Clause 3
Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill [Lords]
12:00 pm
Evan Harris (Shadow Minister, Innovation, Universities and Skills; Oxford West and Abingdon, Liberal Democrat)
I thank the Minister for responding to my point. I appreciate it when she addresses a point that I raise. I accept that there is a risk of being over-prescriptive for fear of something that is theoretically possible. She knows that I want to see something that allows Parliament to have confidence in regulation, but that is not over-regulatory as far as scientists, researchers and clinicians are concerned. I want something that allows this country to be seen as a properly regulated, ethical place in which to do research, but a place that allows research to go on.
I confess that I did not spot this issue in the pre-legislative scrutiny period. I do not find it easy to acknowledge that it was pointed out to me by Human Genetics Alert, an organisation that, I think, gets it wrong a lot of the time and interprets incorrectly some of the proposals that we are addressing. The Minister has accepted that there is a point here. I have not thought about what the drafting would be, but I think that she has given an invitation to others to look at whether there can be drafting that makes it very clear that we are not envisaging the alteration of nuclear DNA. She mentioned that the Bill provides for a ban on the alteration of nuclear DNA, which is found in proposed new section 3ZA(4), which states:
“An embryo is a permitted embryo if...no nuclear or mitochondrial DNA of any cell of the embryo has been altered”.
That situation is altered, as far as mitochondrial DNA is concerned, under subsection (5), or at least that is the intention. In other words, the ban that rightly exists on nuclear DNA alteration is in the same terms as the ban on mitochondrial DNA alteration, which subsection (5) overturns subject to regulations.
Although I am reassured—the Minister knows I am reassured—of the Government’s intention on the existing ban, other people may consider that this provision does allow regulations to make provision on that. While I accept the Minister’s sincerity, and indeed her judgment, if it is possible for this to be dealt with at a later stage, I think that we should.