Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill [Lords]

I have a brief speech to make on a narrow point of concern. What we are sanctioning in this debate is the use of an invasive procedure on a child without their consent and without their gaining any direct benefit from that intervention. There has been speculation that such a child might benefit from feelings of good will towards the sibling that they might or might not have helped, but there is no certainty of that. I shall dwell on those elements, starting with consent. There are many procedures for which children are not required to give consent. My son has had to undertake certain procedures on the basis that I have consented to them, and that is an entirely familiar principle in law. However, such procedures are usually associated with the principle that that child—the focus of this speech is that the child is an autonomous being in this matter—should derive some benefit from the procedure that they are undergoing. If the parents' consent is not directly associated with that child enjoying a benefit, but is so that another child will enjoy a benefit, we should reflect on that with some care. The Bill sanctions invasive procedures. In the preceding speech, the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Burrowes) made the point that that can occur in a variety of different ways that are sanctioned in the Bill. The commonest method will be concerned with bone marrow extraction, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth) described as an unpleasant procedure. Like any invasive procedure, it is not without risk. It carries a low risk, but it could go wrong. If the Bill excluded such steps and instead relied entirely on non-invasive procedures, I would probably accept the wording, but it sanctions a procedure that could, as has been said, involve the extraction of a part of a child's body, and could certainly involve the extraction of bone marrow.