Clause 60
Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill [Lords]
1:30 pm
Evan Harris (Shadow Minister, Innovation, Universities and Skills; Oxford West and Abingdon, Liberal Democrat)
As a member of the Science and Technology Committee that compiled the report, I can say that the quotes are correct. However, I would interpret the report slightly differently from my hon. Friend. We cite, as Select Committees do, evidence that we receive. The only evidence that we received on this point—I remember reading it—was from the Scottish Council on Human Bioethics, which is a mixed body. The council is not exclusively religious, but it is not recognised as a body that has the status of a peer review scientific or academic organisation. We noted what it said, but we did not share its conclusion. Its conclusion was that much stronger restrictions were needed. We merely pointed out a statement of the obvious, and the position was shared by the Academy of Medical Sciences. The academy’s report says that there needs to be risk-management procedures appropriate to the status of the scientific knowledge about the risks. There are already those procedures in labs and we welcomed the Government’s response on that. Again, we stated the obvious, that there needs to be risk management. I share my hon. Friend’s view that this should be a probing amendment because whatever the risk management procedures are, treating this as a genetically modified crop does not seem to be the appropriate practical measure and runs the risk of allowing other people to argue that the issue is being trivialised, which is not the intention.
As far as I am aware, environmental release of human admixed embryos is not envisaged in any laboratory. While I am delighted that the Science and Technology Committee report has been cited—and cited accurately—the conclusions that my hon. Friend draws are not necessarily the ones that we would need to draw.