Sunday Trading

Setting the record straight on Sunday Trading

I have spoken a great deal in Parliament and the media - including in the Huffington Post - about my opposition to the Government's plans to extend Sunday trading hours. This policy would undermine family life, place shopworkers under more pressure, and damage local shops. The current laws are an accepted compromise supported by two-thirds of the public, with the other third of people split between wanting more or less restriction on Sunday opening.

Here, I want to focus on Annabel Denham's blog arguing for more Sunday trading hours, and suggesting that small traders should welcome these proposals. Specifically, I want to focus on some of the data used in that blog, which in my view is simply not credible.

Annabel Denham states that during the 2012 Olympics, when Sunday trading laws were temporarily suspended, sales increased by 6.2% outside London and 2.8% inside London. According to the best information available, these figures are wrong. ONS data shows a decline in overall sales of 0.2% during this period, and the British Retail Consortium data, which is trusted by analysts and Government, showed a 0.4% decline on the previous year. So why the discrepancy? The figures being used by Annabel Denham were quoted by Philip Davies MP (who has unsuccessfully attempted to remove Sunday trading regulations on a number of occasions) in a Parliamentary debate, but, to my knowledge, they are not published anywhere. They appear to be based solely on large shopping centres, and we cannot interrogate this data to understand whether this is a year on year comparison, or month on month, and whether this measures like for like sales or includes new centres. I would rather trust the official statistics on this rather than unpublished data covering only one part of the retail market, and excluding most of the small businesses which Annabel Denham seeks to reassure.

This really matters, because the fundamental point about Sunday trading and the economy is that more hours do not equal more sales. All that happens when trading hours increase is that the sales get spread from smaller to larger stores, and across more hours. This is why many larger retailers are not supporting the Government's plans; they know that this would just bring more costs without bringing in enough sales to cover them. Of course this is also why small retailers and community stores are absolutely right to oppose these changes. For them, the repercussions would be far more serious than simply burdensome additional costs - it will be whether they can survive at all. A Sunday trading free for all would divert trade away from small stores and the communities they support, to larger competitors. Oxford Economics have calculated this would actually lead to a net loss of thousands of jobs in the small retail sector.

Annabel Denham's argument - and the Government's - that this is a localist agenda is utterly spurious. Even a most cursory glance at the proposals indicates that if one local authority extends these hours, neighbouring authorities will feel pressurised into following suit - hardly local decision-making at all.

Parliament should consider the true impacts of Sunday trading deregulation, and should examine the data being presented by all sides in this debate

Published on Huffington Post 19/02/2016





"Opposing Sunday Trading Laws is a matter of Social Justice" says Fiona Bruce MP

I oppose any change in the Sunday trading laws . This is a matter of social justice. This proposal will not pass the Government's Family Test announced last year - that every policy should be checked to ensure it does not have a negative impact on family life . Local Authorities will be pressured into extending Sunday  trading hours for a perceived financial gain - or at least so as not to lose out to neighbouring Council areas . But the real price for longer hours  will  be paid by children and families where a parent is required to work on Sundays . They will have less shared time together . Another degree of stress will be added to what are already pressured family relationships in this country . And the less well off, who often have least choice or flexibility about the hours they work will be hit hardest by any further requirement to work on Sundays. That's why opposing this change is a matter of social justice . "

International Development

"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights", states the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This mantra must be at the heart of
foreign policy, not only in diplomacy but in development too. While all are born
equal, not all have equal opportunities, and we must do all we can to make
equality of 'dignity and rights' a reality, and work hardest for those who are
most vulnerable.

Save the Children's new report, Every Last Child, is a reminder that this is a
significant task. While the progress made since the establishment of the
Millennium Development Goals in 2000 has been enormous, millions are not
seeing the benefits because they are discriminated against. Children with
disabilities are up to four times more likely to experience physical and sexual
violence than their able-bodied peers. Indigenous groups make up five
percent of the global population but fifteen percent of those living in poverty.
400 million children from minority ethnic and religious groups are being
discriminated against worldwide.

Discrimination is a major cause of poverty, and a childhood of exclusion can
be the difference between a lifetime of prosperity or destitution. However, it is
not addressed as a cause of poverty. This is a hurdle in thinking that we need
to overcome; we now need to be bold about making aid challenge injustice.

Our aid budget saves lives, but it must also combat exclusion. In the era of
the Sustainable Development Goals, and the 'leaving no-one behind'promise,
international development must put the hardest to reach first. Save the
Children's report launches a three year campaign aiming to do just this. One
of their key recommendations is to make sure that aid spending is focussed
on the children who are forgotten about because of who they are, where they
are from or what they believe.

To focus aid in this way, we need the right data. We need to know who the
most vulnerable children are, where they live, what they need - and we need
proof that aid is reaching them. We also need to bolster civil society and work
with partner governments to ensure that excluded children and their
communities are represented, and able to hold their governments to account.
And we need to reform tax systems to ensure that developing countries can
invest in the public services that level the playing field and ensure every child
has access to healthcare and learning.

The development sector must change, at donor, agency and recipient level, to
fight for human rights, rather than regarding it as a subsidiary issue. We
cannot stand by while discrimination holds people back from the progress of
development, and I'm pleased that Save the Children's new campaign takes
up this challenge, and look forward to supporting it over the next three years.

At the United Nations Convention in New York supporting Aid to women and girls in developing countries 

Assisted Suicide

DEFEAT OF ASSISTED SUICIDE BILL WELCOMED BY FIONA BRUCE MP

Fiona Bruce MP welcomed the House of Commons decisive rejection of assisted suicide, following a 330 votes to 118 defeat of the Assisted Dying (No 2) Bill. The result was also welcomed by disability rights groups and doctors organisations, which had opposed the change in the law.

Describing the result as a victory for the vulnerable, Fiona Bruce MP said there should now be a greater extension of high-quality palliative care, calling for ‘assisted living not assisted dying’, and calling on Parliament to support the Access to Palliative Care Bill, which has been brought forward by Prof Illora Finlay, past president of the British Medical Association. She said that ‘better palliative care is the answer of the future. Euthanasia is the answer of the past.’

Speaking after the debate, Fiona Bruce MP said:

‘Parliament has made its voice clearly heard today, as MPs from across the parties voted down the Assisted Dying (No 2) Bill. The most vulnerable, as well as the Courts, now have absolute clarity that assisted suicide is not the route this country will go down. That is a victory for the vulnerable, not least the many disabled people who have campaigned so passionately against this dangerous Bill. This Bill proposed that suicide was sometimes an answer, and that we should sometimes respond to a person’s suicidal feelings with a lethal injection. That is against everything that our healthcare system is built on regarding the value of life and protecting the vulnerable, and would have been a backward step in an age where we are finally beginning to properly tackle issues of mental health.’

‘The Commons vote represented a truly compassionate affirmation by MPs of the safeguards that exist in law to successfully protect patients in a vulnerable position from undue pressure to end their lives. It defends the essential truth that there are better answers to the suffering of the terminally-ill than helping them to kill themselves. Doctors from places, like Oregon and the Netherlands, where euthanasia is legal, warned the UK not to make the same mistake – and Parliament has heeded their warnings.’

‘Our focus must be on improving the standard and the availability of palliative care to all patients who need it. The ‘Access to Palliative Care’ Bill proposed by Lady Finlay of Llandaff, a leading palliative care expert and immediate past President of the British Medical Association, is the best opportunity for progressive reform in this area, and truly worthy of Parliamentary support.’

·         The legalisation of assisted suicide is opposed the Royal Colleges of Physicians, General Practitioners, and Surgeons, the British and World Medical Associations, elderly and disabled organisations, and right-to-life advocates.

·         It was revealed earlier this week by polling experts that suggestions by the lobby group Dignity in Dying’s that 82% of people supported a change in the law were deeply flawed.

·         Prof Finlay’s Access to Palliative Care Bill is currently awaiting its 2^nd Reading. Further details can be found here: http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2015-16/accesstopalliativecare.html

"No Ordinary Debate , No Ordinary Day in Parliament , No Ordinary Decision"

As has been said many times since yesterday's second reading debate  on the Assisted Dying ( No 2) Bill, we saw Parliament at its finest then. I have not sat through a debate in which so many Members of Parliament have come determined to listen so intently or been so determined to weigh up seriously all the contributions of fellow Parliamentarians. Nor a debate where so many were clearly  not only scouring their consciences, but also plumbing the depths of some of their most heartfelt experiences, both personal and professional. Too, it was clear that MPs had not only received, but also carefully read and were considering the many hundreds of emails, cards and letters from concerned constituents received prior to the debate. A great proportion of these were individually written - a far cry from the identikit duplicates organised by lobby groups we all too commonly receive. So many of these letters were relevant, detailed, reasoned, and yet also from the heart. Large numbers of MP colleagues had visited their local hospice, held public meetings, met with concerned disabled groups, or met concerned constituents at surgery in preparation for the debate to gain as much practical understanding of the issues involved and listen to those with direct and relevant experience.

And so as the morning progressed and colleagues spoke, you sensed from the gathering of contributions a collective determination to do all we could to understand the complexities of this subject: a wanting and willing to understand it in depth and hear all perspectives, before making a decision. A decision which would not be made merely by basing it on a simplistic single figure produced through a flawed and unrepresentative poll initiated by a well-funded lobby group supporting the Bill. Our constituents, indeed the country, deserved far better than that.

Almost without exception, speeches were thoughtful, profound and moving (not always, however much we flatter ourselves, characteristics of our Parliamentary debates!).

Baroness Ilora Finlay, watching throughout from the Gallery, remarked afterwards that it was clear from the debate how in touch MPs are with the people they represent: from references to constituents ' experiences, their direct and personal knowledge of their local hospices and the respect MPs have for those who work in them.

We heard time and again of colleagues' personal experiences of final days with loved ones. And of days which were thought to be final - doctors having advised that death was imminent, only for the patient to recover and live for some considerable time longer - in one case, twenty years longer. It became clear that the stipulation in the Bill that an individual seeking help to commit suicide should be less than six months from death was impracticable, and so meaningless.

 We listened respectfully to several Members with professional experience in the medical profession, including Dr Liam Fox, Dr Sarah Wollaston, Dr Philippa Whitford, and cancer nurse Maria Caulfield, of the invidious position doctors would be placed in if this Bill were passed. Of the impossibility of their ascertaining, whether an individual has a ' settled ' and ' voluntary ' intent to end their life. Of having the unenviable task of endeavouring to look into their patients 'hearts and minds and still then not being able to discern the often subtle pressures upon them. As Dr Fox said, this Bill would overturn 2000 years of the Hippocratic Oath; it would nullify a medic's core objective to 'do no harm’.

We heard from colleagues with backgrounds in the legal profession of the flawed nature of the Bill, of the need to be mindful to do justice especially for the most vulnerable in society, of the inadequacy of the so called safeguards in the Bill, of the involvement of a High Court Judge as adding nothing of protective value, of the very real likelihood that if passed it would open the door to further, broader legislation, as in the very few other countries that have bought this in.

We heard still other colleagues speak from a spiritual perspective -Caroline Spelman, Sir Edward Leigh, Stephen Brine. Of the importance of remembering that each life is of intrinsic value; that this should always be the kind of society we should aspire to be. That dependency on others and interdependency with others are part and parcel of life from birth on, at different stages, for us all, with giving and receiving, dependence and service, an integral part of life's pattern, so that no one should feel that at a stage when they are dependent on others, they should consider ending their life prematurely.

No one in the Chamber said - as we so often hear - that 'this is one of the most serious issues we have ever discussed in this place'. That was obvious, as the quiet, restrained atmosphere, one of truly active listening, testified. This was indeed serious business, and we were taking it seriously. Absent was the usual party political bickering across the Chamber. So too were the all-too-common politicians' jabs or jibes. We were in this together, across the parties, no whips direction involved, and together we would be answerable for our decision. No one spoke for the sake of speaking. We were there primarily to listen.  The House was moved when John Woodcock was called to speak, and responded by saying he had come not to speak but to listen to the entire debate, being genuinely undecided. Not the only such Member that day, and by some measure. Many who did speak had spent much time considering the issue and preparing; almost all made contributions of great value, whether seasoned Parliamentarians, or newbies. All were listened to by a House never seen in recent times so full on a Friday for a Private Members Bill - when contributors to debates can often be counted on the fingers of two hands. Cabinet Ministers came in and sat on the front bench, quietly listening. 

And when towards the latter part of the debate, Ben Howlett spoke and said that he had come into the House that day intending to support the Bill, but "listening to speeches made by other Members ...has completely changed my mind", I for one believed he was not alone, and that others, many undecided at the outset, now felt the same. Of course, the Bill had its supporters, and the House listened to them as carefully as to any, not least Rob Marris, the Bill's promoter, and the former DPP, Keir Starmer, who had framed the guidelines which would be overturned if the Bill were, as he hoped, passed. But they were in the minority. As the debate drew to a close - and as, with an unprecedented eighty three members having put down to speak, the Deputy Speaker requested short speeches - speaker after speaker in a swift succession of two minute contributions voiced concerns about the Bill. The House had come to its collective decision. Indeed, when the votes were cast and counted, not only did it become clear that just under four hundred and fifty MPs  had attended, on a Friday, to consider the issue, over half of current MPs had voted against it. No cause for triumphalism - there was none of the usual cheering at the result, and quite right too. The House quietly dispersed. Members had done their business and their duty, conscientiously and with dignity. 

Our challenge now is to ensure that the right solution to caring for our elderly and vulnerable, which is investing much more in palliative and holistic end of life care, is not just talked about but implemented. Baroness Finlay has introduced a Private Members Bill into the Lords which currently awaits its second reading, The Access To Palliative Care Bill. This aims to ensure that high quality palliative care is properly resourced and available for all who need it. Passing that Bill would be our best legacy from yesterday. “

Assisted Dying (No2) Bill 11th September

Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con): The hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West (Rob Marris) says that there has been a lot of misunderstanding about the Bill. There is no misunderstanding at all: the Bill would authorise doctors to provide a lethal substance for people to kill themselves with. That substance is not a “medicine”, as the Bill disingenuously describes it, but a poison. No wonder doctors oppose it, and we in this House should do so too.

The hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West says that the Bill sets out a clear procedure with multiple safeguards. What clear procedure? What safeguards? Let us look at the Bill. It states that doctors must be satisfied that a patient has a settled and voluntary intent to end his or her life. How should doctors be satisfied that the intent is settled? The Bill does not say. Would they need to see the patient once or twice, or over what period of time? The Bill is silent. What steps should doctors take to be satisfied that the intent is voluntary, and that there is no coercion behind the patient’s request? The Bill is silent. Given that Action on Elder Abuse reports that there are over half a million reported incidents of physical and emotional elder abuse in the UK each year, the Bill should be clear on that critical issue, but it is not.

Simon Hoare: It is actually worse than my hon. Friend suggests. Given the very low number of GPs who have indicated that they would seek a licence, it is more than likely that both doctors seeking to make the certification would not know the patient and therefore would not be able to tell whether they were more or less depressed or to assess their rate of degeneration. That is the fundamental weakness of the Bill.

Fiona Bruce: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Those doctors could not be sure, and they would not be able to assess the even more subtle internal pressure that an individual might feel to express a wish to end their life because they feel a burden. What special procedure is there in the Bill for the particularly vulnerable in our society, such as those with mental health or learning difficulties? There is none. No wonder Mencap and Scope oppose it.

The hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West speaks of multiple safeguards. Where are they in the Bill? I do not see them. Does he mean the provision that 

11 Sep 2015 : Column 671

the decision should be referred to a High Court judge? If this was not so serious, it would be laughable. The judge would not have to meet the patient; they would only have to confirm the doctors’ decision, and in a time frame of 14 days, making independent scrutiny all but impossible. Absent will be the detailed, rigorous examination that the family court gives to life and death issues, such as turning off a life-support system. Gone will be the investigative powers of the Director of Public Prosecutions under the current legislation to rigorously investigate cases of assisted suicide referred to him. Removed will be the strong deterrent against malicious behaviour that the current law provides.

Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con): The Bill would require the dying person to make a declaration, and that declaration would have to be witnessed. Quite rightly, the witness cannot be a member of the dying person’s family, but they can be a beneficiary of their will. Is my hon. Friend as concerned about that as I am?

Fiona Bruce: I am extremely concerned about that “conflict of interest”, as we in this place might call it.

Vulnerable patients would be left in a weaker position than they are now. The inclusion of a judge to effectively countersign a form confirming the doctors’ decision adds no protective value whatsoever. But wait; here in clause 8 is a provision that would allow the Secretary of State to issue at some future date—not before we have passed the Bill—a code of practice. A code of practice would relate to such critical matters as assessing a patient’s capacity or what counselling should be given, or recognising that depression might impair a patient’s judgment.

In other words, the Bill says to us, “Parliament, decide now and sign this blank cheque, and at some future date as yet unknown some safeguards may be considered.” That is wholly unsatisfactory. That will be too late. The deed will have been done. We will have changed the law. We will have crossed the Rubicon, from killing people being illegal to killing people being legal. That is not doing justice. We are here to protect the most vulnerable in our society, not to legislate to kill them. This Bill is not merely flawed; legally and ethically it is totally unacceptable and we must reject it.

Human Rights in the Maldives

Fiona Bruce and a number of female members of the UK Parliament have sent the following letter to the High Commissioner of the Maldives to the UK:

H.E. The High Commissioner of the Maldives to the UK

cc: FCO Minister Hugo Swire MP

Your Excellency,

We are writing in conjunction with the All-Party Parliamentary Human Rights Group (PHRG) to express our concerns about the continued use of flogging to punish those convicted of extramarital relations in the Maldives, in contravention of international law.

We have been following the recent case of a woman in the Maldives, who received a sentence of death by stoning for a conviction of adultery, and have noted that thankfully the Maldives Higher Court overturned this sentence.

 While following the above case, we have been made aware that the Maldives frequently sentences those convicted of extramarital sex to public flogging despite the fact that such prosecutions violate internationally recognised rights to privacy and bodily autonomy, and that such sentences are against some of the most basic human rights standards that prohibit torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading punishments.

It is also very worrying that these prosecutions and sentences appear to disproportionately affect women and girls.  We understand that authorities more readily accuse women of adultery, in part because visible pregnancies make the allegedly adulterous act more obvious, while men can deny the charges and escape punishment because of the difficulty of proving adultery under Islamic law.  In 2011, it was reported that women and girls accounted for 90 % of those sentenced for this ‘crime’. 

 The UN Human Rights Council has repeatedly asked the Maldives to end the practice of flogging women convicted of sex outside marriage and we echo that call.

 Finally we are aware that tourism, including from the UK, is a very significant industry for the Maldives.  We believe, however, that many women from the UK, and more widely, would feel much less comfortable about visiting if they knew that local women are being flogged for exercising basic human rights that they as visitors are able to exercise while on their holiday there.

We welcome your comments on the matters raised above and hope that the Maldives can bring an end to this practice very soon.

Yours sincerely,

Fiona Bruce MP spoke out on Human Rights Violations in the Maldives in her capacity as Chair of the Conservative Party Human Rights Commission.

Fiona Bruce MP with Maldivian Parliamentarians, John Glen MP and Ben Rogers, Vice Chair of the Conservative Party Human Rights Commission

http://conservativehumanrights.com/news/2015/12.03.15_pressrelease_Mohamed_Nasheed.html

http://conservativehumanrights.com/news/2015/14.03.15_pressrelease_Mohamed_Nasheed.html

http://www.parliament.uk/edm/2014-15/923

End of Life Partnership

Fiona Bruce at the End of Life Partnership Event at Sandbach Town Hall

Financial Education

As part of the APPG for financial education I worked to produce a Report on the need for Financial Education in all Schools , to help young people budget , understand interest rates and the cost of borrowing , protect themselves from stressful and unmanageable debt , and generally to manage their money better. 

I felt strongly there was a need for this having seen the devastating consequences of the pressures of debt on people in my previous  job as a community  lawyer .

Our Report was passed to the then Secretary of State for Education , Michael Gove , who in turn passed it to the Prime Minister , with whom we met as an APPG to discuss this . As a result financial education became part of the school curriculum last autumn . 

I believe this will over time help millions of young people to manage their finances better , and consider it a privilege to have been involved in this work .

Mitochondrial Transfer (3 Parent Children)

Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con): 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?

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.