(Tim's speech from the Human Fertilisation and Embryology debate can be seen on this website, click here.)
21 May 2008
Dear Constituents,
Thank you for your recent correspondence about the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill which the House of Commons started debating on May 12th and where important votes took place over the last two days. I thought it would be helpful if I outlined how and why I voted on the key issues of contention on which I have quite rightly been lobbied by many constituents and special interest groups.
I hope you have been able to look at my www.telltim.com podcast, publicised in my recent newsletter and which I published on the website to set out my position on the bill and invite responses from constituents.
Having completed its stages in the House of Lords the Bill passed its Second Reading in the Commons on May 12th. I abstained in that vote as I said I would because I believe that the issues raised in the Bill needed a full debate in the House of Commons however much I disagreed with some of the measures being proposed by the Government. In this, as with all other stages of the Bill's progress, Conservative MPs have been given a completely free vote to vote with their consciences as is normal practice on legislation which is primarily on ethical rather than party political matters.
For the whole of Monday and Tuesday the Commons debated the four main areas of contention in committee stage on the floor of the House so that all MPs could take part. I spent a lot of time in the chamber following the debate closely as I said I would before deciding how to vote accordingly.
The first debate concerned the use of 'admixed' animal/human embryo cells. Having listened to the various cases put forward I felt that the Government had failed to make a convincing case for why this type of technology should be given more permission to develop although those against also failed to make strong enough objections on the basis of fully viable alternatives. In the circumstances I therefore decided to abstain on the main vote which the Government then won easily, but then voted in favour of amendments which sought to impose major restrictions on the extent of research that could be carried out. Unfortunately the Government majority vote again won the day together with a smaller number of Opposition MPs. The measures to extend embryo based research in the Bill are therefore intact.
The next area debated on Monday related to the subject of so called 'saviour siblings.' I strongly object to the creation of 'designer children' even for the purpose of therapeutic benefit to another family member and believe this would create a different status of child and place him or her in a very difficult position without ever having sought that child's agreement. Again those who supported these amendments with me lost the vote. Subsequently I voted in favour of 'fall-back' amendments which would have placed limitations on when saviour siblings could be created but again all these were lost to a Government backed majority.
During the debate on Tuesday we debated the proposals in the Bill to end the need to consider the role of a father when agreeing to IVF treatment to non father/mother couples. I strongly objected to this apparent undermining of the role of a father in the upbringing of a child which I think is crucial and these measures threaten to send out a very dangerous message about the value of fatherhood. I was able to make a short speech in the debate to this effect which I have attached. Whilst the vote was closer, again the Government won the day and doctors will no longer have to have regard to the role of a father when agreeing to IVF treatment. I think this is a major blow to the way we view families in the UK.
Finally we had an understandably emotional debate on the subject of abortion upper time limits which a number of my colleagues had sought to introduce into this bill although it did not form part of the original legislation. After a series of complicated votes which started with reducing the upper limit to 12 weeks rather than the current 24 weeks, the final result was to leave the current law unchanged. I voted for a reduction to 22 weeks having visited neo-natal intensive care units where babies of this age have been shown to be viable. I think that we need to amend the law to reflect the considerable advances in medical science. I also have severe reservations about the worrying increase in the number of abortions taking place in the UK, particularly second time abortions or amongst teenagers, and will continue to pursue this as part of calls for a much 'beefed up' sex education and relationships campaign.
The Bill will have further stages in closed committee and then at report Stage and Third Reading before passing into law. The House will have more opportunities to vote although in view of the strength of feeling shown this week it now looks unlikely that the measures proposed in the Bill will be overturned. Unless substantial alterations are achieved it will therefore be my intention to vote against the whole Bill when I have the opportunity at Third Reading in a few weeks time.
I hope this explanation of my position is helpful and please feel free to come back to me if you have any further questions or comments.
Yours sincerely,
Tim Loughton
