---

Miss Johnson: I might not be the best person to answer that question in detail because stakeholders beyond myself, both in Government and outside, are involved. However, I can say that we are comfortable with the work that we have done. We are comfortable with the support that we have received from the Wellcome Trust, especially, and delighted with the work that it has done with us.

Dr. Gibson: Does my hon. Friend agree that the best way forward is to ensure that charities, foundations and the industry work well with the research councils? There is a rumour that research councils often take umbrage if they think that other bodies are taking work away from them. Do we need to use political force to drive the bodies together?

Miss Johnson: There will always be anxiety about relationships in different organisations and sectors, but I understand that things are generally working well. I am sure that the various Ministers with a strong interest in the matter in the key Departments that I mentioned, including the Department of Health, make every effort to ensure that the relationships go well.

Rob Marris: I realise that not all the research funding to which my hon. Friend refers comes from her Department. Can she tell me, either now or later, how much of the funding is spent on blue skies research—pure research? I appreciate that politicians sometimes find that difficult to justify. There is a circular argument when people ask why we fund such research, because we have to try to explain that there is no reason to fund it, in one sense, because if there was such a reason, the research would no longer be pure. However, pure research is vital to a modern economy. Can she give us an idea of the balance of research funding?

Miss Johnson: I do not have a figure to hand that I can give my hon. Friend. However, I certainly accept—I am sure that Government do, too—the point that both he and my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North have made about research. Research for research's sake
 
7 Mar 2005 : Column 1366
 
is often a starting point for the development of technologies that are useful for our society, so we must continue to support and respect that. We support that general argument in both word and deed.

We are funding the UK stem cell bank, which is based at the National Institute for Biological Standards and Control. As I said, the bank is the first of its kind. It will hold all types of stem cells as a resource for researchers. It was launched on 19 May 2004 and will hold embryonic, foetal and adult stem cell lines. The bank recently received good manufacturing practice—GMP—accreditation following an inspection by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, thus allowing therapeutic stem cell lines to be stored and distributed. In December 2004, the world patent office gave the bank the status of an international depositary authority under the Budapest treaty, which means that it can act as an official storage and distribution centre for patented stem cell lines.

In November 2004, the Reproductive Genetics Institute, which is based in London and Chicago, announced that it would establish a stem cell bank in London with 18 embryonic stem cell lines that were created in Chicago. The cells are suitable only for research because they are not of a sufficiently high standard for use in patients. We support and encourage all activities that might turn stem cell research into real treatments. It is worth noting that the NIBSC bank alone will be able to store and supply clinical grade material for therapeutic use. We think that the work going on there is one of several jewels in the crown of stem cell research.

My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North touched on the question of what is happening at UN level. As I have said, the UK has been totally opposed to human reproductive cloning and we were one of the first countries to ban it. At the same time, however, we have allowed therapeutic cloning. I endorse his point about the United Nations debate. I understand that more action will take place in the UN tomorrow. It is likely that a non-binding political declaration on cloning will be adopted. The UK has voted against the declaration thus far because it calls for the prohibition of all cloning, including therapeutic cloning. We have made it clear that that declaration will have no effect whatever on UK stem cell research. I gather that the matter has to go before the General Assembly—that might be happening tomorrow—so there are further stages to be completed.

I was a little surprised that my hon. Friend did not mention the East of England stem cell network. It was set up with funding from the East of England Development Agency. It brings together key organisations involved in the important field of research, including the Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust. Given his interest in both East Anglia and stem cells and bioscience, I am sure that he will support and promote the network.

Dr. Gibson: I apologise to the Minister, but I sit on that committee, so the matter must have escaped my mind. Our new chair is Mary Archer, so we will have a hard-hitting team to ensure that the east of England rises up to the excellence displayed by Edinburgh.
 
7 Mar 2005 : Column 1367
 

Miss Johnson: I declare an interest in all things connected with the east of England, as an MP for that region. I thought I would give my hon. Friend an opportunity to mention his ongoing interest. I gather that the network will be launched at the Sanger institute in Hinxton, Cambridge, tomorrow.

My hon. Friends the Members for Linlithgow and for Norwich, North mentioned the UK stem cell foundation, about which there have been several recent reports. I understand that its specific purpose will be to fund the translation of stem cell preclinical research into clinical trials and possible treatments. As my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North said, it takes a long time for an initial idea to reach a stage at which it can be applied to change people's lives every day. One of the foundation's stated aims is to ensure that the UK remains at the vanguard of regenerative medicine. I understand that the principal backer of the proposal is Sir Chris Evans of Merlin Biosciences. He proposes a public-private partnership involving researchers, funders, entrepreneurs and members of the pharmaceutical industry to fund stem cell clinical trials. Plans for the proposal are well advanced.

Before my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North rises to point this out, the board of the body has already been assembled, and I believe that he is a member. Other illustrious members include Sir Richard Branson, Sir Robert May, Sir Richard Sykes, Lord Winston, Trevor Jones, and Professor Roger Pedersen, who has already been mentioned. Sir Chris proposes that the UK Government should commit funding to the foundation over a 10-year period, with match funding from the private sector. The Government will be happy to consider any proposals from the UK stem cell foundation with interest. Lord Warner is meeting the foundation later this week to discuss matters of mutual interest.

Dr. Gibson: Perhaps my hon. Friend will address the ethical and moral issue. I have said that there is a difference between countries in Europe, but there is also a difference between people in this country. There are still some people who are annoyed by stem cell research and embryonic nuclei being used. How do the Government see things progressing? How do we handle attempts to prevent research from going ahead on ethical and moral grounds?

Miss Johnson: I think that we have settled a good deal of that through debates in this place. We do not see the need to reopen many of those debates. It was clear on a free vote that the ratio was about 3:1 in favour of the regulatory arrangements that we have, both the permitting ones and the banning ones. That makes it clear that we understand the value of therapeutic cloning arrangements and the use of stem cells in that context. We are completely opposed to reproductive cloning. The House has made clear its view. The majority on a free vote indicated clearly how strongly Members are in favour of the arrangements that we now have in place.

Dr. Gibson: We did have eyeball to eyeball contact in the House. However, real new issues are arising. For example, there is the development of embryo cells to produce organs for what is called a save-your-sibling procedure. That creates new tensions other than the
 
7 Mar 2005 : Column 1368
 
therapeutic cloning that we have debated. That was the major issue then. There are many other avenues now. We have debated these matters, but I do not think that they are over by a long shot.

Miss Johnson: I would never suggest that any matter is over by a long shot when we debate it in the House. Obviously, debates will continue. My hon. Friend is right that some new areas of discussion and debate have opened up. Some of these areas are the subject of legal discussion and consideration. I am sure that he appreciates that I cannot comment on those. The Select Committee is giving consideration to various issues and we are looking forward to hearing what it opines before we take forward our own consideration on some of these difficult matters.

---