Clause 42
Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill [Lords]
6:00 pm
Mark Simmonds (Shadow Minister, Health; Boston and Skegness, Conservative)
I have a couple of examples that the Minister might like to consider overnight so that she can include them in her correspondence tomorrow. However, my first question does not relate to that matter. It is not clear what happens if a civil partner does not consent. Am I to assume that the same applies in civil partnership as with marriage—that, as we discussed earlier, consent is assumed?
I shall give examples of two complexities. First, what happens in a civil partnership in which both partners consent—by implication or otherwise—and the civil partnership is legally separated post-implantation of the embryo and one member of the original same-sex couple marries a man during the gestation period? Is that man the father? Does common law apply in that situation? Is that man therefore the parent?
The second example has the same initial set of circumstances. If there is a legal separation of a civil partnership, but a new and different civil partnership is then put in place, who is the parent? Is it the initial civil partner, when consent was assumed for the implantation to take place, or is it the new civil partner with whom the pregnant woman has entered into a civil partnership? Alternatively, is it up to the pregnant woman to make a choice between the two?
John Pugh (Shadow Minister, Treasury; Southport, Liberal Democrat)
It is probably my lack of attention to detail that prompts me to ask this question. The explanatory notes give the idea that there could be two sorts of arrangements: one in which civil partners happily consent to the arrangement, and the other in which only one partner does so. Similar provisions seem to apply to married couples, so the arrangements are equivalent. I understand that, and I know where everyone is coming from on that question. However, that might create problems further down the line for couples and civil partners.
If a child enters into the marriage or civil partnership but is not wanted, one would suppose that duties in relation to the child—whether imposed by the Home Office or others—were shared collectively.
Dawn Primarolo (Minister of State (Public Health), Department of Health; Bristol South, Labour)
It is not a question of whether a child is wanted; it is about who is mentioned on the birth certificate—that is all. The route that the hon. Gentleman is going down is about a child not being wanted. If there is a separation in a relationship and there are existing children, the question of how the family unit bonds is a matter for the couple. The Bill does not enter into that in any shape or form. Indeed, no legislation enters into the situation when there are stepchildren.
John Pugh (Shadow Minister, Treasury; Southport, Liberal Democrat)
I am grateful to the Minister for that clarification. What I think she is saying—I shall tell the Committee and she can say whether I have the gist of it—is that the clause does not alter any other piece of domestic legislation, family law or otherwise, but that it simply relates to the very technical, specific and precise matter of whether someone wants to go on the certificate.
Gary Streeter (South West Devon, Conservative)
The clause is the first in a series of measures giving legal effect to same-sex couples—in this case lesbian couples—having IVF, in some cases on the NHS. I hope that the Committee will forgive me if I make a few comments to suggest why the clause should not stand part of the Bill. In doing so, I am speaking for myself—not for my party or as a Front-Bench spokesperson.
The clause should not be allowed to pass without making some comment to reflect a considerable amount of opinion in the country. As we legislate on behalf of the whole country, it is important that certain opinions are voiced, and I hope to do so in a reasonable manner.
I wish to express concern about the clause and subsequent clauses. Some people argue that because gay adoption is legal, it is only natural that same-sex couples should have the right to equal access to IVF treatment. The clause deals particularly with the birth certificate arrangements in that instance. I certainly understand the argument in terms of equality, but I believe that permitting IVF for lesbian couples is wholly different from lesbian adoption. I say that because when a child is conceived who is later adopted by a lesbian couple, they at least had the chance of having a father and might well have had a father for a certain period of time. That child already exists. We are talking about the state facilitating the process of a child being created who will have no chance whatsoever of ever having a father during the duration of his or her childhood, and the Bill has precisely that effect. Do you want to slap me down, Mr. Hood?
Gary Streeter (South West Devon, Conservative)
I am grateful.
I do not intend to repeat this speech during our proceedings on the remaining clauses in the cluster. That is why I hope that I can have my say on this clause, which leads us into the other clauses.
In clause 45, we have the chilling words
“no man is to be treated as the father of the child.”
I suggest that those words raise huge questions about child rights that have so far been given no attention in our deliberations. We are talking about two women creating a child who will never have a father. What is wrong with that? All my instincts are against that notion as it flies in the face of common sense and nature. I also believe that many of our constituents do not know that this is taking place through the single-woman route, or that it will be going on once the Bill becomes law. I think that many of our constituents would be puzzled by same-sex couples having IVF on the NHS, given the pressure that the NHS is under.
None of that may be enough to persuade the Committee that the clause should not stand part of the Bill, so let us consider some research on why the matter is so important. Of course, it is our responsibility as legislators to look at evidence and not to rely simply on our own instincts. Surely we must not do anything today that would prejudice the paramount interests of the child in light of the current balance of research. What, therefore, does the research say about how we should approach the subject? An extensive research base unequivocally demonstrates that fathers are important and bring something distinctive to the parenting process that is different from what mothers bring. The Minister might remember that after a few refusals, she allowed me to intervene on Second Reading to ask whether the Government thought there was any difference in the process of a loving same-sex couple—two mothers bringing up a child—and a loving mother and father bringing up a child? Is there no advantage at all in having a father? The Minister was good enough to say that that was not the Government’s position. She must therefore accept that having a father can be important in the circumstances that I have just described—[Interruption.]
Jimmy Hood (Lanark and Hamilton East, Labour)
Order. Hon. Members must give the hon. Gentleman the right to have a hearing.
Gary Streeter (South West Devon, Conservative)
Thank you, Mr. Hood.
Fathers bring something distinctive to the party. One can only handle research in relation to children responsibly by concluding that we must assume that the best interests of the child are, on average—although we know of wonderful examples that buck the trend—less likely to be met in the absence of a father. In the light of the very extensive body of research, we have to conclude that it would be wrong of the state to facilitate the deliberate creation of children with the intention that they should be denied the chance of ever having a father for the duration of their childhood, yet that is what the clause does. The body of research is so extensive that I cannot refer to all of it, but I want to cite a few texts. They have not come to me from lobby groups, so I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury will be happy for me to mention them.
The first document is called “Theorizing the Father-Child Relationship” and it was published in 2004. It states:
“Recent work suggests that fathers play a much larger role than mothers in the socialization of children’s emotions, especially in anger regulation.”
Another report called “Toward Disentangling Fathering and Mothering”—I am not sure who comes up with these snappy titles—states:
“there is support here for the relative importance of fathers’ (as compared to mothers’) support of both sons and daughters. Youth who report feeling supported by their fathers are better able to engage prosocially outside the home...Lastly, positive fathering tends to be linked to lower levels of later depression for early adolescent girls, whereas positive mothering tends to be linked to lower levels of later depression for early adolescent boys.”
In other words, mothers and fathers bring different things to children.
I have similar quotes, but I will give just one more:
“Our longitudinal findings for traditional families seem to point to a unique contribution of the father to the child’s emotional security”.
That is from a report called “The Uniqueness of the Child-Father Attachment Relationship”.
A smaller body of research focuses narrowly on studying same-sex parenting, about which we heard quite a lot on Second Reading. I think that the BMA sent all hon. Members a briefing on the subject, which refers to some findings. The BMA report states:
“A substantial amount of research has been carried out on the parenting skills of lesbian couples. In the early days, research focused upon women who had started a family in a heterosexual relationship but continued to raise their children in a lesbian relationship. More recently, research has concentrated upon lesbian couples who seek to have a child through donor insemination at a licensed fertility clinic”—
as would be permitted by clause 42. It continues:
“Social research on children born to these families has given similar findings to those children born to solo mothers. Their emotional and psychological development is comparable to children born of donor insemination to two heterosexual parents. In fact, the second female parent often has greater parent-child interaction than do the fathers in the heterosexual couples.”
That seems to be very supportive of the parenting skills of two mums, as opposed to a mother and a father. On the basis of that briefing, one might have presumed a supporting reference to a selection of key texts to define that “substantial amount of research”. In reality, however, the statement in question is backed by just one footnote, which cites just one 11-year-old journal article—hardly an extensive research base.
Jeremy Wright (Whip, Whips; Rugby and Kenilworth, Conservative)
My hon. Friend will tell me straight away if he intends to come on to this issue in his speech. Does he share my concern that as the child of such a practice grows up, he or she will instinctively understand that it cannot be right that both of his or her mothers were the only people involved in his or her conception? Is he therefore concerned about the effect on the child of that realisation and where it may lead?
Gary Streeter (South West Devon, Conservative)
I did not intend to come on to that point in this speech; I made it on Second Reading. However, my hon. Friend is right. I think that I said on Second Reading that that realisation could only add to the turbulence of the teenage years—the self-discovery, the identity crisis that many hon. Members in this Room have clearly gone through and possibly one or two still are. That realisation certainly cannot help, and I am concerned about that.
There is other research on the subject, most of which is linked to somebody called Professor Susan Golombok, whom we heard quite a lot about on Second Reading. She has written extensively and almost exclusively—hardly anyone else seems to write on the subject with the same authority as her. A paper that she co-authored called “Children with Lesbian Parents”, published in the journal Developmental Psychology in 2003, stated that
“it may be the involvement of a second parent rather than the involvement of a male parent that makes the difference.”
Notice the use of the words “it may”. That is hardly conclusive. It could equally be argued that it may not.
In another journal, Golombok et al go on to say that the loss of a parent through relationship breakdown—
Brian Iddon (Bolton South East, Labour)
On a point of order, Mr. Hood. My understanding was that the House had been given a chance to debate the need for a father, admittedly not on this clause. As Chairman of the Committee, are you now allowing a debate on the need for a father, which the hon. Gentleman appears to be reopening? I would welcome your ruling.
Jimmy Hood (Lanark and Hamilton East, Labour)
The hon. Gentleman knows that specific clauses were given permission to be decided on the Floor of the House. The clause that we are discussing now is the business of the Committee. The hon. Member for South-West Devon is perfectly in order when speaking to a stand part debate.
Gary Streeter (South West Devon, Conservative)
Thank you, Mr. Hood. I have nearly finished. I apologise for detaining the Committee for so long, but I think that the voice needs to be heard.
I am talking about the further research of Professor Golombok, who says that perhaps it is just the loss of a parent through relationship breakdown, whether heterosexual or homosexual, that is the real engine for prejudicing the best interests of the child. That is interesting and makes sense, but fails to take account of the fact that the only study of relationship stability within the context of civil partnership arrangements was done in Sweden, where such relationships have been legal since the early 1990s. That study showed that male gay couples are 50 per cent. more likely to break up than married heterosexual couples and that the rate of partnership break-up for lesbian couples is about double that for gay couples. It does not help the argument to postulate that the problem is discordant relationships, because that is much more likely to face the children who, sadly, might be coming into existence as a result of clause 42.
Dawn Primarolo (Minister of State (Public Health), Department of Health; Bristol South, Labour)
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that what counts in every circumstance is the quality of the parenting? For instance, where children are sent away to boarding school at an early age, they are removed from their parents, but the quality of their relationship continues, even though they are separated for long periods. The constant presence of a particular family mix is not the guiding point in the development of children, but rather the fact they are loved and valued and the quality of their relationships, regardless of the structure of the family.
Jimmy Hood (Lanark and Hamilton East, Labour)
Order. The Minister is taking a wee bit long over her intervention.
Gary Streeter (South West Devon, Conservative)
I have tremendous sympathy with what the Minister said. She might be interested to know that we did not send our children away to boarding school—
Dawn Primarolo (Minister of State (Public Health), Department of Health; Bristol South, Labour)
I was not talking about you.
Gary Streeter (South West Devon, Conservative)
Okay. I am saying that because we did not want to be separated from our children, but I take her point. That is why I would rather a child was placed for adoption with a gay or lesbian couple than left in local authority care, because the presence of two nurturing parents for that child has to be better than local authority care.
Evan Harris (Shadow Minister, Innovation, Universities and Skills; Oxford West and Abingdon, Liberal Democrat)
The hon. Gentleman argued in part that because certain relationships were more likely to break down than others, people in such relationships should not be allowed to be parents—at least through NHS provision. Perhaps he is arguing against the clause standing part. Yet that is the only area that he is choosing. Let us say that one part of the country was found to have, on average, a greater rate of relationship breakdown—say, Devon. Would he argue against IVF being provided by the NHS in Devon? If poor people had a higher rate of relationship breakdown, would he use the same argument? How can he say, because there is a general issue in Sweden, that that is translatable into policy applying to everyone in that situation?
Gary Streeter (South West Devon, Conservative)
I am not saying that of course. I am asking whether the state should be facilitating the creation of a child, from a same-sex couple, who will never have a father. Is that what we should be doing? Is that what we should be doing without consulting our constituents widely? The reference to Sweden was simply to make the point that the studies that Professor Golombok produces are open to challenge. However, I shall not go into further detail, because we have only a few moments left before we are required elsewhere.
When the Minister replies, she may talk about human rights. I understand the human rights position, but I believe that the balance of human rights between two adults who want a child and the human rights of the child yet to be born can be broadly weighed equally. Having looked at the matter fairly carefully, I do not think that a successful challenge could be brought under human rights legislation. As the Minister will know, IVF for same-sex couples, or even single people, is prohibited in France, Italy, Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Norway, the Czech Republic and Portugal, all of which have signed up to the European convention on human rights. That we have incorporated the convention into UK law is not important—it is the same set of values and rights as those countries also embrace, and they do not have a problem with human rights. There are members of the Committee who think that perhaps I am on a flight of fancy. I am saying that on this, the UK is out of step with most of our European colleagues.
I have two more points to make. The first is that fathers are important and clause 42 takes us in the wrong direction. Over the last week or so, a very nice White Paper has been produced by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families. It says:
“Fathers’ involvement in their child’s life can lead to positive educational achievement, a good, open and trusting parent-child relationship during the teenage years and reduce the risk of mental health issues for children in separated families. Engaging fathers around the time of their child’s birth, including through being registered as father, is important in establishing that close involvement.”
The Government are promoting fathers on the one hand, but through this legislation they are, in my opinion, condemning some children in the future to never having had a father. The Committee should consider that extremely carefully. On that point I will sit down.
Desmond Turner (Brighton, Kemptown, Labour)
I hope that the Committee will resist the hon. Gentleman. For one thing, if he was successful and the Committee did not agree that clause 42 should stand part, it would not prevent the provision of IVF to a lesbian couple. The clause deals with how the other member of the couple is to be referred to and that is all. As to the principle that he has been expounding, the House dealt with that at length, and it was very heavily carried on a free vote. The amendment demanding the need for a father in those circumstances was soundly defeated. It is not reasonable to try and circumvent that decision in this way on this clause and in any event, it would not have the effect that he desires of preventing IVF treatment for lesbian couples.
Evan Harris (Shadow Minister, Innovation, Universities and Skills; Oxford West and Abingdon, Liberal Democrat)
We had this debate to some extent on Second Reading and in the Committee of the whole House, and I am not going to repeat the points that I made there. However, I want to make three brief rebuttals in support of clause stand part. First, what the Government seek to do is absolutely right and it does not need to be done on the basis of human rights. I have never argued that it is anything to do with human rights. It is about allowing families to get on with their lives without the state intervening to block them from doing so.
We are in an interesting political situation. I do not mean to be party political, but there is an issue of the state not interfering too much with consenting adults, and then some people in Parliament argue that the state should specifically deny and interfere with certain family arrangements. If we are going to do that, there must be good evidence for doing so. The other side does not need the evidence; the burden of evidence falls on those who wish to discriminate and in this case, there is no good evidence that can be adduced. However, the evidence that the hon. Member for South-West Devon has attacked—in moderate terms, I accept—from Professor Golombok and others, is good evidence. The evidence that the hon. Gentleman cites does not relate to the sorts of families we talk about. Indeed, in his quotes from a book and a report there was no read-across between lesbian couples and other families. The arguments against the measure fail at the first hurdle. They fail to demonstrate that there is any basis on which to discriminate in a positive way. There is no evidence that children do better with heterosexual couples than with same-sex couples.
Secondly, the comparisons that are made in the work of Professor Golombok, formerly of London university, now of Cambridge university, are correct. They compare heterosexual couples and their children with same-sex couples and their children and show that there does not appear to be any problem. These people are academics; they do not say that there are definitely no problems and therefore the policy is this. It is right to point out that they use the word “may”, but in so far as they draw conclusions, they do not find that these children have any particular problems, and they have now looked at them, albeit in small numbers, for quite some time.
Evan Harris (Shadow Minister, Innovation, Universities and Skills; Oxford West and Abingdon, Liberal Democrat)
I was saying that, first, the onus should be on the discriminators and the interferers to show that there is a problem with families of same-sex couples, but there is no evidence showing that there is, and, secondly, the evidence that the children do well is good, but I will not go into that.
I wanted to take issue with the argument made by the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth, who is not in his place, that somehow having lesbian parents is not going to help with the turbulence of teenage years—a view that the hon. Member for South-West Devon agreed with, but I think is wrong. The only problem that can be specific to those children is that they might be bullied. The best approach to that is to stop the bullying, not to deny those who would be bullied the chance to live. That is an argument for saying that mixed-race children should not be allowed to be born because they might be bullied. It is an argument—I am not saying that the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth was saying that.
The Golombok research shows that, despite any bullying that might take place—I hope that there is little of it now—and despite any feelings that the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth in an intervention attributed to them, those children do very well and are psychologically well adjusted. It cannot be argued that having lesbian parents cannot help with the turbulence of teenage years. I respect the way in which the hon. Gentleman made his case, which he is entitled to do. I am not implying that he is motivated by prejudice, for example, but I think that his arguments are wrong.
Finally, even if it could be shown—I do not think that it can be—that, on average, children in these families do worse, that is not an argument for not allowing the families to exist and for the children not to be born. That is not simply for the reason that it must be better to be born, but if one argued that people had such a hard time that it would be best not to be born, where would it end?
We know that, sadly, on average children from poor backgrounds do not do as well as children from wealthy backgrounds. There is evidence for that. Yet, through the NHS, the state provides IVF for such families, despite that average outcome. I am not for one moment suggesting, and I do not think that the hon. Gentleman would suggest, that clinics should have to consider the need for two incomes or that the birth certificate arrangements in clause 42 should apply only to better-off families, because children from poor backgrounds do worse on average—although some do very well—than children from better-off backgrounds. Even if he could make the case that he is seeking to make, which he cannot, it is not an argument against the measures, and that is even before we deal with the human rights and discrimination issues. Therefore, I urge the Committee to support the clause as it stands.
Dawn Primarolo (Minister of State (Public Health), Department of Health; Bristol South, Labour)
I shall start by referring to the provisions in the clause and then respond to the hon. Gentlemen’s contributions. Clause 42 makes provision for bringing the arrangements for female civil partners in line with those for married couples. Where a female civil partner gives birth to a child conceived as a result of donor insemination, she is the mother of the child and her civil partner will automatically be the other parent, unless she did not consent to the mother’s treatment. The terminology of the clause is different, as it seeks to bring civil partnerships within the sphere of the legislation, but otherwise the legal provisions are the same as for married couples.
I shall return to this point, but the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness would seek within a short period of time—nine months maximum—to conflate a range of relationships that may change who is the parent with legal responsibility. We have accepted provision for married couples and we are making the same provision for same-sex couples in line with the civil partnership legislation. There cannot be any points of principle on that, because civil partnership legislation has been passed by the House. It is not about whether we had a discussion on the Floor of the House on the need for a father, but a recognition that the House has accepted partnerships and civil partnerships in legislation.
The hon. Member for South-West Devon advances an argument that is not supported by the majority of the House, in discussions on not only the Bill but civil partnerships and other legal status, and the Finance Bill, which recognises civil partnerships as equivalent to marriage for tax responsibilities. Therefore, as he acknowledged, he holds a minority view. He put it powerfully, but I absolutely disagree with him on every point. He advances the argument that there is a diminution of the quality of parenting if the parents are not of a particular family type, namely heterosexual, married and constantly there. Regrettably, not just now in modern Britain, but throughout many centuries, family structures have not followed the model that the hon. Gentleman believes is best. Legislation reflects what the House has decided that the make-up of modern Britain is.
Gary Streeter (South West Devon, Conservative)
I may be wrong, but I do not believe that I mentioned the word “married” even once in my speech. If I did, it was not the main thrust of my argument, which was about the state facilitating a situation in which a child is denied the prospect of having a father, as a matter of state policy. That is what I am challenging.
Dawn Primarolo (Minister of State (Public Health), Department of Health; Bristol South, Labour)
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely wrong in his assertion that the clause, in recognising civil partnerships, seeks to do that. I regret to tell him that the presence of a father within a family structure does not necessarily mean that he is actively engaged in the upbringing of his children. The Government position is that, in recognition of the legislation, all parents have responsibilities to their children, and that the quality of parenting is crucial. The clause adds a second legal parent; it does not take away status or say that there is not another individual in the child’s genetic make-up. That is why the right for a child aged 18 to know who are the donors is crucial.
I do not wish to rehearse it. The hon. Gentleman has made his case twice. He bases his argument on a preferred model without evidence that quality of parenting is crucial. He and other Conservative Members have described families in crisis or experiencing breakdowns and sought to say that that applies to all.
The hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth commented in an intervention on what is recorded on the child’s birth certificate. I was taught, and I am sure that every Committee member would concur, that honesty is always the best policy. The best relationships between children and their parents are built around honesty. It is important that children should be told by their parents at an early age that they were donor conceived; that is recognised to be beneficial to the children. That is why the Government support and promote the Donor Conception Network’s “Telling and Talking” project. Hon. Gentlemen may continue to advance their case if they want, but a majority of the House substantially disagree with their view. Having passed legislation on the matter, it is necessary that we ensure that future legislation complies with the House’s views.
The hon. Member for South-West Devon quoted the White Paper, saying that it showed that the Government were doing two different things. I do not agree. It comes back to the point, which is made in the White Paper, that fathers—and, the provisions ensure, parents—take responsibility for their role through participation in their children’s upbringing, in this case by registering the birth with the mother. That is exactly where we should be.
The hon. Member for Boston and Skegness asked a couple of questions and gave examples. Is he seriously suggesting that between conception and birth, several legal partnerships will be entered into, dissolved and re-entered? The first point that must be made is that counselling is given before IVF treatment, during which it is crucial that the welfare of the child is considered. That includes parents with a stable relationship who are committed to the child’s upbringing. As I said in my opening remarks, the clause introduces the same measures that have operated for married couples so far, and I do not remember any complaints about them. To answer his scenarios, I hope that he is not suggesting that we should treat same-sex couples differently, given their legal status under civil partnership legislation.
The hon. Gentleman also asked what would happen if assisted conception took place within a civil partnership and then, within the short period after all the processes are gone through and before the baby is born, the civil partnership is dissolved and the mother marries. It will be presumed that the husband is the father, but that presumption is rebuttable—this is the same point as in our discussions on previous clauses—by DNA testing. Because clause 42 would apply, the original civil partner would be the other legal parent. This comes back to the fact that in deciding to become parents, the individuals need to recognise that they have a responsibility as parents that will endure, but which under certain circumstances could be rebutted.
If the civil partners have an assisted conception and then enter into a second civil partnership, that will not affect the original arrangement. As in the first example that the hon. Gentleman gave, the original civil partner will be the other legal parent by virtue of clause 42. This is about recognising the point at which the decisions are taken and I have covered the importance of that issue.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about what happens if the civil partner does not consent. In that case, they would not be the legal parent of the child because the consent would be presumed unless evidence was shown to the contrary. Of course, these are complex relationships in terms of law and reflecting on what is necessary to produce an outcome on who has the legal responsibility. While I acknowledge the strong feelings of the hon. Member for South-West Devon, with which I do not agree, I have given most of my remarks in this debate in relation to what the clause does, as opposed to the wider principle.
Mark Simmonds (Shadow Minister, Health; Boston and Skegness, Conservative)
I am grateful to the Minister for responding to the points that I made. I accept that the examples that I gave in relation to this clause and the previous clause are unlikely and complex. Nevertheless, it is the Committee’s job to scrutinise and to make sure that the law is robust enough to cater for all potential circumstances. I noticed from the flurry of papers that was being exchanged while I was asking my questions that this was perhaps something that had not been considered before, so I do not regret asking these particular questions. The answers have demonstrated that differences exist between how the law is structured for same-sex couples and for different-sex couples, and that while the new husband in the heterosexual couple will be the father of the child, the original civil partner will be the other partner on the birth certificate. It was quite right to extract that information from the Minister. I say to her that I was not trying to demonstrate any prejudice, or whatever word she might like to use, as regards the differences between heterosexual and same-sex couples. Indeed, if my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Devon chooses to vote against the clause, I shall not vote with him.