---

Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill [HL]

I rise to speak to Amendment No. 35A in the name of my noble friend Lady Barker. I wish I had done this earlier in the debate but I could not somehow get in. Before I do so, I should like to make some brief comments on the debate as it has evolved so far. To complain that ““serious”” should not replace ““life threatening”” is quibbling because surely a serious condition is one which could become life threatening if not treated. Therefore, it would be better to treat it when it is serious rather than life threatening. I really do not understand that amendment. I take a similar view on the amendment about effective treatment. Who knows whether a treatment is going to be effective before it takes place? You hope that the patient will be treated effectively, but you cannot guarantee it. None of us seems to have any qualms about the use of cord blood from saviour siblings—as we may call them. Having done many bone marrow punctures in my junior doctoring days, I do not have any qualms about bone marrow being used either, but I support the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the noble Lord, Lord Alton, in their amendment to the phrase ““other tissue””. That phrase is very worrying. The Minister needs to explain that. We have heard that it could be interpreted to mean that the organ—a kidney, say—of the saviour sibling could be removed. We have been assured by the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, that that could not occur under the Human Tissue Act. I suggest, moreover, that it could not occur because the mother who, once the baby is born, bonds with it, whatever was the reason for its birth, and loves her children equally, would have great difficulty in going one step further to save the first child.