Mark
Simmonds: I am grateful to the Minister for responding to
the points that I made. I accept that the examples that I gave in
relation to this clause and the previous clause are unlikely and
complex. Nevertheless, it is the Committees job to scrutinise
and to make sure that the law is robust enough to cater for all
potential circumstances. I noticed from the flurry of papers that was
being exchanged while I was asking my questions that this was perhaps
something that had not been considered before, so I do not regret
asking these particular questions. The answers have demonstrated that
differences exist between how the law is structured for same-sex
couples and for different-sex couples, and that while the new husband in
the heterosexual couple will be the father of the child, the original
civil partner will be the other partner on the birth certificate. It
was quite right to extract that information from the Minister. I say to
her that I was not trying to demonstrate any prejudice, or whatever
word she might like to use, as regards the differences between
heterosexual and same-sex couples. Indeed, if my hon. Friend the Member
for South-West Devon chooses to vote against the clause, I shall not
vote with him.
Question
put and agreed
to. Clause
42 ordered to stand part of the
Bill. Clauses
43 and 44 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
45Further
provision relating to sections 42 and
43 Mr.
Tom Clarke (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab): I
rise to speak to amendment No. 154, in
clause 45, page 41, line 4, leave
out subsection
(1). It
is a great pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Mr.
Hood. I expressed most of my views under your predecessor,
Mr. Gale, and therefore I shall be very
brief. Tonight,
in common with other Members, I have had the opportunity to be at other
important House of Commons events: meetings of the Administration
Committee, the all-party group on learning disability and so on. I note
that there are no cameras from the Daily Mail and the BBC
showing a fairly well attended Committee. A photograph was published of
the Chamber on the day on which I last spoke in Committee. It was taken
during the debate on knives, and the media said that only 16 Members
bothered to turn up to that debate. I hope that some
day the media will recognise the marvellous work that you chair,
Mr. Hood, and the fact that hon. Members make a contribution
in such Committees.
I tabled
amendment No. 154 to give the Committee the opportunity to have the
kind of debate that we have
just had. With the greatest respect to my hon. Friends, it might well be
that the hon. Member for South-West Devon does not have much support in
this Committee, but he has overwhelming support in my constituency. I
think that it is perfectly fair that that view is expressed.
Clause 45(1)
states: Where
a woman is treated by virtue of section 42 or 43 as a parent of the
child, no man is to be treated as the father of the
child. I
find that quite chilling. When I served on the Committee that
considered the Bill that became the Children Act 1989, it was accepted
that the rights of the child were paramount. In all honesty, I have not
seen that as a theme in our debates throughout our consideration of the
Bill. As for prejudice, that is an unfortunate word that does not apply
to the views that were expressed in the Committee
today. I
think that there is an obligation to the child. We were entitled to ask
today what was in the best interest of the child. We discussed entirely
and exclusively what many regarded as the rights or otherwise of
adults, but not those of the child. The reason why I tabled the
amendment was that I feltand still do feelthat far more
focus ought to be given to the rights of the child and their future
after they are born. I do not agree with the majority of hon. Members
on this matter, although I accept that a view was taken by the House. I
also acknowledge that the Prime Minister accepted that there would be a
free vote. In that spirit, I have expressed my view. It would have been
less than courageous not to have said to the hon. Member for South-West
Devon that he has support in parts of the House and elsewhere in the
country. I have no desire to move the
amendment.
The
Chairman: Order. Does the right hon. Gentleman not wish to
move his
amendment?
Mr.
Clarke: We have had a reasonable debate and it is probably
wise not to do
so.
The
Chairman: The amendment is not
moved. Clause
45 ordered to stand part of the
Bill. Further
consideration adjourned.[Steve
McCabe.] Adjourned
accordingly at twenty-three minutes past Seven oclock till
Thursday 12 June at Nine
oclock.
|