---

Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill [HL]

I respect the views expressed by my noble friend Lord Alton, the noble Lords, Lord Elton and Lord Brennan, and the noble Baroness, Lady O’Cathain. The noble Lord, Lord Brennan, is not in his place, but I hope he is well. I am not trying to dazzle noble Lords with science. My scientific knowledge cannot dazzle anyone, as my children regularly remind me. Scientists merely wish to inform so that parliamentarians can make better regulations. The purpose of my amendment is to clarify definitions in scientific terms so that we can decide what should be regulated, what should be allowed and what should be made illegal. That is the sole purpose of the changes of definition that I suggest. I welcome the support of noble Lords for my amendments. The purpose of my amendment relating to artificial gametes is to treat those who are infertile. I made a point of referring to patients such as those treated with cancer therapies whose germ line cells are destroyed. I accept the concern of the noble Earl, Lord Howe, but we are not talking about using male somatic cells to produce female germ cells or vice versa, but about infertile couples using male somatic cells, adult cells or induced pluripotent cells to produce male sperm or vice versa for female eggs. I would not be at all ““relaxed””, to use the words of the noble Earl, Lord Howe, if the case was as he suggests. As far as concerns the amendment of my noble friend Lord Walton, we have to recognise that mitochondrial diseases are serious. People who suffer from such a disease inherit it through the female line. Mitochondria are not germ cells. The embryo created will be the fusion of a male sperm, the father, and the female egg, the mother. The DNA material that would not belong to them would be the mitochondrial material. It is therefore not cloning in the correct sense of the word ““cloning””, unless you wish to abuse that term scientifically. I would not wish to do that. So I do not accept that that is cloning, and I support the noble Lord, Lord Walton, in what he is trying to promote. As regards unintended consequences, my Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 were put forward to remove germ-line cells from the definitions. Otherwise germ-line cells would have fallen outside the regulations and could have been used for cloning purposes. I tabled the amendments for precisely that reason—to avoid unintended consequences if the Bill is not amended. I hear what noble Lords have said and I hear what the Minister has said. I shall read very carefully what she has said, particularly about definitions. I welcome her offer to meet to sort out these definitions. For the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave withdrawn. [Amendments Nos. 2 and 2A not moved.] Clause 1 agreed to. Clause 2 agreed to. Clause 3 [Prohibitions in connection with embryos]: [Amendment No. 3 not moved.]