THE fracking vote in Parliament last week generated quite a considerable correspondence from constituents demanding that, wherever else it might take place, it certainly mustn’t be allowed in the New Forest.

Others insisted that the current world glut of oil, which has resulted in the falling price, now renders fracking unnecessary.

On this latter point, I would point out that it would be foolish to bank on the price remaining low forever and that the initial increase in supply was in no small amount due to the USA fracking revolution.

With respect to allowing fracking, but not in the forest, I have always taken the view that decisions about where fracking is to be permitted are no different from those involving permission for any other development.

It is the responsibility of the local authority’s planning committee to determine which planning applications should be permitted and which should not. It is the duty of our elected councillors to make those decisions on the basis of local needs and circumstances.

On principle, I have always had a preference to allow councillors discretion in these decisions and not to constrain them with impositions from Whitehall. After all, we go to the trouble of electing them, so we should allow them the responsibility to make the decisions they were elected to take.

In the event, the Government accepted an amendment to the fracking legislation which does indeed exclude national parks, so my correspondents can be reassured.

Does the amendment, however, take away decision-making power from elected councillors in the New Forest? Yes it does. Will I lose any sleep over it? Well no, I won’t.

The fact is that while there are elected councillors on the New Forest Park Authority, unlike most planning authorities, they were not directly elected for that purpose. Secondly, the National Park is a treasure owned by the whole nation and therefore it seems reasonable for Parliament, representing the nation, to impose some restraints on what is allowed here.

A number of my correspondents sought to introduce a new principle into the debate: that they had a right of veto over any activity under their homes, however deep.

This is just ridiculous. Had we ever allowed such a principle we would never have built the London Underground, public sewers or laid gas and electricity mains. I know that development and planning is an emotive subject, but we need to keep a sense of proportion.

This week there is another controversial issue generating a large correspondence from churches on the one hand and supporters of scientific medical research on the other (although, I accept that it is possible to be in either, or both, these camps and still come to opposite conclusions).

The issue is a vote in Parliament on the Human Embryology and Fertilisation Authority (Mitochondrial Donation) regulations 2015. It is a complicated subject. My understanding, having read the regulations in addition to emails from constituents, is that the purpose is to allow mothers who carry genetic mitochondrial diseases to give birth to disease-free children. Mitochondria produce energy to allow the cells in our bodies to carry out their functions.

The typical feature of mitochondrial disease is wasting, and children rarely survive to adulthood.

It is important to remember that the technique Parliament is being asked to permit, is not designed to provide a cure for any child suffering from the disease. Rather, it is to enable parents who know that they carry the disease, to have a healthy child.

The regulations extend the current rules on IVF (test tube fertilisation) to permit two new techniques: moving the DNA from the nucleus of an egg or an embryo which has faulty mitochondria, to a donor egg or embryo which has healthy mitochondria. In one case the nuclear DNA is being moved before the egg is fertilised by the father’s sperm and in the other it has already been fertilised and become an embryo. In either case, however, it is possible to argue that the child will have three genetic parents: nuclear DNA from the father and mother; and mitochondrial DNA from the donor.

I am not persuaded that these will be “designer babies” as some of my correspondents allege. Neither am I persuaded that it is the thin end of a very thick wedge. What I am nervous, about, however, is where the DNA transfer takes place post-fertilisation and we are dealing with embryos rather than eggs. It may still be just a single cell, but are we dealing with a human being, or a microscopic blob of glup?

The inevitable consequence of this technique is that one embryo will have been created only to secure the healthy survival of the other.

I will listen to the debate carefully, think hard and pray, before coming to a decision.