Clause 40
Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill [Lords]
5:45 pm
John Pugh (Shadow Minister, Treasury; Southport, Liberal Democrat)
My concern is about what birth certificates are now intended to do. Normally, they are indicative of someone’s assumption of legal responsibilities or biological connection with the individual named on the certificate, or both. In this case there appears to be a suggestion that the person named on the birth certificate should fulfil one criterion: a previous willingness to take part in an IVF programme with the person whom they pre-deceased. That is a big extension, therefore, in our view, of the role of birth certificates. The Minister said that birth certificates can do something symbolic. I certainly did not realise that. Perhaps there is scope for birth certificates in respect of all sorts of strange, exotic things, but we ought to stick to a more rigid view of what they should do.
What is the Government’s reason for such an obvious and quite definite extension of the use of a birth certificate? What is the thinking behind it? Is it to provide an explanation to the child about their origin? If so, and if the child does not look any further, it would clearly give an inaccurate explanation of the child’s origin. It is obviously preferable to talk about storks and gooseberry bushes, but is putting the child off the scent by not letting them think any further than that they were conceived with the person named on the birth certificate as an agent in some way in the interests of the child? If so, is that obvious?
I accept what the clause does and I am not necessary agin it. However, I see it as extending what birth certificates do and I want to know the Government’s rationale for doing precisely that.