My Lords, some while ago, I was chairman of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. Little did I think that that post would have any bearing on today’s debate. Without going into the detail, there is no doubt that modern law, including the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act of a couple of years ago, leads us to the situation that children, however they are conceived, enjoy the same rights as those conceived in the natural fashion. In fact, I think that the amendment goes further than is absolutely necessary—it may be a storm in a teacup—because if the child has the gametes of both parents, it is their child. However, the law says that a child born to a surrogate mother is actually the child of the surrogate mother. The law treats the baby as the child of the mother from whose body it emerged. This amendment would achieve something, but if we are ever going to get a general statement of principle from the Government or elsewhere, it will have to be along the lines that the use of in vitro fertilisation techniques, as in other walks of life, will make no difference to succession to titles.
Equality (Titles) Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Baroness Deech
(Crossbench)
in the House of Lords on Friday, 6 December 2013.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Equality (Titles) Bill [HL].
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
750 c562 Session
2013-14Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2015-03-17 10:55:19 +0000
URI
http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2013-12-06/13120659000375
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2013-12-06/13120659000375
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2013-12-06/13120659000375