Clause 40
Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill [Lords]
5:45 pm
Mark Simmonds (Shadow Minister, Health; Boston and Skegness, Conservative)
We are getting into the nitty-gritty of the Bill, as the clause relates to the transfer of an embryo after the death of a man who was treated as a father in cases where donor sperm was used. There is a great deal of concern among the public about that, and certainly a large number of people have written to me about the clauses that we are about to discuss. I want to understand two things about the workings of the clause. I will not repeat the arguments that were made on the Floor of the House and in this Committee about the importance of the male in bringing up children, because members of the Committee have different views about that, but perhaps the Minister will explain how subsection (2)(b) relates to clauses 42 and 43 and whether there is an exact mirror and read-over from different-sex relationships to same-sex relationships and from marriages in heterosexual relationships to civil partnerships in same-sex relationships.
It seems to me that clause 40 will enable someone who is not married, has not provided the sperm and so has no genetic relationship with the child and who is not alive to be the parent of that child on its birth certificate. It might be that no intimate relationship at all took place between the two people who would potentially be the parents of that child, whether they are a heterosexual or a same-sex couple.
The context of this and the prism through which we must look at all the debates on these clauses is that the welfare of the child must be paramount. I just question at this stage whether a couple that did not even have an intimate relationship, certainly were not married, might not even have been in a civil partnership, had no genetic contribution to the child’s make-up and are not alive would be appropriate people to have as an official parent of a child, and that is in the context of the importance of the child’s welfare.