Proceeding contribution from Lord Lester of Herne Hill (Liberal Democrat) in the House of Lords on Monday, 21 January 2008. It occurred during Debate on bill on Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill [HL].
Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill [HL]
My Lords, I have the misfortune to disagree with the noble and Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and the noble Baroness, Lady Deech. I shall say only a few words about the European Convention on Human Rights and the Human Rights Act. The Law Lords have a distinguished recent record of reading into legislation, wherever they can, equal rights for gay couples, even in areas where Parliament has not passed, for example, the Civil Partnership Act, of which I was originally a supporter in a Private Member’s Bill. They have done so because of their commitment to equal treatment. The reasons powerfully expressed by my noble friend Lord Carlile about presumptions based on stereotypes of what must be a proper family in the context of children said all that needed to be said. Without going into all the reasons, I agree with the Government’s legal advice that Article 8 of the European Convention, which protects the right to private life, read with Article 14, which means that that right must be enjoyed without direct or indirect discrimination, would give rise to a powerful case, although I would be more optimistic on the part of the claimant were it before our supreme judicial authority, the House of Lords, than I would before the European Court of Human Rights. This is because it is an international court dealing with a wide range of 47 countries and tends to give a wide margin of discretion to the national authorities. Our judges, being close to the social conditions and ethical values of our country, and showing themselves to be aware of the need to secure equal treatment without discrimination, would be much more likely to grant a declaration of incompatibility if the Bill were to stand as it is without Amendment No. 108. If one replaced it with Amendment No. 108A, there would be a serious risk of litigation leading to that result. The great advantage of the reference to ““supportive parenting”” is that it does not prejudge or seek to impose a standardised view of what the family ought properly to be. I also have experience, but of a slightly different kind from that of my noble friend Lord Carlile, of lesbians, in particular, being model and rather traditional parents. That simply illustrates that you cannot generalise. I know many terrible families, with terrible parents who are a father and a mother; and I know some extremely good parents who are same-sex couples. We must guard against the danger—I say this in the presence of the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher—of a kind of Clause 28 being an indirect result of the legislation.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 698 c68
- Session
- 2007-08
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords chamber
- Subjects
- Disability Children Civil partnerships Codes of practice Diagnosis Fertility Homosexuality Human rights Human embryo experiments Diseases Donors Genetics Ethics IVF Discrimination Fathers Parents Lone parents Research Stem cells Human-animal hybrid embryos
- Legislation
- Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill (HL) 2007-08
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-16 00:57:34 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_437649
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_437649
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_437649