Clause 45
Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill [Lords]
7:15 pm
Tom Clarke (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill, Labour)
I rise to speak to amendment No. 154, in clause 45, page 41, line 4, leave out subsection (1).
It is a great pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Mr. Hood. I expressed most of my views under your predecessor, Mr. Gale, and therefore I shall be very brief.
Tonight, in common with other Members, I have had the opportunity to be at other important House of Commons events: meetings of the Administration Committee, the all-party group on learning disability and so on. I note that there are no cameras from the Daily Mail and the BBC showing a fairly well attended Committee. A photograph was published of the Chamber on the day on which I last spoke in Committee. It was taken during the debate on knives, and the media said that only 16 Members “bothered to turn up” to that debate. I hope that some day the media will recognise the marvellous work that you chair, Mr. Hood, and the fact that hon. Members make a contribution in such Committees.
I tabled amendment No. 154 to give the Committee the opportunity to have the kind of debate that we have just had. With the greatest respect to my hon. Friends, it might well be that the hon. Member for South-West Devon does not have much support in this Committee, but he has overwhelming support in my constituency. I think that it is perfectly fair that that view is expressed.
Clause 45(1) states:
“Where a woman is treated by virtue of section 42 or 43 as a parent of the child, no man is to be treated as the father of the child.”
I find that quite chilling. When I served on the Committee that considered the Bill that became the Children Act 1989, it was accepted that the rights of the child were paramount. In all honesty, I have not seen that as a theme in our debates throughout our consideration of the Bill. As for prejudice, that is an unfortunate word that does not apply to the views that were expressed in the Committee today.
I think that there is an obligation to the child. We were entitled to ask today what was in the best interest of the child. We discussed entirely and exclusively what many regarded as the rights or otherwise of adults, but not those of the child. The reason why I tabled the amendment was that I felt—and still do feel—that far more focus ought to be given to the rights of the child and their future after they are born. I do not agree with the majority of hon. Members on this matter, although I accept that a view was taken by the House. I also acknowledge that the Prime Minister accepted that there would be a free vote. In that spirit, I have expressed my view. It would have been less than courageous not to have said to the hon. Member for South-West Devon that he has support in parts of the House and elsewhere in the country. I have no desire to move the amendment.