Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Amendment) (Hansard, 7 June 2000)

§ Ms Debra Shipley (Stourbridge)

I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 with regard to the status of the father of a child conceived posthumously. I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss the issues concerning the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990, which, although a relatively recent Act, is in urgent need of amendment.

The Act came to my attention due to the plight of one of my constituents, Mrs. Marion Jordan, and her baby son, Daniel. Mr. and Mrs. Jordan were a happy newly married couple who wanted a family. Sadly, Mr. Jordan was diagnosed to be seriously ill with cancer. Hoping that treatment would help, and mindful of the devastating effects of some cancer treatments on fertility, Mr. and Mrs. Jordan decided to preserve a sample of Mr. Jordan's sperm, so that it could be used subsequently to conceive their much-wanted child. All this was carried out legally and professionally, and it is fully documented.

Mr. Jordan gave full consent for his sperm to be used by his wife to conceive his child. It is a child that they wanted, planned for and, indeed, longed for. Sadly, Mr. Jordan died. Mrs. Jordan went ahead and underwent IVF treatment, which happily resulted in a beautiful, healthy baby boy. By now, Mrs. Jordan had undergone the terrible trauma of losing her husband, but she had the great consolation that she had his son, Daniel.

Then her administrative troubles began. On going to register the birth of baby Daniel, Mrs. Jordan was distressed to discover that she was prevented from registering her deceased husband as the father of his own child. It is a shocking fact that the 1990 Act effectively makes baby Daniel illegitimate. That has to be wrong. This baby is a much-wanted child of whom his parents dreamed together. His mother is Marion Jordan, and there is documentary evidence to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that David Jordan was his father. Yet the law provides that, because Mr. Jordan died prior to conception, he cannot be named on baby Daniel's birth certificate. Surely, no hon. Member who seriously believes in strengthening the family could possibly think that that is a sustainable position.

The law must be changed. In a letter to me dated November 1999, the head of the births and deaths branch of the General Register Office stated: Section 28(6) of the Act provides that where the sperm of a man is used after his death he is not to be treated as the father of the child. He added in the same letter that, in 1997, the Department of Health commissioned Professor Sheila McClean of Glasgow university to review the 1990 Act and that, in commenting on the review, the office of births and deaths said that it would welcome a change to the Act to allow the father's particulars to be recorded where a widow conceives her husband's child after his death.

The results of that review were published in July 1998. On 3 December 1998, in a written reply to a parliamentary question, the then the Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Ms Jowell), welcomed the report and stated that the Government 291 would seek public and professional views on its recommendations. That process was, she said, to be completed by April 1999. That Minister has since moved to another Department.

In November 1999, I contacted the present Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), hoping for a constructive outcome to the unhappy situation that my constituent, Marion Jordan and her then tiny new-born baby, were in. In December 1999, a whole year after the first ministerial response, the new Minister told me that she expected to be able to make an announcement shortly on Professor McClean's recommendations, including our views on any possible amendments to the 1990 Act. She added that the report raised concerns surrounding issues of inheritance. Inheritance issues, although legally important to address, are in this instance something of a red herring.

There has been no announcement from the Minister on the subject, although, on 26 January, her office said that an announcement would be made in four to six weeks. We are now not six weeks but six months further on and my constituent is still unable to register her late husband as the father of their child. Colleagues with constituents who are similarly and cruelly stranded in that legislative limbo-land have contacted me. I want to see action for these loved and wanted children.

My Bill proposes a simple amendment to the 1990 Act with regard to the status of the father of a child conceived posthumously, so that mothers such as Marion Jordan need never again suffer the double blow of losing a partner and having him legally denied as the parent of their child. As Professor McClean stated in her review: The terms of s.28 of the 1990 Act make it clear that a child conceived posthumously is legally fatherless. Now, it might be thought that by taking the trouble to make a written statement of intent concerning the use of gametes after death, the man is intending that the child should be regarded as his. 292 She added: Whilst the current legislation permits the child access to certain information about, for example, genetic provenance, it also expressly precludes the child from having a father for legal purposes. It is ridiculous. Indeed, such legal status might be the child's right under the 1979 United Nations convention on the rights of the child. Article 2.1 states: Parties shall respect and ensure the rights set forth in the present Convention to each child within their jurisdiction without discrimination of any kind, irrespective of the child's or his parent's or legal guardian's race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national, ethnic or social origin, property, disability, birth or other status. Professor McClean therefore recommends amendment of section 28(6), which is exactly what my Bill seeks to do.

Professor McClean addressed the question of inheritance issues, which was raised as the problematic area by the present Minister. The professor recommends that the law should not be amended to secure inheritance rights of a child conceived after the death of its father—and thus that red herring is speedily dispatched.

The few simple amendments that I propose would mean a lot to the families who have had so much grief to deal with. I hope that my colleagues will support the Bill's passage into law.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Ms Debra Shipley, Mrs. Llin Golding, Mr. Simon Burns, Jackie Ballard, Barbara Follett, Mr. Geraint Davies, Mrs. Joan Humble, Mr. Jim Cunningham, Mr. Laurence Robertson, Dr. Jenny Tonge and Ms Christine Russell.