| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Ministerial Visits
Q8. [123206]Mr. Andrew George (St. Ives): If he will visit west Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly in the St. Ives constituency.
The Prime Minister: I am sorry to say that I have no immediate plans to do so.
Mr. George: That is a pity because, as I am sure the Prime Minister knows Cornwall has a distinctive culture and identity that allows it to play a full part in the celebration of diversity here and in the wider world. Has he heard yesterday's truly shocking news from Marazion in my constituency? It is alleged that a group of youths abused, physically and racially, a visiting party of young people from Berlin. Does the Prime Minister agree that, if certain members of the political elite in the Chamber abuse their privilege by appealing to base instincts and artfully blaming asylum seekers, blaming Europe and blaming foreigners at every opportunity, it is little wonder that we find in Marazion, as elsewhere, that we reap what we sow.
The Prime Minister: I agree entirely. Of course, we condemn that attack and detest xenophobic racism of any
sort. We are glad and proud to be a country that welcomes people from abroad and engages in proper cultural ties with other countries. I hope that we all welcome that.Engagements
Q9. [123207]Mr. Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale, East): Is not one of the Government's most significant achievements the fact that, since May 1997, the number of people forced to depend on income support and job seeker's allowance has fallen by no less than 1 million? Does the Prime Minister agree that when the Tories talk about scrapping the new deal they reveal that they have learned nothing from the tragedy of unemployment that they created?
The Prime Minister: Unemployment is at its lowest level for 20 years or more. [Interruption.] Opposition Members say that it would have fallen anyway. However, 250,000 jobs have been created through the new deal, which the Tories are committed to scrapping. As a result of 1 million extra jobs, there has been an £8 billion saving on welfare during this Parliament. The economic policy of reducing unemployment and the social policy of spending more on schools and hospitals therefore go together.
Q10. [123208]Mr. William Cash (Stone): On the fundamental charter of rights, will the Prime Minister veto any proposal that those rights should be made binding and subject to the jurisdiction of the European Court? Will he restate that it is intended to be no more than a political showcase, as he said in a previous Question Time? Does he agree with the Minister of State responsible for European issues that proposals on those rights deal only with existing rights and will not amend anything in future?
The Prime Minister: They are not legally binding rights and I reiterate entirely what I have said to the hon. Gentleman in the Chamber and elsewhere. I would have hoped that he and his colleagues would welcome the fact that we are to set up in a charter the basic rights of people in Europe. It is unfortunate that, when the notion of civil and democratic rights comes from Europe, that affronts the Conservative party.
Given that the hon. Gentleman has been talking about backsliding in the Conservative party on the issue of Europe, I hope very much that that is the position. I hope also that the party finally comes to its senses and realises that the future of this country lies in its being a key player in the major strategic alliance on its doorstep and not, as many Tories want, in getting us out of Europe, with enormous damage to British jobs, industry and investment.
Point of Order
3.30 pm
Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will know that on several occasions in the House I have raised the question of a private cosmetic surgeon named David Charles Herbert. Eighty written complaints have been made against him and sent to the General Medical Council. This surgeon continues to operate. I checked today, and he is operating at least twice a week in two hospitals.
The complaints are extremely serious. The GMC tells me that there is no legislation that allows it to suspend this man from his work, yet he continues to butcher women throughout the country. A ministerial statement should be made on this issue and the man should not continue to operate. The GMC should be given powers to suspend him. Instead, it has invited him for professional assessment.
Madam Speaker: I know that the hon. Lady has raised the issue on previous occasions. Indeed, she did so only yesterday with the Secretary of State for Health. I am not aware that a Minister is seeking to make a statement. If the hon. Lady would like to use her ingenuity and to read the Standing Orders, she may find that there are methods by which she can make an application that will allow her to express her views, and she may get a response. I leave the matter to her.
Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Amendment)
3.32 pm
Ms Debra Shipley (Stourbridge): I beg to move,
- That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 with regard to the status of the father of a child conceived posthumously.
The Act came to my attention due to the plight of one of my constituents, Mrs. Marion Jordan, and her baby son, Daniel. Mr. and Mrs. Jordan were a happy newly married couple who wanted a family. Sadly, Mr. Jordan was diagnosed to be seriously ill with cancer. Hoping that treatment would help, and mindful of the devastating effects of some cancer treatments on fertility, Mr. and Mrs. Jordan decided to preserve a sample of Mr. Jordan's sperm, so that it could be used subsequently to conceive their much-wanted child. All this was carried out legally and professionally, and it is fully documented.
Mr. Jordan gave full consent for his sperm to be used by his wife to conceive his child. It is a child that they wanted, planned for and, indeed, longed for. Sadly, Mr. Jordan died. Mrs. Jordan went ahead and underwent IVF treatment, which happily resulted in a beautiful, healthy baby boy. By now, Mrs. Jordan had undergone the terrible trauma of losing her husband, but she had the great consolation that she had his son, Daniel.
Then her administrative troubles began. On going to register the birth of baby Daniel, Mrs. Jordan was distressed to discover that she was prevented from registering her deceased husband as the father of his own child. It is a shocking fact that the 1990 Act effectively makes baby Daniel illegitimate. That has to be wrong. This baby is a much-wanted child of whom his parents dreamed together. His mother is Marion Jordan, and there is documentary evidence to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that David Jordan was his father. Yet the law provides that, because Mr. Jordan died prior to conception, he cannot be named on baby Daniel's birth certificate. Surely, no hon. Member who seriously believes in strengthening the family could possibly think that that is a sustainable position.
The law must be changed. In a letter to me dated November 1999, the head of the births and deaths branch of the General Register Office stated:
- Section 28(6) of the Act provides that where the sperm of a man is used after his death he is not to be treated as the father of the child.
The results of that review were published in July 1998. On 3 December 1998, in a written reply to a parliamentary question, the then the Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Ms Jowell), welcomed the report and stated that the Government
would seek public and professional views on its recommendations. That process was, she said, to be completed by April 1999. That Minister has since moved to another Department.In November 1999, I contacted the present Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), hoping for a constructive outcome to the unhappy situation that my constituent, Marion Jordan and her then tiny new-born baby, were in. In December 1999, a whole year after the first ministerial response, the new Minister told me that she expected
- to be able to make an announcement shortly on Professor McClean's recommendations, including our views on any possible amendments to the 1990 Act.
There has been no announcement from the Minister on the subject, although, on 26 January, her office said that an announcement would be made in four to six weeks. We are now not six weeks but six months further on and my constituent is still unable to register her late husband as the father of their child. Colleagues with constituents who are similarly and cruelly stranded in that legislative limbo-land have contacted me. I want to see action for these loved and wanted children.
My Bill proposes a simple amendment to the 1990 Act with regard to the status of the father of a child conceived posthumously, so that mothers such as Marion Jordan need never again suffer the double blow of losing a partner and having him legally denied as the parent of their child. As Professor McClean stated in her review:
- The terms of s.28 of the 1990 Act make it clear that a child conceived posthumously is legally fatherless. Now, it might be thought that by taking the trouble to make a written statement of intent concerning the use of gametes after death, the man is intending that the child should be regarded as his.
-
She added:
Whilst the current legislation permits the child access to certain information about, for example, genetic provenance, it also expressly precludes the child from having a father for legal purposes.
- Parties shall respect and ensure the rights set forth in the present Convention to each child within their jurisdiction without discrimination of any kind, irrespective of the child's or his parent's or legal guardian's race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national, ethnic or social origin, property, disability, birth or other status.
Professor McClean addressed the question of inheritance issues, which was raised as the problematic area by the present Minister. The professor recommends that the law should not be amended to secure inheritance rights of a child conceived after the death of its father--and thus that red herring is speedily dispatched.
The few simple amendments that I propose would mean a lot to the families who have had so much grief to deal with. I hope that my colleagues will support the Bill's passage into law.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Ms Debra Shipley, Mrs. Llin Golding, Mr. Simon Burns, Jackie Ballard, Barbara Follett, Mr. Geraint Davies, Mrs. Joan Humble, Mr. Jim Cunningham, Mr. Laurence Robertson, Dr. Jenny Tonge and Ms Christine Russell.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |