|
The Human Tissue and Embryos (Draft) Bill, published
on 17 May, sets out the Government's proposals to update the law
on assisted human reproduction. A Joint Committee of both Houses
of Parliament was set up on to undertake pre-legislative scrutiny
on the draft Bill and ordered to report by 25 July.
Assisted reproductive technology, treatment and research
have developed significantly since the Human Fertilisation and
Embryology Act was passed in 1990. These developments have raised
ethical, scientific, legal and social issues worthy of detailed
consideration. We welcome the draft Bill and the opportunity to
undertake pre-legislative scrutiny in this important area. However,
there are a number of significant areas where we challenge the
Government's approach.
First, we reject the Government's proposals to merge
the existing regulators to form RATE—the Regulatory Authority
for Tissue and Embryos. The evidence we received on the merger
proposal was overwhelmingly against setting up RATE. Retaining
the HFEA and the HTA will provide better regulatory oversight
and we recommend amending the draft Bill to provide a clear framework
of devolved regulation giving greater regulatory freedom and authority
to the regulator and clinicians except where there is a good reason
to do otherwise.
Second, we ask the Government to revisit its approach
to inter-species embryos. If Parliament supports the creation
and use of inter-species embryos for research—and we believe
the issue should be put to a free vote in both Houses—we
recommend that legislation should provide a general definition
that the regulator can interpret and apply to individual research
applications within the principles set out by Parliament. This
contrasts with the Government's approach to try to define now
in legislation new types of inter-species embryos that may emerge
in the future.
Third, the draft Bill proposes to remove the requirement
to take into account the need of the child for a father from the
current conditions of every licence to provide IVF treatment services.
Again, we recommend a free vote on the issue. The balance of view
of the Committee is that the provision should be retained but
in a form that makes clear (in keeping with other provisions in
the draft Bill) that it relates to the need for a second parent.
Finally, in relation to both inter-species embryos
and the 'need for a father' provisions, we have recommended a
free vote in Parliament because of the profound nature of the
ethical issues involved. If Parliament is being asked to make
judgements on such issues, it should have an established mechanism
to allow it to do so with input and engagement from those holding
views across the ethical spectrum. We therefore call for Parliament
to establish a joint committee on bioethics.
|
