Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Baroness Jay of Paddington (Labour) in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 4 December 2007. It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL) and Debate on bill on Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill [HL].


Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill [HL]

I hesitate to intervene as a definite non-scientist. I apologise to the Committee for not being here for the very good debate that I understand there was on the previous amendment, which I had my name to. That was due to one of those problems of transport with which we are so familiar. My concern is the same as the one the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, was raising: whether or not future regulation and the embracing of a wider concept of the sort of work referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Patel, can be dealt with in the context of this piece of legislation, or whether—since we could be creating a situation where we are retrospectively working on something that is happening, which we have avoided in all the legislation and regulation so far—we could not preview some of the work at this stage, which the noble Lords, Lord Walton of Detchant and Lord Patel, are discussing, in a way that would enable it to be embraced under a broader regulatory umbrella. The latter possibility would not require the need for potentially retrospective primary legislation.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
696 c1638 
Session
2007-08
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Abortion Fertility Human embryo experiments Donors Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority Ethics IVF NHS Medical treatments Parents Organs Medicine Standards Training Screening Regulation Research Stem cells Christianity
Legislation
Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill (HL) 2007-08
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk