---

Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill [Lords]

I appreciate that supportive comment, and I think that the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) was repeating himself when he made that intervention. A House of Lords Select Committee report on stem cell research was clear on the case against human cloning, stating that the high risk of abnormalities rendered the scientific objections to human reproductive cloning overwhelming. I shall omit some of what I was going to say, but the Committee set out other strong ethical objections, and stated that it"““unreservedly endorses the legislative prohibition on reproductive cloning now contained in the Human Reproductive Cloning Act 2001.””" The Government have already lost the trust of the people of this country on the economy, crime and other things. The danger is not just that people will lose trust in the Government, but that they will lose trust in scientists and the regulation of science. The right hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) seemed to put great faith in the scientific community, but others have put great faith in the banking community and that was found to be misplaced. If, instead of a clear and simple ban, the public are given subtle exceptions, they will see that their safeguard has been taken away—that there is no longer any line that stands between us and full reproductive cloning. They will think, and they will be right, that we are legalising reproductive cloning. When the United Kingdom found itself in a minority in the UN on cloning, the then Health Secretary, the right hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (John Reid), complained bitterly:"““It is a shame that the UN could not agree to a legally binding worldwide ban on reproductive cloning, simply because a small group of countries intransigently refused””." We lectured the world on how marvellous our law was and how important it was to have a legally binding ban, and yet the same Government are about to overturn our own ban on cloning, with not so much as a public debate. This little exception will put a hole in the dam; it will breach the defence. If one exception is made, who in this House believes that it will be the last exception, or that things will remain there? If we make this exception, we repeal the Act and suddenly the line is crossed, and if this line is crossed there are no other lines. If we pass this law there will be clones. If we pass this law we will be even more isolated from the common humanity of the rest of the world. If we want to stop something happening, we must have a law against it, a clear law, a straightforward law that people can understand—no exceptions, no thin end of the wedge, no foot in the door. We need to keep the clear law that says we will not go there—we want to help parents but we will not sacrifice children. We will not make children to order; we will not make children to a pre-existing blueprint. We will not have clones. To conclude, we value democracy, we value independence not because we will always make a better job of it—though we think we will—but because they are our decisions. G.K. Chesterton said that democracy was like tying one's own shoe laces; it is part maturity—maturity of an individual, maturity of a nation. I commend to this House and especially to Labour Back Benchers that they defy the Whip, for the sake of the country, for the maintenance of trust in science and for the sake of the people. I say, ““Do not go back to your constituents and explain why you voted to allow reproductive cloning; go back and say why you upheld the ban. Please support amendment No. 41.””