John Hayward Posted: 21 May 2008
Keywords: Government & Foreign Affairs, Science & Technology,
A couple of people have written to ask me what I make of the votes over the past couple of days on the controversial Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill. Given what I have written previously (see Of Mice and Men and Hybrid Embryo Research Breakthrough), it will come as no surprise that I find the results disappointing. However, perhaps most interesting is a breakdown of how our MPs voted. For, despite various accusations being made today, it was supposed to be a free vote, and yet there was a noticeable division along party lines:
1. On granting licenses for the creation of human-animal hybrid embryos
| For | Against | Didn't Vote | |
| Labour | 63.5% | 18.5% | 17.9% |
| Conservative | 34.4% | 42.2% | 23.4% |
| LibDem | 63.5% | 23.8% | 12.7% |
| Other | 15.0% | 37.5% | 47.5% |
2. On limiting the use of sibling tissues to only regenerative tissue
| For | Against | Didn't Vote | |
| Labour | 15.4% | 63.8% | 20.8% |
| Conservative | 57.8% | 17.7% | 24.5% |
| LibDem | 34.9% | 50.8% | 14.3% |
| Other | 37.5% | 12.5% | 50.0% |
3. On requiring the need for both a father and a mother to be considered when taking account of the welfare of a child who may be born as a result of fertility treatment
| For | Against | Didn't Vote | |
| Labour | 14.2% | 66.7% | 19.1% |
| Conservative | 75.5% | 6.8% | 17.7% |
| LibDem | 12.7% | 63.5% | 23.8% |
| Other | 40.0% | 17.5% | 42.5% |
4. On changing the time limit for the legal termination of pregnancy from 24 weeks to 22 weeks
| For | Against | Didn't Vote | |
| Labour | 17.1% | 68.1% | 17.7% |
| Conservative | 71.4% | 14.1% | 14.6% |
| LibDem | 36.5% | 50.8% | 12.7% |
| Other | 37.5% | 20.0% | 42.5% |
As Nick Robinson observed on last night's Ten O'Clock News, if the Conservatives were to win the next general election, and if David Cameron proves to be serious about tackling what he has described as the country's "moral collapse" and making Britain a more family-friendly society, there is every possibility that any of these contentious issues could be revisited and overturned sooner than some might think.
The Chair of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, Professor Lisa Jardine, claimed this morning on the Today programme that we are not a liberal society but an evidential-based society. Why then did our MPs ignore all the evidence about the need for and benefits of a father, about public opposition to and scientific reservations over animal-human hybrid embryos, and about 23-week-old foetuses struggling to survive after being unnaturally removed from the womb?
Not a liberal society? 22 May 2008
What does an 'evidential-based society' mean? Evidence is evidence and needs to be interpreted and applied. In this vote it seems that the interpretation and application of the evidence is that saving the handful of lives of pre-natal children who could survive being born at 23 weeks of age isn't worth the bother.
Listening to the Icelandic Whaling minister defend his country's decision to permit the hunting of 40 Minke whales yesterday morning, I was struck by the thought that hisresponse should have been, 'how dare a country that conducts 200,000 + abortions each year dare criticise us in this matter?'
Richard Roper 22 May 2008