Schedule 6
Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill [Lords]
10:00 am
Evan Harris (Shadow Minister, Innovation, Universities and Skills; Oxford West and Abingdon, Liberal Democrat)
Fundamentalist or otherwise, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak again. I am conscious of the fact that we might debate the subject further when we come to one of the new clauses, but it is important to clarify a number of things.
I support the Government’s position on this part of the Bill and their approach to birth certificates. I know that that view is not shared across my party; for us, it is a free vote issue, and Baroness Barker took a different view in the House of Lords. She was entitled to do that, and she did so effectively. I respect her sincere views on the matter, but birth certificates are a statement of legal parenthood, and it does not necessarily relate to genetic parenthood.
The hon. Member for Salisbury spoke of one in 10. Some research studies show that as many as 10 per cent. of children believe their social father to be their genetic father when he is not; whether the mother knows who is the father is a separate issue. The child does not know in non-paternity cases far more frequently than in assisted reproduction. There is clearly a difference if the state has the information, but in respect of allowing children to know who their genetic parents are, the Government have chosen not to tell the children directly, and not to force parents but merely to encourage them to do so.
That is best practice, and it is right that the Government’s funding approach promotes it. That is right and proper. Maybe I am being a fundamentalist about not being statist on the matter, but I do not think that it is the state’s role to wade into families, disrupt the family dynamic and tell them what to do. It would be going over the heads of parents, who are entitled to some privacy about non-paternity and, if they choose not to tell their children—regrettably, in my view—about assisted reproduction.
The point has been made that that puts such children at a disadvantage in terms of family history if they see a doctor, but non-paternity is far more frequent than assisted reproduction. As we know, even where one cannot access identifying information about a donor, it is always open to a child who knows to get that information as an adult. Parents have their children’s best interests at heart and will be aware if there is an issue of familial disease that will bear strongly on their children.
There is no perfect solution. There are significant drawbacks in seeking to specify over the heads of parents that children should be notified or birth certificates marked. Birth certificates are public documents—well, they are not public documents, but they must be produced on certain occasions—and people have a right to privacy.
To finish with the human rights issue, it is often stated—it was stated, incorrectly, in the House of Lords—that there is some human right to know one’s genetic parents. If that is the case, one would have a right to perform paternity tests on one’s father or lie detector tests on one’s mother, overriding their right to privacy. That is not the case. Fathers and mothers have a right to privacy. If we go down that path and follow that idea to its full conclusion—I do not suggest that hon. Members are saying that we should—there will be implications. I shall not read it out, but I draw the Committee’s attention to pages 56 and 57 of the Joint Committee’s report, which clarifies that the Rose case showed that article 8 was engaged on private life, but that that case was never decided in respect of what balance must be found between the person’s and the parents’ rights.