Dawn Primarolo (Minister of State (Public Health), Department of Health; Bristol South, Labour)

I beg to move amendment No. 55, in clause 30, page 34, line 14, leave out ‘4A(5)(e) or (10)’ and insert ‘4A(4A) or (10)’.

Jimmy Hood (Lanark & Hamilton East, Labour)

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 56 and 57.

Dawn Primarolo (Minister of State (Public Health), Department of Health; Bristol South, Labour)

I shall make some brief remarks.

Dawn Primarolo (Minister of State (Public Health), Department of Health; Bristol South, Labour)

I said that I would make some brief remarks, but I had not realised how brief they would be.

The definition of a human admixed embryo was amended during Committee of the whole House to include a catch-all provision. That captures all embryos containing both human and animal DNA in which the animal DNA does not predominate. The amendment was tabled following extensive discussions on definitions during the passage of the Bill through another place. The amendment also removed the power to extend the definitions of human admixed embryos through secondary legislation, as it was no longer required following the introduction of the new catch-all definition. Those amendments were accepted by the House.

In addition, an amendment was passed to insert a new regulation-making power to specify circumstances in which the keeping or use of human admixed embryos would be prohibited. The amendments tabled in this group are consequential to those tabled during the Committee of the whole House. They take out references to the regulation-making power to extend the list of human admixed embryos from clauses 30 and 31, which deal with the exercise of regulation-making powers under the Bill and the power to make consequential provisions in certain cases respectively.

The amendments also insert a reference to the new power into clause 30 to ensure that any regulations under the provision would be subject to debate in both Houses—the affirmative procedure. In that sense, they follow directly on from the decisions made in Committee of the whole House. The amendments extend no further principles in the Bill, but they tidy up the legislation and remove powers that are no longer required.

Mark Simmonds (Shadow Minister, Health; Boston & Skegness, Conservative)

I shall ask a couple of brief questions to make sure that I understand the changes that the Minister is proposing in the Government amendments. Do the consequential amendments mean that the exercise of every regulation-making power in the Bill has to be ratified by an affirmative resolution of Parliament, or are there different categories of regulation? It is not necessary to provide the information now—the Minister can give it in writing—but it would be helpful for the Committee to understand  which regulation-making powers in the Bill have to be resolved by Parliament through affirmative powers and which do not.

I have a specific question about amendment No. 57. As the Minister has just explained, I understand that the removal of the term human admixed embryo—leaving out lines 34 and 35—removes the regulation-making power to change the definition of human admixed embryos, but how does that relate to the regulation-making power under section 4A(10) and amend section 4A(5) of the 1990 Act, which relate to human admixed embryos? I understood that that meant that the Government could change the definition of a human admixed embryo. Or does the regulation-making power in new section 45A(2)(b), inserted by clause 31, override sections 4A(10) and section 4A(5)?

Dawn Primarolo (Minister of State (Public Health), Department of Health; Bristol South, Labour)

A list of the categories are subject to affirmative resolution under the Bill and, rather than list them all into the record, I am happy to point them out in correspondence with the hon. Gentleman and other members of the Committee, for ease of reference in future debates. As for the changes that are being made, the decision taken on the Floor of the House to have a catch-all provision removed the necessity for regulations on definitions of admix, so we are removing it from the Bill. The Government have the power to amend the existing definitions, but they will no longer have the power to add new categories to those definitions. The amendments would remove the power from the Bill because it is not required any more. Changing the existing definitions, if that proved necessary, would be subject to affirmative procedure.

The cross-referencing is different because we made the changes in Committee of the whole House, and we are now tidying up the Bill. It is as though we have been in Committee all the time and are simply amending the Bill in two locations. I hope that I have made matters clear. As I said, the list is long and, rather than delay our proceedings by reading it into the record, I shall circulate it to all members of the Committee. It will not take a moment.

Evan Harris (Shadow Minister, Innovation, Universities and Skills; Oxford West & Abingdon, Liberal Democrat)

I beg to move amendment No. 174, in clause 30, page 34, line 14, at end insert ‘section 20A; section 20B;’.

Last Thursday, we debated clause 21, which inserted new sections 20A and 20B in the 1990 Act. It resulted in agreement that those regulation-making powers should be subject to the affirmative procedure, and I asked whether they were. The Minister agreed that they should be, but it turned out that they were not. To assist the Committee, I have tabled an amendment that would make them subject to the affirmative procedure. I am not sure that it does the job, but it would be one less thing to cover when we discuss the Bill on Report. That is why I tabled the amendment.

Dawn Primarolo (Minister of State (Public Health), Department of Health; Bristol South, Labour)

The hon. Gentleman spoke to me during the break and said that, in the light of events, he would not speak to his amendment. However, I suggested that he move it formally, because he should be given acknowledgement for trying to catch up with the Government’s position. It is true that we debated the  appeals procedure and whether or not the regulations would be subject to the affirmative or the negative procedure. I clearly said to the Committee that they should be subject to the affirmative procedure.

I thought that I made a joke, but the hon. Gentleman did not think so. However, I hope that he will allow me to make it once more. The hon. Gentleman is improving his skills as a parliamentary draftsman. He is nearly there—he is doing fantastically well. I have never been able to do as well in my time in Parliament. However, he has not quite made it on this occasion. I would have been willing to accept the amendment if it had been drafted correctly, but I will need to table another on Report to put matters right. However, I will be more than happy for the hon. Gentleman to add his name to it. The amendment will be tabled. The regulations are currently subject to the negative procedure, but we will take steps to make them subject to the affirmative procedure. I know that the hon. Gentleman will not press his amendment to a vote because he knows that it does not quite work, but it establishes the principle.

Evan Harris (Shadow Minister, Innovation, Universities and Skills; Oxford West & Abingdon, Liberal Democrat)

I am grateful to the Minister for explaining that. It is back to the drawing board for me and my proposed new career. It is sometimes the habit of Opposition MPs to consult the Public Bill Office and then blame them. I cannot do that in this case. The amendment was my own poor work, and I look forward to seeing the Government’s proper amendment in due course. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.