Mitochondrial Replacement (Public Safety)

Andrew Miller Excerpts

Monday 1st September 2014 Commons Chamber

[Fiona Bruce]

Absolutely. I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention.

The HFEA has repeatedly told the Government that further research is required before we can proceed.

[Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Nineteen Members wish to speak and other Members are trying to catch my eye to intervene. It is an important debate and we need to allow the allotted speakers in, so Members should think very hard before trying to intervene.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

This is a fascinating debate. I should like to place on the record a definition that has not been used:

“Mitochondrial donation is a fundamentally humanitarian intervention designed to help people affected by a devastating disease to fulfil one of the most basic human aspirations: to have a healthy family.”

Regrettably, I cannot claim copyright on that, because it belongs to the Wellcome Trust, so one of the pre-eminent organisations on scientific research in this country very much supports the regulations that will come into force.

It is a pity that the debate is polarised because of the different views on the ethics of intervention. Although it is legitimate to explore the ethical issues, one should do so without misusing the scientific evidence. I fear that that is what is happening.

It is clear that safety is at the heart of the proposals. The hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) referred to the HFEA. When we pass the regulations, safety will remain of paramount importance, as it always has been. The technique has received unprecedented scrutiny by the HFEA’s specially convened expert review panel. Never before has a new medical technology been subjected to such thorough investigation—my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson) described the history.

It is clear that, if Parliament passes the regulations, it will not immediately become possible for clinics to treat patients using those techniques. When the regulations are passed, responsibility will pass to the HFEA, which will decide, based on safety and efficacy evidence, whether or not to license individual applications for use. That tried and tested process has been used over a number of years. My point is that we decide the ethics, and the HFEA determines the specific use.

Nothing is being rushed. We have been going on for such a long time, but time is precious—it is precious to those potential parents. Let us not waste time today, and let us reject the motion.