tom_crewe

In case people may be interested in the different election candidate views on the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill, I have collated the responses from the 3 main parties below.
I appreciate this bill has already gone through parliament, but the responses can be helpful to show how the candidates may vote on similar issues in the future.

Regards, Tom

(Responses listed in order replies were received)

Edward Timpson (Conservative)
Dear [Tom]

Thank you very much for taking the time to email me. Like you, I am
concerned by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill. It is a very
difficult area that needs a lot of careful thought and discussion.

I will take the points you raised in order:

On the creation of human-animal hybrid embryos, I feel slightly uneasy.
While scientific advances are fundamental to medical treatments, I'm not
certain that the creation of human-animal hybrids is entirely necessary.
This is a point that was supported by Lord Robert Winston earlier this week.

I also do not believe that the clause stipulating the need for a father to
be considered when assessing the likely welfare of a future child should be
removed. Fathers are an integral part of a family and while no family is
perfect, I think it is vital that this clause remains.

As for the abortion limit, I would vote to have it lowered to 20 or 21
weeks. While I don't believe abortions should be banned wholesale, I do
think that there are too many abortions, especially when babies of 22 weeks
can survive outside of the womb.

I would also like to add that I find it reprehensible that Gordon Brown
wanted the votes on every part of this bill to be whipped. And that he is
now only offering a free vote on amendments, rather than the bill itself, is
barely any better. This issue is an issue of conscience and should be
treated as such.

I hope this reply has been informative and should I be elected I would be
happy for you to contact me again on this issue.

Yours sincerely

Edward Timpson

Tamsin Dunwoody (Labour)
Dear [Tom]

I believe that this legislation is about laboratory research, and is aimed at increasing knowledge about and treatments for serious diseases, such as Parkinson’s, Motor Neurone Disease and Multiple Sclerosis. Embryos must be destroyed at 14 days - so far no scientist has been able to develop the embryo beyond six days - and they cannot be placed in a woman or in an animal. I support the principle of allowing such research, though also recognise concerns and believe in the need for strong safeguards to be maintained within experimentation.


As it stands, the law refers to “the need for a father”, and the new legislation is replacing this with “the need for supportive parenting”. Single women and same-sex couples can and do access assisted reproduction clinics and are successfully bringing up children now.

I do not support a reduction in the current abortion term limit.

I hope this answers your query. I appreciate you may not agree with me on the above issues, however I am a straight talker and would not wish to mislead you in any way over my views. I hope that this if anything would give you reason to consider supporting me on Thursday.

Best wishes,
Tamsin Dunwoody

Elizabeth Shenton (Lib-Dem)
Dear [Tom]

Thank you very much for contacting me with regard to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill currently being debated in Parliament. I am acutely aware that many of the issues in this Bill are of great concern and importance to people, and I apologise for not having replied sooner.

I am also aware that the subjects being debated are very complex and that a very significant amount of reading material has over the months been provided to each MP, as testified by my Parliamentary Liberal Democrat colleagues. If elected I will will study all the relevant material as carefully as my electorate would expect me to. Any views I may currently have on the topics to be debated and voted on may then be amended as necessary, depending on the results of my study of the body of evidence that will be put in front of me from expert sources, both scientific and ethical.

I would take my role in any vote as seriously as the topics in this Bill clearly merit. Each MP has to reconcile their votes with their consciences, which is why there is no party line on the Bill and why each MP has been given a "free vote".

I would of course be happy if you wish to follow this up with me.

Yours sincerely,

Elizabeth Shenton