Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill [Lords]

I made a point about the practical implications for women. I do not want to deny them a choice, but to draw attention to the practical risks involved in the procedure and emphasise that it is not easy to reach the point of finding a matched embryo to provide a saviour sibling. Let me consider the safeguards that the Government want to establish to ascertain whether they satisfy many Members' concerns about the principle of saviour siblings. In Committee in the other place on 3 December, umbilical cord blood stem cells, bone marrow or other tissue were discussed. When questioned about ““other tissue”” in November, Lord Darzi stated:"““The Bill does not limit which tissue can be used in the treatment of a sibling… and the Human Tissue Authority must approve any transplants involving organs from living donors and children who are too young to give consent.””—[Official Report, House of Lords, 21 November 2007; Vol. 696, c. 869.]" That raises questions about not only a matched saviour sibling for cord blood or even bone marrow, but how ““other tissue”” can be properly defined and limited. The subsequent concern was that, if the embryo were found to be immune, it would be implanted deliberately to become a source of what those in the other place described as spare parts for an existing child—its sibling—even when too young to give consent.