April 2008 

The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill has been brought before Parliament because it has become necessary to update the 1990 legislation in this area.  The original legislation is now almost 20 years old, and in that time there have been a number of significant scientific advances.  The law needs to keep up with the science.  Thanks to the 1990 Act, the UK is seen as a world leader in this kind of research.

The 1990 Act set up the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority.  This body regulates what can and cannot happen in this area of science.  Parliament sets the broad rules of what can and cannot be done; then, within that framework, it is up to the HFEA to grant licenses for research.  The HFEA is recognised as one of the world's leading regulators for this area of study. The law requires that research must be for specified reasons, for example promoting the treatment of fertility, to increase our knowledge of congenital diseases, and to increase our understanding of what causes miscarriages.

The laws that govern the work of the HFEA therefore set clear boundaries.  For example, although therapeutic cloning is permitted, the law already bans any form of human cloning, it bans cross-species fertilisation, it bans the implantation into a woman of anything other than a human embryo, and it requires the destruction of embryos used for research at 14 days.  These strict boundaries are not altered by anything in the current Bill.

Instead, the current Bill aims to modify and clarify  the existing  law in a number of important areas.  These include the use of so-called 'hybrid embryos', the creation of so-called 'saviour siblings', and the rights of same-sex couples to access IVF treatment.

Most of the key issues in the Bill involve the research and use of stem cells. This is an area of science which clearly has huge potential in terms of helping us understand, and therefore be able to treat, a wide range of currently very serious diseases, many of which seriously reduce a patient’s quality of life, and frequently shorten it dramatically.  Stem cell therapy has been described by many as the 'gold standard' in this drive to make a real breakthrough in tackling and overcoming debilitating and degrading diseases.

In Parliament, I have already voted in support of stem cell research, and I will continue to support it.  I understand that it creates difficulties for some people with certain religious beliefs.  I have to make an ethical judgement about whether this sort of research should be authorised or not.  I therefore take these decisions very seriously and I arrive at a conclusion only after exhaustive study of all the evidence, and only after having weighed all the views that are presented.  I use some basic ethical criteria.  I need to be certain that no harm is being done.  I need to be certain that the law is governing the science and not the other way round.  I need to be satisfied that what is being permitted is likely to contribute to supporting and sustaining human life.  These are the tests against which I have judged each of the sensitive issues which have to be addressed in voting on this Bill.

The science involved here is set out below, however it is quite complex and so I have compiled a separate Question and Answer briefing note.  I hope it will help clarify what this part of the Bill is all about. 

There are different types of 'hybrid embryos.' The Bill will enable the HFEA to have full control over all types of 'hybrid embryo' research. I support the measures in the Bill which will allow the HFEA to license all research in this area. Research in this area cannot be permitted without regulation. The licenses which scientists are seeking are to pursue research which requires the use of animal eggs for hosting the development of human stem cells.  These are commonly referred to as 'hybrid embryos'.  I think it is unfortunate that this phrase has become so widely adopted to describe what is happening here. The term conjures up all sorts of frightening images about half-man and half-beast and interspecies breeding.  Nothing of the sort is happening. Once you look closely at what is being asked for here, you see that it is not anything which is truly 'hybrid'.   There is an accepted definition of 'hybrid'.  It is something that results from the mixing of chromosomes from two species.  The method of research that scientists are seeking HFEA licenses for does not involve this, and isn’t permitted by law in any case.

Scientists are working on this research in two centres in the UK. I have met them to discuss their work in detail. Their work is more accurately described as cell nuclear replacement.  In simple terms the nucleus, or DNA, is removed from an animal egg and human DNA is inserted in its place.  The egg shell acts as a ‘host’ to the human cell, allowing it to develop.  From that process, scientists can collect stem cell lines which will enable them to understand better how key diseases come about.  Once they understand the cell technology of diseases better, they will have a good chance of establishing ways in which cell development can be altered.  That could then lead to interventions which could arrest the most serious diseases, and possibly even cure them.

There are alternative ways of sourcing the stem cells that scientists need, which would not involve any use of the shell of an animal egg, but they all have formidable difficulties of their own and are less likely to lead to any sort of early breakthrough.  Therefore, properly regulated and controlled cell nuclear replacement research presents a powerful case for being supported.  That’s why over 200 major national health charities - such as the British Heart Foundation, Diabetes UK and the Marie Curie Trust - have urged us to back this research.  Breakthrough results from this research are not guaranteed.  But the indications are far more encouraging than any other approach currently known.  I think it would therefore be wrong to shut off this route.  The potential to do good is very significant.  And in regulating it tightly in the way the HFEA wants to, the potential for harm is avoided.

I support the measures in the Bill which will allow a very carefully regulated use of embryo selection on the grounds of tissue type, where this is being done to secure a sibling who will have cells that can be used to treat a seriously sick sibling.

This process rests on the same science that is used to deliver IVF treatment.  Embryos are created in the same way as with IVF treatment.  Once an embryo has reached the eighth-cell stage - which is before the 'primitive streak' has been developed, it can be tested.  The tests establish which embryo has the tissue type which could be used to source cells which could be used to treat a seriously ill sibling.  Such cells could generally be found in the umbilical cord, or, more rarely, from bone marrow. This 'tissue-typing' will only be authorised for the treating of life-threatening blood conditions and is only likely to occur in a very few cases.  The HFEA have already granted some licenses for this work, which has resulted in six children being cured of these diseases.  But the matter is subject to court challenge - hence the need to clarify the position in law.

The process involved is accurately described as pre-implantation genetic diagnosis, or PIGD, for short.  This sort of diagnosis is already used to determine whether an embryo has a gene that would prevent it developing into a pregnancy.  For 'saviour sibling' cases, these would only be permitted as a last resort.  First, all alternatives would have to be tried.  There would have to be a search for a suitable existing donor, either from within the family or from wider donor registers.  But often there is no one suitable.  The HFEA would have to authorise these on an individual case by case basis - there would be no blanket consent to this procedure.  The HFEA’s decision would ensure that the step is being taken for the right reasons and for pure motives, and that the interests of the child to be born are fully protected.  It is expected that there would still only be a very small number of cases per year.

The law and the HFEA would ensure further safeguards.  The method could not be deployed for unacceptable reasons.  For example, the law will specify that only tissue can be taken from the donor sibling.  The law will explicitly rule out organ donation.  It is not acceptable to authorise the creation of ‘spare part’ children.

No harm is done as a result of this change.  Clearly, the measure increases the chances of lives being saved.

I support measures in the Bill which up-date the language used in the 1990 Act in terms of the parentage of children whose conception has been assisted by IVF, through a registered clinic.  When the 1990 law was written, it was correctly established that the welfare of the child to be born must be uppermost in any consideration as to whether the IVF treatment should be authorised or not.  Part of ensuring that, was the need to ensure that any child so conceived would have proper parental support.  In the wording used in the Act that included reference to the need for a father.

Since then, the law has changed in respect of accessing IVF treatment.  Same-sex female couples may, where the usual qualifying conditions are met, qualify for IVF treatment.  Given that the existing law refers specifically to 'a father', this could potentially bar such couples from meeting the qualifying criteria.  That wasn’t the intention of the original legislation.  This was a circumstance that was not envisaged at the time.  The government’s first suggestion was simply to remove the reference to a father at all.  On reflection, it was agreed that was not the best way to resolve this potential conflict - because fathers are clearly important and should not be written out of the law in these circumstances.  It was subsequently proposed that the original wording should be altered to include 'supportive parenting'.  This seems to me a sensible modification, as it embraces parenting in all the forms it can take.  The law will, as amended, now require that, "a woman shall not be treated unless account has been taken of the welfare of any child who may be born as a result of the treatment, including the need for that child for supportive parenting, and of any other child that may be affected by the birth.”

This seems to me to be exactly the right formula.  Supportive parenting is critical for all children, whatever form it comes in.  No harm is done by this change; indeed potential harm may be avoided  - as, without this change, same-sex couples may have sought reproductive assistance from non-registered sources, thereby exposing both themselves, and potentially any child, to undue risks.

See also my Questions & Answers note.