Andrea Williams

The Parliamentary Committee considering the Human Tissue and Embryo (Draft) Bill have recently published their findings. Although their report contains some positive recommendations (such as abandoning the proposal to have a single body regulating both human tissue and embryology), there are also some very concerning issues.

One thing that seems clear from the report is that the Committee did not feel that the issues in the Bill were issues that the public either knew about or felt strongly about. They certainly did not feel there had been any public outcry against the contents of the Bill.

It is imperative that when this Bill comes before Parliament in the Autumn members of both houses know that people do care very deeply about these issues, which strike at the very heart of our understanding of family structures and what it means to be human.

Please take time to read the summary provided below, which sets out some of the concerning aspects of the Bill and the Committee's report. Please use this information to write to or call your MP and/or peers so that when the Bill comes before them they will know that people do oppose certain aspects of the Bill.

Text of the Human Tissue and Embryo (Draft) Bill

Joint Committee's report on the Human Tissue and Embryos (Draft) Bill

Volume of evidence before the Joint Committee

Watch our video explaining the new Bill

Summary of the Joint Committee's Report

The Human Tissue and Embryo (Draft) Bill constitutes a complete review of the law surrounding fertility treatment and embryology. Other areas of law are also covered, for example, abortion law will no doubt be debated during the passage of the Bill. However, this summary deals only with issues addressed within the Bill and considered by the Joint Committee in their report on the Bill. This summary covers the following areas:

• Lack of an ethical framework


• Deliberate flexibility in the Bill


• Inter-species embryos


• Saviour siblings


• Sex selection


• Altering embryo cells


• Welfare of the child


• The need for a father


• Parenthood in cases involving assisted reproduction


• Sperm sorting kits


• Surrogacy


• Sperm distributing internet companies

1. Lack of an ethical framework: the Committee noted that the Bill had no foundational ethical principles behind it. They recommended that Parliament should establish an ethical framework within the Bill so that the regulators and those applying the Bill have some ethical guidance to follow. It is imperative that any ethical framework recognises the special status of the human embryo as an entity worthy of greater protection. Otherwise a utilitarian approach may be adopted whereby embryos could be used and abused in any way that researchers consider to be in the interests of science.

2. Deliberate flexibility in the Bill: for years prolife organisations have been concerned about the flexible approach the HFEA (Human Fertility and Embryology Authority) have taken to the law. This has led to an incremental liberalisation of the law in the fields of both embryonic research and reproductive technologies. The new Bill was viewed by many as being deliberately flexible, allowing the regulatory bodies far too much room for interpretation of matters that should be decided by Parliament. However, the Committee recommended that the Bill be made more flexible and open to interpretation, in order to devolve regulation further, and giving the regulating bodies greater scope for granting licences for treatments not currently foreseen, without the need for recourse to Parliament.

3. Inter-species embryos: The Committee recognised this was a contentious issue and could not reach a consensus on it. They therefore recommend that the issue be put to a free vote in both houses. Therefore it is important that as many people as possible write to their MPs about this issue, making it clear that it is ethically unacceptable to create an embryo which is part human and part animal. This would violate the sanctity of the human and embryo and blur the distinctions of what it means to be human. Even if there were scientific gains to be made from such experiments (a proposition which is highly questionable in itself) that would not justify legalising this type of action.