Mr.
Streeter: I have tremendous sympathy with what the
Minister said. She might be interested to know that we did not send our
children away to boarding
school
Dawn
Primarolo: I was not talking about
you.
Mr.
Streeter: Okay. I am saying that because we did not want
to be separated from our children, but I take her point. That is why I
would rather a child was placed for adoption with a gay or lesbian
couple than left in local authority care, because the presence of two
nurturing parents for that child has to be better than local authority
care.
Dr.
Harris: The hon. Gentleman argued in part that because
certain relationships were more likely to break down than others,
people in such relationships should not be allowed to be
parentsat least through NHS provision. Perhaps he is arguing
against the clause standing part. Yet that is the only area that he is
choosing. Let us say that one part of the country was found to have, on
average, a greater rate of relationship breakdownsay, Devon.
Would he argue against IVF being provided by the NHS in Devon? If poor
people had a higher rate of relationship breakdown, would he use the
same argument? How can he say, because there is a general issue in
Sweden, that that is translatable into policy applying to everyone in
that situation?
Mr.
Streeter: I am not saying that of course. I am asking
whether the state should be facilitating the creation of a child, from
a same-sex couple, who will never have a father. Is that what we should
be doing? Is that what we should be doing without consulting our
constituents widely? The reference to Sweden was simply to make the
point that the studies that Professor Golombok produces are open to
challenge. However, I shall not go into further detail, because we have
only a few moments left before we are required
elsewhere. When
the Minister replies, she may talk about human rights. I understand the
human rights position, but I believe that the balance of human rights
between two adults who want a child and the human rights of the child
yet to be born can be broadly weighed equally. Having looked at the
matter fairly carefully, I do not think that a successful challenge
could be brought under human rights legislation. As the Minister will
know, IVF for same-sex couples, or even single people, is prohibited in
France, Italy, Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Norway, the Czech
Republic and Portugal, all of which have signed up to the European
convention on human rights. That we have incorporated the convention
into UK law is not importantit is the same set of values and
rights as those countries also embrace, and they do not have a problem
with human rights. There are members of the Committee who think that
perhaps I am on a flight of fancy. I am saying that on this, the UK is
out of step with most of our European colleagues.
I have two
more points to make. The first is that fathers are important and clause
42 takes us in the wrong direction. Over the last week or so, a very
nice White Paper has been produced by the Secretary of State for Work
and Pensions and the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and
Families. It
says: Fathers
involvement in their childs life can lead to positive
educational achievement, a good, open and trusting parent-child
relationship during the teenage years and reduce the risk of mental
health issues for children in separated families. Engaging fathers
around the time of their childs birth, including through being
registered as father, is important in establishing that close
involvement. The
Government are promoting fathers on the one hand, but through this
legislation they are, in my opinion, condemning some children in the
future to never having had a father. The Committee should consider that
extremely carefully. On that point I will sit
down.
Dr.
Desmond Turner (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab): I hope that the
Committee will resist the hon. Gentleman. For one thing, if he was
successful and the Committee did not agree that clause 42 should stand
part, it would not prevent the provision of IVF to a lesbian couple.
The clause deals with how the other member of the couple is to be
referred to and that is all. As to the principle that he has been
expounding, the House dealt with that at length, and it was very
heavily carried on a free vote. The amendment demanding the need for a
father in those circumstances was soundly defeated. It is not
reasonable to try and circumvent that decision in this way on this
clause and in any event, it would not have the effect that he desires
of preventing IVF treatment for lesbian
couples.
Dr.
Harris: We had this debate to some extent on Second
Reading and in the Committee of the whole House, and I am not going to
repeat the points that I made there. However, I want to make three
brief rebuttals
in support of clause stand part. First, what the Government seek to do
is absolutely right and it does not need to be done on the basis of
human rights. I have never argued that it is anything to do with human
rights. It is about allowing families to get on with their lives
without the state intervening to block them from doing so.
We are in an
interesting political situation. I do not mean to be party political,
but there is an issue of the state not interfering too much with
consenting adults, and then some people in Parliament argue that the
state should specifically deny and interfere with certain family
arrangements. If we are going to do that, there must be good evidence
for doing so. The other side does not need the evidence; the burden of
evidence falls on those who wish to discriminate and in this case,
there is no good evidence that can be adduced. However, the evidence
that the hon. Member for South-West Devon has attackedin
moderate terms, I acceptfrom Professor Golombok and others, is
good evidence. The evidence that the hon. Gentleman cites does not
relate to the sorts of families we talk about. Indeed, in his quotes
from a book and a report there was no read-across between lesbian
couples and other families. The arguments against the measure fail at
the first hurdle. They fail to demonstrate that there is any basis on
which to discriminate in a positive way. There is no evidence that
children do better with heterosexual couples than with same-sex
couples.
Secondly, the
comparisons that are made in the work of Professor Golombok, formerly
of London university, now of Cambridge university, are correct. They
compare heterosexual couples and their children with same-sex couples
and their children and show that there does not appear to be any
problem. These people are academics; they do not say that there are
definitely no problems and therefore the policy is this. It is right to
point out that they use the word may, but in so far as
they draw conclusions, they do not find that these children have any
particular problems, and they have now looked at them, albeit in small
numbers, for quite some time.
6.30
pm Sitting
suspended for Divisions in the
House. 7
pm On
resuming
Dr.
Harris: I was saying that, first, the onus should be on
the discriminators and the interferers to show that there is a problem
with families of same-sex couples, but there is no evidence showing
that there is, and, secondly, the evidence that the children do well is
good, but I will not go into
that. I
wanted to take issue with the argument made by the hon. Member for
Rugby and Kenilworth, who is not in his place, that somehow having
lesbian parents is not going to help with the turbulence of teenage
yearsa view that the hon. Member for South-West Devon agreed
with, but I think is wrong. The only problem that can be specific to
those children is that they might be bullied. The best approach to that
is to stop the bullying, not to deny those who would be bullied the
chance to live. That is an argument for saying that
mixed-race children should not be allowed to be born because they might
be bullied. It is an argumentI am not saying that the hon.
Member for Rugby and Kenilworth was saying that.
The Golombok
research shows that, despite any bullying that might take
placeI hope that there is little of it nowand despite
any feelings that the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth in an
intervention attributed to them, those children do very well and are
psychologically well adjusted. It cannot be argued that having lesbian
parents cannot help with the turbulence of teenage years. I respect the
way in which the hon. Gentleman made his case, which he is entitled to
do. I am not implying that he is motivated by prejudice, for example,
but I think that his arguments are wrong.
Finally, even
if it could be shownI do not think that it can bethat,
on average, children in these families do worse, that is not an
argument for not allowing the families to exist and for the children
not to be born. That is not simply for the reason that it must be
better to be born, but if one argued that people had such a hard time
that it would be best not to be born, where would it
end? We
know that, sadly, on average children from poor backgrounds do not do
as well as children from wealthy backgrounds. There is evidence for
that. Yet, through the NHS, the state provides IVF for such families,
despite that average outcome. I am not for one moment suggesting, and I
do not think that the hon. Gentleman would suggest, that clinics should
have to consider the need for two incomes or that the birth certificate
arrangements in clause 42 should apply only to better-off families,
because children from poor backgrounds do worse on
averagealthough some do very wellthan children from
better-off backgrounds. Even if he could make the case that he is
seeking to make, which he cannot, it is not an argument against the
measures, and that is even before we deal with the human rights and
discrimination issues. Therefore, I urge the Committee to support the
clause as it stands.
Dawn
Primarolo: I shall start by referring to the provisions in
the clause and then respond to the hon. Gentlemens
contributions. Clause 42 makes provision for bringing the arrangements
for female civil partners in line with those for married couples. Where
a female civil partner gives birth to a child conceived as a result of
donor insemination, she is the mother of the child and her civil
partner will automatically be the other parent, unless she did not
consent to the mothers treatment. The terminology of the clause
is different, as it seeks to bring civil partnerships within the sphere
of the legislation, but otherwise the legal provisions are the same as
for married couples.
I shall
return to this point, but the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness would
seek within a short period of timenine months maximumto
conflate a range of relationships that may change who is the parent
with legal responsibility. We have accepted provision for married
couples and we are making the same provision for same-sex couples in
line with the civil partnership legislation. There cannot be any points
of principle on that, because civil partnership legislation has been
passed by the House. It is not about whether we had a discussion on the
Floor of the House on the need for a father, but a recognition that the
House has accepted partnerships and civil partnerships in
legislation.
The hon.
Member for South-West Devon advances an argument that is not supported
by the majority of the House, in discussions on not only the Bill but
civil partnerships and other legal status, and the Finance Bill, which
recognises civil partnerships as equivalent to marriage for tax
responsibilities. Therefore, as he acknowledged, he holds a minority
view. He put it powerfully, but I absolutely disagree with him on every
point. He advances the argument that there is a diminution of the
quality of parenting if the parents are not of a particular family
type, namely heterosexual, married and constantly there. Regrettably,
not just now in modern Britain, but throughout many centuries, family
structures have not followed the model that the hon. Gentleman believes
is best. Legislation reflects what the House has decided that the
make-up of modern Britain is.
Mr.
Streeter: I may be wrong, but I do not believe that I
mentioned the word married even once in my speech. If I
did, it was not the main thrust of my argument, which was about the
state facilitating a situation in which a child is denied the prospect
of having a father, as a matter of state policy. That is what I am
challenging.
Dawn
Primarolo: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely wrong in his
assertion that the clause, in recognising civil partnerships, seeks to
do that. I regret to tell him that the presence of a father within a
family structure does not necessarily mean that he is actively engaged
in the upbringing of his children. The Government position is that, in
recognition of the legislation, all parents have responsibilities to
their children, and that the quality of parenting is crucial. The
clause adds a second legal parent; it does not take away status or say
that there is not another individual in the childs genetic
make-up. That is why the right for a child aged 18 to know who are the
donors is crucial.
I do not wish
to rehearse it. The hon. Gentleman has made his case twice. He bases
his argument on a preferred model without evidence that quality of
parenting is crucial. He and other Conservative Members have described
families in crisis or experiencing breakdowns and sought to say that
that applies to
all. The
hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth commented in an intervention on
what is recorded on the childs birth certificate. I was taught,
and I am sure that every Committee member would concur, that honesty is
always the best policy. The best relationships between children and
their parents are built around honesty. It is important that children
should be told by their parents at an early age that they were donor
conceived; that is recognised to be beneficial to the children. That is
why the Government support and promote the Donor Conception
Networks Telling and Talking project. Hon.
Gentlemen may continue to advance their case if they want, but a
majority of the House substantially disagree with their view. Having
passed legislation on the matter, it is necessary that we ensure that
future legislation complies with the Houses
views. The
hon. Member for South-West Devon quoted the White Paper, saying that it
showed that the Government were doing two different things. I do not
agree. It comes back to the point, which is made in the White Paper,
that fathersand, the provisions ensure, parentstake
responsibility for their role through participation in
their childrens upbringing, in this case by registering the
birth with the mother. That is exactly where we should
be. The
hon. Member for Boston and Skegness asked a couple of questions and
gave examples. Is he seriously suggesting that between conception and
birth, several legal partnerships will be entered into, dissolved and
re-entered? The first point that must be made is that counselling is
given before IVF treatment, during which it is crucial that the welfare
of the child is considered. That includes parents with a stable
relationship who are committed to the childs upbringing. As I
said in my opening remarks, the clause introduces the same measures
that have operated for married couples so far, and I do not remember
any complaints about them. To answer his scenarios, I hope that he is
not suggesting that we should treat same-sex couples differently, given
their legal status under civil partnership legislation.
The hon.
Gentleman also asked what would happen if assisted conception took
place within a civil partnership and then, within the short period
after all the processes are gone through and before the baby is born,
the civil partnership is dissolved and the mother marries. It will be
presumed that the husband is the father, but that presumption is
rebuttablethis is the same point as in our discussions on
previous clausesby DNA testing. Because clause 42 would apply,
the original civil partner would be the other legal parent. This comes
back to the fact that in deciding to become parents, the individuals
need to recognise that they have a responsibility as parents that will
endure, but which under certain circumstances could be
rebutted. 7.15
pm
If the civil
partners have an assisted conception and then enter into a second civil
partnership, that will not affect the original arrangement. As in the
first example that the hon. Gentleman gave, the original civil partner
will be the other legal parent by virtue of clause 42. This is about
recognising the point at which the decisions are taken and I have
covered the importance of that
issue. The
hon. Gentleman also asked about what happens if the civil partner does
not consent. In that case, they would not be the legal parent of the
child because the consent would be presumed unless evidence was shown
to the contrary. Of course, these are complex relationships in terms of
law and reflecting on what is necessary to produce an outcome on who
has the legal responsibility. While I acknowledge the strong feelings
of the hon. Member for South-West Devon, with which I do not agree, I
have given most of my remarks in this debate in relation to what the
clause does, as opposed to the wider
principle.
|