Christian lawyers have expressed concern as the Government issued its response to the Joint Committee's report on the Human Tissue and Embryos Bill on Monday.

The report gives an idea as to what the amended Bill will look like when it is put before Parliament, probably in the coming session.

"One of the most concerning aspects of the Government's response is that they have now taken their proposals to legalise animal-human hybrid embryos even further, by extending legislation not only to cover 'cytoplasmic embryos' (whereby human cells are inserted into an animal egg), but also to legalise so called 'true' hybrid embryos, which would be created by the mixing of human and animal gametes e.g. mixing human sperm with an animal egg, or vice versa," said Andrea Minichiello Williams of the Lawyers Christian Fellowship (LCF).

The Government also proposes to include in the Bill a regulation-making power which would allow the definitions of hybrid embryos to be further liberalised without the need to debate the matter in Parliament.

Minichiello Williams explained her concerns, "One of our initial concerns about the Bill was that it proposed a much too flexible approach to regulation, giving the HFEA too wide a remit to decide what should and what should not be licensed.

"The Government did agree that the more flexible approach suggested by the committee would increase uncertainty and confusion and open up the HFEA to increased litigation.

"However, throughout the rest of their response they seem to take the view that a more flexible approach was desirable, and made proposals accordingly."

An example is that on the question of 'saviour siblings', which involves destroying embryos which don't match the sibling, the Government agreed to liberalise the law further by allowing selecting for saviour siblings not only when an existing child has a life threatening condition, but also if the child has any 'serious' condition.

They decided not to define 'serious', but to leave it "to the regulator to determine the meaning of 'serious' in exercising its discretion".

The Government has also refused to back down on its plans to remove the consideration of the need for a father when considering the welfare of the child, quoting the Science and Technology Committee's finding that such a requirement is "offensive to many".

Minichiello Williams said, "It is worrying that a true, well proved concern about the welfare of the child (the need for a father) must take second place to a concern about offending certain people."

The LCF has said it will continue to monitor developments and look closely at the Government proposals over the coming week.