Published: Thursday, 15th May, 2008 09:00
Richard Benyon's Westminster Diary
By Richard Benyon, MP for Newbury
Comments (0)
Print Article
Newbury MP Richard Benyon
THIS week we are debating the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill.
It is a hugely complex piece of legislation that, if passed, would make Britain one of the most permissive countries in the world for medical research using human embryos.
Among other changes, it will allow the creation of animal/human hybrid embryos for medical research.
Of the 647 MPs some will be determined members at each end of the ethical arguments.
On one side are those who believe that life is not life in the legal or ethical sense until a child is born.
On the other are those who believe life starts at the moment the first human cell is formed in the womb.
Most MPs will be found somewhere in the middle of these two certainties.
These matters have always been “free vote” territory; that means not subject to a party whipped vote. The Prime Minister foolishly made this a whipped vote for Labour MPs but changed his mind in three key areas of the Bill when he realised some of the more religious members of his government would resign rather than vote against their consciences.
Our mailbags have been filled with arguments powerfully made. I have received heartfelt letters from constituents suffering from vile illnesses such as Parkinson’s Disease, who are desperate for more freedom to be given to medical researchers to find cures to their condition.
I have also received intense pleadings from people who want me to protect life and to vote against many key parts of the Bill.
In Parliament we can go from one meeting where lucid arguments are made by scientists who are desperate for the Bill to become law, and then into another room where there are more scientists making eloquent arguments on why the Bill is not necessary or how it is even dangerous to the proper development of research methods.
MPs are nearly all lay men and women in this area of science so we have to use that most dangerous of tools: our judgement.
I intend to vote from a “pro-life” standpoint on the key issues but I will listen to the arguments with care.
Further Details
