Clause 2
Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill [Lords]
11:00 am
Mark Simmonds (Shadow Minister, Health; Boston and Skegness, Conservative)
I just have a brief question for the Minister about the definition of nuclear DNA. Why does the clause not include a definition of mitochondrial DNA, which is obviously different from nuclear DNA?
Dawn Primarolo (Minister of State (Public Health), Department of Health; Bristol South, Labour)
The clause specifically deals only with nuclear DNA, and it was required only to ensure that the new definition in section 2 of the 1990 Act actually clarified the term “nuclear” to include the pronucleus of an embryo. That was specifically what we were trying to do here. We did not go on to define “mitochondrial” for the same reason that I gave the hon. Gentleman with regard to the definition of fertilisation in terms of where it was anchored in 1990. There is an accepted standard biological term in the case of “fertilisation”, as there also is in the case of “mitochondrial” and therefore it was considered not to be necessary.
Gary Streeter (South West Devon, Conservative)
The Minister says that the Bill deals only with nuclear DNA, but proposed new section 3ZA(2) and (3) refer to “nuclear or mitochondrial DNA.” Surely that would warrant a definition.
Dawn Primarolo (Minister of State (Public Health), Department of Health; Bristol South, Labour)
The answer that I just gave to the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness was that we did not define “fertilisation” because it was not necessary to have a definition, since there was a clear biological meaning for HFEA to interpret. The same is true of “mitochondrial.” What was necessary was to clarify DNA to include the pronucleus, and that is why clause 2 is here. The biological definition of “mitochondrial” stands in the same way as that of “fertilisation”.
Mark Simmonds (Shadow Minister, Health; Boston and Skegness, Conservative)
I am intrigued by this because later on in the Bill we are going to be discussing allowing mitochondrial DNA to be implanted to stop mitochondrial disease, but prohibiting nuclear DNA from being manipulated to stop nuclear DNA diseases being transferred. There is a distinct difference between the two kinds of DNA, depending on where they are located within the cell. That is why I am intrigued as to why there is no distinct definition between the two.
Dawn Primarolo (Minister of State (Public Health), Department of Health; Bristol South, Labour)
And the answer I am giving is that, where a definition is contentious, where it is challenged, as it was between “nuclear” and “pronuclear”, it is necessary to define. Where it is not, as with “fertilisation” and “mitochondrial”, it is not necessary because the biological terms stand. It is not that the Bill is silent on this: it is anchored by the clear understanding.
Robert Key (Salisbury, Conservative)
What a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Gale. Clause 2 of the Bill refers at the end of the first line to
“the definition of ‘non-medical fertility services’”
in section 2(1) of the 1990 Act, but the 1990 Act does not mention “non-medical fertility services”. It is rather important, since we are dealing with definitions right at the start of the process, that we are absolutely sure what is meant by the term “non-medical fertility services”—the phrase is in quotes in the Bill. I am not at all sure at the moment.
Dawn Primarolo (Minister of State (Public Health), Department of Health; Bristol South, Labour)
I shall make sure that the hon. Gentleman and the members of the Committee have a full definition of what that means, to ensure that they understand the position. I have a feeling that it will come up later, when we discuss the European Union tissue directive. I am trying not to jump ahead of myself in the Bill.
Evan Harris (Shadow Minister, Innovation, Universities and Skills; Oxford West and Abingdon, Liberal Democrat)
The Government, with the draft Bill, helpfully provided the 1990 Act as amended by the regulations—I think that they were the European tissue directive regulations. The regulations inserted the reference to “non-medical fertility services”. Those services would be
“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.”
The European directive required us to widen the scope of some of our regulations to include that. I commend that document, because it gives the 1990 Act not only as amended by the draft Bill, but also as amended by the directive.
Robert Key (Salisbury, Conservative)
On a point of order, Mr. Gale. It seems appropriate for that document to be made available to the Committee, if the Bill as we have it does not take account of that.
Roger Gale (North Thanet, Conservative)
The hon. Gentleman pre-empts the announcement that I was about to make. That document will be made available. I apologise that it is not here. Why I apologise, I am not sure. I do not think that it is my responsibility, but we will make sure that it is made available.
Dawn Primarolo (Minister of State (Public Health), Department of Health; Bristol South, Labour)
It is this document.
Dawn Primarolo (Minister of State (Public Health), Department of Health; Bristol South, Labour)
It was circulated with the Bill. If it is not in the room as well—
Roger Gale (North Thanet, Conservative)
Order. For clarification, we will ensure that that document, whether or not it has been circulated, is made available in the room in time for this afternoon’s sitting. Everyone happy?
Mark Simmonds (Shadow Minister, Health; Boston and Skegness, Conservative)
May I say one final thing on clause 2? I am trying to draw information. Unusually, I am not particularly happy with the Minister’s response. I understand about the broader definition. As I said before, that will be one of the main challenges and themes running through the Bill. However, there are distinct differences between mitochondrial DNA, nuclear and pro-nuclear DNA. I think it would be sensible if the relevant individuals went back and gave some thought to whether that distinction needs to be made clear in the Bill.