---

Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill [Lords]

I am grateful for that intervention, but I simply do not agree, and I am not alone in that—there are human rights lawyers out there who do not agree with those recommendations either. I have a brief here from a human rights QC, who says that lawyers do not believe that that is how the Bill will be seen. In reality, the Government have set themselves on siding wholly with the rights of the adult. The truth, however, is that the rights of the child must also be a paramount consideration. That is the point for those who deal in this area. For instance, the UN convention on human rights and the ECHR both make it clear that the rights of a child to have those parents is the paramount consideration and that no element can override that. The hon. Gentleman makes his point, but it is worth saying in return that I have some advice on the ECHR recommendations which refers to whether it is necessary to override the rights and freedoms of others and which would prevail. It continues:"““This works both ways in the circumstances of this Bill. The child once born has Art. 8 rights which should not be interfered with for the protection of the rights and freedoms of””" anyone, including"““same sex parents unless…'necessary'””." The advice continues:"““'Necessary' here means something that is clearly required…not…anything that is thought to be socially convenient at any particular time.””" The issue is the well-being of the child, not, in this case, the well-being of the adult concerned.