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?
Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con): I question my hon. Friend’s definition of “embryo”. We are talking about two ova being used to create one embryo.
Fiona Bruce: Let me put it this way. Some may take the view that at such an early stage of human life, it is acceptable deliberately to create human embryos to then destroy them. However, the truth is that once upon a time I was an embryo and so was every other Member in this Chamber.
3 Feb 2015 : Column 169
This debate is about the principle of genetically altering—indeed, genetically creating—a human being, and no matter how well meaning the motives, and my heart goes out to the families with mitochondrial disease, this technique will not cure that disease. That answers the question asked in the intervention on the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger), the shadow Minister. This technique will not cure that disease.
David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con): I am completely undecided on this issue. Can my hon. Friend tell me whether it is the case that any woman taking the pill could arguably be destroying an embryo? If it is the case, what is the difference morally between using this technology and using the pill?
Fiona Bruce: What we are talking about is a particular process, which we know—with certainty—will destroy embryos. That is what I am addressing. As I say, this technique will involve the permanent alteration of the human genetic code. The Nuffield Council on Bioethics, which was cited by the shadow Minister in support of her arguments, says that these techniques are
“a form of germline gene therapy.”
This
alteration will be passed down generations. The implications of this simply
cannot be predicted. However, one thing is for sure: as someone has said, once
this alteration has taken place and once the genie is out of the bottle, and
once these procedures that we are being asked to authorise today go ahead, there
will be no going back for society, and certainly not for the individuals
concerned.Dr McCrea: Does the hon. Lady find it strange that while the shadow Minister was telling the House that we should support these regulations, she had no answer to the direct question she was asked by the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan), and that all she could say was that she hoped the Minister would clear the matter up?
Fiona Bruce: I was indeed surprised, but in a sense that is why those who have made the case for much more parliamentary time and debate on this issue are quite right.
There will be no going back for society and certainly not for the individuals and children involved. My hon. Friend the Minister said that we have taken all rigorous steps before bringing this matter to the House, but it is profoundly concerning that the outstanding pre-clinical trials, as recommended by the HFEA panel, have still not been undertaken, written up and peer-reviewed. Will my hon. Friend confirm that, setting aside the completion of pre-clinical trials, there have been no clinical trials of these procedures, that there will be no clinical trials of them and that, in effect, if we pass the regulations the techniques will be applied to the creation of children without clinical trials? In other words, we will be approving uncontrolled experimentation—because there will be no controls—on children. In the absence of clinical trials, would that not effectively contravene EU regulations?
3 Feb 2015 : Column 170
Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab): There is a lot of muttering around the Chamber that there will be clinical trials, but there cannot be clinical trials because they would breach the EU directive.
Fiona Bruce: That is exactly the point I was about to make. As has been highlighted in a letter from 44 MEPs who have written from the European Parliament this week to the Secretary of State for Health, the EU directives—the European clinical trials directive 2001, which was confirmed by the 2014 directive in the same area—state that
“No gene therapy trials may be carried out which result in
modifications to the subject’s germ line genetic identity.”
My hon.
Friend the Minister indicated that in some way these particular procedures were
excluded from these trials. That cannot be correct. The European clinical trials
directive 2001 applies to clinical trials involving germ-line engineering. It
applies to all clinical trials using medicine, and to these procedures. For the
Department of Health to argue that it can move straight to using these
procedures on children without clinical trials gives us, apart from anything
else, one reason to vote against these regulations.If anyone doubts that, Lord Brennan QC has given a legal opinion on these regulations, which is of central importance. He says:
“It is a well-established principle that EU law is to be
interpreted…in light of the purpose, values, social and economic goals the
provisions aim to achieve. Given that…both the Directive and the 2014
Regulation…ban any gene therapy trials that involve modification of the
subject’s germ line identity, then it would clearly fall within their purposes
and values to prevent their use in clinical practice of any procedure with that
effect without investigation or trials first having taken place.”
I
believe that this Government are at risk of infringement proceedings being
brought against them if these proposals go ahead.Several hon. Members rose—
Fiona Bruce: The answer has to be that we—
Mr Speaker: Order. I think Members thought that the hon. Lady had concluded her speech, but she has not. Let us have a courteous hearing for everybody. I call Fiona Bruce.
Fiona Bruce: Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Once we approve this procedure, where will it lead? The answer has to be that we stop here and say, “This is a red line in our country, as in every other country in the world, that we will not cross.” This is the place for that to be said. As MPs, we are accountable to the people of this country.
The Government’s own consultation in July 2014 received 1,857 responses, of which 1,152 were opposed to the introduction of these techniques. That has been confirmed by ComRes polling last weekend, which showed that more than twice as many people are against these proposals as are in favour—41% of respondents, compared with 21%. A third public survey, being conducted today on The Daily Telegraph website, shows that as of this morning 68% of the public oppose these techniques in principle. Do their concerns not deserve respect from those of us present here?
3 Feb 2015 : Column 171
The truth is that the Government have not waited for the conclusion of trials, as they should have done, so that this House could make a fully informed decision, and that is wrong. Whether one ultimately approves or disapproves of these proposals, the right procedure on such a profound issue is for the elected representatives of the people of this country to have full information before being rushed into a decision, as we would be today if we voted for these proposals.
