---

Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill [HL]

I am very grateful to the Deputy Chairman for that intervention. I intend to respond now to all the amendments in the group, unless noble Lords wish me to do otherwise. I acknowledge that the group is extensive, but no other noble Lords stood up to speak, so I thought that no one else wanted to speak to the amendments in this group. I am sure that will not preclude further discussion, should noble Lords so wish. Amendment No. 2 has a similar effect to Amendment No. 1 and was also tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Patel. It amends the definition of ““sperm”” in proposed new Section 1(4) in the 1990 Act. It removes the words, ““including cells of the male germ line at any stage of maturity””. Amendment No. 52 also relates to definitions of gametes. It replaces the words, ““cells of the female line or male germ line”” with, ““gametes”” in proposed new Section 16(1)(a) of Schedule 3 to the 1990 Act as inserted by paragraph 14 of Schedule 3 to the Bill. The effect would be that it would no longer be clear whether cells of the female and male germ line at any stage of maturity would be gametes for the purpose of these provisions. Amendment No. 17 amends the definition of eggs for the purpose of new Section 4A of the 1990 Act, inserted by Clause 4, which relates to inter-species embryos. The current definition of eggs under new Section 4A(12)(a) expressly includes cells as female germ line at any stage of maturity. Amendments Nos. 10 and 11, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Patel, amend the meaning of animal cells in the definition section relating to inter-species embryos. The effect of Amendment No. 10 would be that the meaning of animal cells applied not just to subsection (5)(b), but to other places in subsection (5) where animal cells were mentioned. Amendment No. 11 adds the words ““other than gametes”” to new Section 4A(6)(a). This means that references to animal cells and the definitions of inter-species embryos under new Section 4A(5) do not include gametes. The overall effect of Amendments Nos. 13 and 15 is that the reference to human cells in the context of inter-species embryos expressly include cells of the germ line. The effect of Amendments Nos. 14 and 15 is that the reference to human cells in paragraph (b) would expressly include cells of the germ line. The effect of Amendment No. 12, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, is that human cells are not defined in relation to new Section 4A(5) and it is, therefore, open to argument as to whether cells of the female or male germ line would be covered by the reference to human cells in the definition of cytoplasmic hybrids under Section 4A(5)(b). I turn to Amendment No. 2A. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, is absolutely right to say that definitions are important. The amendment would remove from the Bill the provision allowing through affirmative regulation the extension of the definition of the human embryo if the need arose following developments in science and medicine, which by their nature cannot be predicted at this time. The regulation-making power in Clause 1(5) allows us to ensure that the 1990 Act will always be up to date with current developments in science and technology. While I understand the noble Lord’s misgivings, this power is incredibly important in ensuring a continued proper regulation in this complex area of science.