryos from a person’s cells without their consent. In its new and extended guise, it has never been debated on the Floor of either House until now. Until now, it has been the common view that one’s body is one’s own and others have no right to take it over against one’s will. I am prepared to believe that, buried in various places in this lengthy amendment, there might be some good and just measures. However, because of the extremely limited time allowed to us for investigating and debating this possibility, I felt that there was nothing for it but to seek to delete the whole amendment; not only to preserve the rights that should be ours, but to bring more clarity and purpose to the Bill. That is why I challenge the whole of this sinister and unwieldy provision. More time might have permitted some parts of it to be agreed, but we shall never know.

Sub-paragraph (2) of new paragraph 15A states that permission to use a person’s cells can be granted because the patient was,

“likely to develop, a serious disease”.

Well, any one of us might become seriously ill at any time. None of us can bet that we will not. Surely, only a medically qualified person in full possession of our physical record and details of our parentage can say with any authority that anyone is likely to become ill. As I understand it, the decision on whether that person is likely to become ill will not be made by a doctor or a nurse or anyone medically qualified, but by a researcher. However, a researcher is surely anxious to go ahead with his or her research. I can envisage the temptation to get the raw materials by the simple means of expressing the view that the patient might get ill.

Why is there no sanction of a doctor’s opinion? All that seems to be necessary in the case of an under-18 year-old is parental agreement that the patient might get ill. That is not enough. If the young person in the frame were not competent to deal with the issue of consent for the use of his body, no one should believe for one moment, or act on the premise, that that person does agree; he has never been asked the question. People who are mentally or physically incompetent should be protected, not used against their will.

29 Oct 2008 : Column 1658

I have spoken previously in this House about the use of the word “reasonable”. I have vivid memories of my time in another place, where Ministers refused to have that word in legislation because it meant all things to all men. What is reasonable to one person may be totally unreasonable to others. The word is sloppy and unclear and should be avoided. However, it comes up eight times in this amendment alone. This brings me to another point. In sub-paragraph (2) of new paragraph 15D, it says that the researcher must take “reasonable steps” to identify a person who is engaged in caring for a patient, or who is interested in the patient’s welfare. The patient in this case is an adult who is said to be lacking capacity. Well, anyone can say that they are interested in a person’s welfare. I am interested in the welfare of all noble Lords: I can sincerely say that. Anyone can allege that they are caring for somebody else. A researcher anxious to begin his research may take the easy option by accepting statements to this effect, which this amendment permits him to do.

Why is this so casual? Why is the researcher not required to check or to get proof of what is being said? If there is no adult at all whom the researcher can claim to be responsible for the incapacitated person, then, according to the amendment, the researcher must take reasonable—there is that word again—steps to find someone or other who will take responsibility. If such a personage does not come easily to mind, the researcher can choose someone else. He is allowed to choose someone who will allege that he is interested in the patient, but surely he can shoo in anyone at all to say that. It is not enough to state that the person must have no connection with the project. He or she, chosen by the researcher, could very easily be the researcher’s husband, wife, friend or aunt or someone working in the same laboratory on another subject. There is no problem there. That colleague would not need to be told the rhyme or reason for the use of the cells, as he would know that already; nor surely would he be likely to stand in his colleague’s way. There is no requirement whatever for him to know anything at all about the patient or the views of the patient; he would just need to say something in front of his fellow researcher.

Sub-paragraph (3) of new paragraph 15G makes it possible, just because there is a supposition that an individual is dead, to permit the use of that person’s cells for what he or she may have regarded as a repugnant purpose. Surely that is also wrong. If we accept that, surely we are saying that a person’s body may be used in any way once he is dead. That has always been opposed. So far as I know, no one has ever said that it would be right to use a cadaver in any way that a person wished, and the thought that we are now asking to do so concerns me greatly. Again, surely it would be wrong to claim that, just because a person who may or may not be dead never said that he did not want his body to be used to create half animal/half human embryos, he would not mind if such a thing were done. Even if that person had agreed that his body parts could be used after death for transplants to help sick people, that is a very long way from agreeing that those parts should be utilised to make animal/human embryos. This is a matter on which many people have strong views, and I claim that they have every right to

29 Oct 2008 : Column 1659

them. In fact, sub-paragraph (1) of new paragraph 15G does not require that the research be medical but simply scientific, and scientific research goes much wider than medical research—far beyond the straightforward pursuit of curing disease.

If I read new paragraph 15G carefully, it suggests that “any” of the conditions listed will be sufficient for the authorisation of research, and I ask the Minister whether that is correct. Will just one of them be sufficient or is it necessary to accept that they are all relevant and applicable?

As I understand it, the whole of Amendment No. 92 has been acknowledged by the Government as interfering with Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In fact, the present Leader of the House, in an earlier incarnation as a Whip with responsibilities towards this Bill, said:

“If a child is incapable of giving consent to the creation of a human or human-admixed embryo themselves, because they are too young to do so, it would be wrong for any person, including the parents, to make that decision for them, given the significance of creating an embryo using their genetic material”.—[Official Report, 21/1/08; col. 52.]

The noble Baroness the Leader of the House also said that,

“even though the original cells may have been taken from the donor with their consent to research in general, the use of their genetic material to create cloned embryos or human admixed embryos is exceptional, and requires its own express consent. To provide otherwise would be incompatible with the convention rights ... It would also be incompatible with the Human Rights Act”.—[Official Report, 21/1/08; cols. 46-7.]

I have the greatest respect for the integrity and sincerity of the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, and I have absolutely no doubt that she meant every word that she said. However, since then, the Government’s position has changed. They now claim that, after all, this is justified. But is it? Queen’s Counsel Mr Aidan O’Neill, who has been asked to provide a legal opinion on the matter, agrees with the Government that the use of human cells for the creation of human embryos and/or human admixed embryos does indeed engage the Article 8 rights of the donor. He also agrees with the Government that removing the requirement for consent would interfere with this right. However, his legal opinion is that the provisions before us today in this amendment are not compatible with the convention because they do not give proper weighting to the interests of those whose genetic material is now being used.

The scientific need for these provisions on consent has, so far as I know, never been demonstrated. So far as I am aware, there is not a shred of evidence that creating animal/human creatures will bring about cures or even palliatives to assist sufferers from recognised diseases. If Ministers are serious about adhering to the important human rights convention, they simply cannot pass this part of the Bill. I listened with great care to what was said earlier in the debate on that very matter, but the question which has not been addressed until now is that it may well be in direct contravention of human rights.

Every human being has a right to decide whether he or she supports creating cloned human or animal/human embryos from their cells for research, and he or she

29 Oct 2008 : Column 1660

permits his or her own body to be used in that way. Unless we are ready to deny this right, we cannot allow Amendment No. 92 to pass into law. Removing these consent provisions will return the Bill to the state that it was in when it previously left the House.

It is a serious misuse of Parliament to curtail debate and proper investigation into this vital matter, but that is what is happening at the moment. I was shocked to hear that so strict was the curtailment that MPs in another place were given no time at all to debate on the Floor of the House the amendments dealing with consent. I earnestly hope that the Government have put no Whip on their Members and that they do not troop into the Lobby to vote against this amendment without having listened to the arguments, but I fear that such a Whip is in existence. If human rights mean anything to the Government, they must not allow them to be trampled on to please one section of scientists, however well intentioned.

Finally, so little time has been available for public knowledge to be disseminated about this debate that so far very few comments have had time to surface. However, I want to quote Professor David Jones, who is the director of the Centre for Bioethics and Emerging Technologies—which are very important in this context—St Mary’s University College. He says that this is retrospective legislation, allowing the use of tissues that were not donated for that purpose. I do not think that we have touched on his concern. He says that it would be very counterproductive to allow the most controversial kind of research without the safeguards of effective consent. How can people trust scientists, if their cells can be used without their consent for research to which they are strongly opposed?

If effective consent is not restored to the Bill, there is a real danger that public confidence in tissue banking will be undermined, to the great detriment of scientific research. I have no wish whatever to halt or harm scientific research. I do, however, deeply care about the rights of human beings. I beg to move.

Lord Neill of Bladen: My Lords, I support the amendment put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Knight. I want to concentrate on one single point: the human rights convention and Article 8 thereof. We are looking at three categories of cases; parents giving consent on behalf of children, consent where an adult lacks capacity and the use of existing cell lines. A Minister told us on 21 January that it was not possible to allow consent in all those cases as that would all be contrary to Article 8 of the human rights convention.

The noble Baroness, Lady Knight, has referred to what the noble Baroness, Lady Royall of Blaisdon, said then. When the Minister dealt with existing cells—stuff that is already in the archive—she said:

“In essence, the Bill sets out a framework which ensures that, if a person’s gametes or cells are used to create an embryo, effective consent is in place beforehand. In the case of cell lines, even though the original cells may have been taken from the donor with their consent to research in general, the use of their genetic material to create cloned embryos or human admixed embryos is exceptional, and requires its own express consent. To provide otherwise would be incompatible with the convention rights. We have done a lot of work on this issue. It would also be incompatible with the Human Rights Act”.—[Official Report, 21/1/08; cols. 46-47.]

29 Oct 2008 : Column 1661

Later—and the noble Baroness, Lady Knight, has also referred to this—the Minister dealt with the other two cases, of children and adults, saying:

“No one can give consent on behalf of an adult who lacks capacity, and, for the same reasons, I do not believe that a child’s cells should be used to create embryos or human-admixed embryos without that child’s own consent.

If a child is incapable of giving consent to the creation of a human or human-admixed embryo themselves, because they are too young to do so, it would be wrong for any person, including the parents, to make that decision for them, given the significance of creating an embryo using their genetic material”.

The noble Baroness, Lady Royall, then referred to the powerful arguments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Patel, and by my noble friend Lord Walton of Detchant, but she concluded that,

“the Government take the view that we should not, in any circumstances, presume that a person’s cells can be used in the creation of embryos without their consent or knowledge”.—[Official Report, 21/1/08; col. 52.]

That position came on 21 January this year from a Minister speaking on behalf of the Government. Ten days later came the first sign of the U-turn, in a letter from the noble Lord, Lord Darzi. Making no reference whatever to the passages that I have just read, he sent a letter to all those, including myself, who spoke in the debate on the earlier stage of the Bill. The letter dealt entirely with the use of existing cells. The hour is late, but the noble Lord, Lord Darzi, made it clear that, since the debate on 21 January, the science community had been arguing why that valuable archive was a tool that they really wanted to use. From their point of view, I entirely understand what they were seeking to achieve.

“further discussions with scientific researchers have more clearly identified the scientific need to use existing cell lines”—

so, there was more factual evidence. He continued:

“A compelling case has been made that the requirement for express consent could, in certain circumstances, impose a significant burden on research in this field. On this basis the Government takes the view that it would be possible to make an exception to the requirement for express consent, provided that stringent safeguards are in place. We would expect that such an exception would focus on situations where the inability to continue using existing cells would have significant adverse effects on research, where such research would be in the public interest. The detail of such safeguards to ensure compliance with Article 8 requires further consideration”.

That was the first hint we got that there was going to be a change. It was followed up in paragraph 16 of his letter, which dealt specifically with the human rights situation. The noble Lord wrote:

“In considering whether the interference can be justified and proportionate to a legitimate aim the Government considered the concerns of the scientific community. Specifically the issue is whether the issue can be justified on the basis of ‘the protection of health’ under Article 8(2)”.

We can see what has happened: the evidence from the scientists has come in, showing a “scientific need”—a term the noble Lord used in the early part of his letter—and that is transmogrified and put forward here in altered garb as the protection of health under Article 8(2).

That is how matters stood. Then we had the amendments in the other place, on which the noble Baroness, Lady Knight, has commented at length. I shall not go into the detail of that. The noble Lord,

29 Oct 2008 : Column 1662

Lord Darzi, then wrote another undated latter, which we received just before today’s hearing. That letter does not mention Article 8 at all, but the Minister referred to the Explanatory Notes to the Commons Amendments—and if we look at them, “scientific need” comes back into the picture in paragraph 57. It states:

“Although removing the requirement for consent would interfere with this right”—

“the Government is satisfied that, in the limited cases provided for by the amendments, such interference can be justified on the basis of scientific need. The amendments include significant safeguards”.

The term “public health”, which is used in paragraph 2 of Article 8, is not used at all but “scientific need” is. No argument is advanced at any point as to why all the hard work done before 21 January, which put the Minister in a position to say, “This is not possible under the convention”, has been turned around to become very possible; an escape route has been found through the reference to health.

If matters stood there one would be complaining about why we have had no straightforward explanation from the Government as to why they held the original opinion, and why they have now changed it. Are we to understand that they did not originally consider the possible exceptions to the basic provision of Article 8.2? Anyone advising on whether or not the article applies will look at the exceptions. However, the matter does not stop there. We have received an opinion, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Knight, referred, although I do not know how widely it has been circulated because I received it only yesterday. The opinion is that of a well known Queen’s Counsel, a Scottish silk who works in Edinburgh, whose work I have come across in other contexts, but I have never met him. He is a highly professional and skilled lawyer. He concludes, at paragraph 3.9 of his opinion:

“In sum it seems to me that the provisions dispensing with or substituting consent if passed could well be the subject to successful challenge for their incompatibility with the requirements of the European Convention on Human Rights”.

In particular, he focuses on the charter of rights, which your Lordships will recall from the many days that we spent discussing the treaty of Lisbon and its adjunct, the charter of rights. It is a familiar text to us all. Article 1 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights states:

“Human dignity is inviolable. It must be respected and protected”.

“Everyone has the right to respect for his or her physical and mental integrity ... In the fields of medicine and biology, the following must be respected in particular ... the free and informed consent of the person concerned, according to the procedures laid down by law”.

In addition, there is another convention, which the UK attended but did not sign, although 34 member states of the Council of Europe did, called the Council of Europe Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Dignity of the Human Being with regard to the Application of Biology and Medicine—also known as the Oviedo convention. It opened for signatures

29 Oct 2008 : Column 1663

in 1997 and has now come into force as between the signatories. Some 23 nations have ratified the convention among the 34 which signed. The UK has not signed, as well as other countries, including Germany, Russia and one or two others. Most countries have signed. The provisions that matter are Articles 1, 2, 5 and 6. Article 1 states:

“Parties to this Convention shall protect the dignity and identity of all human beings and guarantee everyone, without discrimination, respect for their integrity and other rights and fundamental freedoms with regard to the application of biology and medicine”.

Article 2, “Primacy of the human being”, is important. It states:

“The interests and welfare of the human being shall prevail over the sole interest of society or science”.

The human being, the individual, prevails over the interests of science.

“An intervention in the health field may only be carried out after the person concerned has given free and informed consent to it. This person shall beforehand be given appropriate information as to the purpose and nature of the intervention as well as on its consequences and risks. The person concerned may freely withdraw consent at any time”,

which is contrary to the Government’s proposals. Article 6 on,

“Subject to Articles 17 and 20 below, an intervention may only be carried out on a person who does not have the capacity to consent, for his or her direct benefit”.

In other words, all of those provisions are aimed at protecting the rights of the individual and are a direct objection to the proposal now being made. They add weight to my first contention that we do not know why the Government have changed their mind on the scope of Article 8. We have now received the opinion and provisions that I referred to, which we need to consider calmly, and send the matter back to the other place.

Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, in speaking to this amendment, so skilfully moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Knight of Collingtree, I must declare two interests: first, many years ago, I was president of the General Medical Council; secondly, I am now an honorary life president of the Muscular Dystrophy Campaign. When I was president of the GMC, we struggled for years with the problem of informed consent. However, there is no question but that the medical profession accepts that the principle of informed consent lies at the core of medical practice. It is absolutely right that a doctor may recommend to a patient the appropriate treatment for his condition but it is up to the patient, having fully appreciated the circumstances relating to the treatment recommended, whether he should accept such treatment. Therefore, he must give his informed consent. Within the law and within medical practice, he is fully entitled, if he so wishes, to refuse that consent, even if it results in death.

The same principles were adumbrated in the General Medical Council’s advice about medical research. It was made absolutely clear that an individual patient could be involved in medical research only with his fully informed consent. However, the issue arose of

29 Oct 2008 : Column 1664

whether a child who was below the age of valid consent, in other words a child who was not Gillick-competent in terms of law, could give consent. If the child was not, the issue arose as to what would be the proper course of action in relation to such research. Although I wholly appreciate the valid points made by my noble friend Lord Neill, the GMC recommended, and that recommendation still holds, that it would be proper for a parent to give consent on behalf of a child to participate in research if it could be shown that the research in question could lead to developments that would be to the benefit of that child as an individual. I think that that remains at the core of this problem.

In terms of the amendment tabled by the Government, that would only be possible if the child suffers from a serious medical condition or illness and if the research is linked to that condition—such as muscular dystrophy, spinal muscular atrophy, and so many more conditions which are progressive and potentially fatal. An additional safeguard, which is essential in such cases, is that there must be reasonable grounds for believing that research of comparable effectiveness could not take place with cells from a person who could consent. That is the important issue in relation to research involving children.

Amendments tabled in the Commons addressed the issue of cells from an adult who does not have capacity to give consent. They drew particularly on the Mental Capacity Act 2005 to frame appropriate safeguards, including a requirement to consult carers and a requirement that the adult is suffering from or is likely to develop a serious disease or serious disability about which the proposed research is intended to increase knowledge. Again, the important issue is that the research in question would be likely, ultimately, to be to the benefit of that individual.

The issue of cells or cell lines stored before the legislation is brought into force is one that has been raised for many years. I was much involved in the discussions in your Lordships' House on the Human Tissue Act 2004. It was clearly stated then that archival material stored over some time and derived from an individual for whom it is no longer possible to give or withhold consent, can be used for research purposes. It is now quite clear that where a cell donor cannot be identified or traced or has died since the cells were stored, the requirement for effective consent can reasonably be waived subject to the criterion that, in the view of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, research would be adversely affected to a significant degree if the cells or cell lines cannot be used. Where the cell donor has died and can be traced, consent would be required from a person such as a close relative as set out in the clear hierarchy modelled on that found in the Human Tissue Act.

I do not believe that the amendment so carefully and explicitly moved by the noble Baroness would be to the benefit of patients at all. I therefore strongly support the amendments tabled by the Government.

Lord Waddington: My Lords, your Lordships will appreciate that there is a very important point to be made before we even get to the merits of this matter. It

29 Oct 2008 : Column 1665

was made to some extent when we discussed the amendment moved by the right reverend Prelate, but this is an even more glaring example of how routine and draconian timetabling of Bills prevents proper discussion by the elected representatives of the people of important measures. That is a shocking state of affairs.

These major changes were discussed for just two hours in the Public Bill Committee and were never discussed at all on the Floor of the House of Commons. An amendment to remove them was never reached; and it was without debate and with the use of a three-line Whip that these new proposals were added to the Bill. If we reject these changes we will be doing a service to the House of Commons, because for the first time there will be an opportunity for the other place to discuss these matters properly. I have heard from far more erudite and informed people than myself on the merits of the proposal, so I shall spare the House my views; but I hope that noble Lords take the point that I have made. It is surely our duty to see that the House of Commons considers these matters properly, which it has not done so far.

Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, this is a remarkable amendment to have been proposed in the House of Commons in view of the statement that the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, made in this House in January. I have listened carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, and I think that he has possibly overlooked the point that, in relation to the children and adults who lack capacity, the amendment does not require that the research should be for their benefit. It is possibly for the benefit of those suffering from the same or a similar condition. That is what the amendment says, not the terms that the GMC thought were appropriate.

I want to concentrate on the use of existing cell lines which we are told were lawfully stored for research purposes immediately before the commencement date, or which are derived from human cells which were lawfully stored for those purposes at that time. They were given for those purposes, so why are they not used for such purposes? The force of the amendment shows that the Government consider that the consent given for research purposes is not adequate to cover research using human admixed embryos. I do not understand how those cell lines could be useful in connection with human admixed embryos. Whatever may happen in the future, I understand that the present position is that human and mixed embryos are used in the process of research because of the scarcity of human eggs. To get over that difficulty admixed human embryos are used, using cattle—cows or some other animal.

That has nothing to do with stored cell lines as I understand it, so this is a different situation which should be covered from the consent that was given. It is extremely difficult to say that this is in any way consistent with Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. It is difficult to connect the scientific purpose that has been the foundation of this amendment with the use that is to be made in connection with human admixed embryos. The purpose is to supplement the difficulty arising from the scarcity of these eggs.

29 Oct 2008 : Column 1666

The Human Tissue Act contains requirements for consent, which are reflected in proposed paragraph 15G(5). However, the ultimate purpose of the amendment is to deal with a case where there is no possibility of consent under these provisions. The ultimate test of this amendment is a case in which there is no consent to allow the person using the material to go beyond the research purposes for which it was originally given. I originally took the view that if it was given for research purposes, then it is being used for research purposes after the commencement of the Act, but the Government’s approach shows that they consider that the consent given for research before the commencement of the Act is not sufficient to cover the research to which they now wish to put this tissue. Therefore, I regard it as extremely doubtful whether this could be regarded as coming within the proper confines of the Human Rights Act and the convention.

Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, I support the noble Baroness, Lady Knight, because her Amendment No. 92A should command widespread support throughout your Lordships' House. The arguments have already been put extremely well, not least by my noble friend Lord Neill. Noble Lords have emphasised the importance of looking again at the implications of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

I follow the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, in emphasising the importance of parliamentary scrutiny. Your Lordships' House is regarded as the guardian of our legitimate rights and as probably the only place—it is certainly the case in this instance—where issues of this sort can be properly and thoroughly scrutinised. Some 260 new lines have been added to the Bill. They were not part of the Bill when it left your Lordships' House, and they were added after the assurances we were quite sincerely given by the noble Baroness the Leader of the House, who we all respect. She told us emphatically that:

“The Bill sets out to ensure that human and human-admixed embryos may only be created for research purposes, and only where the person to whom the cells belong gives their explicit consent”.—[Official Report, 21/1/08/; col. 52.]

There is no doubt that that was said with sincerity on the Floor of the House, and it was repeated, in effect, in the letter that the noble Lord, Lord Darzi, sent to us in January. He wrote:

“This is likely to include a person’s right to determine under what circumstances their genetic material is used to create a human embryo or human admixed embryo”.

“The use of a person’s genetic material, without their express consent, to create embryos and their subsequent use and storage would interfere with a person’s rights under Article 8 of the convention”.

Nothing has changed since we were given those assurances in January, except for what is now in the Bill. It was guillotined in the other place. Only 14 Members were present at the debate that took place in the Standing Committee, which means, in effect, that 632 Members were prevented from having any say on these provisions because when the Member of Parliament for Stone, Mr Bill Cash, moved an amendment to do what the noble Baroness, Lady Knight, is seeking to

29 Oct 2008 : Column 1667

do this evening, it was not reached. The Bill was guillotined and a three-line Whip was used to see it through. That is no way to make legislation of this kind where these hugely important questions are involved.

We have been told about the legal opinion given by Aidan O’Neill QC. A further opinion has been given today by Mr James Bogle of 10 Kings Bench Walk, Temple, who reaches the same conclusion. He wrote:

“For all the reasons that I have canvassed above, I consider that there is good reason to consider that a successful challenge could be mounted against the presumed and substituted consent to research provisions of the Bill and I am not satisfied that the government’s claims, upon advice, that these provisions, without the inclusion of any further and/or better safeguards, are all Convention-compliant is sufficiently well-founded”.

This level of advice and the conflicting views we have heard about the compatibility of Article 8 make it doubtful whether the words on the very face of the Bill stating that it is compliant with the European Convention on Human Rights are accurate. That should surely make us want to consider this further. We would not be doing our job properly if we did not now take the opportunity to send this part of the Bill back to another place so that they have the chance to debate these provisions, to look at their compatibility and decide how best to proceed.

I conclude simply by reminding the Minister of what happened in my own city of Liverpool at Alder Hey children’s hospital when science went too far. Presumed consent was believed to be in the interests of patients and organs were taken from children. It brought a wonderful children’s hospital into total disrepute. The National Health Service had to think again, very thoroughly, about these questions. This could jeopardise the whole altruistic and well-founded movement of people providing organs and tissue for medical purposes, if they believe that the state is taking on the vestiges of an authoritarian entity that decides it knows best. The noble Baroness, Lady Knight, is right to remind us of the importance of these questions. I hope noble Lords will support her amendment.

Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, I want to make two quick points. Of course I support the noble Baroness, Lady Knight; what she said was brilliantly described. First, there has been no public consultation whatever on this. Is that a democratic process? Secondly, there are those, and I am one of them, who have decided in their wills to leave their bodies for medical purposes. If I knew, as I now do, what might happen, I am afraid that will be stopped. I have always been a supporter of donor cards, but the whole thing would be such a disaster that we really have to think again.

Baroness Barker: My Lords, I wonder if I might delay the House slightly to make two points in particular. I am moved to speak by the use of the word “sinister” by the noble Baroness, Lady Knight of Collingtree. I repeat something that I have said many times: I thank the noble Baroness for raising these issues, as she has consistently over the years, in order to bring them to the attention of your Lordships’ House and the public. However, there is a difference this evening. Listening to the contributions, one would be forgiven for forming

29 Oct 2008 : Column 1668

the view that there has been some kind of conspiracy between the scientific community and the Government. That is not so. Noble Lords should remember that the noble Lord, Lord Patel raised these matters in your Lordships’ House in Committee and on Report. Fourteen Members of your Lordships’ House, including the noble Baroness, Lady O’Cathain, the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans, took part in that discussion.

We are suffering to an extent from a very partial portrayal of the events that have led up to this moment. There is partiality in that people have forgotten that this House and another place spent a considerable time—not only in their Chambers but in a Joint Committee—looking at the issue of consent when the Mental Capacity Act was going through. There was detailed consultation on that matter with a wide range of bodies, ranging from the Catholic Church to disability organisations. They were specifically asked about that issue. It was the considered opinion of another place and your Lordships’ House that, with very strong and explicit caveats and safeguards, people who lack capacity should, in certain circumstances, be able to take part in research. I well remember Members of your Lordships’ House who have a disability talking movingly about the need to make sure that people who lack the capacity to make some decisions should still be allowed to decide to take part in medical research.

The other partiality this evening is the proposal that the Government said emphatically on 21 January that they would consider this no further. That is not true. The noble Lord, Lord Neill of Bladen, read out an extensive excerpt of what the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, said that night. She also said that she heard the sentiments in this House and would take these matters away for further consideration. It is for the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, to explain the Government’s thinking to us. I happen to agree with Members of this House who think that the processes in another place are deficient. I agree that there has been a lack of scrutiny by elected Members, but I do not believe that it has been to the degree that has been indicated this evening or that there has been some kind of conspiracy.

I return to my original point: it is not a matter of being sinister. In fact, the scientific community raised these issues. They raised the issue of the existing stem cell bank. They raised the issues of children who lack capacity and have life-limiting diseases to the extent that they will not reach adulthood. They raised the question of adults with mental capacity issues. Why? Because they wanted those issues to be brought before Parliament and for legislation to be properly formed. When we come to make our decision on this, we should do so in a way that sets out the proper background to the point we are at.

Lord Elton: My Lords, they may not be sinister, but they are startling. That is what gives point to our deliberation this evening. It has been and is being a fascinating debate because it has a sort of hybrid character, with little Second Reading paragraphs coming in and Committee points being raised. Then we have the whole question of the constitutional procedure, on which I shall add a word to what my noble friend Lord Waddington said.

29 Oct 2008 : Column 1669

As a second Chamber with a watching brief on constitution and procedure, we must be aware of what is happening in the other place, even if we are not entitled to express our opinion to it. What has happened in the other place colours our reception of what arrives here from there. A large and, for laymen—such as most of us on this matter—complex series of paragraphs has been introduced which has elicited speeches, such as that of my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern, crying out for a discussion in Committee. I would like to ask questions about our friends “C” and “P” in particular, who have very chequered histories through the paragraphs in Amendment No. 92; they are ill in all sorts of ways, incapacitated in others and finally dead, but still contributing to the human species. All of them give their human, although not their other, selves, I see.

One could make those points in Committee, but not in a debate like this. I regret that we are being asked to deal with these fundamental, important and complex matters through a procedure that does not allow one, as I have been reminded this evening, to speak after the Minister as one can in Committee. Most of one’s real questions bubble up following what the Minister has said in reply. If the reply is inadequate, one cannot say so. One cannot test it. It is there, then followed by a whipped vote and the matter is closed. I ask your Lordships to support my noble friend not only for the merits of the amendments under consideration, but for the important procedural points that accompany them.

Lord Patel: My Lords, my name has been mentioned in relation to these amendments. The previous amendment I had tabled in Committee was directly related to the archival material that could be used for research. I do not want to re-rehearse the whole argument, because it took hours then and the time is late now.

Why do researchers want the ability to use this archival material obtained from children and adults with serious diseases? In the case of children, I have used the examples of diseases such as Batten disease, lissencephaly and nonsyndromic renal hypodysplasia. These diseases and others cause abnormalities in children’s brains and kidneys. The majority of those children die in the first two years of life. We do not understand why brain cell development in these children is abnormal from the very beginning. What genetic and biological mutations occur so early on in the development of an embryo, maybe, to cause these defects? The only way to study these is to take the archival material from these children and, now that we have the ability, put it through to create pluripotent stems cells using these tissues, and begin to understand the fault that lies in the early development of these neuronal cells.

The other example I used was in adults, with material collected, over many years, of conditions such as muscular dystrophy, some of which is genetically related. After many years, we have collected only 50 such samples; they are in a tissue library in the United States. All this material was given with consent for medical research, lawfully obtained. The ability to take these tissues from people who suffer from this particular type of muscular atrophy and to learn what goes wrong at an early phase of development is very

29 Oct 2008 : Column 1670

important. It is not that research is not being done on these tissues; it is that research is not allowed to be done by first converting the tissues into early-phase stem cells. That is the difference. That is why we require the government amendment to be passed. Whether this comes under human rights legislation or not, I will leave noble and learned Lords to advise us. All I can tell you is why research in this area is so vital.

Baroness Thornton: My Lords, the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Knight, would remove all those important exceptions that were so passionately argued for by the noble Lord, Lord Patel, and many others during previous debates.

I will attempt to address all the issues raised by noble Lords. I must first address the question of whether the Government’s position has changed on this issue. As the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, said, my noble friend had said that she would take this away and consider it. Very often in your Lordships' House, noble Lords are pleased when the Government do that and then decide on a different course of action. We regard that as one of the things we are very good at. I will go through the reasons why we did that; we have, of course, taken advice.

Throughout the progress of the Bill, we listened carefully to the debate and considered our position accordingly. We reviewed our position on using cells in exceptional circumstances to create embryos for research without specific consent. The issue of interference with Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights was the position we revised on further information we received and which concluded that interference in this case was justified and proportionate.

We identified that the use of cells to create embryos raised human rights issues under the article, and our view is that the principle of that has not changed. However, under the convention, interference with Article 8 can be lawful if justification can be shown for such interference which is necessary and proportionate. When this issue was first debated, the Government were not aware of sufficient evidence that would justify the removal of consent. However, following the evidence that emerged as a consequence of the debates in your Lordships' House and consultations with the Academy of Medical Sciences, the MRC, the Wellcome Trust and medical research charities, it became clear that the justification for an interference could be made provided that this was subject to stringent safeguards and limitations and that the exceptions to consent would be carefully drafted to reflect this. In short, the Government’s analysis of the convention has not changed but the evidence and the guidance available have.

The Government wrote to the Joint Committee on Human Rights about this. I have a letter to the chair from my right honourable friend in the other place, Dawn Primarolo, in which she specifically raises the issues I outlined in my opening remarks on why Article 8 was compatible. I could read these out but they are quite lengthy. Yet they clearly draw the attention of the Joint Committee on Human Rights to this issue in full and the discussions that have taken place in this

29 Oct 2008 : Column 1671

House. The Joint Committee raised no concerns as result of that communication. I hope that goes some way to explain what happened and what the Government then did about it.

The noble Baroness, Lady Knight, was concerned that the researcher has to be satisfied that the person has a serious medical condition. The researcher would have to satisfy the HFEA that all the conditions were met before a licence would be granted. It is not that some researcher dreams something up and then goes ahead with it. A large number of conditions have to be fulfilled, which are outlined in the Bill. That is why it is quite a lengthy amendment. On the issue raised by the noble Baroness of requirements having to be met, all the circumstances have been set out and they would have to be met.

The noble Baroness raised the issue that a child’s tissue should not be used without consent. A child’s tissue can be used to create an embryo only in limited circumstances, as I have previously set out. In other circumstances the use of tissue from children can also be used with the parents’ consent under the Human Tissue Act. That is not unique to this legislation. The noble Baroness drew attention to the fact that the word “reasonable” was used eight times. It will be for the HFEA to determine what is reasonable; for example, the reasonable grounds for believing that research of comparable effectiveness could not take place. I repeat again: this will not be for the researcher to determine but for the HFEA.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, raised the issue that the amendment does not require that this will be of help to the person from whom the tissue has been taken. The person from whom the cells are derived may be seriously ill and may die before they could benefit from any treatment. Yet the Bill requires that it must be used to develop treatment for someone with a similar condition. This provision mirrors that in the Mental Capacity Act. The noble and learned Lord also raised the issue of stored cells and human admixed embryos. Cells that are stored from someone with a particular condition could be used with an animal cell. This could enable stem cells to be derived which could be studied to learn more about the process and mechanism of the disease.

The noble Baroness, Lady O’Cathain, raised the issue of the donation of her body to science. I hope it will help to allay her fears that an objection can be registered to ensure that tissue is never used to create embryos for research. One of the conditions under paragraph 15G is that cells cannot be used to create embryos if the researcher has any information at all which suggests that the donor would have objected.

These amendments are important for those rare exceptions where it may be appropriate for research to be carried out on tissue from someone who is not able to consent. To prevent this research would place unnecessary limits on finding potential cures. The stringent safeguards are appropriate and will ensure that this research will take place only where absolutely necessary. The provisions were debated previously in this House and also during debates in Committee in another place.

29 Oct 2008 : Column 1672

These amendments were tabled in response to the compelling arguments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Patel, and others in this House. They are also supported by the Academy of Medical Sciences, the Association of Medical Research Charities, the Medical Research Council and the Wellcome Trust, which provided briefing for today’s debate.

These exemptions are rooted in exceptional circumstances. The potential for benefits to sufferers of serious conditions is too great to overlook, and any research that can be undertaken in the hope of better treating or curing these conditions must be allowed to continue.

On that basis, I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment, and, if she presses it, I invite the House to resist it.

Earl Ferrers: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, could she answer the very telling question put by my noble friend Lord Waddington and the noble Lord, Lord Alton? There are 211 new lines in the Bill that have not been discussed by another place. It is groundbreaking stuff, which many of us do not understand and on which many in the House of Commons ought to be able to give a view. Would it not be good if, irrespective of its content, my noble friend’s amendment were accepted to give the other place the opportunity to discuss these matters?

Baroness Thornton: My Lords, I thought that I had said that this amendment and these issues have been discussed at length in this House and in another place. The reason that the amendment is so long is that it covers in detail the stringent requirements that we are introducing. Research will take place only when absolutely necessary.

Baroness Knight of Collingtree: My Lords, at this time of night I will be very brief, but I must use my right of rebuttal to reply to some very serious points. I thank those who have supported me in this debate. I share the respect held for the noble Lord, Lord Walton, in all parts of this House. He said, perfectly correctly, that the medical ethics committee of the BMA had debated the consent exemptions for children and for tissue already in storage and considered them to be reasonable. But I am told in a letter, which arrived only today, that the BMA does not have a policy on the use of tissue.

Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, I talked about the GMC, not the BMA.

Baroness Knight of Collingtree: My Lords, if that is the case, I should like to place on record that the view of the BMA has not been established or spoken of. On incapacitated adults, the BMA spokesman said:

“This is a contentious issue on which the BMA has not developed policy”.

We have not heard from the BMA on either of those issues.

I must say to the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, that I find most extraordinary the argument that one should take over the right to do what one wishes with the body of a person said to be incapacitated, otherwise

29 Oct 2008 : Column 1673

you will be disadvantaging them. You are disadvantaging someone if you allow them to choose what should be done with their body? I cannot follow that.

It is perfectly true that the very long amendment that I seek to delete has not been debated in its entirety. Whatever side issues may have arisen from it, it was not debated and there was no time in the other place to do so. That is a serious matter.

If all the decisions on whether tissue can be used must go before the body to which the noble Baroness referred, I would point out that in my experience such bodies take a long time to decide on cases. I imagine that there must be some urgency before the use of the tissue passes over. That may negate any point in passing it to another body first and saying, “Can we do this?”

There are very sincere and big worries about this legislation and I beg the Government to receive what I have said in the sense in which it is offered to them and recognise that we face here a most serious matter, which could well lead the Government into trouble later if it is decided to challenge the Article 8 position. I wish to test the opinion of the House.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 92A) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 34; Not-Contents, 105.

Alton of Liverpool, L. [Teller]
Astor, V.
Bates, L.
Byford, B.
Carnegy of Lour, B.
Cotter, L.
Crathorne, L.
Denham, L.
Dixon, L.
Donoughue, L.
Elton, L.
Ferrers, E.
Fookes, B.
Glentoran, L.
Greaves, L.
Hylton, L.
Kirkham, L.
Knight of Collingtree, B.
Lyell, L.
Mackay of Clashfern, L.
Maginnis of Drumglass, L.
Masham of Ilton, B.
Mayhew of Twysden, L.
Morris of Bolton, B.
Neill of Bladen, L.
Norton of Louth, L.
O'Cathain, B. [Teller]
Rowe-Beddoe, L.
Skelmersdale, L.
Southwell and Nottingham, Bp.
Tombs, L.
Ullswater, V.
Waddington, L.
Williams of Crosby, B.

Adams of Craigielea, B.
Addington, L.
Alderdice, L.
Alli, L.
Amos, B.
Andrews, B.
Archer of Sandwell, L.
Bach, L.
Barker, B.
Bassam of Brighton, L. [Teller]
Bew, L.
Bilston, L.
Boyd of Duncansby, L.
Bradley, L.
Brett, L.
Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.
Campbell-Savours, L.
Carter of Barnes, L.
Clark of Windermere, L.
Clinton-Davis, L.
Cohen of Pimlico, B.
Corbett of Castle Vale, L.
Craigavon, V.
Darzi of Denham, L.
Davidson of Glen Clova, L.
Davies of Oldham, L. [Teller]
Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.
Desai, L.
Drayson, L.
D'Souza, B.
Dubs, L.
Elder, L.


29 Oct 2008 : Column 1674

Evans of Parkside, L.
Falconer of Thoroton, L.
Farrington of Ribbleton, B.
Faulkner of Worcester, L.
Ford, B.
Foster of Bishop Auckland, L.
Gale, B.
Gibson of Market Rasen, B.
Goudie, B.
Greengross, B.
Grocott, L.
Harris of Haringey, L.
Harris of Richmond, B.
Hart of Chilton, L.
Haskel, L.
Haworth, L.
Hilton of Eggardon, B.
Howe, E.
Howells of St. Davids, B.
Howie of Troon, L.
Hunt of Chesterton, L.
Hunt of Kings Heath, L.
Joffe, L.
Judd, L.
Kirkwood of Kirkhope, L.
McIntosh of Haringey, L.
McIntosh of Hudnall, B.
MacKenzie of Culkein, L.
McKenzie of Luton, L.
Malloch-Brown, L.
Manningham-Buller, B.
Massey of Darwen, B.
Mawson, L.
Maxton, L.
Mitchell, L.
Moonie, L.
Morgan of Huyton, B.
Morris of Yardley, B.
Myners, L.
Neuberger, B.
Noakes, B.
Parekh, L.
Patel, L.
Patel of Bradford, L.
Quin, B.
Rea, L.
Rendell of Babergh, B.
Richard, L.
Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.
Rooker, L.
Rosser, L.
Rowlands, L.
Royall of Blaisdon, B.
Sawyer, L.
Shutt of Greetland, L.
Simon, V.
Stone of Blackheath, L.
Taylor of Bolton, B.
Thomas of Gresford, L.
Thomas of Winchester, B.
Thornton, B.
Tomlinson, L.
Tonge, B.
Truscott, L.
Tunnicliffe, L.
Vadera, B.
Walmsley, B.
Walton of Detchant, L.
Warwick of Undercliffe, B.
Watson of Invergowrie, L.
Whitaker, B.
Wilkins, B.
Young of Norwood Green, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.