Proceeding contribution from Baroness Barker (Liberal Democrat) in the House of Lords on Monday, 4 February 2008. It occurred during Debate on bill on Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill [HL].
Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill [HL]
moved Amendment No. 2: 2: Clause 3, page 3, line 26, at end insert— ““(5A) Regulations may provide that— (a) an egg can be a permitted egg, or (b) a sperm can be a permitted sperm, even though the egg or sperm has been developed from one or more human cells in a prescribed process designed to treat infertility. (5B) Regulations under subsection (5A) may (a) provide that any sperm be developed from one or more cells of a genetic male and any egg be derived from one or more cells of a genetic female. (b) specify, or otherwise restrict, the nature of the infertility which the prescribed process is intended to treat.”” The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I am mindful of the noble Baroness’s reminder to us all of the procedure at this stage of the Bill and therefore I intend to speak only briefly to the amendment, which noble Lords will acknowledge I move in the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Patel. On Report, we had a debate about this issue in which it was clear to all noble Lords that the potential to create artificial gametes offers an unprecedented opportunity in the treatment of infertility. Nevertheless, it is a scientific development that carries potential ethical questions, and it is important that Parliament debates the matter fully in order that scientists are given a clear indication of what the ethical limits to such scientific developments should be. There are two main reasons for raising the amendment today in this form. The first is to stress, in a way that the noble Lord, Lord Patel, did not during our earlier debates, that we are talking here only about the treatment of infertility. This is not about the production of artificial gametes for any other purpose. The second reason is perhaps more substantial. Noble Lords will remember that during our debates on the previous occasion, in replying to the noble Lord, Lord Patel, the noble Baroness said that the Government had some concerns that there may be issues of human rights compliance under Article 14. Therefore, the noble Lord, Lord Darzi, helpfully wrote to all Peers who had taken part in our debate on 31 January setting out the Government’s response to a number of different issues. However, he did not mention what those concerns were in relation to this matter. Therefore, to enable Members of this House and of another place to understand the Government’s concerns fully, can the noble Baroness tell the House what they are in relation Article 14? I realise that we are not in a position to resolve this issue today but I think that that would be helpful in enabling Parliament as a whole to take this matter to the point where it should be, which is as a potentially very exciting treatment for infertility and power to do good. Can the noble Baroness also tell us whether this matter will be discussed when the Bill goes to another place? I beg to move.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 698 c849-50
- Session
- 2007-08
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords chamber
- Subjects
- Civil partners Fertility Human embryo experiments Diseases Genetics IVF Fathers Hereditary diseases Regulation Research Stem cells Human-animal hybrid embryos
- Legislation
- Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill (HL) 2007-08
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-16 00:08:33 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_442209
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_442209
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_442209