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.
