Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Gary Streeter (Conservative) in the House of Commons on Monday, 12 May 2008. It occurred during Debate on bill on Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill.


Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill

I will not, if my hon. Friend does not mind. I have given way twice, and if I did so again I would be breaking into my own time. The third part of the Bill that I wish to discuss is the removal of the ““need for a father”” clause. The House may have guessed that I am not necessarily in favour of that. Although the practical implications of the clause are slight—we must accept that—its symbolic magnitude should not be underestimated. It is fundamentally a question of the hierarchy of rights. Should the sensibilities of those who may be bringing up children after they are born be put before the interests of the child? Lord Darzi recently said in another place that the removal of the ““need for a father”” clause should be seen in the context of the wider Government policy of promoting equality, but what about the wider Government policy of ensuring that the child's welfare is the paramount consideration, as seen in the Adoption and Children Act 2002? Surely that should come first. If society desires responsible fatherhood—which we do—the most detrimental act would be to send the male population the message that they do not matter. As we all know, family structures are an interdependent triad of relationships between father and child, between mother and child and between father and mother, each performing separate and complementary roles in the socialisation and normalisation of each party. We need to start affirming the position of fathers in parenting, families and society in general, and the Bill tugs us in the wrong direction. In this hierarchy of rights, it should be the child who triumphs. Of course the Bill has some good features, but I believe that overall it is a step in the wrong direction, and I hope that—unless it amends the Bill significantly—the House will ultimately reject it. When it returns to us in Committee, I shall support amendments seeking to reduce the time limits for abortion. I consider it a matter of national shame that this country remains the abortion capital of western Europe.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
475 c1109 
Session
2007-08
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Civil partnerships Clones Abortion Blood Fertility Human embryo experiments Diseases Donors Genetics Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority Ethics IVF Discrimination Foetal tissue NHS Medical treatments Screening Religion Sexuality Research Stem cells Christianity Human-animal hybrid embryos
Legislation
Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill (HL) 2007-08
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk