| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9) (European Standing Committees),
That this House takes note of European Union Documents No. OJ C 293, the European Court of Auditors' 2003 Annual Report, No. 14549/04, Commission staff working paper: Complementary evaluation of the activities of the European Anti Fraud Office (OLAF), No. 11981/04 and Addenda 1 and 2, Commission Report: Protecting the Communities' financial interests and the fight against fraud—Annual Report 2003, and No. 11890/04, Commission Communication: Protecting the Communities' financial interests—Fight against fraud—Action Plan for 2004–05; and supports the Government's promotion of measures to improve financial management of the Community budget and to reduce fraud against the European Community's financial interests.—[Paul Clark.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: With the leave of the House, I shall put motions 9, 10 and 11 together.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
That, at the sitting on Wednesday 9th March, notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (3)(a) of Standing Order No. 54 (Consideration of estimates), consideration of the Estimates set down for that allotted half day may be proceeded with, though
- opposed, for three hours, when proceedings shall be interrupted unless previously concluded; and on the interruption or conclusion of the proceedings, as the case may be, the Speaker shall proceed to put the questions which, under the provisions of paragraph (5) of Standing Order No. 54 and of paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 55 (Questions on voting of estimates, &c), would otherwise fall to be put at the moment of interruption .
That, at the sitting on Thursday 10th March, the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motion in the name of Mr Peter Hain relating to Support for Members who have chosen not to take their seats not later than three hours after their commencement; such Questions shall include the Questions on any Amendments selected by the Speaker which may then be moved; proceedings may continue, though opposed, after the moment of interruption; and Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply.—[Paul Clark.]
SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE
That, at the sitting on Thursday 10th March, the Speaker shall not adjourn the House until any message from the Lords has been received, any Committee to draw up Reasons which has been appointed at that sitting has reported, and he has notified the Royal Assent to Acts agreed upon by both Houses.—[Paul Clark.]
PETITION
Turner and Newell Pension Fund
7.37 pm
Tom Levitt (High Peak) (Lab): The Turner and Newell pension fund was in crisis last summer, since when a number of petitioners, including a disproportionately large number from my own constituency, have put together a petition consisting of approximately 5,000 names.
The projected shortfall in the Turner and Newell pension fund will ruin the retirement of thousands of people.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to take prompt action in order to address the problems with the Turner and Newell pension fund.
And believe that the Government should consider every option available to them to resolve this crisis.
To lie upon the Table.
7 Mar 2005 : Column 1355
7 Mar 2005 : Column 1357
Stem Cell Research
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Paul Clark.]
7.38 pm
Dr. Ian Gibson (Norwich, North) (Lab): I am delighted to have this opportunity so early in the evening to raise the issue of stem cell research in the United Kingdom. As many Members will remember, we had several debates on this issue and thereby changed the legislation to allow such research to be carried out.
In a recent interview, Sir John Chisholm, chief executive of the part-Government-owned company QinetiQ—formerly the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency, which essentially was a collection of secret, military-based research laboratories—called for an audit of the innovation potential of large Government purchases, in order to encourage Ministers and civil servants to think more imaginatively about procurement of new technologies and products. He believes that the Government's record in supporting science and science-based industry is falling somewhat short. For example, liquid crystal displays constitute a £10 billion industry, yet little of that is exploited in the UK. How do we make science and raw innovation reap their economic benefits?
Although the UK has the ideas, it often lacks the enterprise to follow them through to market. The fear is that we will miss out on automatic breast scanners and many other new and exciting innovations in science. That is an example of the sort of circumstances that could pertain in stem cell research in this country.
The key issue is not really about the use of embryonic stem cells, but about creating medicines to treat some of the most debilitating diseases afflicting our population—Alzheimer's, motor neurone disease, Parkinson's, muscular disorders and, indeed, cancer. It looks as though the first products will be trialled in a few years' time. There is some argument, but a lot of hope, about that. Those products are likely to be based on adult stem cells or manufactured immortalised stem cells.
People often imagine or assume that projects emerge from basic research right away and move into the clinic for the benefit of patients. That, of course, is absolute nonsense. The translational research/scale-up/pre-clinical development stages all have to be carried out first, which can take some considerable time. Although there are few projects ready for the clinic today, many are ready to enter those earlier stages, and the costs associated with such translation steps are measured in millions of pounds. The assertion that there are no suitable projects is dangerously wrong and could be based on a misunderstanding of the steps required to bring the therapy to the clinic.
Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow) (Lab):
My hon. Friend talks about millions of pounds, but there are tens of hundreds of millions of people whose health could be saved by these projects. On any felicific calculus, it would be hugely beneficial to all mankind if therapies were developed.
7 Mar 2005 : Column 1358
Dr. Gibson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I absolutely endorse his comments. It has been proven time and again that scientific innovation has such knock-on effects.
There is little or even no money for the translational steps from existing sources. One reason may be that such applied research does not generate much in the way of peer-reviewed publications and puts university departments—much of the work is being carried out at Newcastle, Edinburgh and so forth—at risk in research assessment exercises, which are concerned only with peer-reviewed journals. The consequences of that will, I believe, bear bad fruit. The money allocated to the Medical Research Council for stem cell research has been allocated to traditional hypothesis-driven research projects. We must move away from them.
Mr. Dalyell: My hon. Friend referred to Edinburgh. He will forgive me for saying that I am rector of that university and chairman of the university court. I do not usually like flogging qualifications, but I am also a Fellow of the Royal Society of Edinburgh. In those circumstances, I want to underline the very considerable concern—the Minister should note that it is very considerable—that exists in Edinburgh about the biological and medical sciences at one of the greatest universities in Europe. We are deeply concerned about the subject that is being debated tonight.
Dr. Gibson: I thank my hon. Friend and I have to confess that I too am a product of the excellent Edinburgh university system after a sojourn of some six years in that august city. As my hon. Friend knows, I often played at Easter Road stadium and at Tynecastle in the good old days before the huge wages and other problems that football now faces arose. The crowds were well behaved and it was unlikely that a chief executive would have run on to the pitch to exhort the crowd, "Let's be having you," and all the rest of it. I must say, incidentally, that Chelsea fans were excellent this week, shouting back at the Norwich fans, "You're going down with the soufflé," which I thought was rather apt in respect of the individual who had perpetrated an event at half-time a few weeks ago.
Applied research and development projects are conducted and judged in a very different way from hypothesis-driven research. In consequence, it will not solve the lack of funding to give a large new sum to the MRC for applied research, as it is simply not set up to administer such big projects. The best solution is the stem cell foundation, set up by Sir Christopher Evans, which has attracted much interest in high places in government and Whitehall. The idea is to bring together the brightest and best across the relevant fields and skill sets. Those with experience in managing the project selection process, pharmaceutical and biotech companies, have an invaluable role to play. The stem cell foundation will have the ability and the desire to pick winners and back them all the way through to the therapies being offered to the patients—our constituents. We must act swiftly if we are to capture the fruits of British research for the UK. We are already being overhauled by other countries, including China and Korea, in this sector and the risk of brain drain to the US is increasing rapidly.
7 Mar 2005 : Column 1359
On the other hand, Professor Pedersen of Cambridge university told me recently that he came to this country to work on stem cells almost immediately following the Government's decision to allow such research to take place here. He says:
that sounds like a novel breed—
"recently arrived in the UK, I am often asked whether I will return to my native California, now that they have voted to provide three billion dollars in funding for stem cell research. I answer that 'no, I am not ready to return to the US'. In my honest opinion, there is no guarantee that any State in the USA has the ability, or for that matter, even the intention, of providing treatments for UK patients with currently incurable diseases. There is simply too much opposition within the current administration to stem cell research to guarantee such an outcome."
A recent UN declaration is designed to prevent stem cell technology in its 191 member states and it was good to hear our Secretary of State for Health say that that declaration was "non-binding" and would make "no difference" to the position of stem cell research in the UK. We have put some £16.5 million into stem cell research and set up a stem cell bank in this country, so we are ahead of the game. Several UK scientists are doing world-class research, including at the Roslin Institute, another fine place in Edinburgh, where Dolly the sheep was created. Sterling work is being carried out there, particularly on motor neurone disease.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |