| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
28 Mar 2003 : Column 610—continued
12.46 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Hazel Blears): I am delighted to be able to say that the Government strongly support and welcome the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe). I congratulate him on his success in the private Members' ballot and on his clear account of the purpose and scope of his Bill. The Government believe that it presents an opportunity to make a real difference to the lives of a small but growing number of children and their families.
Members know that the Government have been keen to put children at the centre of many of their policies, which is why I am especially pleased that my hon. Friend has taken up the issue. I agree with him that the law as it stands is unfair and, in the cases with which we are concerned here, there is no doubt about who the father is. It is unfair to deny children who are growing up today a legal recognition of that fact, at least in respect of birth registration.
The Bill would allow the father's name to be entered on the child's birth certificate when the child has been born following fertility treatment after the man's death. It attempts no more than that. There may, for example, be a case involving a couple undergoing fertility treatment and, tragically, the man dying before completion of that treatment. As the law stands, if the embryo was placed in the woman before the man's death or if the child was conceived in the normal way, his name could go on the birth certificate, but if the man died before the embryo was placed in the woman, the birth certificate must not record him as the father.
That is unfair on the child and the bereaved family, as they have to struggle not only with coming to terms with a tragic loss, but with the distress caused by what surely must be, as several Members have said, an unintended consequence of the law as it stands. That is why it is right to change the law in this respect and why the families involved have campaigned long and hard on the issue. I pay an immense tribute to them for their tenacity and determination to see it through.
Also, I pay tribute to all the Members who have championed the cause. My hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Ms Shipley) has pursued the matter on a number of occasions and my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Clarke), who introduced the previous Bill, almost got to the final hurdle in trying to remedy this wrong. I hope that we can make significant progress with this Bill.
We need to be clear about the fact that the proposed changes would achieve only a symbolic recognition. The Bill would not allow the child rights of succession or inheritance, or any other legal status, primarily because doing so would make it extremely difficult to deal with the winding-up of a man's estate. Sperm, I understand, can now be stored for up to 39 years, so we can imagine the legal consequences of making such changes. Despite the Bill being only symbolic, it is very important, particularly to the families concerned, as it will be of great emotional value to the children as they grow up.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green and other hon. Members have mentioned the review by Professor Sheila McLean. That review examined the issues of storage and removal of gametes and, crucially, consent. The Bill not only implements many of her recommendations but with the retrospectivity provisions perhaps goes a little further to try to deal with the particular circumstances that families have found themselves in.
I am grateful to the hon. Members for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) and for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) for their support for the Bill. I understand that detailed issues will be raised around retrospectivity and perhaps consent, too. Those are important matters for the Committee to consider.
It is unusual for the Government to support a Bill that applies retrospectively. We all adhere to the general principle of the law in that regard but in these circumstances it is absolutely right that the rights of the children are pivotal to our concern and that in future, as they grow up, they will be able to have their father's name on their birth certificate and know that they were part of loving family. That is important for them.
I am pleased that the Bill emphasises the issue of proper consent. Again, we need to be clear about the circumstances in which consent was given and the process that is undertaken in using sperm in these circumstances. These are difficult ethical and moral issues. I know that hon. Members have a variety of views. The robustness of the process serves to reassure us all that matters will be conducted properly. The emphasis on consent is an important signal and is reinforced by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority in its code of practice. The Bill reinforces the HFEA's principles about the importance of written consent.
I am delighted and happy to welcome and support the Bill—perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green could take that as a little more than a nudge. As I have said, the Government believe that it is absolutely the right thing to do. I wish it a speedy passage through the House. I hope that the House will be able this time to say that it has played a constructive role and been able to right the wrong that has existed for far too long.
12.51 pm
Mr. McCabe: I thank all the hon. Members who have participated in the debate. I particularly thank the hon. Members for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) and for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling). I assure the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell that we will seek to deal with his concerns in Committee.
I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for that very helpful nod and for all her encouragement and support. I thank also all the people who have helped and advised me in the preparation of the Bill.
Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills).
High Hedges (No. 2) Bill
Order for Second Reading read.
12.52 pm
Mr. Stephen Pound (Ealing, North): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
It was said earlier today that we were having the second reading of a Second Reading. Many right hon. and hon. Members will feel that they have been around this course a few times before: it is something like the fifth Second Reading of the Bill. I make no apologies for the fact that we have returned to the issue, hopefully for the last time.
Hon. Members will be aware that Baroness Gardner of Parkes has completed all stages in the House of Lords of the High Hedges (No. 1) Bill. I humbly bring before the House the parallel High Hedges (No. 2) Bill, which differs in no way from her Bill. I pay full and sincere tribute to her and her able colleague and cohort Lord Graham of Edmonton, who did an excellent job in the other place and during the Committee stage. I also pay tribute to Baroness Hamwee and Baroness Hanham, who made a number of extremely pertinent comments both on the Floor of the other place and in Committee. I thank Lord Walker of Doncaster, who speaks with the gravitas of someone who is the chairman of the all-party group on gardening and horticulture and who made a number of points of considerable significance. Obviously it would be remiss of me not to mention Lord Bassam and Lord Evans, who spoke for the Government in Committee.
I mentioned that we have been here before. If cypress leylandii sprout at an alarming rate, it seems that Bills to control them have a similar propensity. We have had Bills from a former hon. Member for Mid-Kent and one recently from my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South (Mr. Cunningham). Most recently and most memorably, we had a Bill from the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor), who presented it with the graceful, gentle and generous style typical of the man. I was delighted and honoured to be able to support him on that day.
Mr. John Taylor (Solihull) rose—
Mr. Pound: I will gladly give way to the hon. Gentleman before I embarrass him even more.
Mr. Taylor: I thank the hon. Gentleman first, for giving way, and secondly, for his extremely kind words. It is my intention wholeheartedly to support him in his efforts. Does he agree that the great virtue of his Bill is that it gets away from the quagmire that is the English law of nuisance and away from the law courts into the objective tests of height and light—things that can be measured—using the local authority as the ultimate arbiter? Does he agree that, among the many virtues of his Bill, those points are central?
Mr. Pound: The hon. Gentleman, as in so many things, is absolutely right. There is a certain congruence between two tonsorially challenged suburban Members of Parliament, slightly to the right of their parties, but I
am honoured to associate myself with his comments. If we can drag ourselves from this quagmire into the free and open spaces of uncluttered light, so much the better.I must pay tribute also to a distinguished jurist, known to many Members of the House, Charles Mynors, the author of a must-read volume, "The Law of Trees, Forests and Hedgerows"; a book which, on first reading, might appear to be a tad dry, but which combines wit and erudition in a style normally associated with the hon. Members for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman) and for Solihull.
I also thank the officials from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, who have worked intensely to reign in some of my more outré suggestions regarding paramilitary groups wielding chainsaws. They endured a series of meetings in my office, a pit of such filth and depravity that I felt ashamed to ask them in. Yet they survived; they emerged—coughing it has to be said—but I was enlightened.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |