Fertility Treatment Regulation

Lord Bishop of Chelmsford Excerpts

Thursday 4th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford]

My Lords, I recognise the depth of expertise in this Chamber and that my background is not a scientific one. However, it is incumbent on us all to engage in these crucial issues, which hold wide significance and implication. I approach this debate in the knowledge of what it is to long deeply for children. I am profoundly grateful for the gift of my own three children following the experience of difficult and intrusive treatment over many years, including miscarriages and several cycles of IVF. Indeed, if I may be personal, I was for a number of years a patient under the care of the noble Lord, Lord Winston, for whom I have both affection and great admiration and to whose speech I listened very carefully indeed.

I want to recognise the highly complex and agonising experiences of infertility that many go through, and what it is like to have an unfulfilled longing for a child. This debate takes place in a profoundly challenging scientific, moral, legal and emotional context. I recognise that the lives of my children are the result of extraordinary scientific and medical advances, but, ultimately, like any child, they are a remarkable gift from God. Throughout the treatment, I was always aware that they were never a right of mine to be claimed. Good legislation, thoughtful limits and sober weighing of the implications of those limits are vital if we are to continue responsibly in this work with clarity for all. Indeed, I know personally the importance of those limits for tempering what can be a very human dimension, which, if unchecked, can lead to desperation and a willingness to do anything to have a child.

I turn to the HFEA’s proposed changes to the law in its 2023 report. The Church of England’s policy team responded to the consultation about the recommendations put forward at the time, which I am also drawing on. They and I recognise the important issues highlighted and the need for a regulatory update, especially around patient safety, licensing and the HFEA’s ability to incentivise compliance within fertility clinics. With the development of the online world, the landscape for people accessing information and selecting their options is changing significantly. There is much misleading advertising on social media, including claims about the guaranteed success of IVF treatment. On such a highly emotional and charged issue, this is deeply troubling and there is a clear case to be made for ensuring stricter regulation of services. The moves towards patient safety and the HFEA having sufficient powers to take action where patient safety is at risk also seem clear to me.

However, some of the proposals in the HFEA report must be considered with more caution. First, it highlights the 14-day limit on embryo experimentation as something that could be changed in the light of scientific developments. In 2003, the General Synod of the Church of England affirmed

“the sanctity of the human embryo and therefore the need to treat it with profound respect”.

Though I recognise the possibility for research into the development of embryos between 14 and 28 days, and, from that, the possibility of therapeutic benefit, it remains the case that individuation and identity are significant to moral status, so I believe that the 14-day limit should not be overstepped.

Secondly, the report proposes changes to the way consent is obtained. In order to prioritise patient safety and access to the best possible care, it seems vital that information can be shared with other healthcare providers. My caution is around the proposals related to changing the consent approach to one which is package-based. Anyone undergoing or considering fertility treatment and having a conversation with a specialist is likely to be experiencing intense stress and possible feelings of overwhelm. That is precisely why it is essential they understand absolutely what they are proceeding with. Each part of the process is weighty and should be considered carefully, according to the conscience of the individual or couple concerned. It is right, proper and honouring of them to ensure that this weighing-up is enabled and facilitated.

Similarly, with the proposed change to the consent regime for research on embryos, if a decision has been made to donate embryos to scientific research, there is likely to be a variety of preferences and approaches. Though some may be content for their embryos to be used for any available research, this will not be the case for everyone. Maintaining the requirement for consent to each named project will be important for some and so should not be overlooked.

I have touched on just a handful of issues for consideration in this complex and important debate. What is clear is that, if legislation is to be brought, it must be preceded by full consultation which facilitates public understanding and engagement. These are matters not only of personal importance, though I understand that dimension all too well, but of societal importance, and any proposals to change the law must be treated with both compassion and great care.