---

Mr. Dalyell: I should have mentioned that Ian Wilmut and others who work with him at Roslin are equally concerned. He and I wrote a letter to a Government Minister about the matter, and it is important to confirm that it is the Department of Health—and no other Department—that has the say in this matter.

Dr. Gibson: I thank my hon. Friend and I shall leave it to the Minister to reply and provide us with the relevant detail on that.

While all that has been going on in Britain, I have to say that a strong opposition has also developed. Some deeply resent the fact that we are creating embryos up to the 14-day stage in order to develop stem cell technology and they are infuriated by the stance that the Government have taken. We must be vigilant and maintain the excellence that we have already achieved.

At the same time, we are talking to our European partners and trying to develop a European framework for stem cell research, but it is proving to be very challenging. It is somewhat complicated because of the differences between the regulatory and legislative positions—or, indeed, the lack of regulation—in the different countries. It is further complicated by what may appear to be inconsistent legislation in some countries, which permits abortion and in vitro treatment, but bans research on early embryos. There is a long way to go before we have effective European initiative and agreement on this matter. We must carry the flag and ensure that Britain is ahead of the field.

One aspect that bothers many people is the European Union's fundamental objective in respect of research and its funding. It must allow co-operation between researchers from different member states, sometimes
 
7 Mar 2005 : Column 1360
 
with different political perspectives, without fear of discrimination. In some countries, but not in others, the scientists will need some sort of protection. That is an important matter for European institutions such as the Commission and the European Parliament to take into account. Sometimes national laws prevent it, so we must actively find ways of ensuring that the necessary co-operation takes place. The solutions cannot be the responsibility of individual researchers. No one working in the EU should be punished or rendered liable to prosecution, restriction or discrimination if they participate in research, so long as it is undertaken in a country permitting such research. It is exciting that Europe is becoming involved and that scientists and medics across the world are starting to collaborate and fight the political pressures that discriminate against them.

How can we move UK stem cell research into the clinic as soon as is humanly possible? Our first priority must be to do a better job with the resources we have. Once we have accomplished that, we must ask for the additional resources that we need to get the research into the clinic. There will doubtless need to be substantially greater UK investment in stem cell research, with planning now for 2006 and beyond. Investment is needed at all levels: in training, research supplies, experienced people, improved equipment and even, perhaps, new laboratories, to make the most of the initiatives and expertise already invested and hard at work.

Mr. Dalyell: My hon. Friend referred to 2006 and beyond. Does he agree that the beyond part is very important? People in the field must have some certainty for five, 10 or even more years ahead. There must be some guarantee of continuity if their work is to be really effective.

Dr. Gibson: I concur absolutely. We cannot always predict what will come from novel, blue skies-type research. We must encourage people to develop new ideas and to practise them. Politicians often seem to work through short-termism, whereas in science and medicine we know that we are in the game for a lifetime and beyond. That culture has not yet got through to the political process.

I ask UK policy makers whether, having placed the UK flag in the continent of new knowledge, we are willing to defend it and to make the ongoing commitment that the new technological revolution will happen in this country. I hope that the answer will be yes.

7.51 pm

Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow) (Lab): Normally, I do not muscle in on debates raised by my hon. Friends, but as there is a lot of time I trust the House will forgive me if I make a short speech.

First, I must tell the Minister that her words tonight will be scrutinised by many informed and concerned people. The House of Commons may be pretty empty, but the Hansard report will go around university departments. I hope that the Minister will be able to say that stem cell research has the endorsement of the British Government and, in particular, that the decision will be made by the Department of Health, and no other Department.
 
7 Mar 2005 : Column 1361
 

Secondly, as a Scot, may I ask how much discussion there has been with the Scottish Executive? The whole funding of the research is something of a grey area between the Treasury, the Department of Health and the Scottish Executive. I make no criticism of that. To the best of my knowledge, the system works pretty well, but I would like confirmation that the Department has been properly consulted.

There is something else that bothers me. In the academic world in which we now live, there is enormous pressure to publish, publish, publish and to be accountable to this, that or the other. My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) will know of the dramatic and unusual case of a researcher who published nothing for eight long years, but at the end of the eighth year he published and was awarded his second Nobel prize. That researcher was Fred Sanger. With his prestige, he was in a position to do that, but let us for heaven's sake be patient in this field. Let us create a situation where there is not such a drive to show how much has been published and to judge people's work not on its quality but, alas, on quantity.

It is important that funding is provided for people who want to carry out long-term research without their being pressurised to produce. That is a matter of cardinal importance. What Governments can do about it may be rather complex, but the problem must be tackled.

Finally, if anybody has doubts about stem cell research they should go, as we all do in our constituencies, to Arthritis Care. They should see people who suffer from dementia or Alzheimer's. That will make the case for allowing the research to go forward. I hope that it is in no way threatened in our country.

7.55 pm

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Miss Melanie Johnson): It is with pleasure that I rise to answer the Adjournment debate initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr.   Gibson). He has raised an important matter. It is also a pleasure to see that two other Members are in the Chamber, including the Father of the House. It is good to know that even at this hour people are interested in discussing the matter. My hon. Friend has worked energetically to ensure that science and technology are up in lights before the House, and I know that he takes a close interest in stem cell research.

I have listened carefully to the points made by my hon. Friends the Members for Norwich, North and for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). Before responding, as we have the luxury of a little extra time, I should like to remind the House of the regulatory and financial framework that the Government have put in place. I think that will help to demonstrate our firm objective to make the UK the envy of other countries in having a strict but enabling climate to foster this important field of research.

We want the best possible medical research to take place in the UK, so we have put in place a widely respected regulatory system that may license specific research activities involving embryos if it is satisfied that that is necessary to undertake the research. That has allowed scientists in the UK to derive new embryonic stem cell lines using spare embryos that are not suitable
 
7 Mar 2005 : Column 1362
 
for use in IVF—in vitro fertilisation—treatment. Over recent years, the House has held mature debates on that subject.

Both my hon. Friends mentioned the Roslin Institute in Scotland. With the birth of Dolly the sheep at the institute, the ethical challenges of human cloning left the pages of science fiction and became stark reality. However, we confronted those challenges, and fulfilled a Government manifesto commitment, when we were one of the first countries in the world to ban reproductive cloning, under the Human Reproductive Cloning Act 2001. Anyone attempting that procedure in the UK will face prosecution with a possible 10-year prison sentence and a limitless fine. The strength of what we have done is shown by the fact that at the same time we recognised the enormous potential benefits that therapeutic cloning and stem cell research may bring.

It does the House great credit that in 2000, after careful and wise debate, new regulations were passed to permit the use of the techniques of cell nuclear replacement—or cloning—to develop embryonic stem cells. The regulations mean that embryonic stem cell research takes place in this country under the strict control of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. The use of therapeutic cloning techniques will allow UK scientists new methods to develop cures for serious conditions such as diabetes, motor neurone disease, arthritis and dementia, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow referred, and many others.

---