Proceeding contribution from Chris Bryant (Labour) in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 20 May 2008. It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HC) and Debate on bill on Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill [Lords].
Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill [Lords]
There is a strange irony in this debate. Either the original clause in the 1990 Act has had some effect, in which case the logic is that the status quo should preclude lesbians or single women from receiving IVF treatment, or the clause has had no effect and the amendment is just a declaratory gesture that, as the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) has just said, its supporters wish to continue. However, that declaratory statement will not have the slightest effect on a young gentleman on a Friday night, when he has had a few pints. He will not say, ““Oh, I remember. That Bill that Parliament passed last week said that there has to be a father, so I'm not going to have any unprotected sex tonight.”” Nor will it ensure that a single father participates in the raising of his child. Many hon. Members on both sides of the Committee passionately want to ensure that the interests of the child are protected, but the amendment would do nothing to protect the rights of children. However, it would send the message out to lesbians and single women that they should not apply for IVF. It may be that many lesbians have been allowed to have IVF over the past few years, and we have had evidence presented that that has been the case, but in some areas IVF clinics have told them that they do not qualify simply because of their sexuality and because a father would not be involved. I do not think that we should now restate the 1990 Act, thereby making the HFEA tell all clinics that they should start discriminating against people on grounds of their sexuality. Both the hon. Members for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) and for Stone (Mr. Cash) referred to what they believed to be ““normality””, and the views in the ““Dog and Duck”” in Yateley or wherever it was and in Staffordshire. They also referred to the natural order and what is natural. The truth is that IVF is not, in the strictest sense, natural. It is assisted conception, and it is one of the great joys that doctors have been able to bring to many families around the country. I do not believe that lesbian couples or single women who have gone through the difficult process of deciding that they passionately want a child to bring up in a loving and caring environment are the problem that the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) mentioned. When we start to impose our understanding of what is normal or natural on others, we are treading a very dangerous path. I for one was taught as a child"““Judge not that ye be not judged.””"
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 476 c212-3
- Session
- 2007-08
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Children's rights Abortion Cohabitation Absent parents Counselling Women Fertility Homosexuality Human rights Human embryo experiments Eligibility IVF Discrimination Fathers Parents Married people Single people Women's rights
- Legislation
- Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill (HL) 2007-08
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2025-10-21 14:48:34 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_474549
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_474549
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_474549