The
Chairman: Order. I indicated earlier that, in principle, I
was perfectly happy to have a stand part debate at the start rather
than at the end. For that reason, given that it is often easier to take
matters in context, I am perfectly happy to allow the debate now. If
the hon. Gentleman wishes to add to his remarks, please feel free to do
so.
Dr.
Harris: On the issue of non-medical fertility services, I
think that what the Government are doing in the clause is removing the
exception for such services from the provisions. The tissue directive
and indeed the European Communities Act 1972 section 2 process did not
permit the Government to apply the licence conditions that we see in
the clause to non-medical fertility
services. What are
non-medical fertility services? They are defined in section 2 of the
Act as “any services that
are provided in the course of a business, for the purpose of assisting
women to carry children, but are not medical, surgical or obstetric
services.” It
would be useful for the Committee to know what are not the
“medical”, which I guess is using drugs, “surgical
or obstetric”, which speak for themselves,
“services” that will be covered by the general licence
conditions, which are extensive. How have we survived for so long under
the 1990 Act with non-medical fertility services—my reading of
the measure might not be correct—apparently not subject to the
licence conditions? To put it another way, will the Minister assure us
that this is not a discretionary regulation and, even if it is, that it
is not over-regulation of services that would not necessarily require
regulation by the HFEA? There is a general trend that as soon as an
authority is regulating things, it wants to continue regulating them and
identify new things to regulate. It is sometimes the job of Parliament
to retreat from that trend. [Interruption.] The
ironic laughter of the hon. Member for Norwich, North reminds me that a
number of Select Committee reports, particularly the report that came
out under his chairmanship in 2005, argued that it was time that the
HFEA did not regulate basic fertility treatment because it is now
pretty standard. It is useful to collect information, but is it right
that licensable matters are subject to all such regulations, while, for
example, surgery to remove the blocking of fallopian tubes to treat
infertility continue to be completely unregulated by the HFEA? Such
treatment is currently subject to all the other regulation that
currently binds doctors. That is a wider issue, but I have been
provoked by the inclusion of non-medical fertility services in the
scope of the licence conditions in the
clause. Dawn
Primarolo: Can I reassure the hon. Member for Oxford, West
and Abingdon that he should not be provoked by the use of the
term “non-medical
fertility services”? He
asked me what they might be: essentially, the measure is about internet
sperm delivery services—he may have mentioned those. They have
to be described as “non-medical” in case any attempt is
made to deliver services other than via the internet, which currently
happens, apparently.—[Interruption.]
Perhaps I should have used a different
phrase. Moving on, I
should explain why the amendments are necessary, which will answer the
point made by the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness. The quality and
safety standards that are set out in the EU directive are aimed at
preventing the transmission of disease from donor to recipient of
tissues or cells. Two separate points were made and I do not want to
lose the distinction. The EU directive requires that provision is based
on the safety and quality of services, and that consent is obtained.
That is the set of issues to which the amendments
relate. The second set
of issues relate to therapeutic services. The Government believe that
the measure applies to research only. Our view is that, under a
research licence, an embryo can be used to derive stem cells for human
application as long as it can be shown to be part of a project of
research. The amendments would introduce a requirement to comply with
the directive that is aimed specifically at the limited area of quality
and safety, as I described. Two separate issues were conflated by my
use of the word “therapeutic” in my earlier remarks.
However, the issues are not connected. The amendments relate
specifically to the directive arrangements.
Dr.
Harris: I know what the Minister says,
but it shows that the provision of stem cells for therapeutic
application cannot be said to be irrelevant to the HFEA or to the Bill.
It could be argued that it is a matter for the Human Tissue Act 2004 or
the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency; that once the
cells are used, the embryo is long gone, so it is not a matter for the
Bill or HFEA licences. I am keen not to provoke the Minister because we
are nearing the end of the sitting, but does she recognise that, even
as far as this relatively minor provision goes, when stem cells derived
from embryos—not embryos—are put into humans, the licence
conditions for the storage, use and creation of the embryo are relevant
to the end use, at least in principle? That goes to the question, to
which we might return, whether there needs to be greater specificity in
other aspects of the licence arrangements for such end
uses.
Dawn
Primarolo: Was that an intervention, Mr.
Gale?
The
Chairman: Yes, but it was a very long
intervention.
Dawn
Primarolo: Yes, and I listened very carefully to it. The
Government have not said that the provision of stem cells for
therapeutic application is irrelevant to the HFEA. The issue, which we
discussed on the Floor of the House, is whether therapy licences are
necessary. It is a separate issue. I can see the tenuous link that the
hon. Gentleman is trying to make, which is why I was careful to anchor
my comments by saying that we are talking about research for
therapeutic services, not the therapies themselves. We had a debate on
that on the Floor of the House, as I said. I have concluded my remarks
on that and I hope that they were helpful to the Committee.
Amendment agreed
to. Amendment
made: No. 40, in clause 12, page 8, line 37, at end
insert— ‘(3) In subsection
(2)— (a) omit the
“and” at the end of paragraph (a),
and (b) at the end of paragraph
(b) insert “, and (c)
every licence under paragraph 3 of that Schedule, so
far as authorising activities in connection with the derivation from
embryos of stem cells that are intended for human
application.”.’.—[Dawn
Primarolo.] Clause
12, as amended, ordered to stand part of the
Bill. Further
consideration adjourned.—[Steve
McCabe.] Adjourned
accordingly at two minutes to six o’clock till Thursday 5 June
at Nine
o’clock.
| 
