I support amendments Nos. 49 and 50, tabled by the hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh), and Nos. 41 and 73, tabled by the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew). All the amendments in this group, including amendment No. 47, tabled by the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Burrowes), and new clause 24, propose adding some words to the Bill to try to ensure that the law is clear and to reduce loopholes. None of them does any injury to what the Government and the supporters of the Bill say that they want the Bill to do. The amendments would not remove any of the provisions in the Bill. Those of us who had other views on those provisions lost that debate earlier this year. The amendments would address issues that are of concern not only for those who have reservations about this Bill, but, we were told, for those who support it.
Lo and behold, the Government are resisting amendments that are simply trying to ensure that the legislation fulfils their intentions—or what they say are their intentions. I have listened to other hon. Members speak in support of the amendments. We have been told that what they said was rubbish, that none of it was ever going to happen and that the amendments are therefore not needed. However, I also heard the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon make the point that the Human Reproductive Cloning Act 2001 was intended not to stop something that scientists intended to do, but to provide reassurance to the public. That is one role of legislation.
Even if hon. Members think that some of the concerns that the amendments are trying to address will not be realised, they must accept that those concerns are real. They have been real enough for the Government to try to assure people, here and in the other place, that they will not materialise. Why should not legislation protect against any such possibility in the interpretation of regulations, either on the part of those who produce the regulations or those working under them? It is our job as primary legislators to ensure that those matters that should be covered in primary legislation are covered.
Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill [Lords]
Proceeding contribution from
Mark Durkan
(Social Democratic & Labour Party)
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 c378-9 
Session
2007-08
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-16 00:28:14 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_506491
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_506491
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_506491