Dr.
Gibson: The point is that there are difficulties. It is
not just around the
corner.
Dr.
Harris: The hon. Gentleman says from a sedentary position
that there are difficulties and it is not just around the corner. Those
difficulties are what the research is dealing with. He says the process
is not just around the corner and I accept that, but the Government
have not made the argument—I do not believe that the
Conservative party have made the argument either—that it is not
necessary because it is 10 or 20 years off.
The judgment of scientists,
including the Hinxton group, which was a set of scientists brought
together to analyse the state of the research through peer
review—a process that I know the hon. Gentleman respects and
acknowledges—is that they think the process would be ready for
the clinic in five to 10 years. I do not think that we will have
another Bill; I suspect that many of us hope that there will not be
another Bill in that time frame and I do not think that we can expect a
future Government to bring back a Bill. To respond to the hon.
Gentleman’s intervention, I hope he accepts that it would be
better to have a regulation-making power that provides for the process
if it is needed. If it is not needed, because the research does not
work, we are in exactly the same position as with mitochondrial
donation, where regulations were not brought forward. It is important
to show researchers and funders that we do not have a ban in primary
legislation, especially an irrational one, that is not based on
legitimate concerns because they are dealt with in the
regulations. I just
want to explain where we are with the issue of discrimination. When it
was raised by Lord Patel in the House of Lords on Report on 15 January
2008, with the provision that regulations must provide, for example,
that sperm are developed from genetic male cells, this was welcomed by
Baroness Jay and also welcomed by Earl Howe, who said
“The noble Lord, Lord
Patel, has made a powerful case and I support
him.” That was because the
concern he had raised in Committee had been addressed. Baroness Royall,
the Minister, said in response to the specific
amendment: “I realise that
the scope of this amendment is not as wide as the one moved in
Committee”— including
the provision that sperm is only from male cells and eggs from female
cells— “and that
many concerns have been removed.”—[Official Report,
House of Lords, 15 January 2008; Vol. 697, c.
1200-01.] However,
she raised an important point about whether there is a problem with
discrimination law, which is what I want the Government to address in
their reply, because her concern was that it would be discriminatory
not to allow same-sex couples to use the technology to create children
using their combined genetic material, and whether it would be
proportionate to prevent them from benefiting from the treatment in the
future. I would like
the Minister to set out whether that is her view—that is, the
legal advice she has had. I think it is highly arguable that there
would not be a legitimate purpose in that indirect discrimination, but
it would be entirely proportionate to insist that infertile or same-sex
couples treat their infertility through gamete donation—that is
the option available to them; it is not closed down. It is thus
entirely proportionate to say that the process should be providing for
specific male germ cells from male cells and that it is not, in fact,
discriminatory. I question whether that is the case and I have seen no
information about the matter from the
Government. The
Government’s position has evolved and I would like them in their
response to explain the basis for their evolving position. I have
already set out the question raised in the 2005 consultation,
that “the
Government proposes that the use of artificial gametes in assisted
reproduction treatment should not be permitted but that
the HFE Act should contain a regulation making power giving Parliament
more flexibility to allow the use of artificial gametes in future
should it wish to do
so.”. Dr.
Pugh: Is my hon. Friend arguing that legislation or
regulations should allow for us to address cases where there is
infertility or does he think that they should be allowed in cases where
people are not biologically infertile but may not wish to go through
the normal processes that human beings go through for
reproduction?
The
Chairman: Order. I have been listening carefully to the
argument of the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon and it seems
to me that 98 per cent. of what he has said so far is covered by clause
3(2). He is now beginning to move into entirely different
areas.
Dr.
Harris: I shall just clarify matters, for the assistance
of the Committee. The proposal is that there could be a
regulation-making power to allow the definition of the term
“permitted eggs” to be wider than is provided for in
subsections (2) and (5). The latter defines permitted sperm as only
those that “have been
produced by or extracted from the testes of a man”.
I want to argue in this stand part debate
that that is not a wide enough definition to look after the interests
of scientists working in the field of stem cell-derived gametes, or of
patients who could benefit from a wider definition.
In the last part of my speech I
am trying to deal with the point that was raised in another
place—this has been the only opportunity to do so: that is the
argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Southport about whether the
provision would allow same-sex couples to reproduce using their own
gametes. I say no, because the amendment proposed on Report and Third
Reading in the House of Lords clearly said that regulations must
provide that sperm could come only from male cells, and eggs could come
only from female cells. Something else that was discussed in the House
of Lords, which I urge the Committee to consider, is the fact that the
intention is to treat infertility, and the HFEA would regulate
that. Will the
Government explain the basis on which, in the White Paper, they changed
their view on the provision? The White Paper
stated: “The
Government has considered whether such a ban on the use of artificial
gametes should be capable of being removed through secondary
legislation ...This would provide a ready mechanism to alter the law if
safety concerns were allayed in future. The Government has decided, on
balance, not to recommend such a power, proposing instead that this
would be a matter requiring primary
legislation.” I think that
the Government did that on the basis of a response to the consultation
from people who opposed all the other things, such as hybrid embryos,
that the Government have decided to stick with, and mitochondrial
transplantation. I urge the Minister, even if her reply is not a
positive one, to set out her advice on whether a regulation-making
power such as I have described would be discriminatory against same-sex
couples. I am
president of the Liberal Democrat campaign for lesbian and gay equality
and I serve on the Joint Committee on Human Rights and have discussed
the
issue with several human rights specialists. They cannot see how a
regulation-making power to prohibit the derivation of an egg from a
male cell or a sperm from a female cell could possibly be
discriminatory under the Human Rights Act 1998. I urge the Minister to
consider that carefully, and I also urge the hon. Member for Boston and
Skegness to consider it, because I know that he wants to support
researchers such as those at Newcastle, and does not want unreasonably
to close down the potential for therapies for infertile
people. Dawn
Primarolo: The Bill introduces the concept of permitted
gametes and embryos. That is to distinguish between those that are
created and used in the course of research and those that are created
and used in the course of someone’s treatment. Although it is
possible to create embryos and gametes in several ways, some of which
are necessary and desirable for research purposes, only those embryos
that are created by fertilisation and those gametes that are produced
by and extracted from testes and ovaries are allowed to be used in
treatment. The Bill defines those as “permitted”. That is
crucial, both in the 1990 Act and in the amendments to it in the Bill.
It raises enough issues in itself.
One of the
major challenges that we as parliamentarians encounter in Committee and
that we encountered in all the pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill
and on the Floor of the House is to study the scientific evidence and
try to work our way through the possibilities—where the
scientific development will take us and thus how we should legislate.
Sometimes it is not possible for us to answer all the questions, and in
those circumstances and at that point in time we back away.
There is currently research into
in vitro maturation and in vitro growth of gametes. That involves
taking immature eggs or sperm and maturing them in vitro. That would
allow eggs to be matured from ovarian
tissue.
The
Chairman: Order. The Committee will sit again at 4 pm and
the room will be locked until then. Hon. Members may leave their papers
in the room if they wish. In the meantime we shall try to do something
about the air quality in the
room. It being One
o’clock, The Chairman adjourned
the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing
Order.
Adjourned till this day at
Four
o’clock.
| 
