27.03.2008

George Galloway and Frankenstein monsters

The controversy surrounding the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill is set to deepen still further as the legislation proceeds to its second reading before parliament, writes Janine Kerr

The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill was proposed and designed to bring the 1990 regulatory framework for embryo research and fertility treatment into line with scientific advances. It is long overdue.

Supported by more than 200 charities, it is said to be vital in ensuring the continued development of scientific solutions for the treatment, prevention and cure of conditions such as Parkinsons, motor neurone disease, cancers and heart failure. You would imagine that it would be greeted with enthusiasm by all MPs and voted through with speed in order to address the urgent need for medical advancement in the treatment of illness.

The fact that it is not shows the worrying and continued influence of reactionary ideas on questions of ‘morality’. It reveals the power of established religion in Britain, including over the Labour Party. Gordon Brown is facing dissent within his own cabinet from high-ranking catholics. Ruth Kelly, hard-line Opus Dei member and transport minister, has threatened to defy any whip imposed. Welsh secretary Paul Murphy has said he would quit cabinet rather than be forced to vote against his religious convictions.

Other ministers, backbenchers and even members of the whip’s office are making clear their refusal to fall into line. It promises to be a major rebellion that Brown is at pains to avoid.

David Cameron and Nick Clegg have promised a free vote on all controversial aspects of the bill for the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats respectively. Indeed Brown himself has agreed to a free vote on any measures to limit abortion. He has also said that MPs who have a problem with other aspects will be allowed to abstain. But that is not enough to satisfy either the arch-reactionaries in the Labour Party or their spiritual guides. Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, head of the catholic church in England and Wales, has decreed: “Catholics in politics have got to act according to their catholic convictions.” Meanwhile, cardinal Keith O’Brien, archbishop of St Andrews and Edinburgh, used his Easter sermon to demand opposition to the bill on the grounds that it is an “endorsement of experiments of Frankenstein proportion”.

This is deliberate distortion designed to foster irrationality. The one proposal which has been seized on by the church is to allow scientists to use the outer empty shell of animal eggs for the implantation of human DNA in order to derive stem cell lines. These stem cells would model a particular disease which could then be studied in the lab in order to understand its activity and search for cures. After 14 days they would then be destroyed and the entire process would be strictly controlled. Stephen Minger of Kings College, one of the leading practioners in this area, argues that it is in fact necessary to introduce this regulation in order to prevent misuse of science.

Not to be outdone by the high priests of the catholic church, George Galloway launched his own attack on stem cell research in his Daily Record column. After ranting against the opening of bookmakers on Good Friday, he argued that the bill “contains the literally monstrous idea to allow boffins to insert human DNA into animal eggs, creating hybrid human-animal embryos” (March 24). This “Frankenstinian proposal” is particularly dangerous because it “blasphemes against the very idea of god”. His pronouncements echo almost exactly those of cardinal O’Brien.

While Galloway is entitled to his extreme social conservatism, he is also an elected representative. Is he putting forward the views of Respect Renewal - or has there even been a discussion? I consider it unlikely that most members of Respect Renewal would share his views. Indeed they would probably feel extremely uncomfortable reading such religious mumbo jumbo. But will they be able to hold him to account, particularly when it comes to voting on the legislation? Will they even try?

At the 2004 Respect conference we were warned that we could not impose our views on elected representatives - this was in the context of the abortion debate. The 2005 conference went further. CPGB supporters proposed a resolution calling for all representatives to publicly uphold the organisation’s policies when acting on its behalf. Galloway led the troops in defeating the motion, aghast that he could be asked to act according to majority opinion. He stated that he was incapable of doing and saying anything that did not accord with his own view. However, he did concede that he was prepared to abide by Respect policy in parliament except on questions of individual conscience.

Respect Renewal does not have a policy on medical research, but I am sure that the majority of the organisation would be firmly in favour of the proposals in the bill. The organisation does, however, have a policy on abortion. It states: “Respect supports a women’s right to choose whether or not to continue a pregnancy, and will oppose any attempt to change current legislation on this issue which further undercuts women’s rights” (www.respectrenewal.org/content/view/102/74/). But will this policy mean anything in practice? Will George Galloway vote against the amendments that will change current legislation - or will he rely on his opt-out of a ‘free vote’?

We know full well that he is against abortion. He is also deeply conservative on many other social questions - including euthanasia, to which he has often expressed his opposition. He also makes clear that he is a practising catholic and supports the church’s teachings on many other such issues. The website of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children lists him as an MP that voted with the pro-life lobby against the Doctor Assisted Dying Bill in 1997 and against the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Regulations in 2000 (www.spuc.org.uk/lobbying/uk-mp-votes/). The question for comrades in Respect Renewal is whether he will be allowed to vote according to his own particular prejudices or whether he is democratically held to account.

Unsurprisingly there is no mention of the issue on the Respect Renewal website. Neither is there a peep from the International Socialist Group. Like the SWP before them, Alan Thornett and John Lister seem determined to keep their heads down for fear of upsetting George.

The use of a ‘free vote’ to deal with sensitive issues must be firmly rejected. It is a profoundly undemocratic device, allowing an MP to vote according to their particular confessional, rather than along lines of party policy. Future communist MPs will certainly be held to account. Maybe some will be catholics, hindus or muslims. But, whatever their religion or non-religion, they would always be expected to vote in a disciplined way according to the party programme and agreed line. It would be up to them, not us, to square their religious convictions with party policy.