---

Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill [HL]

My Lords, this has been an interesting debate and I should like to thank every single person who has taken part. I will not detain the House by trying to get a proper summary of this discussion. The proposal we have considered in this debate breaches a fundamental moral principle and cannot even be shown to offer any great prospect of success. In all the contributions, there was little comment about my risk analysis question—the risk to the mothers and the risk to the saviour sibling both physically and psychologically. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Patten for reminding us of the human rights of the child. I had that in an original draft and then forgot to put it in. That is an important issue because the child cannot give proper consent until the age of about 15 or 18. I am rather disappointed that little attention was given to viable alternatives. The noble Baroness kindly said that she would write to me. Perhaps I should write to her with all the details. Already in the UK we have a centre of excellence at Newcastle University, where Professor Colin McGuckin and his team are performing world-class research into cord blood cells. If we truly want to win scientific laurel wreaths in the United Kingdom, there could not be a better place to target funding. I request that the Minister and the Government think about that seriously. There is an opportunity tonight for this House to express, in a clear, coherent, cogent and intelligible manner, that human life is of intrinsic value and may not be rendered an unconsenting instrument of the welfare of others. To that end, I wish to test the opinion of the House. On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 29) shall be agreed to? Their Lordships divided: Contents, 62; Not-Contents, 180.