One possibility may be to create a body along the lines of the American President's Commission on Bioethics. Its remit would be wider than that of the HFEA and it would have a membership that was comprehensive and independent. It would have a deliberative as well as a regulative function. One of the problems with the HFEA was that the pressure for inspections and regulations squeezed out the opportunity for serious reflection on the moral issues confronting our age. This could sometimes lead to the authority taking the line of least resistance. If such a new commission is to be created, there should be a wide-ranging public discussion about its terms of reference, its membership, its relationship to parliament and government and whether it will be advisory or statutory. It should not be necessary to create a vast bureaucracy to run it. A number of existing organisations of all shades of opinion as well as volunteers with expertise could assist in its operation.

Such a commission would continue to offer advice on the moral status of the embryo and on the strict limits there should be on what can be done with it. It would be concerned with the need that people have for knowing their complete genetic inheritance (this, by the way, is one reason for the importance of the biologically-related family). It would engage with the demonstrable need that children have for both their parents and how parents can play a complementary role in the upbringing of their children. 

There are also serious moral issues about the storage of eggs and of embryos and how they are to be used. If embryonic stem cells become important for treatment, the emergence of banks for umbilical cord-blood will become a morally acceptable way of using such stem cells, particularly if it is to benefit the donors themselves or their near-relatives. IVF outcomes will need continuing monitoring as will the welfare of any children born in this way. New technology will have to be considered not only for its moral acceptability but also its practicality and affordability. Researchers and practitioners will have to be held to account. The work of the Human Genetic Commission could also be brought within the remit of such an extended commission.

It may be that the HFEA has run its course but the moral and social issues which brought it into being have not gone away. They are still with us and, arguably, in a sharper form. We need a body which will not only monitor and regulate but will be able to provide moral direction in areas that are sometimes uncharted. 

I understand that the Government is considering allowing some advisory mechanisms, along the lines of the HFEA's Ethics and Law Committee, as a way of ensuring that the ethical aspects of treatment and research are given the attention they deserve. If so, this is not so far from the kind of commission I am proposing. Such a body would need to be independent and well-respected if it is to carry any clout. It must also balance the interests of the stake-holders, fertility clinics, medical practitioners and scientific researchers, with those of the general public.

Apart from scientists, philosophers and theologians, it is of crucial importance that  wider society should be represented on such a body.