Mark
Simmonds: I thank the Minister for her helpful responses
to a debate that was stimulated by a series of amendments that I
tabled. I would just like to pick up one or two of the points that have
been made by hon. Members.
My hon. Friend the Member for
Salisbury was absolutely right to set out that Parliament must decide
the principles, but the HFEA must be allowed to regulate. I think that
the job for us in Parliament, as members of this Committee, is to
establish where the balance between those two particular principles
lies. The Minister certainly put my mind at rest with regard to the
regulatory powers and the fact that they will be published in draft for
consultation, although I share the concern of the hon. Member for
Oxford, West and Abingdon, in that I cannot think of any draft
regulations that have been altered as a consequence of such
consultation during my time in Parliament. If the Minister and her
officials could give an example of when that has happened, I would be
grateful.
Dawn
Primarolo: As a former Treasury Minister, I can assure the
hon. Gentleman that that was the case for Finance Bills. We got to the
point where something like more than half of a Finance Bill had been
consulted on by being published in draft, amended, brought back and
consulted on. The House does that, and there has been very full
consultation in this area.
Mark
Simmonds: I am sure that the Minister will be aware that
that is not the same as altering regulatory powers and draft
regulations. Indeed, the Government have problems with the current
Finance Bill. I think the concern that I share with the hon. Member for
Oxford, West and Abingdon is that there needs to be a genuine
consultation, not just—I do not want to go down this road too
far—a sham consultation, as we have in some circumstances. The
consultation needs to be genuine because this is a very significant and
important area.
I thought that it was clear from
the Bill that nuclear DNA would be prohibited. Following the exchange
that hon. Members have had with the Minister, I am now not so sure, so
I am pleased that she is going to reflect on that because I would
otherwise be uncomfortable with the situation. There is a big
distinction between nuclear DNA and mitochondrial DNA. As I have said,
I am comfortable with mitochondrial DNA, and we need to send a message
to encourage that particular research.
My hon. Friend the Member for
South-West Devon was absolutely right to talk about the possibility of
loose language in the clause, so I hope that the Minister said will
reflect on that. Concern about reproductive cloning was also
highlighted, and if I have time, I would like to discuss that when we
consider the next amendment. However, I think the Minister has put on
the record some extremely helpful foundations as to why this clause is
phrased as it is and why there needs to be a regulatory
power. One of the
reasons why the 1990 Act has lasted for so long is because intermittent
regulations have been put down to update it to catch up with scientific
advancements. If we all want the Bill to have longevity after it comes
out of Parliament, we will have to allow regulatory powers in certain
areas. However, it needs to be clear what Parliament will and will not
allow. I certainly have concerns, which were highlighted by the hon.
Member for Southport, about the possible change to the definition of
gametes and embryos. However, on the basis of the Minister’s
helpful reply and the fact that she is prepared to reflect on hon.
Members’ comments, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment, by leave,
withdrawn.
12.15
pm
Mark
Simmonds: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in
clause 3, page 3, line 29, leave
out subsection (6) and
insert— ‘(6) (a) A person
who places in a woman a human embryo which has been created otherwise
than by fertilisation is guilty of an
offence. (b) A person who is
guilty of the offence specified in paragraph (a) is liable on
conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10
years or a fine or
both.’. This is a
probing amendment to try to elicit a response from the Minister as to
why the exact wording that was set out in the Human Reproductive
Cloning Act 2001 is not in the Bill. I do not necessarily subscribe to
this view, but there is genuine concern that the Bill might leave a
door open to enable cloning to take place. Ministers have said in
Committee and elsewhere that the Bill completely supersedes the 2001
Act. Why are the Act’s exact provisions not in the Bill? My
amendment would put the wording of the Act into the Bill. It is
absolutely essential that Parliament sends a message that we do not
approve of reproductive cloning and that it needs to be outlawed and
prohibited
completely.
Dr.
Harris: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Boston and
Skegness for tabling the amendment because it gives us an opportunity
to discuss this issue. The repeal of the Human Reproductive Cloning Act
2001 has been raised by several members of the public,
mainly—perhaps exclusively—by those who are opposed to
many measures that the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990
permitted and that this Bill will continue to permit. It is important
that they are reassured that the repeal of the 2001 Act in no way
permits reproductive
cloning. My
understanding—the Minister will obviously go into this in
detail—is that there is a new helpful structure in clause 3.
That is a clever way of dealing with things because it specifies that
the only thing that can be implanted is a permitted embryo, and that a
permitted embryo can be created only from a permitted sperm and a
permitted egg, and defines that in the Bill. Therefore, nothing else,
clearly including a cloned embryo—that is not a permitted embryo
because it has not been created by the fertilisation of a permitted egg
by a permitted sperm—is going to be implanted. It is incredibly
important for that provision to be set out clearly, which the Bill
does. It is a red herring for people to suggest that a repeal of the
Human Reproductive Cloning Act 2001 somehow allows reproductive
cloning. It is also
unfair to argue that treating mitochondrial disease by cytoplasmic or
mitochondrial transplant is in any way cloning. It is not: cloning
involves the nuclear transfer of a nucleus, not cytoplasm. It is thus a
complete misreading and an incorrect interpretation of this Bill to
suggest that treatment of mitochondrial disease is somehow reproductive
cloning. Certainly, the 2001 Act would not need to be repealed to allow
what we discussed earlier. It is being repealed because it is
inconsistent with the regime that the Government have set up.
There is duplication in the
penalties applied, because there are penalties that exist around this
area anyway, without needing the Human Reproductive Cloning Act 2001 to
lock people up and throw away the key. The important point must be made
that the HFEA would not license anything like this, even if there were
not a ban in primary legislation. I did not think the 2001 Act was
necessary in practice, even it was felt necessary politically, and I do
not think that there are any scientists or researchers in this country
who would dream of implanting a cloned embryo. Anyone around the world
who says they are seeking to do it—whether they are maverick
scientists seeking publicity for other purposes or fantasist cults in
Canada—should not be taken seriously because the technology is
nowhere near there, and they would not be able to succeed even if they
were serious. We should not be panicked by the prospect of reproductive
cloning.
Dr.
Gibson: The hon. Gentleman says that the technology is not
yet there. Is he insinuating that if it were there, we would need to
have a rethink? Is his annoyance and repugnance of the technology based
on something else—morality, ethics, or
whatever?
Dr.
Harris: The hon. Gentleman raises a good question that was
covered in the report by the Committee that he chaired. I do not have
the report to hand but, if I remember correctly, there were several
grounds for arguing for a ban. One reason was ethical, another was that
the practice was not possible, and another that even if it were
possible, it would not be safe and could never be done ethically.
Informed consent would not be given for something that was not
required or necessary and did not have sufficient justification. His
report laid down a challenge to politicians to come up with strong,
ethical arguments against the practice—now is not the time to do
that but there are many—in case there came a point where, under
another jurisdiction, it was shown to be safe and effective. I do not
think that we will ever get to that stage and there are good ethical
arguments against it, but I will not hold up the Committee by going
into them. However, the hon. Gentleman raises the good point that when
we talk about a ban on reproductive cloning, we must consider all the
reasons why that is not a good idea.
Dawn
Primarolo: The 1990 Act set out to regulate the creation,
keeping and use of embryos outside of the human body, both for
treatment purposes and for research. The Act referred only to the
creation of human embryos by fertilisation—embryos created using
an egg and a sperm. We have already touched on that debate this
morning. Since then, technology advanced to the point at which it could
be possible to create embryos by other means, namely cloning. That led
the Government to introduce the Human Reproductive Cloning Act 2001,
which made it an offence to place in a woman an embryo created by a
process other than fertilisation. This takes us back to the key debate
about fertilisation in clause 1.
In reviewing the 1990 Act, the
Government had to take account of emerging technologies that could be
used to create embryos and that could go further than just reproductive
cloning. Modern science can be used to create gametes using adult or
embryonic stem cells—so-called artificial gametes—and the
technology exists to genetically modify those gametes, which, when
used, would create an embryo containing germ line genetic
modifications. The Bill
will permit the creation, keeping and use of genetically modified
embryos for research purposes only under licence, and it will enable
research on artificial gametes, subject to regulation. However, the
Government do not intend that such embryos and gametes should be used
in treatment. For that reason, as the hon. Member for Oxford, West and
Abingdon pointed out, the Bill introduces the concept of permitted
sperm, permitted eggs and permitted embryos. Permitted sperm and eggs
are the only gametes that may be used in reproductive treatments such
as artificial insemination or in vitro
fertilisation. To be
permitted, a sperm must have come from the testes of a man, and an egg
from the ovaries of a woman. Additionally, the gametes must not have
been genetically modified in any way. It follows that a permitted
embryo is an embryo that may be created only by the fertilisation of a
permitted egg with a permitted sperm. In essence, that means that no
embryo may be used in treatment unless it is created using natural
unmodified gametes and by fertilisation. As the hon. Gentleman says, it
is quite clear how we have approached this subject. I hesitate to say
this but I will: I cannot see how that can be interpreted in any other
way. I understand why
hon. Members and people outside the House would be wedded to the
wording of the
Human Reproductive Cloning Act 2001, as it has served us well. I also
understand their concerns that the Bill will repeal that legislation.
However, it does not just repeal it; it replaces it with much fuller
protection. The Bill prohibits not only the use of cloned human embryos
in treatment, but the use of genetically modified embryos and
genetically modified gametes. It will prevent the use of artificial
gametes and, until regulations permit, it will prohibit the use of
embryos altered to prevent the transmission of serious mitochondrial
disease. The amendment
would, by reinstating the wording of the Human Reproductive Cloning Act
2001, make no difference to the Bill. As drafted, the Bill clearly bans
reproductive cloning. To put it in simple and direct terms, the
amendment would add nothing to the purpose of the prohibition, nor
would it add to the fact that cloning is an offence and not
allowed.
Mark
Simmonds: I understand what the Minister says. She was
right to highlight the permitted sperm, the permitted eggs and the
permitted embryo, and the prohibition of cloning because of those
categories. However, what was in the 2001 Act but is not in the Bill is
the offence. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Oxford, West and
Abingdon was correct when he said that the offence is covered by other
legislation. Will the right hon. Lady explain where the offence is
covered, because is not covered by the Bill? It is the main difference
between the 2001 Act and clause
3(6).
Dawn
Primarolo: The offence is covered elsewhere and I referred
to it earlier this morning. Forgive me, I cannot find the reference
now, although, as if by magic, I have now found it. It is section 41 of
the 1990 Act, as amended. The offence is the same, and the penalty is
10 years in prison. If that is the problem that the hon. Gentleman
seeks clarification on, I shall be happy to give him and all members of
the Committee a fuller explanation in a letter to make it absolutely
clear that the offence is the same and the penalty is 10 years in
prison.
Mark
Simmonds: I understand that section 41 appears in the 1990
Act. If that is the case, why did the provision need to be replicated
in the Human Reproductive Cloning Act 2001? Why is it therefore not set
out in the 2008 Bill when the 2001 Act was preceded by the 1990
Act?
Dawn
Primarolo: We are becoming a bit techie about how x become
a Bill and how the Bill that we are discussing is an amendment to an
existing Act. I am happy to provide the hon. Gentleman with such
information. The Bill is an amendment to the 1990 Act, which is from
where the references, as amended, come. I fear that I am not helping
him by giving a particularly clear explanation of the interaction
between the 1990 Act and the Bill, so I am happy to write to him. If he
is still troubled, he will have an opportunity to refer to that. I
assure him that the provision is in place.
Mark
Simmonds: I am grateful to the Minister for her response.
I look forward to receiving her correspondence as soon as possible to
clarify the
matter. It is essential that Parliament sends out a clear message that
reproductive cloning should be prohibited in totality. On that basis, I
beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment. Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
The
Chairman: The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon
said earlier that he wished to raise other matters. I hope that he will
make sure that they are other matters as the clause has been discussed
fairly fully
already. Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill. 12.30
pm
Dr.
Harris: It is not my intention to cover the issues we have
just debated. I want to raise the issue of the use of stem cell-derived
gametes or in vitro-derived gametes, also called—I think
misleadingly—artificial gametes in treatment.
Let us be clear that the clause
as drafted precludes, by primary legislation, the use of in
vitro-derived or stem-cell derived gametes in treatment. That has
serious implications which this House needs to debate, and I ask the
Government—and, indeed, the Conservative Front Bench
spokesman—to consider whether there is a good enough reason for
not allowing some form of regulation-making power to deal with the
concerns and enable this research to proceed without the prospect of
being banned in primary legislation and never put into the clinic. Such
a power would improve the potential treatment prospects of thousands of
patients who suffer from
infertility. When
talking about the prospects of stem cell therapies I am always very
careful not to claim that this will inevitably lead to treatments or,
indeed, that we can expect cures. What I say is that the hope is that
the research will deliver insights into causes, new ways of testing and
new treatments, and might provide for cures. In this case, however, I
think that one can be confident that if the research works, there is
very little left to do other than run a clinical
trial. There are
thousands of patients who suffer from the inability of their gonads to
make gametes, whether sperm or eggs, and new technology offers the
promise that such infertility can be treated by the generation of new
gametes from stem cells—I am talking about adult stem cell
technology. It could be done in other ways, but the leading technology
in animal models is adult stem cell technology, so it is not as
controversial as other measures such as the embryonic stem cell
technologies envisaged elsewhere in the Bill. Nor does it involve the
creation of embryos other than those created for the purpose of
producing children, which is what the 1990 Act was all about. I would
argue that this is less contentious even than the regulation-making
power that we have just discussed, which allows for cytoplasmic
transfer, genetic contributions from three parents and other such
issues which, as the Committee knows, I support, but which, I accept
can be considered
controversial.
| 
