Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill [Lords]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd), who made a thoughtful and thought-provoking speech, as did the right hon. Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth), whose logical and engaging speech carefully deconstructed the arguments that have been put forward against saviour siblings. My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Burrowes) made a very principled speech, and he was right to highlight the fact that we must not consider this important issue in an ethical vacuum. I have enormous respect for him, and he was right to highlight the concerns that exist about the HFEA. He was also right to emphasise the importance of cord blood. I do not agree with his amendments, however, which would effectively prohibit saviour siblings. As a father of three young children, who are thankfully very healthy—sometimes too healthy—I have great sympathy with those who are not fortunate enough to have such healthy children. I therefore understand why such people would do anything that they can within the structure of the law to enable their sick child to survive. I want to speak specifically to the amendments to clause 11 and schedule 2. I also want to make some generic comments about this part of the Bill, because I understand that there are certain matters that we will not be allowed to discuss in the Public Bill Committee, and we might not have time to discuss them on Report, which will last for only one day. The Bill is absolutely right to outlaw sex selection for non-medical reasons. However, pre-implantation genetic diagnosis—PGD—will be permitted if there is a significant risk of a child developing"““a gender-related serious physical or mental disability, a gender-related serious illness, or any other gender-related serious medical condition””." I want to return to the use of the word ““serious”” in a moment. I support this general proposal, which will allow families who know that they are at risk of passing on a serious genetic condition to their offspring to test the embryos and to implant only an embryo that is free of the disease. The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) pointed out that it was not compulsory for parents with genetic illnesses to use PGD. It is not discriminatory, but it is right that it may not be used to select any positive characteristics. The Bill also permits the selection of embryos to provide compatible"““cord blood stem cells, bone marrow or other tissue””" to a sibling with a serious medical condition. One of the amendments tabled in my name refers to ““other tissue””. I will expand on that a little later. Cells are normally taken from the umbilical cord of the saviour sibling or, if that is not successful, from their bone marrow. Of course this is controversial, but the creation of saviour siblings is currently occurring. It is very rare; I understand that, to date, the HFEA has licensed tissue-typing for only six families. This is available only when all the other options are exhausted, and when there is no match on the bone marrow register, the NHS cord blood bank or other blood banks or within the family. We all hope that the number of cord blood banks in this country will be increased, and that the amount of cord blood that is thrown away will be significantly reduced. However, any decision to use that tissue must be a matter for the Human Tissue Authority to determine, rather than the HFEA. As we have heard in the debate, there are serious concerns about the use of saviour siblings, and the HFEA and the HTA must consider closely each application to ensure that it is justified and necessary, and that there is absolutely no alternative. We have also heard discussions about the worth of the saviour child. I do not agree that the provisions would undermine that child's worth, particularly if the child were born into a loving, caring family, as it inevitably would be. In fact, the opposite impact would be achieved if a child knew that it had saved one of its siblings. The amendments tabled in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) include amendment No. 15. Its effect would be to tighten the circumstances in which embryo testing can be carried out, so that it could take place only when an illness was life-threatening or severely impaired a person's quality of life. These provisions would replace the word ““serious”” that is in the Bill at the moment. Amendments Nos. 17 and 16 would do similar things in different parts of the schedule.