---

Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill [HL]

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I would like to speak briefly in the gap. I scrubbed my name from the speaking list on Monday because I was not sure that I could be here for the winding up speeches. I will not say all that I had it in mind to say there because many others have said it very well. I want to suggest one thing: there may be more room for compromise than has yet been apparent in the contentious question of the ““need for a father””. We are all clear that this legislation does not in any way abolish the biological reality of fathers. Cloning remains, and in my view should remain, illegal. The question arises about the social need for a father. Many noble Lords have spoken eloquently about the importance of fathers in the lives of their children. I wholeheartedly agree. If the views of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, about the family are conservative, mine must be ultra-conservative, because I think that children need about five parents. That is based on the experience of being a parent on my own and of living most of my life in some way or another in the extended family. Fathers are needed. Biological fathers are not touched by this legislation but we must face the reality that the social father is very often not the biological father. The social father may indeed be a stepfather, close friend of the family or an uncle. The role of the father is indisputably essential and it must be fulfilled for every child and, I would contend, while especially so for young boys, also for young girls. We must protect that, but in doing so we may be unwise to leave the ““need for a father”” on the face of the legislation. It is a highly ambiguous phrase which has not proved practical in the way in which IVF clinics operate. I also believe that we may have reason to remove the phrase ““agreed fatherhood””. Being a father is a deeply understood notion in our and every culture. Fatherhood is not something that is up for legislative redefinition. We would do much better to put the emphasis on the notion of the agreed parent and the second agreed parent and, if I had my way, even the third agreed parent. We need not challenge in a way that many of our fellow citizens find offensive the importance of fathers in fixing with legal certainty the parental rights of those who actually bring children up.