- 1 Healthcare
- 2 Libel Law Reform
- 3 Science Funding
- 4 Candidate Survey 2010
- 5 Same-Sex Marriage
- 6 References
- 7 External Links
Fabian Hamilton is a member of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Integrated Healthcare.
In March 2010, following the publication of the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee's report "Evidence Check 2: Homeopathy", Hamilton signed Early Day Motion 908: Science and Technology Committee Report on Homeopathy, which was critical of the report.
In June 2010, Hamilton signed Early Day Motion 284: BMA Annual Representative Meeting Motions on Homeopathy which expressed concern at a number of motions to be put forward at the British Medical Association's annual representative meeting calling "for no further commissioning of, nor funding for, homeopathic remedies in the NHS", and "thinks that an integrated NHS, which employs the best from the orthodox and complementary ... could deliver better and more cost-effective outcomes at a time of financial prudence".
Nomination of David Tredinnick for Health Committee Chair
In 2014 Mr Hamilton was one of 20 MPs to nominate David Tredinnick (an outspoken advocate of alternative medicine) for the position of Chair of the Health Select Committee. It is not known if Mr Hamilton subsequently voted for Mr Tredinnick, who only received nine votes in the anonymous ballot.
The House of Commons Science and Technology Committee report of October 2007 had found no good evidence of change since the limit was set in 1990, and hence no new reason for a reduction. However, it acknowledged that this was only one of many factors to be taken into account when legislating, and did not make any recommendations as to how MPs should vote.
In February 2015 Fabian Hamilton voted in favour of allowing mitochondrial donation, which would allow women who carried mitochondrial diseases to have genetically related children who would not inherit the disease. An October 2014 briefing report by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA), which had been investigating the issue for three years, stated that there was no evidence to show that mitochondrial donation was unsafe. However, some religious groups had said that such procedures should not be allowed. After clearing both Houses mitochondrial donation is now legal, regulated by the HFEA.
Fabian Hamilton signed the February 2009 Early Day Motion 754: MMR Vaccine and the Media supporting the use of the MMR vaccine. The motion expressed disappointment with the reporting of the vaccine by Jeni Barnett on her LBC radio show in January 2009, and expressed the hope that future reporting of the issue of MMR would be less sensationalist and more evidence-based.
Libel Law Reform
In December 2009, Fabian Hamilton signed Early Day Motion 423 calling for a reform of the English libel law. The motion noted that human rights activists, scientists, writers and journalists are currently prevented from publishing, and the public prevented from reading, matters of strong public interest due to the chilling effect of the law.
On 30th March 2010, in a House of Commons committee debate, Fabian Hamilton voted in favour of The Conditional Fee Agreements (Amendment) Order 2010. The order would have limited success fees paid to lawyers in libel cases to 10% and was an initial stage in libel reform proposed by Jack Straw. The committee rejected the order by nine votes to five, meaning that it will now go to a full Parliamentary vote.
In October 2010, Fabian Hamilton signed Early Day Motion 767: Science is Vital Campaign. The motion stated that the house "believes that continued investment in research is vital in order to meet the technological and social challenges of the 21st century, and to continue to attract high-tech industries to invest here; further believes that large cuts to science funding are a false economy, due to evidence that research investment fuels economic growth".
Candidate Survey 2010
Fabian Hamilton responded to the Candidate Survey on 30th April 2010, as follows:
Do you support the use of public funds to provide unproven health products such as homeopathy?
Current severe budgetary restrictions mean that only proven health care products should be made available on the NHS. The organisation NICE determines which treatments are cost effective. However, as long as a product is not dangerous to people's health it should remain available with other over the counter products.
Do you think that abortion time limits should always be determined by the current scientific and medical consensus?
I feel that current time limits on abortion are correct and that public feeling must also be taken into account when determining these limits. The scientific and medical communities alone are not enough to set standards. Attention must be paid also to public morals.
Do you believe the UK should move to an opt out, rather than an opt in, organ donation system?
Do you agree that testing on animals (within strict criteria) is a necessary part of the development of medicines?
In general I am against using animals for testing if there is a viable alternative.
Should schools be allowed to teach creationism as an equivalent theory to evolution?
The teaching of evolution belongs in the science classroom, the teaching of creationism belongs in religious or social education classes. The two are not equivalent.
Should religious courts such as Sharia and Beth Din be recognised as alternative systems within UK law?
Religious courts can be useful tools for religious groups when they do not interfere or conflict with UK law which should always take precedence.
Do you believe that religious belief should be legally protected from ridicule?
I believe firmly in free speech for everyone, outside incitement to break the law.
Should religious leaders be entitled to vote in the House of Lords?
I am in favour of reform of the House of Lords as soon as possible.
Should an independent government adviser whose views in their area of expertise conflict with government policy be able to express those views publicly without fear of being sacked?
A Government may hire and fire advisors as they please. If nothing has been indicated to the contrary in the hiring process, employees should be allowed to speak freely. If they have contracted not to express their views in public, then they should follow that policy.
Should policy-makers trust scientific evidence even when it appears counter-intuitive?
As stated above scientific evidence is not the only measure by which a Government decides policy, although it should be given due consideration. There may be valid reasons for ignoring scientific advice.
Do you support the reform of English and Welsh libel law to allow a stronger 'public interest' defence?
Yes. I was pleased with the progress being made by the Labour Government when the election was called. A future Labour government will consider further reform in this area.
- https://twitter.com/julianhuppert/status/481110771217469440 & https://twitter.com/julianhuppert/status/481111043796914176 & https://twitter.com/julianhuppert/status/481352356777697281
- http://www.leedsne.co.uk/ - official website
Why not help us expand this page with more details of this politician's positions on skeptical and other issues?
- E-Mail them (alternative) to ask for their opinions (and tell us about it by editing this page!)
- Check their voting record and other details at the External Links listed above.
- Search the media for mentions of them and their positions on issues.
- Use your own brilliant ideas - but make sure you can back them up with a citation!