---

Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill [HL]

My Lords, I presided over the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority when permission was first granted for such an embryo to be selected. It was the case of the Hashmi family, and our decision was subsequently upheld by the decision of the judges in the House of Lords. I should say that the decision of the HFEA to grant permission in this case was roundly condemned by the media for the reasons that have been given by the supporters of this amendment. I add in parentheses that, a few years later, the HFEA refused permission to the Whitaker family in slightly different circumstances. Again, that was roundly condemned by the media, this time for being hard-hearted; in other words, one cannot win. When the HFEA gave permission to the Hashmis, it followed about a year of the most extensive internal ethical debate and some public consultation. Every aspect that has been so eloquently explored by the proponents was studied by the HFEA in an ethics committee then headed by a bishop. On instrumentality, the feeling was that, ever since reproduction began until about 20 years ago, the question of choice in having children was not very real. Children came along and people had them for whatever reason they thought fit. I might even suggest that some titled families had children so that they could inherit the title. Others might have had more children so that they could till the earth, or whatever the situation might be. The motives were not questioned and to do so is very new. The Hashmis already had one baby, conceived naturally, in an effort to try to match the tissue of the sick older child, Zain. The new baby did not match. The Hashmis might have carried on having children naturally, which is possibly a worse ethical situation and certainly more of a stress on the family than having PGD. In the event, there is only a one in 16 chance of finding an embryo that is free of the inherited disease and is a tissue match. Sadly, the Hashmis have not yet succeeded, as far as I know, whereas the Whitakers went to America and did succeed. Their children are healthy, as is the original saviour sibling, Molly Nash. The only thing that worries me about the use of PGD for saviour siblings is that, while the use of the umbilical cord is fine, who will consent to the use of the tissue? When I taught family law a few years ago, permission could be given only by a High Court judge. I was surprised to hear that the Human Tissue Authority can give permission. It is, in a way, parti pris—geared up to human tissue donation. I would feel content if any donation other than the umbilical cord blood had to be sanctioned, as was the case in the past, by a family court judge. Those judges have had much experience in this for many years. That would provide satisfaction for those who feel concerned about it. As for the ethics of choosing and allowing the saviour sibling, they were carefully thought through and have a measure of public support. I oppose the amendment.