Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill [Lords]

That is where we disagree. I think that my amendments are better because they are, in my view, tighter. I accept that there has to be some flexibility—there was a debate in the other place about this issue—in that we cannot have a list of specific diseases or illnesses that will be treated. I understand the decision taken not to accept that: it would be very difficult to agree the list in the first place; and as new techniques came along, the list might have to be amended, which would be complex. Let me move on to deal with amendment No. 18, which relates to the types of tissue used to create saviour siblings. As I have said before, whole organs are prohibited, but I am still concerned about allowing the removal of parts of organs that might not grow back—hence the issue of regeneration. As the hon. Member for South Derbyshire said, the issue of consent is also relevant. Indeed, consent is rightly viewed as the cornerstone of this legislation. Given that the child cannot possibly give consent, it would be interesting to know whether the consent of the parents overrides any particular ownership of tissue that the child may have. Adults can, of course, consent to kidney donation, but children and certainly saviour siblings cannot. Let me deal finally with licences for therapy in amendment No. 14. It is similar to amendments Nos. 31 and 32, which were tabled by the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon. The general thrust of the Bill must be that it should last as long as the 1990 Act. It is a testament to the robustness of debate over that Act that it has lasted for so long. I am sure that the Minister and all other Members of the House who are interested in these issues do not want to have to return regularly to this legislative structure, although I fear that this is one of those areas that may need looking at as technologies and sciences develop. Clearly, people believe that scientists may still be a long way off developing cures, but the motivation behind all that research is finding therapies and, ultimately, cures. I understand that no provisions in the 1990 Act provide for treating conditions other than those related to reproduction. The HFEA licenses for treatment, non-medical fertility services, storage and research, including—correctly—clinical trials. The amendment would enable the HFEA to license the creation and use of embryos for therapy. Again, it would be helpful if the Minister clarified whether my comments are correct. I understand that if a cell line that could cure an illness was deregulated under current regulations, researchers would have to go back to square one and create another cell line to comply with EU regulations. Clearly, that may well delay the application of the cures and treatments.