Robert Key (Salisbury, Conservative)

Schedule 6 is an enormous part of the Bill; it is 27 pages long and, in the other place, it received substantial scrutiny. Other things have happened since, so I wish to ask the Minister to clarify one or two points.

On 12 December 2007, Baroness Deech noted in another place that birth certificates are used for all purposes and that they will be used all over the increasingly globalised world of proof of this and that. She argued that birth certificates should therefore focus on the child’s origins, not the situation of the parents. Baroness Barker disagreed, arguing:

“A birth certificate is not a certificate of somebody’s genetic identity...but...a record of who a child’s social parents are at any time”.

The title of schedule 6 is “Amendments relating to parenthood in cases involving assisted reproduction”. The Minister in the other place, Baroness Royall, argued:

“The Bill allows that same-sex couples, whether in a civil partnership or being treated together, can both be legal parents of a child born through assisted conception. For these provisions to  be fully legally recognised, the Bill includes amendments to other Acts to allow birth certificates under UK, Scottish and Northern Irish law to record that”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 December 2007; Vol. 697, c. 296-99.]

That seemed to be all very certain. However, on 4 February 2008, on Third Reading, Lord Jenkin tabled an amendment that would have meant that within four years of schedule 6 coming into force, the Secretary of State would carry out a review of the law and practice to decide whether to include donor conception on birth certificates. Baroness Royall resisted the amendment, but made a commitment that the Government would carry out a review. She said:

“I can make a firm commitment that the Government will carry out a review of practices in informing donor-conceived children of the fact of their donor conception and whether there is a need for a change in the law to best ensure that donor-conceived children are informed of their donor conception. We will do this within the timeframe suggested by the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 4 February 2008; Vol. 698, c. 904.]

That also seemed to make the matter clear, but on 2 June, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families, issued their White Paper, “Joint birth registration: recording responsibility”, chapter 1, paragraph 5 of which states:

“This White Paper focuses on the way the birth registration system applies to unmarried parents and their children, particularly from the child’s perspective. It does not cover the birth registration process for married couples, which works well and where we do not propose to make any changes. Nor does it cover changes to birth certificates arising from adoption...or from the changes proposed in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill to allow a same-sex couple to be recorded as parents at birth. Further consideration of the latter will be needed once that Bill has passed through Parliament”.

Will the Minister explain whether the 27 pages of the Bill that we appear to be about to nod through will be wiped off the statute book by future Government considerations when they legislate on the document “Joint birth registration: recording responsibility”? I am sure that the Minister has a very fine answer for us and I would be grateful to hear it before we proceed.

See this speech in context