Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill — Strong evidence required to use admix embryos — 4 Feb 2008 at 17:30
The majority of the House of Lords voted against putting in a precise statement what it would mean for a proposed use of embryos or human admixed embryos "to be necessary for the purposes of the research".
The statement would have read:
- No licence under this paragraph is to be granted unless... there is cogent evidence, which must include published, peer-reviewed scientific data, that the research proposed on human or human admixed embryos is likely to achieve its specified purposes, and it is not reasonably practicable to achieve the specified purposes of the research without using human embryos or human admixed embryos.
When this debate was concluded, the Bill was sent to the House of Commons.
-  Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill - Schedule 2 - Part 6(6), House of Lords, 29 January 2008
-  Baroness Williams of Crosby, House of Lords, 4 February 2008
-  Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill - Second Reading, House of Commons, 12 May 2008
Votes by party, red entries are votes against the majority for that party.
What is Tell? '+1 tell' means that in addition one member of that party was a teller for that division lobby.What is Turnout? This is measured against the total membership of the party at the time of the vote.
|Party||Majority (Not-Content)||Minority (Content)||Turnout|
|Con||16||19 (+1 tell)||17.5%|
|Lab||120 (+2 tell)||5||57.7%|
|Crossbench||29||7 (+1 tell)||19.7%|
|Carnegy of Lour||Con||no|
|Dixon-Smith||Con (front bench)||no|
|Hunt of Wirral||Con||no|
|Jenkin of Roding||Con||no|
|Lawson of Blaby||Con||no|
|Noakes||Con (front bench)||no|
|Taylor of Holbeach||Con (front bench)||no|
|Waldegrave of North Hill||Con||no|
|Clarke of Hampstead||Lab||aye|
|Gordon of Strathblane||Lab||aye|
|Cotter||LDem (front bench)||aye|
|Roberts of Llandudno||LDem (front bench)||aye|
|Williams of Crosby||LDem||aye|