Clause 3
Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill [Lords]
11:15 am
Robert Key (Salisbury, Conservative)
I think I am right in saying that I am the only Back-Bench member of this Committee who is a veteran of the 1990 Standing Committee—although I am delighted to acknowledge the Minister as another veteran of that Bill. The amendment raises issues that are absolutely fundamental to this Bill. I entirely support what my hon. Friend has been saying about this specific issue. However, it raises the more fundamental issue of the purpose of the legislation and the process by which we need to consider it.
In the 1990 Act, we tried to set out the broad framework and established the HFEA as the body of specialists charged with carrying out the wishes of Parliament. That was one reason why the HFEA was never designed to be made up of people who were, on the one hand, very pro-science and pro the processes involved, and on the other hand, deeply philosophically and ethically opposed to it. That was not the function of the HFEA.
In terms of the legislation now before us, the pre-legislative scrutiny Committee of both Houses, on which I and others here sat, was equally clear that Parliament’s role was to establish the broad legislative framework, and the moral and ethical dimensions within which regulations should be made, by those who best knew what was happening. One of the problems from 1990 onwards—it was inevitable and it was forecast—was that science would always be ahead of Parliament. Parliament’s duty was to ensure that the Government of the day could take account of improvements in medical science and technology, of movements in public attitude and in the scientific approach to the moral and ethical issues. It was to ensure that the regulatory body made the final judgment on individual cases and applications for research projects and clinical trials. That is what we are up against here.
Since I, along with the pre-legislative joint Committee, recommended this procedure, I would prefer to see this particular clause stand as it is, and certainly not see it removed. That does not devalue what my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness has said. He is absolutely right. However, it does mean that we should not tinker with the fundamental principle that it is for Parliament to set the broad parameters and for the regulatory authority to decide the detail.