Human Fertilisation and Embryology

Part of Living Wage (Reporting) – in the House of Commons at 2:29 pm on 3 February 2015.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Fiona Bruce Fiona Bruce Conservative, Congleton 2:29, 3 February 2015

I want to speak against the Government motion, and I draw the House’s attention to my alternative motion in part 2 of the Order Paper—page 54—although it is not voteable.

Human mitochondrial disease is a dreadful condition and, as a caring society, we must do all we can to address it, and do so as sensitively as we can for those families affected by it. As a caring society, however, we must also do so in an ethical manner and with proper regard for safety. I believe that the regulations we are considering today fail on both counts—ethics and safety—and that they are inextricably interlinked.

Let me be straightforward: I do oppose these proposals in principle. However, that should not prevent my concerns regarding their safety from being given a fair hearing. One of the two procedures that we are being asked to sanction today—pro-nuclear transfer—involves the deliberate creation and destruction of at least two human embryos, and in practice probably more, to create a third embryo, which it is hoped will be free of human mitochondrial disease. Are we happy to sacrifice two early human lives to make a third life?