Embryo row is a lesson to Brown

LET'S get something straight from the start . . . Cardinal Keith O'Brien has every right to comment on, preach about and warn against the Human Embryology and Fertilisation Bill that Gordon Brown pledged to introduce to the Westminster parliament in the Queen's Speech.

Some letters in newspapers and callers to radio phone-ins have suggested that he has no right to introduce the teachings of his Church into political debate and decision-making.

The right of the leaders of the Catholic Church to state their beliefs lies in their being able to demonstrate the support of millions of UK citizens and the fact that what we refer to as the values of our society, like respecting (loving) our neighbour, being law-abiding, being truthful, etc, were taught to us by the Catholic and reformed churches.

So even though few of us attend church services regularly, the Churches can reasonably claim to have underwritten the ethos of our society, and to have earned the right to play a part in sustaining its values.

If your beliefs just won't allow you to accept that, then your sense of fairness might allow you to see the Churches as lobbying groups with the same validity to try and influence legislation and governments as other groups like Greenpeace or Advocates for Animals or Oxfam, whose views are listened to because they have built up a track record and can demonstrate support for their views.

Keith O'Brien's language was criticised for its harshness, but he was warning against a scientific procedure that, unchecked, could lead mankind into a moral and medical morass. What sort of soft words are effective in such a situation?

And, although I personally believe it possible to police the proposed procedure to contain it within the moral boundaries consistent with our social values, the Cardinal can point to how the goalposts on abortion have moved since David Steel introduced his Bill.

Livingston MP Jim Devine has made the most constructive suggestion towards widening understanding of, firstly, the actual science involved in using animal eggs to aid finding cures for degenerative conditions, and, secondly, the differing attitudes of the Westminster government, doctors, sufferers and parents of sufferers, politicians and lobbyists, including Churches. He wants them to meet.

Jim's a practising Catholic, but, like me, although he hears the Church leaders' warnings against this part of the proposed Bill, he doesn't share their pessimism that it represents the first step on a journey to Hell. As there's much more than the proposal regarding the use of animal eggs in this Bill, and as there are different opinions on aid for single sex parents, the anonymity of donors, etc, the more information about it, aired in public, the better.

Inadvertently, the public interest in this Bill may also affect how Westminster goes about its business. Most people, regardless of which side they're on, seem to believe there should be a free vote on this Bill. I'd like to see every vote cast by MPs or MSPs decided by their beliefs, obligations and conscience, rather than have them vote as they're told, under threat of disciplinary action, by party whips.

It's possible that Gordon Brown, knowing that he has to face the voters in the months following the passage of the Bill, will allow Labour MPs to vote according to their conscience on the divisive clauses, as the other parties are doing.

Heaven knows why he didn't anticipate the reaction he's had from Labour members, given that two of his whips are churchgoing Scottish Catholics who know how many beans make five. Maybe the truly arrogant behaviour in all this has come from the Prime Minister who treated the beliefs of his Cabinet colleagues derisively at the outset, forcing them to choose between their consciences and his.

Thanks to the Cardinal, Gordon Brown may learn some new tricks . . . and humility.

A sporting protest
I STILL think the Scottish Government's Education Minister could make an appropriate level of protest against the Chinese government's brutal treatment of Tibetans seeking autonomy, by politely but firmly explaining that Scottish public opinion is against her visiting China while such a situation exists. But I also think it inappropriate to boycott the Olympic Games and load all the responsibility on to athletes' shoulders while the rest of the world maintains country-to-country trade and diplomatic ties.

Although the UN has quietly signalled its disquiet at China's behaviour, it has not imposed sanctions and has given no indication that the Games should be boycotted . . . but neither has it said that individual athletes shouldn't demonstrate disapproval of China's behaviour.

Home in on solution
OVER the holiday weekend, I criss-crossed the city looking at new housing and gap sites that might accommodate more, because at last the Scottish government is taking seriously the real possibility of a housing crisis in the Capital.

Now is the time for an all-party assault on Chancellor Alastair Darling to persuade him of the necessity, let alone the fairness, of writing off Edinburgh's housing debt . . . just like Glasgow's.