---

Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill [HL]

I speak with some trepidation and amusement: likening this place to paradise was a pleasant thought in many ways, but this afternoon it actually feels more like purgatory as we plough through the gametes, stem lines and embryos—the terminology that has been introduced in the Bill. At least I did the second MBBS examination in embryology and should have some understanding of these terms, but for the majority of noble Lords it is purgatory trying to make sense of them. Another thought occurred to me. If WS Gilbert were still alive I wonder what he would make of the cells, gametes and the stem lines. The argument about terminology becomes almost comical in its complexity. That is why I support what the noble Lord, Lord Patel, has proposed in many of the amendments. We need to clarify what we are talking about. In my Second Reading speech, I said that I dislike the use of the word ““embryo”” to describe cell lines that were created from various sources. ““Embryo”” is a very emotive term and should not have been used in the Bill to describe the sort of interspecies and other embryos that are to be created. The general public think in terms of little babies with thumbs in their mouths pictured in utero, but that is not what we mean in the terms of the Bill. We cannot emphasise strongly enough that we are talking only about destroying 14 day-old cell lines, not embryos. The noble Lord, Lord Patel, made the distinction between cells, gametes and germ cell lines. That is a useful distinction. Germ cell lines are not gametes and we must make that clear. If we are going to use any language at all, let us use the scientific language in embryology textbooks that we all understand. Let us not muddle things. I have one or two other points. I am extremely distressed by the apparent opposition to the use of cytoplasmic hybrids. Mitochondria are understood by some people to be the same as a nucleus—containing genetic material in the same way as the nucleus of a cell. They do not. I happen to think that mitochondria are one of the most exciting things that people are researching at the moment, because they go all the way back to where life emerged out of a combination of chemicals. Some people say that mitochondria were bacteria engulfed by a primitive cell many billions of years ago. That is something of a digression, but mitochondria are the energy givers to the cell. They are not the same as the nucleus. If you put a nucleus from whatever sort of cell into a cell that has had the nucleus removed and just use the wonderful things that the mitochondria can do, that is not cloning. Nor is it anything more than we do in the laboratory when we use a substrate to grow things: the cytoplasm and the mitochondria are that substrate. We should get that clear and stop being too emotive on the subject. That is why I support the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Walton, who I can see is as enthusiastic about mitochondria as I am. I have one thing to say in response to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Elton. Many people say that adoption is the answer to infertility: women should not have abortions but should allow the child to be adopted. Women are not baby factories, nor should they be regarded as such to enable other women to adopt. It is very unfair to expect them to see themselves in that light. Therefore, I do not think that adoption is an answer to infertility and we should never regard it as such. I wish to speak to Amendment No. 12 in the name of my noble friend Lady Barker, who cannot be here until later because she is attending a funeral. Amendment No. 12 proposes to delete subsection (6)(b) of new Section 4A, which appears to prevent the use of germ cell lines and nuclei in the creation of cybrids under subsection (5)(b)(ii) and (iii) in new Section 4A, when, in fact, such germ-line cells may have the most suitable nuclei to transfer because of their usefulness in repairing DNA. We believe that the bar on this process is wholly contained in the spurious subsection (6)(b) of new Section 4A and is not a consequence of the broad definition of ““gamete”” dealt with previously, or indeed at lines 13 or 18 on page 5, which Amendments Nos. 17 and 18, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Patel, address. We cannot see why the Government seek to prevent this. Furthermore, subsection (6) of new Section 4A runs the risk of leaving the use of gametes and germ-line cells in interspecies nuclear transfer outside the Act. Why would the Government want to do this? Perhaps the Minister will tell us. Therefore, we would like subsection (6)(b) of new Section 4A to be deleted, as that would correct this anomaly.