---

Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill [Lords]

It is always interesting to follow the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner). The one issue on which he was absolutely correct is the disparity in PCT provision of IVF treatment, which causes a lot of angst and concern across the country. Something needs to be done about that. However, he was completely incorrect to say that the terms of the original clause in the 1990 Act, the amendments proposed by me and my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) and those proposed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) are discriminatory. They are clearly not. Those Labour Members who have tried to defend the Government's position are skating on very thin ice and dancing on the head of a pin, as I hope to demonstrate in my remarks. No one disputes that that 1990 Act has worked well. It was thoroughly thought through, and it was a detailed and widely debated provision. It was agreed at the time that the need for a father was an important factor in the welfare of a child. Both the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) and the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown seem to be suggesting that we should ignore the welfare of the child, but that should always be a cornerstone of this aspect of the Bill. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green made a very knowledgeable, considered and well argued speech. He talked about the significance of the need for a father, and I shall expand on that later. He was also right to say that the amendments under consideration do not contravene human rights legislation, but does the need for a mother have to be made explicit in amendments Nos. 21 and 22? Is not that need already explicit in the fact that it is a would-be mother who presents herself for treatment? I hope that it will help the Committee if I explain what my amendments Nos. 12 and 13 set out to do.