---

Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill [HL]

My Lords, I support the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, in Amendment No. 108A, which I have co-signed, requiring IVF providers to consider the need for a father as well as a mother. The Government are seeking to remove the need for a father from existing legislation, but their case contains a fundamental contradiction which they have so far sought to avoid. I know that the Government and those who have taken part in previous debates are all agreed that the best interests of the child are paramount in the Bill, but it can never be in the child's best interests for someone to decide that he or she does not need a father. If our primary concern is the best interests of the child, noble Lords must support Amendment No. 108A. At various points during consideration of the Bill, we have heard in this House and read in the media of individuals who have been raised without a father, and yet who have grown up happy and well adjusted. While of course we rejoice at the outcome for these individuals, we must be wary of such anecdotal evidence. As I have said before, stories with happy endings are not the basis on which to make law. Many people could testify to the negative impact on their life of growing up without a father. Both public opinion and the weight of sociological research recognise the vital importance that the father plays in a child’s development. The noble Baroness, Lady Deech, has already quoted the ComRes poll which found that 77 per cent of those interviewed considered the obligation for IVF clinics to consider the need for a father to be ““important”” or ““very important””. In Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, and I referred to and quoted from extensive bibliographies of evidence. All of that research is on record. Amendment No. 108A has significant support from sound research and from the public. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, reminded us, the evidence before the Joint Committee showed that the 1990 requirement to consider the need for a father has done no harm. I know that the Minister has stated that we should not create legislation on the basis of no harm, but I suggest that we should ask ourselves what harm could be done if we removed that requirement. What signal would we be sending to the public if we removed the phrase ““the need for a father””? New laws send out clear and powerful messages. People will conclude that Parliament now thinks that fathers are an optional extra. The Minister stressed in Committee that the Government’s decision to remove the phrase, "““including the need for a father””" was not motivated by any attack on fathers or the concept of fatherhood. Although I know he means it—we have discussed it off the Floor of the House—government motivation and public perception do not seem to coincide in this respect. The public impression is and will be that removing the phrase undermines the role of fathers. That is surely the crux of the matter. Government Amendment No. 108 speaks in the vaguest of terms. The suggested replacement is ““supportive parenting””. It is not clear what that means. Whatever it is, the amendment does not require consideration of the need for a father. An overwhelming weight of evidence shows that a child is most likely to have good outcomes living in a family with both a mother and a father, above all when the parents are married. The Government amendment simply fails to address the fundamental issue. It will replace a firm recognition of the importance of the father with an inadequate alternative. I believe that to remove the requirement to consider the child’s need for a father prioritises the desires of people to be parents above the needs of the child. I repeat: it prioritises the desires of people to be parents above the needs of a child. That is not a change I believe noble Lords should support and I urge them to support Amendment No. 108A.