I leave that to stand. I would also say that if a scientist wanted to avoid a criminal charge, it would be wise to apply for a licence. Even if the scientist felt that the circumstance would not be covered by the definition, if it turned out to be covered, he would be liable under the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act, as amended, which contains stiff penalties.
Although I have some sympathy with the broad point made by the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate, his amendment No. 47 is not comprehensive, it does not deal with the gap that it is intended to cover. I will not support amendment No. 47, but I hope the Minister will agree that ongoing work is needed in order to ensure that if gaps emerge, they can be covered. That is what the scientists want and, as I understand it, that is what the Department of Health seeks as well.
Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill [Lords]
Proceeding contribution from
Evan Harris
(Liberal Democrat)
in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 22 October 2008.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill [Lords].
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
481 c370 
Session
2007-08
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-16 02:05:04 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_506471
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_506471
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_506471