I had not intended to speak to this group of amendments—I was going to speak to a later one—but having heard the comments in the debate, I thought it only fair to explain why I support the Bill as it stands. I do so as someone who has both written on the subject and had in vitro fertilisation treatment—having seen it from both sides of the equation.

On the amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Burrowes), I completely agree with him that we do not know exactly where science will go, and that it is right to ensure that we do not have to keep coming back with primary legislation. He is right that we need to pass a Bill that is sufficient to deal with foreseeable developments in science.

Looking through the Bill as it stands, and having listened to the assurance of my right hon. Friend the Minister, I believe that we need broad principles of legislation to underpin how different bits of research should be regarded. We also need a regulatory body able to interpret the legislation and take decisions about applications that come before it. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will want to comment further on this later, but I believe that the Bill provides a framework that allows for the sort of experiments described by the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate to be managed and properly regulated.

I share the concern of the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) that a list of possible future developments might not be exhaustive. That might mean going back to see how the science has developed and providing legislation and regulations to cover the cracks. Our approach is right and I would expect the broad terms of the Bill to be sufficient to enable the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority to regulate in the desired areas.

I completely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Ms Taylor) that there are problems about the provision of infertility treatment, but I believe that we have one of the finest regulatory systems in the world. The HFEA has steered us through some very difficult times, sometimes with inadequate legislative tools. I hope that the Bill will deal effectively with a lot of the chinks. My constituents certainly want proper provision made for the regulation of these activities on the basis of sound ethical principles, and I think that the Bill provides that.

On the amendments to prohibit the mixing of gametes, I believe that they would be extremely damaging to the treatment of some forms of infertility. The Bill provides for the ability to mix gametes under licence. I would argue that the key issue is the mixing of gametes, not how the gametes come to be mixed. It is not about artificial insemination of an animal with human sperm; it is about the mixing of the gametes. That is the real issue and that covers mixing them by whatever form. If these amendments were accepted, it would make it harder to understand some of the processes involved in infertility and difficult to deal with certain forms of male infertility in particular.

Does my hon. Friend accept that many of the fears expressed about ethics this afternoon stem from the fact that between 80 and 90 per cent. of the work done is done in private—with all the dangers that could attach itself to that fact? That is what people are worried about. Much of the work is not done within the NHS. Fears about ethics arise and worries remain because, however good the regulation governing the work in the NHS, much of the work is done in private.

That is true, but I think that there are quite a few reasons why people are fearful about the process. One reason is that the idea of some creature that is part-human, part-animal—the example that is always given—is simply horrific. However, that is not on the cards, as the legislation clearly prevents it.

There is also the fact that because, as my hon. Friend says, this whole area of medicine has developed in the private sector, people tend to focus on the more exotic aspects. In reality, straightforward IVF is now a fairly standard treatment, although a difficult one because of the ethics involved. That is where the bulk of the interest and the bulk of the provision lie, which is why IVF treatment on the NHS is so important.

Does the hon. Member for Northampton, North agree that it is most unfortunate that Northamptonshire primary care trust does not provide more IVF treatment?

I entirely agree, although I believe that the PCT is now considering providing the three rounds of treatment, which is fantastic. All credit is due to that PCT.

The third argument that underpins quite a few discussions here concerns the nature of embryos and the way in which we think of them. That issue was raised by the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) when he quoted from “The Brothers Karamazov”. In the section to which he referred, one of the characters undergoes a religious conversion and then talks about salvation through universal love. It is fine to have a religious view of embryos, and I am sure that many people have such a view, but what we are considering is a legal way of regulating experiments with embryos, and the legal status of embryos. That is different from having a religious view of them.

Much of the discussion of abortion and termination concerns the way in which we regard the foetus at the later stages of development, the strong feelings that people have as a child moves towards viability, and the status and respect that we should accord to that child in law. In the context of embryo research, we are dealing with the same debate, but in relation to the very early stages of development. Passions run as high in relation to those early stages as they do in relation to the later stages, for very obvious reasons.

The Bill sets out some good, straightforward provisions, under which the foetus starts to have a separate status at the time when the primeval streak develops. That is the point at which we should start to consider a different status for what was previously a cluster of cells. I want to say a little about that earlier stage as well. It is, I think, very easy to say “This is a human being, but just in one or two cells”—and, of course, that is exactly what people will see if the pregnancy is wanted and planned, and would lead to a much-loved child. However, those who have been through the process of IVF, as I have, will know perfectly well, because they have had to learn the hard way, that it is not really the case at all.

People go through the process of wanting a baby, hoping for a baby, experiencing all the disasters, and then undergoing IVF treatment. On a screen in a private room they see a little blob, and someone says “That is a baby”— or they see that it is a baby. Then the one blob becomes two blobs, and sometimes it becomes four, and then it disappears, because it was never going to come to anything anyway. It might have had some potential for life, but that was never going to develop. It was only going to be one or two or four cells; they were not differentiating, and nothing was ever going to happen. We must take that into account in considering such groups of cells and in deciding what should happen to them and the status they should be accorded in law—and therefore the way in which we should then be able to manipulate them for the good of improving the prospects of in vitro fertilisation, as well as for understanding a bit more about the science of life and what make us human, and for understanding a little more about some of the appalling diseases and conditions that affect human beings and thus finding cures for them.

In talking about embryo research—about how we should be able to manipulate embryos and for how long, and how the regulations should work—we must understand that the people engaged in this work will have the most profound respect for life and for the process of human gestation and birth. Securing improvements in both outcomes for people who suffer from infertility and need IVF treatment and the conditions of people with appalling diseases will come, in part, from making sure that we have good regulation that enables our scientists to manipulate, and experiment with, these cells at this very early stage. That is why it is important that we pass this Bill in its current form, so that we make sure that our scientists and regulators are equipped with the tools they need to improve our science, our understanding of human life and people’s prospects.

My hon. Friend says that scientists and clinicians must be equipped with the tools they need. Surely the tools they need include clear, solid legislation, so amendments that identify loopholes in this proposed legislation should be addressed. That is part of the process of our providing them with the tools. They are getting all the tools that the Government want them to get; it is just that some of them are shoddy and not fit for purpose, and we are trying to make sure that they are precision tools designed to reflect the will of Parliament.

As I have said, I do not agree. I think that the provisions that are currently set down have clear principles and ethics. The period of time in which embryos can be experimented on is clear, as are the terms for that. It is also clear that we have a regulatory body that can—

Is genetic modification clear?

I actually think that talking about GM in people is quite wicked, because it makes people think scientists are doing something that they are not doing. They are dealing with groups of cells at a very early stage. I have seen such groups of my own cells up on a screen, and I know that they will never come to anything and they are not at a stage where they are human—however much my hon. Friend might wish they were, they are not. What is important is that, with the right ethical principles, legal provisions and regulatory framework, it is possible for scientists to manage, experiment with and manipulate such cells within clear guidelines, so that they can improve the prospects for both the children who might be born through this process and the parents who will care for those children—there is very good provision on parenthood, which we probably will not have time to deal with—and also enhance the well-being of many people who suffer from appalling diseases. I completely support the Bill, and I do not agree with the amendments.

May I say at the outset that I appreciate the contributions that have been made by the hon. Members for Southport (Dr. Pugh) and for Stroud (Mr. Drew), and by my colleagues the hon. Members for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Burrowes), for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mrs. Dorries) and for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh)? I wish to support their comments and indicate that DUP Members will support amendments Nos. 41, 47, 49, 50 and 73 and new clause 24.

I shall speak particularly to amendment No. 41. I ask the Government to see it as a positive contribution to the legislation, as are those suggested by the hon. Members whom I mentioned. They have sought to give the Government a basis on which they can tighten up some loopholes in the Bill. That is important, because if they are not tightened up, certain things will come back to haunt us.

The Government have stated that they do not wish to allow human reproductive cloning, do not want genetically modified babies to be brought to birth and certainly do not want part-animal, part-human hybrids to be born. There are differences among hon. Members about whether we should permit scientists to produce such embryos. For some of us, that is already a step too far. Once an embryo exists, the problem is what to do with it or what to allow others to do with it. There would be no danger of someone implanting a genetically modified embryo into a woman if they did not have the embryo in the first place. Do we want this technology? Perhaps that is an issue for another day. The point is that we should not ask about the disposal of something only after we have decided to make it. We should weigh that up before we go ahead and create it.

There are different views in the House and among the public at large about whether to allow the production of genetically modified, cloned and human admixed embryos. Nevertheless, I think that we all agree about implanting those embryos in a woman. The public is against that, and I believe that the House is too. Let me give credit where it is due: on admixed embryos the Bill is admirably clear, stating:

“No person shall place in a woman…a human admixed embryo”.

That is simple and straightforward, with no qualifications, no licences and no exceptions. The law will not permit a human admixed embryo to be put into a woman in any circumstances. I hope that we can agree about that.

When it comes to cloned and genetically modified embryos, however, that admirable clarity is lacking. Instead there is an exception, which has created the loophole about which hon. Members have spoken. The Government should not be happy about that. Loopholes appear often enough after legislation has gone through the House, but it is hardly good practice to start with a loophole. Loopholes seldom get any smaller.

I am not one of those who suspect some dark conspiracy, and I do not believe that the Government are secretly planning to approve a project to bring a cloned or genetically modified child to birth. I do not believe that that is their intention, but the loophole exists because of the idea that some people have of a possible future fertility treatment for women with mitochondrial disease. The Government have allowed the loophole in response to that possibility. Amendment No. 41 would close it without precluding possible future approaches to mitochondrial disease. It would allow what the Government want to allow but close a dangerous loophole, and everyone in the House should be able to support it, even though it originated on the Back Benches rather than with the Government.

The amendment should not be controversial. It would cost the Government nothing and allow them to appear magnanimous. There is anxiety about some of the technology involved, and the greatest anxiety is about the idea that genetically modified, cloned or admixed embryos might be implanted and might develop into genetically modified, cloned or admixed children. The image that people have in their heads and that they find most abhorrent is of scientists producing GM babies, cloned adults or minotaurs.

I am most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way, Mr. Deputy Warden. Sorry—I meant Mr. Deputy Speaker.

It sometimes feels like a prison.

It does; my right hon. Friend is quite right.

Does the right hon. Gentleman not accept that over the past 20 years, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority—the regulatory authority in question—has controlled this complex and often fast-moving scientific area, ensured public confidence and become the envy of the world? Is he seriously saying to the House that it is prepared to throw that reputation away?

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. I am one of those people who prefer not to have wardens, deputy wardens or authorities such as the one that she mentions to protect something that I consider very important, and which the law itself ought to protect. That is the point of the amendment; the situation should be clear in law. We should not allow this loophole to remain, and the House has an opportunity today to deal with it.

If the Government wish to maintain public confidence, they should be clear about prohibiting those practices that the public most fear and which the Government have no intention of supporting. If they are not going to support them, let us make it clear in the law by closing this loophole to exclude such a practice.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. The suggestion has just been made that we should rely on the HFEA jealously regarding and protecting its reputation. However, today we as a House have to guard the reputation of Parliament by doing our job and setting down fit, proper and competent laws. No one has yet been able to refute the fact that the loophole that has been identified does exist. Perhaps what we are considering is, as some Members have told us, an imperfect and incomplete attempt to close that loophole; nevertheless, it is an attempt, and it is Parliament’s job to do that and to allow others to look after their reputations and jobs thereafter.

I very much appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s intervention and he is absolutely correct: it is our job to ensure that the law is as watertight as possible on this issue, and we should not be relying on some authority to do that for us. It is the job of Parliament, so I encourage the House to support amendment No. 41.

It is a great pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson), who makes a powerful point that I wish to reinforce in my short speech. It must be very frustrating for all the Members who want to speak to the next six groups of amendments that there is no time to discuss such important issues. That is the Government’s fault entirely, and they should be ashamed of themselves. They could have allowed the House to sit through the night, so that everyone could have expressed their point of view on such an important matter. The Government’s management of the House is quite appalling.

I want to support amendment No. 49, in the name of the hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh), and amendment No. 41, in the name of the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew). Both amendments are concerned with proposed new section 3ZA(5) to the 1990 Act and are similar to amendment No. 46, to which I was a co-signatory but which was not selected.

Today, the House is considering Government legislation that is going to repeal the Human Reproductive Cloning Act 2001 and open a door for reproductive cloning to take place without the need for fresh primary legislation. Through subsections (2) to (4) of proposed new section 3ZA, the Government appear to place very tight restrictions on what type of embryos can be implanted in a woman. The problem arises, however, in proposed new section 3ZA(5)—a loophole that can overturn these restrictions. If the procedure in question is undertaken to prevent the transmission of serious mitochondrial disease, the provisions of proposed new sections 3ZA(2) to 3ZA(4) need not apply, and regulations could allow reproductive cloning and other types of designer babies.

In the Human Reproductive Cloning Act 2001, the Government outlined their position against the controversial technology. Reproductive cloning uses somatic cell nuclear transfer to create animals that are genetically identical. It involves the transfer of a nucleus from a donor adult cell to an egg that has had its nucleus removed. The egg is then treated with either chemicals or electric current, and if it begins to divide normally, it is transferred into the uterus of the surrogate mother, where it will develop. A classic example of that process is Dolly the sheep.

Under the proposed new legislation, that process could be allowed to create human clones. Regulations could allow a nucleus to be removed from an adult cell from a woman with mitochondrial disease and to be placed in a donor egg with healthy mitochondria, and from there a clone could be produced. In such a case, it would not have the healthy mitochondrial DNA from the second woman. That procedure, which would not involve fertilisation and would remove the need for a man, was suggested some time ago in a report in the British Medical Journal as a potential way to treat mitochondrial disease. Under the Bill, the protection previously provided against this procedure by the 2001 Act would no longer be in place, as that Act is abolished by clause 3(6) and schedule 8.

Although the Government have regularly stated that they do not intend to use the Bill to allow reproductive cloning, the repeal of the 2001 Act would pave the way for scientists to use reproductive cloning to prevent the transmission of mitochondrial disease. No matter what the Government intend, some scientists would, unfortunately, welcome legislation allowing reproductive cloning and would look to use it to allow them to experiment with human life further. That problem could be avoided simply by removing proposed new section 3ZA(5).

The second issue that I wish to address is designer babies, one type of which is the “multi-parent” baby. To prevent mitochondrial diseases caused by faulty mitochondria from being passed to offspring, attempts are being made to make what the press have termed three-parent babies. What happens is either that a donor egg with healthy mitochondria with its nucleus removed is used to house the healthy nucleus from the egg with faulty mitochondria and this reconstructed egg is then fertilised by sperm through IVF, or that fertilisation occurs first, and is followed by nuclear transfer into an embryo with healthy mitochondria that has had its nucleus removed.

Regulations under proposed new section 3ZA(5) could permit those embryos to be placed into the uterus and allowed to develop into a baby. That would be a three- parent baby, created using DNA from three people; it would involve DNA from the nucleus of one woman’s egg, the DNA from the mitochondria of the donor woman’s egg and nuclear DNA from the father’s sperm.

There is a third issue to address. As well as allowing three-parent babies and reproductive cloning, if the mitochondrial disease was caused by flaws in the nucleus, the loophole in proposed new section 3ZA(5) would also allow genetic engineering of nuclear DNA—[Interruption.]

Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman. Far too much conversation is going on, and it is becoming intrusive. I would ask the House to listen to the remaining speeches in the debate.

The genetic engineering that I was discussing could happen by the insertion of healthy nuclear genes into a one-celled embryo, the modification of the embryo and the creation of healthy embryos. In other words, one would be selecting genes, inserting them into the nuclear DNA of an embryo and thereby designing the embryo that one requires. That would not only be creating a designer baby; it would create a strong precedent for other types of designer baby in future. All those three controversial procedures are banned under proposed new section 3ZA(2) to (4), but 3ZA(5) and clause 3(6) override those restrictions.

Baroness Royall has stated that

“the Government remain firmly committed to a ban on reproductive cloning.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 3 December 2007; Vol. 696, c. 1513.]

I do not doubt that, but the restriction should be included in primary legislation instead of relying on the word of the Government. The Department of Health itself accepts that the legislation contains a flaw that, in theory, makes it easier for the ban on reproductive cloning to be lifted.

The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris), the Liberal Democrat spokesman on science, was reported by Timesonline on 14 June as saying:

“It would be better, for the sake of consistency and reassurance, for the Bill to do what we all thought it would do, which is totally to ban human reproductive cloning in primary legislation.”

I heartily agree with him, and he reinforced that point earlier in the debate. It would have been easy for the Government to have amended the Bill and made a commitment to ban reproductive cloning. If the Government really oppose reproductive cloning, why the loophole?

I support amendments Nos. 49 and 50, tabled by the hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh), and Nos. 41 and 73, tabled by the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew). All the amendments in this group, including amendment No. 47, tabled by the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Burrowes), and new clause 24, propose adding some words to the Bill to try to ensure that the law is clear and to reduce loopholes. None of them does any injury to what the Government and the supporters of the Bill say that they want the Bill to do. The amendments would not remove any of the provisions in the Bill. Those of us who had other views on those provisions lost that debate earlier this year. The amendments would address issues that are of concern not only for those who have reservations about this Bill, but, we were told, for those who support it.

Lo and behold, the Government are resisting amendments that are simply trying to ensure that the legislation fulfils their intentions—or what they say are their intentions. I have listened to other hon. Members speak in support of the amendments. We have been told that what they said was rubbish, that none of it was ever going to happen and that the amendments are therefore not needed. However, I also heard the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon make the point that the Human Reproductive Cloning Act 2001 was intended not to stop something that scientists intended to do, but to provide reassurance to the public. That is one role of legislation.

Even if hon. Members think that some of the concerns that the amendments are trying to address will not be realised, they must accept that those concerns are real. They have been real enough for the Government to try to assure people, here and in the other place, that they will not materialise. Why should not legislation protect against any such possibility in the interpretation of regulations, either on the part of those who produce the regulations or those working under them? It is our job as primary legislators to ensure that those matters that should be covered in primary legislation are covered.

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not misunderstand what I am about to say. He is right in what he is saying, but I am concerned that we will not reach the incredibly important amendments on licensing, consent and parenthood. It is not his fault, and I commend what he is saying, but I ask most earnestly that he allows us the chance to get on to those groups. We have been denied time by the Government, and there are winding-up speeches to come, so I ask him to be good enough to remember that those other matters should be at least voted on by the House.

I fully respect what the hon. Gentleman has said. I shall not take long to deal with the amendments, as I shall not go through the detailed argument about the nature and reach of some of the loopholes. I am trying to deal with the arguments that have been made against the amendments, rather than getting into the substantive justification for them.

We are told that the Government want to ensure that there is not any reproductive cloning. In so far as clause 3 ensures that the new provisions will supersede the Human Reproductive Cloning Act 2001, is it wrong for the House to ensure that in superseding those provisions we ensure that there is no room for genetically modified children to be created? That is entirely reasonable. We are told that that is not the intention and that nobody wants to do it, so what is wrong with ensuring that such an action is clearly provided against in the Bill?

As for the various other amendments that have been tabled, we have been told that safeguards are already in place and that they are what is intended, and we have been absolutely reassured that the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority will pay full regard to and stand by certain standards. What is wrong with ensuring that those safeguards and standards are in the Bill as a way of reinforcing the confidence that we are asked to have in the HFEA?

I hasten to say that I speak in a personal capacity and not on behalf of my party, which has a free vote on these issues.

I rise to give my support to amendment No. 41, which is the only amendment before us today that would clearly ban human reproductive cloning. I think the issue deserves the fullest consideration by the House, although time is limited.

Let me state the obvious: the Scots are not clones of the English. Someone who is free makes their own decisions, while someone who is a slave has decisions made for them. Someone who is free makes their own future, while someone who is a slave is given a future and a set of expectations. Children sometimes live in the shadow of their parents but they must move out of that shadow and become themselves. Each child and each generation is always new, a particular mix never seen before. A child is never made to a pre-set design—unless, of course, the child is a clone.

A clone lives always in the shadow of the original. A clone is always a copy of or a replacement for someone else. What kind of start in life is it to be defined by the expectations of others from the start and to be thought of as a copy from the start? Of course, a cloned child would not really be a copy, as they would have their own wishes and aspirations, but they would start off as a copy. To make a clone is to make a child to be a copy, a slave to our expectations, and a commodity. We know what they will be like. If a clone of Margaret Thatcher were made, we would know what to expect, as we have seen it before.

I am sure that hon. Members know that Scotland has no desire to be isolated from the rest of the world. The people of Scotland want to take their place with the rest of the world. So when the United Nations declares that

“practices which are contrary to human dignity such as reproductive cloning of human beings shall not be permitted”,

we welcome that. It is an expression of our common humanity. Whatever our nation or culture, there is one entrance into life and a common departure. We are all born and we will all die and there are some things we can say together.

Not everything that can be done should be done, and it is important for us as nations within the United Kingdom and as nations within the world community to draw strong lines in the sand to express what we have in common: our humanity, the basis of our human dignity and human rights. The United Kingdom has not yet ratified the Council of Europe convention on human rights and biomedicine, and Scotland is unable to ratify it. I suppose that it is thought to be too complicated for us. It has an additional protocol on the prohibition of cloning human beings that is clear and to the point:

“Any intervention seeking to create a human being genetically identical to another human being, whether living or dead, is prohibited.”

That is something that I think that we should ratify. We should make common cause in Europe and say that we will not clone a child.

In 2001, there was a big debate in the House on the Human Reproductive Cloning Bill, which was narrow and tightly drawn—too much so for some hon. Members. It prevented the implanting of a cloned embryo in a woman, but it did not prohibit scientists from making cloned embryos or from taking them abroad, or from implanting in an animal or an artificial womb. However, the Bill at least assured people that no cloned baby would be born in the UK. It fulfilled a manifesto promise to outlaw reproductive cloning.

The Minister who introduced the Bill said that it

“encapsulates the views of the vast majority of British people who find the possibility of human reproductive cloning abhorrent.”—[Official Report, 29 November 2001; Vol. 375, c. 1169.]

But now, less than 10 years later, that tight, narrow Bill, that statutory ban and clear bulwark against a slippery slope, is being repealed by clause 3 of this Bill.

I know that the rest of the wording of clause 3 is meant to achieve the same ban, and I am sure that is what the Minister will say, but it is widely acknowledged that provision 3ZA(5) removes that absolute ban in the pursuit of hopes of treatment for mitochondrial disease. That is why we must support amendment No. 41.

A ban announced with great fanfare is being shelved as quietly as possible, without consultation or public debate. The promise that was once made seems to be turning into an empty promise. How can we trust the law that is being proposed? How can we trust this Government? Less than 10 years ago, we were promised a statutory ban on reproductive cloning, but now we find excuses, exceptions and an erosion of trust.

Elsewhere in the Bill is the creation of part-animal, part-human embryos—hybrid embryos. They would be created, we were told, purely for necessary medical research, and would never be implanted into a woman or an animal. We were told that there was no chance that any Government would allow such a creature to be born. The idea that a part-animal, part-human could ever be born has been called pure scaremongering and yet, less than 10 years ago, the very same things were said about cloning children. We were told that that would never happen and that there was a clear, tight law to which there could be no exceptions—but now the exceptions are beginning, and cloning a child is one huge step forward.

The Human Reproductive Cloning Act 2001 was brought in because people in this country and across the world regarded human cloning as an affront to human dignity. They considered it to be unfair to the child and to compromise the relationships of parent and child.

I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman has not been in the House for very long, but some of us hope to move on to two other groups of amendments. All hon. Members would like to speak for a considerable time, but will he be kind enough to take into consideration the fact that the other groups of amendments deal with hugely important questions of informed consent and parenthood? The House ought to have an opportunity to be able to divide on those issues.

I totally accept the hon. Gentleman’s point. The debate has been compressed into the impossibly short time of half a day, but those are the rules that we are playing to and I am the first person in my party to speak in the debate. However, I do accept his point and I will try to cut out some of my speech.

The hon. Gentleman is new in the House, so may I give him some advice? He should take no advice on brevity or cutting his speech from the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash).

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.”

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Glasgow, East (John Mason), particularly as he quoted Chesterton, who is too rarely quoted in the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) spoke about the godly extension of love having a worldwide effect. Chesterton said:

“Those thinkers who cannot believe in any gods often assert that the love of humanity would be in itself sufficient for them; and so, perhaps, it would, if they had it.”

This debate, on these amendments, has obliged the House to consider how we define human life and how we regard humanity, as the hon. Member for Glasgow, East said.

Surely humanity means that we regard other human life as we regard our own. Such is the ethics of humanity. So it is our shared humanity that distinguishes us from animals; that determines how we should behave to one another; and determines especially that we should not deliberately distort the lives, or expedite the deaths, of fellow humans, whether those fellow human beings are born or unborn. There has been too little debate in this House about that definition of human life in relation to the Bill, too little clarity about the nature of human life, as my hon. Friends the Members for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Burrowes) and for Gainsborough identified.

It seems to me that the expectation of living human beings and the unborn—those incapable of conscious choice—is the same because of their shared humanity, and that is the prevailing view that should underpin our considerations of this Bill and these amendments to it. Each person is bound to respect the humanity of others, as they are bound to respect their own humanity. But humanity, or that view of it, is under great threat.

The work of Peter Singer, a moral philosopher who is now at Princeton, is most important, in contextual terms. For Singer, the ethics of humanity is objectionable because it amounts to what he calls “speciesism”. We have heard a great deal about the blend of animal materials and human cellular materials. Of course, if one does not believe the orthodox view of how to define humanity, and if one defines it around the idea of personhood, when personhood itself is defined by the ability to exercise autonomy and choice, it becomes entirely permissible to manipulate human cellular material in the way the Bill will allow.

The House will be delighted to hear that I will savagely reduce and synthesise my remarks to give the Minister as much time as possible to respond to our important debate. However, first I must say that the debate has demonstrated that the programme order is a disgrace and a misuse of parliamentary procedure, given that many significant amendments that should have been considered have been completely negated.

The Minister needs to clarify whether the insertion of the word “cytoplasm”, as proposed in amendment No. 49, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh), would introduce an additional safeguard against the manipulation of nuclear DNA. The right hon. Lady also needs to reaffirm the commitment that she made in Committee that future regulations would not be introduced to extend mitochondrial manipulation to the nucleus and that that could be achieved only by primary legislation. I assure the House that when Conservative Members are in government, we will not allow human reproductive cloning by regulation.

The Minister needs to explain in detail how the Human Reproductive Cloning Act 2001, which bans reproductive cloning, is replicated in the Bill. Why does clause 3(6) use the word “superseded”? If it is correct that there are loopholes in the Bill, as we have been told, the Bill does not supersede the 2001 Act.

It is thought that amendment No. 41, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew), should prohibit future Governments from permitting reproductive cloning. We have heard the Government’s reassurances that they would never pass regulations to permit that—a Conservative Government would not do so—but if a form of wording could be included in the Bill to ensure that that could never happen, the Government should work to find it. It is not acceptable to leave that to regulation.

Clearly, one of the challenges in the Bill concerns the balance between primary legislation and regulation. One of the reasons why the Bill is before us today is that medical technology has advanced. The Bill is partly about updating the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990. The onus is on the Minister and the Government to show that amendment No. 41 is harmful. It has been cleverly drafted so as not to interfere with mitochondrial donation techniques. It would prevent the legalisation of only those techniques that there is a strong public and international consensus against.

My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Burrowes) made a passionate, interesting, detailed speech that demonstrated key, fundamental understanding of the issues. He highlighted a potential—I use the word advisedly—loophole relating to the technological advances in question. Of course, there cannot be an exhaustive list. There was a great debate in the other place about that. However, the Minister needs to understand, and to clarify today, the interaction between the Bill, the 1990 Act that the Bill amends, and the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. She needs to say which piece of legislation will be responsible for which licence, and whether one is more permissive than another. If it is, she must say whether the Government will consider tightening the relevant licensing procedures.

Again, amendment No. 50 and new clause 24 were tabled by the hon. Member for Southport. The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) was absolutely right to say that the Bill prohibits admixed embryos being placed in an animal. If there were a total ban, however, it would clearly affect mitochondrial technological advancements, and I am in favour of those advancements. Members need to understand that mixing human and animal gametes has taken place for some considerable time. The right hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) and the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) made the point clearly that there have been significant advances in infertility research because of what has been called the hamster test. Hon. Members need to be very careful about trying to ban and prohibit any mixture of animal and human gametes.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

I will not, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, because I want to give the Minister time to respond. Common themes have emerged today. First, it is clearly the view of many Members, on all sides of the debate, that there are potential loopholes that may need to be closed. Secondly, it is vital to get the balance between primary legislation and regulation correct. I suspect that the Minister will have to address that clearly. The key element that we must not lose sight of as we discuss this part of the Bill is the fact that the special status of the embryo must be put above everything else. That must not be lost in our debate.

I start by saying clearly—I will return to this point, as the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Mark Simmonds) asked me to—that the Bill sets out a clear prohibition on human reproductive cloning and the genetic modification of gametes or embryos that are to be used for treatment purposes. It does that through the provisions set out in clause 3. At the end of my comments on the amendments, I will return to the subject to lay that out clearly.

Amendments Nos. 41, 49 and 73 seek to restrict the provisions in the Bill that aim to prevent the transmission of mitochondrial diseases. Research is currently being carried out, under a Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority licence, on ways to avoid those devastating diseases. To remind ourselves, we are talking about dementia, respiratory problems, gastro-intestinal disorders, stroke and brain atrophy. In recognition of the severity of those conditions and the potential for such research to provide effective treatment, the Bill provides, through a regulation-making power, for eggs or embryos that have had applied to them a specific process enabling them to avoid serious mitochondrial diseases to be considered “permitted”. They can therefore be used in treatment. The particular process and the circumstances in which that would be appropriate would be detailed in regulation. I take the caution given by the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) about acknowledging the sensitivities and difficulties in that area.

The safety of using the techniques has not yet been established. They would need to be assessed carefully before being deployed as options for patients in treatment. The regulating power would allow for that consideration through a full consultation, to gather the views of the public, ethicists and relevant stakeholders on the appropriate use of using donor eggs for that purpose. For example, as some hon. Members have pointed out today, and as has been raised in the House before, there would need to be consideration about the status of the egg donor if donations from which only the mitochondria is used were made.

In addition to the public consultation, we believe that Parliament should not be asked to decide on this issue now, for precisely the reasons that have been mentioned: the facts should be before Parliament before it makes a decision. It should be asked to take the decision only when all the facts are clearly available.

Amendment No. 41 seeks to limit the regulating powers so that embryos or eggs that have undergone cell nuclear replacement could not be permitted for use in treatment. Following debate in another place and in this House, the Government carefully considered the drafting of proposed new section 3ZA of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990, and whether it needed to be amended.

After careful consideration, the Government’s view is that the drafting is clear and does not require amendment. The precise process by which mitochondrial diseases may be treated is not yet clear, and amendment to the regulating powers would inadvertently risk and reduce the scope and the process for treatments to be allowed. Secondly, the regulation-making power is limited to the treatment of mitochondrial diseases only. Thirdly, the regulations would be subject to considerable public consultation and then to debate in Parliament. That would enable all the concerns to be raised. In taking that forward, the Government are balancing the need to have the facts before taking decisions with the recognition that the power is about helping couples conceive a child that is genetically theirs, but without the fatally flawed mitochondria that affect the maternal line. That is the balance that we are trying to strike; we have left things open for further consideration. That is why we are proceeding as we are.

I hear what my right hon. Friend says, but does she understand the concerns that some of us have? We are being asked to trust the Government, and, more particularly, to think that any future regulation, over which we would have no control through primary legislation, will be fit for purpose. In the context of these issues, that is quite a leap of faith.

I am asking my hon. Friend to think about being involved in the consultation, participating in the public debate and improving the draft regulations if and when they come forward. He should then fully participate in an affirmative resolution debate in the House before the regulations are passed. I am asking hon. Members to think—and that is a reasonable thing to do.

Amendment No. 49 seeks to limit the regulating power so that only embryos or eggs that have been subjected to processes to prevent the transmission of mitochondrial diseases through cytoplasm could be permitted for use in the treatment. I absolutely understand and appreciate the intention behind it. I have to say, however, that the amendment is ambiguous—a point that has been touched on in the debate. Everything in a cell could be considered to be cytoplasm, including the mitochondria and the nucleus, and restricting regulating powers to prevent the transmission of serious mitochondrial diseases via the cytoplasm would not necessarily achieve the aim of excluding transmission via the cell’s nucleus. For that reason, there was no need to put the amendment before the House.

Will my right hon. Friend place it on record that the Bill has nothing to do with Stalinist or Nazi tests, which is what we heard from the Opposition earlier?

Hon. Members know that the Bill is about helping the one in seven couples who need assistance with their fertility. It is about research to deal with the dreadful diseases and the debilitating attacks on their health from which many in our society suffer. The Bill is about combining science with an ethical framework that works on behalf of humankind, and I think that the House knows that.

The provisions of the Bill continue to prohibit reproductive cloning and retain the existing penalty of up to 10 years in prison for anyone attempting reproductive cloning. I say this to all hon. Members, whatever their fears: please be reassured that the penalty is there. The prohibition continues. The Bill contains specific powers to allow the House to return, when the information is there and the consultation has been completed, in order to be clear about whether we would permit any further expansion in that area of research.

We have had a long and extremely important debate. Much of the ground has been covered in previous debates. It is always important to clarify the Government’s intentions. Every Member of the House has a free vote tonight. I urge them to support the Bill and to reject the amendments, as the best way forward to ensure that science prevails in an ethical framework that is acceptable to the House.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We have just witnessed an unbelievable disgrace to Parliament in the way in which this matter has been handled by the Government through the programme motion. I wish to put on record the fact that vulnerable people and others with mental incapacity will not be allowed to have their views put properly across in the debate. It is a complete disgrace that we have been treated in this way by the Government.

The hon. Gentleman has been here long enough to know that that is not a matter for the Chair.

Amendment made: No. 5, page 5, line 3, after ‘but’, insert ‘(except in subsection (9))’.—[Dawn Primarolo.]

Clause 14

Conditions of licences for treatment

Amendments made: No. 6, page 9, line 35, leave out ‘being treated’ and insert ‘mentioned in subsection (6A)’.

No. 7, page 9, line 38, leave out ‘to be treated’ and insert ‘mentioned in subsection (6A)’.—[Dawn Primarolo.]

Clause 29

Offences under the 1990 Act

Amendments made: No. 75, page 33, line 6, at end insert—

‘( ) In subsection (7), for “section 10(2)(a)” substitute “section 19B(3)(a) or 20B(3)(e)”.’.

No. 76, page 33, line 11, leave out ‘(7) or’.

No. 77, page 33, line 42 , leave out ‘, (6) and (7)’ and insert ‘and (6)’.—[Dawn Primarolo.]

Clause 30

Regulations under the 1990 Act

Amendment made: No. 8, page 34, line 35, at end insert—

‘section 20A(3);

section 20B(2)’.—[Dawn Primarolo.]

Clause 37

The agreed fatherhood conditions

Amendment made: No. 9, page 37, line 42, at end insert—

‘( ) A notice under subsection (1)(a), (b) or (c) by a person (“S”) who is unable to sign because of illness, injury or physical disability is to be taken to comply with the requirement of subsection (2) as to signature if it is signed at the direction of S, in the presence of S and in the presence of at least one witness who attests the signature.’.—[Dawn Primarolo.]

Clause 43

Treatment provided to woman who agrees that second woman to be parent

Amendment made: No. 10, page 40, line 31, leave out ‘she’ and insert ‘W’.—[Dawn Primarolo.]

Clause 44

the agreed female parenthood conditions

Amendment made: No. 11, page 41, line 23, at end insert—

‘( ) A notice under subsection (1)(a), (b) or (c) by a person (“S”) who is unable to sign because of illness, injury or physical disability is to be taken to comply with the requirement of subsection (2) as to signature if it is signed at the direction of S, in the presence of S and in the presence of at least one witness who attests the signature.’.—[Dawn Primarolo.]

Clause 46

Embryo transferred after death of civil partner or intended female parent

Amendment made: No. 12, page 41, line 42, leave out ‘the woman’ and insert ‘W’.—[Dawn Primarolo.]

Clause 50

Meaning of references to parties to a civil partnership

Amendment made: No. 13, page 44, line 26, leave out third ‘the’ and insert ‘any’.—[Dawn Primarolo.]

Clause 55

Parental orders: supplementary provision

Amendment made: No. 14, page 48, line 17, leave out ‘relating to’ and insert ‘about’.—[Dawn Primarolo.]

Clause 59

Surrogacy arrangements

Amendments made: No. 15, page 49, line 34, after first ‘any’, insert ‘reasonable’.

No. 16, page 49, line 37, after ‘any’, insert ‘reasonable’.

No. 17, page 50, line 1, after first ‘any’, insert ‘reasonable’.

No. 18, page 50, line 3, after ‘any’, insert ‘reasonable’.

No. 19, page 50, line 5, at end insert—

‘(2C) Any reference in subsection (2A) or (2B) to a reasonable payment in respect of the doing of an act by a non-profit making body is a reference to a payment not exceeding the body’s costs reasonably attributable to the doing of the act.’.—[Dawn Primarolo.]

Clause 64

Power to make consequential and transitional provision etc.

Amendment made: No. 20, page 51, line 42, at end insert—

‘( ) An order under this section which modifies an enactment in consequence of any provision of Part 2 may modify subsection (5) of section 53 (interpretation of references to father etc.).’.—[Dawn Primarolo.]

Clause 68

Commencement

Amendment proposed: No. 50, page 53, line 19, at end insert—

‘(2A) This section shall be subject to section (prohibition on placing human gametes into an animal).’.—[Dr. Pugh.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether I could appeal to you as the guardian of the reputation of this House of Commons. I completely understand that you can make no comment about the contents or quality of a Bill, but this Bill is of enormous, far-reaching importance. Parenting is in its title but there has been no opportunity to debate that. We are not going to have a Third Reading to discuss any of it as it leaves this House. People up and down this land will just not understand that. Would you be prepared, Sir, to discuss this with the Procedure Committee, so that never again does a Bill of this major importance go through without a proper Third Reading?

The House has decided. These decisions have been made by the House. What I would say to the hon. Gentleman is that it is best that he goes to the Procedure Committee and raises the matter with it, because if I take the matter up, it may appear as though I am giving some steer or guidance to the Committee, and I should be neutral in these matters.

Schedule 3

Consent to use or storage of gametes, embryos or human admixed embryos etc.

Amendments made: No. 21, page 60, line 32, leave out ‘a’ and insert ‘any’.

No. 22, page 73, leave out lines 36 to 46 and insert—

‘(4) Condition B is that—’.

No. 23, page 73, line 47, leave out from ‘(“P”)’ to end of line 48 and insert

‘is dead or the person responsible under the licence (“R”) believes on reasonable grounds that P is dead’.

No. 24, page 74, line 1, leave out ‘the person responsible under the licence (“R”)’ and insert ‘R’.

No. 25, page 74, line 7, after ‘died’, insert ‘(or is believed to have died)’.

No. 26, page 74, line 10, at end insert—

‘(4A) Condition C is that—

(a) the person responsible under the licence (“R”) has taken all reasonable steps to contact—

(i) the person falling within sub-paragraph (1)(b) (“P”), or

(ii) in a case where P is dead or R believes on reasonable grounds that P is dead, persons who could give consent for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4)(c),

but has been unable to do so, and

(b) the information relating to P that is available to R does not suggest that P would have objected to the use of P’s human cells to bring about the creation in vitro of an embryo or human admixed embryo for use for the purposes of the project.’.—[Dawn Primarolo.]

Schedule 6

Amendments relating to parenthood in cases involving assisted reproduction

Amendments made: No. 27, page 85, line 15, leave out ‘that person’ and insert ‘the woman concerned’.

No. 28, page 87, line 36, after ‘of’, insert ‘the formation of’.

No. 29, page 88, line 9, after ‘time’, insert ‘of the formation’.

No. 30, page 95, line 17, leave out from third ‘the’ to ‘shall’ in line 19 and insert

‘woman concerned (in which case the woman concerned’.

No. 31, page 95, line 23, leave out ‘person’ and insert ‘woman concerned’.

No. 32, page 96, line 16, leave out second ‘a’ and insert ‘the’.

No. 33, page 99, line 21, after ‘of’, insert ‘the formation of’.

No. 34, page 99, line 37, after ‘time’, insert ‘of the formation’.

No. 35, page 107, line 9, after ‘domiciled’, insert ‘immediately’.—[Dawn Primarolo.]

Schedule 8

Repeals and revocations

Amendments made: No. 78, page 114, line 13, column 2, leave out ‘, (6) and (7)’ and insert ‘and (6)’.

No. 79, page 114, line 14, column 2, leave out ‘(7) or’.—[Dawn Primarolo.]

Order for Third Reading read.

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

It has been a long journey to Third Reading, but a shared one, involving two years of scrutiny and discussion.

Will the Minister give way?

The process was demanding because we were invited to consider issues that strike at the heart of what it means to be human. We have also looked—

Will the Minister give way?

Order. The Minister has indicated that she is not going to give way.

We have looked at how to make regulation more inclusive and more reflective of 21st century society and family structures, including by covering the rights of same-sex couples.

Will the Minister give way?

No. I am trying to make some brief comments—

rose—

Order. The right hon. Lady has indicated on several occasions that she is not giving way, so the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) should calm himself, sit down and listen to the Minister.

None of the decisions were taken lightly. Indeed, precisely because of the Bill’s controversial nature, because it involved such profound social and ethical issues, and because it was always going to provoke very different views, we depended more than ever on the guidance and scrutiny of those in this House and outside it.

May I try once more; will the Minister give way?

Order. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman should try once more because he is beginning to defy the Chair, and that is not a good idea.

The Government have listened carefully to views about what should be allowed, what should be prescribed and what controls should exist. I believe that we have arrived at the right balance of controlling but not constraining scientific research, with protection from a “Brave New World” scenario in which science overrides ethics, and avoidance of the extremes of scientific process being blocked by red tape, stifled by regulation, or frustrated by a regime that fails to keep pace with social change. We have taken great pains to future-proof the Bill as much as possible and to address intricate dilemmas now so that clear legislation and regulation may be in place for the future when medical research is not proven.

The kaleidoscope of science is coming to a rest. Careful consideration has been given to the Bill in this House and another place, and the new consensus has been captured. If science leads the field and challenges our basic beliefs and ethics—

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Minister said that careful consideration had been given to all the ingredients of the Bill. She mentioned the other place, but surely it is obvious that such consideration has not been given in this place.

I have enough difficulty looking after this place without commenting on the other place.

When science throws our views and ethics into flux, legislation brings regulation and stability. The House has struck a new consensus of allowing science to stretch its wings and develop, but constraining it within what the House considers to be ethically acceptable. The US physician, Richard Cabot, said that science and ethics need to shake hands. The Bill brokers that handshake. It represents a good deal for science and society, and I commend it to the House.

The Bill is of great significance. It has tried to strike a balance—to allow scientific advancement while being based on an ethical platform. It is a shame in some ways that it has had this unfortunate end. Clearly, there are many dissatisfied Members in the House, and that is primarily due to the programme motion, which has not allowed important amendments and issues to be debated. Conservative Members had a free vote on the Bill, and in my view there should have been far more free votes for Government Members, too. We are talking about significant ethical and moral issues, and Members should be allowed to vote with their conscience.

However, the Minister and the Government have listened to some of the suggestions made, for example on licences for therapy, on consent issues relating to pre-existing cell lines, on regulations on the appeal procedures and on changes to surrogacy laws. There have been constructive debates on the Floor of the House and in Committee. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter), for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning), for Rugby and Kenilworth (Jeremy Wright) and for Salisbury (Robert Key) for making constructive contributions as the Bill passed through the House.

It is important to understand that the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990—an extremely robust piece of legislation—retains much of its significance and value because it was thoroughly debated in this House and in the other place. It was originally the Minister’s hope, and it is my hope, that this Bill will be similarly enduring. However, after today’s performance, I have to question whether it will be. I hope that the shape of the ethical and regulatory framework for reproductive science and medicine will hold for many years to come. The Bill is built on a moral and ethical regulatory framework that will allow Britain to remain at the forefront of scientific and medical innovation while, importantly, still protecting the special status of the embryo.

It is unfortunate that the Bill has ended its time in the House in this way. The way in which the Government manipulated the programme motion is outrageous; it denied people on both sides of the debate the opportunity to raise issues of real and profound concern. At the beginning of Report, the Minister argued that it was important not to deal with abortion because we needed time for all the other issues in the Bill. Of course, we have not had time to deal with all the other issues because debate has been so greatly constrained by the Government.

Despite all that, this is a very important Bill. We Liberal Democrats have had free votes throughout its stages, and will have a free vote on Third Reading, but speaking personally, I welcome the Bill as it stands. I support the way in which it has moved through the House, and its shape now as it moves to the other place. This country has led the way in shaping the ethical framework within which science operates. The Conservative party started the process in 1990, when it was in government. The Bill brings the legislation up to date on the advances of scientific endeavour, and that is the right way to proceed.

As I say, the Liberal Democrats will have a free vote; however, my party’s policy is to be pro-science and pro-research, but in favour of an ethical framework for science, subject to proper limits and safeguards. I shall certainly support the Bill on Third Reading.

I want to know what, in years to come, Members of the House are supposed to say to children who look at us and say, “Why have you denied me the opportunity to have a relationship with my natural father or mother?” That should be the birthright of every child in this country. It is a deeply sad moment when the House denies that possibility to children who may wish to have that opportunity in years to come. I am deeply saddened that we have not had a proper debate, and that there has not been a chance for every Member to go through one or other Division Lobby, on the issue.

I should briefly like to support the Bill on Third Reading. It is another breakthrough piece of legislation, following on from the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990. All of us should think that one day, future generations will thank us legislators for having made good legislation, backed with regulations that will ensure that many diseases from which people suffer will, in years to come, be a thing of the past.

Professor Jones of St. Mary’s university college sums it up by saying that there is no doubt that if one overarching principle of contemporary medical ethics still trumps all others, it is personal autonomy. We have been denied the opportunity to debate the question of consent in the context of licensing, and it is deeply regrettable—

It being Seven o’clock, Mr. Speaker, put the Question pursuant to Order [this day].

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—