Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill [HL]

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 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. On Question, Motion agreed to.