Motion· Early Day MotionEDM 4open
United Kingdom · UK Parliament · 12 December 2000
leave out from 'measures' to end, and add 'but regrets that such instruments are still not sufficient to effectively curb proliferation and the risks it entails for international security; notes that deployment of US National Missile Defence could entail the risk of violating the ABM Treaty; considers the interest Russia has expressed in participating in a European Anti-missile defence system; and commends the Assembly of Western European Union for Recommendation 680 it passed on 6th December calling for the strengthening of transatlantic co-operation on anti-missile defence, and its Technological and Aerospace Committee on its forthcoming visit to Russia to clarify President Putin's proposals for the joint development with NATO of a European missile defence system'.
Motion· Early Day MotionEDM 49open
United Kingdom · UK Parliament · 6 December 2000
That this House notes the strong polarisation of views both among the people of the country and among Right honourable and honourable Members on the important issue of human cloning; acknowledges that cloning raises important ethical and scientific questions which require the most careful consideration; welcomes as the commencement of a process of consideration the debate on these issues on Friday 17th November; regrets that a majority of Right honourable and honourable Members did not have sufficient notice to be able to attend this important debate; believes that prudence and wisdom require much more detailed consideration before decisions are taken; and invites Her Majesty's Government to pause for further reflection, to withdraw the Statutory Instrument they have laid to implement the proposals of the Donaldson Report, and to wait before acting until such time as this House and the people of this country have had a full opportunity to judge the long-term implications of human cloning.
Motion· Early Day MotionEDM 938open
United Kingdom · UK Parliament · 6 July 2000
That this House deplores the death penalty which has been issued from the Aden Tawahi Court in Yemen for the apostasy of the Somali national Mohammed Omer Haji unless he recants his Christian faith and states that he is a Muslim before the judge three times on Wednesday 12th July; deplores that Mr Haji was held in custody for the sole reason that he held to the Christian faith and was severely beaten in custody to the point of not being able to walk; considers it a disgrace that UNHCR officials in Khormaksar stated they were only able to help him if he was a Muslim; and calls on the British Government and international colleagues to make representations immediately at the highest level in Yemen to ensure Mr Haji's swift release and long-term safety and for the repeal of Yemen's barbaric apostate laws.
Motion· Early Day MotionEDM 274open
United Kingdom · UK Parliament · 17 January 2000
That this House notes that the morning-after pill works by preventing the embryo from successfully implanting in the lining of the womb, and therefore is not a contraceptive; further notes that medical and scientific opinion is that life begins at fertilisation, and that the morning-after pill is therefore an abortifacient; notes with concern the health-risks associated with the morning-after pill, which include nausea, vomiting, thrombosis and ectopic pregnancy and that, if a woman in the early weeks of pregnancy takes a morning-after pill, her baby's brain could be malformed and/or the child could develop abnormalities such as heart-defects; further notes the provisions of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, as cited by Dr John Keown of Queen's College, Cambridge, in a letter to the Daily Telgraph of 30th November 1999 and elsewhere, protect nascent life before implantation; further notes that the World Medical Association's 1948 Declaration of Geneva states 'I will have the utmost respect for human life, from the time of conception; even under threat, I will not use my medical knowledge contrary to the laws of humanity'; further notes that, whether or not the morning-after pill interrupts pregnancy as defined by the law, it does interrupt pregnancy as defined by medical science, and that those who are not registered medical practioners should consequently not be expected to take responsibility for providing such treatment; and calls upon the Secretary of State for Health to restrict the availability of the morning-after pill as a matter of urgency and not to widen access thereto.