---

Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill [HL]

My Lords, that was, characteristically, an enormously valuable contribution from the noble Baroness. However, it seems that the logic of what she says, particularly when you start talking about a High Court judge, is that both Parliament and the judges often take the view that parliamentary direction on matters of substantial principle is a proper thing. Therefore, great as my respect for her is, I take issue with her on that point. It is possible that if the noble Baroness had had longer to think of how to respond to the Minister’s responses she might also have said that, were this saviour sibling legislation to be passed, it would make less extraordinary the judgment of parents that they should treat their naturally conceived child as an organ donor when it was in no state to consent to it. I support the amendment. Among the most extraordinary things in this discussion is the language that slips off even the tongues of those who support the amendment—““create a child as an organ donor””. That summary has been given a number of times by those supporting the amendment. It is a shocking collocation of words. I recognise, to the extent that one can from outside, the longings, desires and desperate anxiety that parents in this situation, with a chronically sick child, will be undergoing. It is responsible, fine and laudable that clinicians should want to do everything legally permitted to assist such a child and such parents. However, it seems to me that Parliament’s purpose is to ask the question of whether that is right. Should Parliament allow clinicians and parents to do such a thing? The points that the noble Lord, Lord Patten, I think, made about human rights are entirely accurate. I also recognise the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Deech. Any of us who are parents, or who long to be parents, go on from there for all sorts of reasons—but this is another kind of reason, one that has a commodifying aspect and makes an instrument of a child. That is fundamentally questionable. Those of us who are parents or grandparents, as many of us are, know that whatever the temptation to do otherwise, part of being a parent is to defend your child from that kind of treatment, even by yourself. It is extremely important that the law and we as parliamentarians look at the principles of this matter, resist these clauses and vote for the amendment. I cannot see how we can say—as Parliament has admirably done a number of times, particularly in the Children Act—that the child’s interests are paramount but then go down this road.