I do not think that that is right, and I wanted to return to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh) in an intervention. The way in which science works is that before someone gets to the HFEA stage, they have to get funding. They must get ethical approval and they have a research proposal. That is a huge job. People's jobs depend on being able to get permission, and scientists apply to the HFEA only at an extremely late stage. It would be a scandal if they had public or charity funding and subsequently failed to get that permission. In many cases, there is an iterative process between the authority and scientists, and they do not get approval until the end of a long process. That is what Lord Winston and others, including those at Newcastle, complain about at length. They complain that the process is too burdensome; other hon. Members are now complaining that it is not burdensome enough. If no one is happy, that suggests that the authority has it about right. A walkover it is not.
Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill [Lords]
Proceeding contribution from
Evan Harris
(Liberal Democrat)
in the House of Commons on Monday, 19 May 2008.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee of the Whole House (HC) on Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill [Lords].
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
476 c50 
Session
2007-08
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-16 01:41:00 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_474132
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_474132
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_474132