02/02/2018 House of Commons

On a point of order, I wish to

correct the record of my answer

yesterday. He is aware of this point

of order. Yesterday I answered a

question based on my honours two

honest recollection. I understood it

to be put to me as implausible

because of the impartiality of the

civil service. The audio of that

conversation is available and I am

glad the record is corrected. I

accept that I should have corrected

or dismissed the premise of my

honourable friend's question. I have

apologised to him who is an honest

man. I have the highest regard for

our hard working civil servants. I

am grateful for this opportunity to

correct the record and I apologise

to the House.

Point of order. I beg

to move that the House set in

private.

The question is this, As

many as are of the opinion, say

"aye". To the contrary, "no" I think

we.

The bill, second reading.

Thank

you, very much. I beg to move that

the ill be read a second time. Can I

say how good it is to see you in

your place, Mr Deputy Speaker. In

proposing this bill I have not made

things easy for myself. It contains

four separate main proposals

spanning four different Government

departments and potentially for

Ministers. It is not a Government

hand out bill and to complicate

matters, three of the four Ministers

were moved in the reshuffle. It has

been a stressful couple of weeks. I

know how hard it is to get a Private

member will on the bricks, so on the

face of it, Mr Deputy Speaker, I am

being greedy but for good reason. In

over 20 years applying at the start

of the session ballot, my name has

never once come out of the hat. It

probably won't again in what every

years or months I have left here. As

it is likely my only opportunity, I

have been ambitious in trying to

include many of the good causes that

I have tried to promote in this

place over recent years. Mr Deputy

Speaker, I am the Private members

bill novice after 21 years in this

house and I ask the House to be

gentle with me. It has not been easy

to keep all the ducks in a row over

for Government departments but I am

grateful that they have all in tire

met with support by Government

Ministers, so this bill can proceed

to committee, with the will of the

House. It has not been an easy

process and I would like to place on

record the advice, patients of

members in the Private bill office.

The frustration has been that I have

tried to be as flexible as possible

with Ministers and sit down with

officials to agree on the

terminology is so that we can

progress the bill. I agreed in

principle the bill from the

revolving cast list of Ministers, it

has only been in the last week that

officials have sat down with me to

talk turkey and details have been

thrashed out. My apologies for the

late publication of the actual bill

just in time. We have only just

secured the lead minister and I

welcome the honourable friend to the

dispatch box and I am sure all is

going to end well. Now, the upshot,

I am sure it is... The upshot is

that there is not as much detail and

commitment is that I would have

liked. It is much work to be done in

committee and the after. I am

confident that we have a bill

containing robust principles which

can be passed on to scrutiny, with

the will of the House. I am grateful

to all of those who helped reduce

this bill and those individuals and

organisations out side of this place

who have been campaigning on these

issues, based on powerful personal

experiences. So to summarise, the

parts of my bill as as follow.

Further work in how the Government

can extend civil partnerships to

opposite sex couples as my previous

presentation bills. Equal civil

partnerships are unfinished business

and change need only require an

amendment to the act of 2004, which

this house passed, with my own

support. Second parent names should

be included on marriage and civil

partner certificate am based on

previous bills. It will bring

England and Wales in line with

Scotland and Northern Ireland, for

the first time in about 180 years.

Thirdly, a provision on the

registration of still births. My

previous ten minute rule bill

covered this. So that there is a

formal recording of a child still

born in the usual way but before 24

weeks, which is the threshold at the

moment. An amendment to the act to

give coroners the power to

investigate late stage still births,

if the are suspected of medical

negligence...

If this bill is

passed, people will be able to, once

the detail is fleshed out, be

married and have a civil

partnership. I have been written to

by two sisters. It is a burning

injustice. If everybody is allowed

to have a civil partnership, it is a

burning injustice that these two

sisters have lived together all of

their life, when one of them dies,

the other one will have to move out

of their home. It is about money but

I think it is an injustice and hopes

when he works on the detail of the

bill, he will try and help siblings

day in the home they have lived in

all of their lives.

I understand my

honourable friend's concern and this

has been raised before. It is not my

intention at this stage to extend

civil partnerships other than to

cohabiting couples who are in a

relationship. I want to mirror the

existing terminology within the

civil partnership bill that came in

in 2004. I am sure we will in

committee, and report stage play

later on, will be entertaining such

proposals and no doubt he will want

to raise it at this stage. It is not

the intention as it stands at the

moment.

If you does one second. Does

the honourable gentleman recognise

it is an injustice and it would be

completely unfair if everybody else

was allowed to have any legal

relationship they wanted apart from

siblings? Does he at least accept it

is the worthy cars which I have

campaigned on for many years?

I

understand it is a worthy cause but

it is a different injustice to allow

people to have their relationship

recognised by the state. There are

disadvantages in the situation he

describes and I think it does need

to be dealt with. I am not proposing

to deal with it at this stage in my

bill, which would make it even more

complicated than it is now. It is

likely that the title of the bill

will need amending in committee, to

reflect the change to electronic

records of marriage certificates.

Let me start with the subject of

extending several partnerships to

include opposite sex couples, not

just same sex couples, which itself

was long overdue and

enthusiastically supported by me and

the great majority of members on all

sides and tackled a clear obstacle

to equal rights by loving couples

who just happen to be of the same

sex. The House decided it was time

for equal marriage. These guys have

not caved in and I do not want to

reopen the bruising debate we had at

that time, especially across my

party. It did give rise to an

unintended new inequality and surely

it is time for equal civil

partnerships, in natural extension,

supported at the time of the bill by

all parties, and just as much now.

The original consultation before the

bill showed a 61% of respondents in

favour of extending civil

partnerships to opposite sex

couples. Alas, for some reason it

never made it into the act, which

would, I think, made it a better act

and that is why change is still

necessary today.

Could be honourable

member update the House as to how

many people were involved in the

consultation?

Quite a lot. I have

not got the actual figures. It was

one of two consultations and the

second consultation came up with a

different result and as a result of

that, no further action was taken.

It is unfinished business. The

second consultation had only 11,000

entries, which one would argue is

not a representative of the

population or a gauge of public

opinion.

Given that there are

three... I will come onto. There are

3.2 million cohabiting opposite sex

couples, it is loosely is small

proportion of those who are

potentially affected. It is quite it

is unfinished business and over

80,000 people who have signed the

petition in favour of the change in

this bill are just a small

indication of the demand that there

is. I am grateful for the

intervention. Now, I think there are

three main rationales for supporting

this bill. It will correct and

unintended but glaring inequality

resulting from the act, where

same-sex couples are entitled to

take up a civil partnership or to

enjoy the extension of marriage

whilst opposite sex couples have the

single option of marriage, a larger

range of institution. That does not

fear. It gives rise to inequality.

Secondly, a positive reason for

pushing forward is families

debility. As a former children's

minister, that has been at the top

of my priorities. Latest estimates

are that some 3.2 million cohabiting

opposite sex couples in this

country. That is around double the

figure reported just 15 years ago.

They are also responsible for over 2

million children. Some 53% of all

birth registrations are two married

parents, but one third out to

unmarried parents who are living

together. Cohabitation is the

quickest growing, and we need to

recognise our society is changing

and we need to adapt is to promote

family stability in whatever form to

promote the continuation of giving

children the best start in life. I

will.

Has he seen from our

honourable friend her family's

manifesto which raises the point of

stability in the family for bringing

up children and does he support the

manifesto?

My name is honoured.

Absolutely. -- my name is on it. It

has the ultimate aim of giving the

best opportunities of stars in life

for those children, the 2 million

children in those sorts of

relationships. It has been

calculated the cost of this country,

some £48 billion a year. That is

some two and a half percent of

breast and stick product. That is a

problem. -- GDP. -- gross domestic

product. 75 cents of family

breakdown is involving children

under five result from the

separation of unmarried couples.

There is a raft of statistics

showing but parents not only to -

parent family are more likely to

fall out of school, more likely to

get in trouble with the law, and not

be in employment, education or

training. That is not to be

judgmental about parents who find

themselves bringing up a child alone

through no fault of their Rome, but

two partners do make for greatest

ability. We know marriage works, but

we know civil partnerships are

showing evidence of greatest ability

for same-sex couples including those

that have children through any

means. There is a strong case for

believing extending civil

partnerships would benefit... If

just one in ten same-sex couples

entered into a civil partnerships,

that would amount to 300,000 couples

and their children. It would offer

greater security, stability, less

likely breakdown, and better

financial outcomes. That is surely

progress. Some people ask why can

they not get married? People choose

not to get involved in the

paraphernalia of formal marriage for

many reasons. Too much of an

establishment thing, and if done in

a registry office, it still has

religious connotation. Some see it

having a patriarchal side and it is

seen as a form of social control. It

is also rather expensive. But they

are not seen as genuine partnerships

of equal civil partnerships are.

Those are not my views, but they are

the views of many people and many

people who have lobbied me. I will

give way.

Some may argue that in

effect you are undermining

potentially the idea of commitment.

Would you agree that in fact in

reality those who opt for civil

partnership at those who would not

have made the commitment?

I have

recorded an interview on television

this morning with a couple who have

been together for 26 years, they

have teenage children, they do not

want to get married. They travelled

to the Isle of Man, which is the

only part of the British Isles that

recognises civil partnership for

opposite sex couples. They are the

first couple from mainland UK to

have a civil partnership through the

Isle of Man. It is not recognised in

the UK proper. They made the point

about they want to show their

commitment. They want the stability

and legal protections, but do not

have as a cohabiting couple.

Marriage is not right for those

macro. The only way of getting that

legal protection is effectively

undermining marriage because doing

it for the wrong reasons. Civil

partnership shows the commitment,

getting protection without having to

conform any way they do not believe

in. Whether we agree with them or

not, that is their right. In an age

where families take many different

forms, the key thing we should be

interested in is doing what is best

for loving couples to thrive and

where children are involved, to be

brought up in a stable environment.

This is another opportunity to get

more people to take advantage of

such a situation. There is a

range...

Thank you Mr Tebbit is

bigger. I will point out the

consultation that took place did not

have any consensus that we should go

down the civil partnership time. I

wonder if she would comment on that

in France religious marriages are

not recognised and have to be

preceded by a civil ceremony and

whether any data has been gathered

about how many split up families

they have their whether they have

any record that we will have year

because this is what it is about,

stability.

Precisely the statistic

that my friend Maggie is looking for

and if she's patient for a few

minutes longer, I will give her the

information she is looking forward

to. They are mostly in loving

relationships, but if they do not

want to go for a traditional

marriage, they have no way of having

that recognised in the eyes of the

state. What is worrying is the

misconception there is such a thing

as a common law wife or husband as a

woman finds out abruptly on the

death of a partner when there is an

inheritance tax on the estate and

family home. If they have a child,

the relationship breaks down, they

are not entitled to any financial

support if they are not married.

There is not automatic entitlement

to property. The long-term survivor

will not see the same tax benefits

as a married woman are in a civil

partnership, which would be

discriminatory towards the children.

Even a couple engaged to be marriage

have more rights than a cohabiting

opposite sex couple. The question is

why not those that have made a

conscious...

He will be aware of the

work of resolution, the family

solicitors group who have a

cohabiting awareness week, has drawn

attention to me and I'm sure many

other honourable members that the

lack of rights and that people are

ignorant of the lack of rights they

get is there it is any breakdown

there is a lot of one of the

cohabiting parents. Hopefully this

will put this right.

I completely

agree with the gentleman. I was not

sure there was a awareness week, but

many family Law solicitors have

written to me and support the

campaign because they see the

fallout of when it goes wrong, that

people who come to them thinking

they have entitlements because they

have been living together for so

long find out they do not, they have

a tax bill and lots of problems and

headaches and the children do not

have a home to live in. If anything,

this bill, I hope, will help to

publicise the real problem in the

law, that the Government needs to

address at some stage and I will

give the opportunity to the

Government to take the bull by the

horns and do something about it now.

The question is, why should those

who have made a conscious -- should

not -- have the opportunity to have

the same legal rights, response

billet is in the eyes of the law,

that we developed their are several

further applications, many people

with strong religious beliefs,

particular Catholics who have had

divorce, may not be inclined to get

married again if they meet a new

partner because the church does not

believe that they should be able to

marry again. In addition, as it

stands, admitting to being in a

civil partnership currently

automatically carries the revelation

that you are in a same-sex

relationship and that could be an

unintended invasion of someone's

privacy. There are a number of

practical real-life scenarios in

which civil partnerships for

opposite sex couples could achieve

something positive and

non-discriminatory. I'm pleased that

the sport this bill has attracted.

It has been said that the marriage

foundation supports this greatly. It

is a strong profamily moment --

profamily movement. We will provide

a new form a basis for those wanting

to make a legally backed commitment

to one another hue preferred not to

marry. I welcome the support from

the Times. I see the measure as an

important part of reforming family

law and making family arrangements

fit for the 21st-century. We need to

grasp the nettle with regards to...

And we need to find new ways for the

states to recognise committed

relationships and give stability,

especially to the children and

making sure shared parenting and

keeping warring parents out of the

courts still needs further work

also. Opposite sex civil

partnerships are not something that

have been cooked up in this country.

In South Africa, the civil union act

of 2006 gave same-sex and opposite

sex couples the option to register a

civil union I with all means on the

same basis. In France, it was

introduced in 1999 as a form of

civil union between two adults of

the same sex or opposite sex and

marriage was added to that also. Yet

one in three marriages ends in

divorce. There is evidence that some

of the civil partnerships have

created greater stability whether

they are opposite sex or same-sex

than traditional marriage. Noel,

locations -- no convocations are

proposed. That earlier comments. It

was not be possible for someone to

become a civil partner with a close

family member or if the person is

already in the union and the

partnership would need to be subject

to the same termination criteria. It

is a similar proposal and now the

case is overwhelming. All that will

be required is a simple one line

amendment, it could all be done in

Mitty by tea-time, though I guess by

the time drafting officials have got

their teeth into it, many more

clauses will be required. That is

what I originally intended in this

bill. I acknowledge that the

Government have concerns about

taking the full plunge, going the

whole hog at this stage, and one to

carry out further research. I have

doubts about what this would

achieve, given that it has been

mentioned, we have had two public

consultations in the last five years

and we have 13 years worth of civil

partnerships of same-sex couples in

practice to go on the evidence. I

understand the caution and securing

a clear commitment to learn from

this experience and promote

equality, I hope they come to the

same conclusion as I have together

with the campaign for this. Now more

than 80,000 people have signed a

petition in support, many of whom

have been enthusiastically lobbying

local MPs. There is a growing tide

of support fuelled by a court case

Jude go to the supreme court. This

has been pioneered by civil

partnerships.

I will.

partnerships.

I will.

I

partnerships.

I will.

I am

partnerships.

I will.

I am pleased

partnerships.

I will.

I am pleased he

partnerships.

I will.

I am pleased he mentioned

partnerships.

I will.

I am pleased he mentioned my

partnerships.

I will.

I am pleased he mentioned my

constituents. That case is going to

the Supreme Court. The court has

indicated it is for this house and

Government to make decisions on this

matter and will you join me in

expressing dissatisfaction that the

Government is looking at restricting

civil partnerships? They have

accepted but if they remove civil

partnerships for same-sex couples,

they will be restricting choice.

I

will come onto that point briefly in

a minute. I am grateful for his port

as the member for the couple I have

mentioned and his support for this

whole campaign. The issue began when

Charles and Rebecca approached their

registry office and they wanted to

formalise their relationship and

celebrate it with friends and family

but they are not allowed to do. They

preferred the idea of the civil

partnership because it reflects us

as a couple. We want equality within

our relationship and we want

protections. The couple have

campaigned tirelessly through the

court and at the repeal caught last

year a split decision ruled against

them but put the Government on

notice that the current situation is

unsustainable. Now, I do not want to

prejudge the supreme court findings.

It is hard to see how the Government

will not be criticised by not taking

heed of action when such a golden

opportunity has dropped into their

laps. I appreciate the Government is

also reserving the option that the

quality could be achieved by

scrapping civil partnerships

altogether. I think that would be a

mistake. It is no surprise that

there has been a big reduction in

the number of civil partnerships

since the option of full marriage

was introduced in 2014. In 2016,

there were 890 civil partnerships

done, which was down from the

previous year. That was an increase

on the number from 2015, yet more

tellingly, although the full figures

have not been published, the number

of civil partnership converting into

marriage is still in the genes. When

the option first became available,

only 16% converted into marriage.

That would suggest that civil

partnerships have a different role

and that applies equally to same sex

couples as it no doubt would for

opposite sex couples who have been

denied the opportunity. Abolishing

civil partnerships with stop the

choice for all couples and leave

tens of thousands civil partnerships

in limbo, remaining as an abolished

species or converting to a full

marriage that they have resisted. In

the last consultation, the church of

England's position was to keep them.

The Secretary General said that

there are arguments for the

retention of civil partnerships to

maintain an option for those

same-sex couples who want

recognition but do not believe their

relationship is identical to

marriage. I hope the church of

England will come round giving

formal blessings in charge to its

civil partners, too. I hope the

Government will quickly move from

the consultation phase two and

implementation phase and nothing in

this bill curtails the speed. It is

not a requirement to put a

consultation in legislation and I

hope the review the minister wants

to offer can start immediately and

in parallel with the passage of this

legislation. If the Government

determines what we already know that

thousands of civil partners can tie

the knot, with the same urgency they

approached the same sex couple bill

in 2013. Many members believe the

time has come, to the benefit of

many cohabiting couples and the

stability of our society. This part

of my pill has cross-party support

inside and outside of the House and

this important measure could bring

about equality and I ordered the

House to support it.

As the

honourable member has been tenacious

in his negotiations with the

Government departments involved this

week. May I just confirm, is the

honourable gentleman confirming he

is content for the first two classes

to act as marker classes in the bill

and he and I will both table a joint

amendment to cause one and clause

two of the bill in its current form

so in committee we are looking at

consultations in the way he has

discussed this week?

My honourable

friend is in patient and later...

Later, there is plenty more to go, I

will say. So she has got in their

first but it was not necessary. I am

aware that I have for parts of the

bill and there are other parts which

are less obligated. The fact that my

mother, my late mother, could not

add her name as parent on my

marriage to delegate is awful. Well

past its sell by date and frankly an

outrage. In fact, the signatures of

my mother and mother-in-law were

included but at our discretion as

witnesses, not as parents. My father

signed it, as did my wife's father

because in the days when those

anomalies originated the daughter

belonged to the father and could be

signed away at marriage. That has

been the case in England since 1837

and has not changed since then. The

problem lies with the current system

of marriage registration which

relies on hard copy bricks that lie

in religious establishes and

registry offices. This is over

30,000 churches, a big undertaking.

Surely, Mr Deputy Speaker, it is not

beyond the wit of man or women in

this age to introduce a single

electronic register instead of

relying on hard copies and this

would meaning the newly married

couple would sign a copy and it was

returned to the alleged cult

register. -- sign the register. This

would include two spaces, for two

signatures, for each of the partners

for the marriage or civil

partnership. That innovation came in

when civil partnerships were

introduced in 2004 first of all

partnerships. We have done it for

civil partnerships but not for

marriages. Both parents would then

be included, the same sex parents,

which one may be biological parent

or adoptive parent. This would be a

progressive measure to acknowledge

and celebrate all types of

relationships that give rise to

children who go in to get hitched.

It avoids insulting scenarios when a

single mother has given everything

to give up a son or daughter cannot

be acknowledged on a wedding to

forget, where as an absentee or

abusive father who did a runner at

birth and had no part in the

upbringing is registered on these

difficult. Many parents only find

this out when the pen is taken away

from the mother straight after the

naturals when the register is signed

to confirm the marriage. It is a

nonsense that this simple measure

has not come to pass so far.

Apparently it is the policy of the

Government and the previous one. It

has been supported by Prime

Ministers, Ministers, early day

motions, Private members bills and

the other honourable members across

and my right honourable friend, the

Bishop of St Albans, they are trying

to push through the measure. My

proposals will mirror the intention.

I will seek to restrict the Henry

VIII classes. Making sure this bill

passes into law quickly is the

fastest way to achieve this change

in the law and my bill could achieve

that. Just to confirm, the two

clauses relating to marriage

certificates are marker clauses, as

the honourable lady has pre-empted

me pointing out and will be replaced

and collaborated on as agreed with

Ministers, albeit at the 11th hour.

Finally, I,... Is she happy? My

honourable friend is signifying that

she is happy. My day is complete, Mr

Deputy is bigger. Before it is and I

come onto the subject of

stillbirths. The most emotionally

dramatic part of my bill and an

issue that this house has been moved

on many occasions by the Testament

of honourable members on both sides

who have bravely spoken out about

their own experiences. It is because

of those emotional personal

testimonies I think this whole

subject punches above its weight in

this place and has given a voice and

hope to the too many parents who are

directly affected by the tragedy of

stillbirths. I went to pay tribute

to the work of the all-party group

of baby loss and the work done for

Colchester, Lewisham, amongst

others. My honourable friend from

Banbury as well and for Washington

and I am sure anybody else that I

have missed will take the

opportunity to intervene. It has

been a great cross-party effort and

one of the things we do well in this

house when we get it right. I first

became involved as shadow children's

minister and when the constituent

came to me with a tale of how she

had suffered miscarriages and is

still birth after 19 weeks. It is

classified only if the gestation

period is 24 weeks or more, one day

less and it is a non-viable delivery

or a mid-trimester miscarriage.

There are no records of those survey

did not form part of the mortality

figures, which whilst falling, I

still have far too high in this

country. Without wishing in any way

to downplay the importance and pain

of miscarriage, particularly for new

parents struggling to have their

first child, they are different. My

constituent Hayley was pregnant. She

carried the child and felt the baby

kicking and went through all the ups

and downs of pregnancy. Previously,

she had suffered a miscarriage after

just a couple of weeks. That they,

around 19 weeks something went wrong

and Healy and Fraser's baby died on

board. It was not a miscarriage and

Healy had to go through the pain of

giving birth to baby who she knew

was no longer alive. She had to take

powerful drugs and experienced

contractions. She went into hospital

and had pain relief. The following

day she gave her to her baby,

Samuel. She held Samuel in her arms,

she and her partner took photographs

and said their goodbyes. She was

given good support by the clinical

staff at the hospital, and

outstanding hospital, particularly

the maternity department and had

helped later. She was fortunate to

find a sympathetic funeral director

and a funeral took place. To all

intents and purposes, Healy went

through pregnancy and the pain

endured that they were coupled with

the unimaginable grief of a parent

who has lost a child before they can

get to know him. She did not just go

through is still birth, she had is

still baby. She became a mother. The

difference is the baby is not

recognised in the eyes of the state

because he was born before 24 weeks.

If he had survived until 24 weeks

and one day, he would have been

recognised and the death registered.

More than just adding to the

statistics, that would have been the

acknowledgement of an actual

individual baby. To add further

insult to injury, the certificate

was given straight afterwards. The

story has a happy ending because the

have gone on to have a healthy

child, doing well and last year they

got married. That stark difference

surely cannot be right. It adds

insult to the unimaginable pain that

the parents have already had to

suffer. Until the passing of the

stillbirths act, the threshold was

28 weeks. Prior to that, even more

babies went unrecognised. That

changed following a clear consensus

at the age at which a baby is

considered viable. There have been

cases of babies born before 24 weeks

have survived. It is true that is

informal procedure for hospitals to

issue certificates. They provide

parents with the certificate that

records the pregnancy loss before 24

weeks. A charity has produced a

template and encourages all

hospitals to adopt it. However, it

is unofficial and pounds for a

little, if nothing, in the eyes of

the state. -- counts for little. I

brought a bill in 2014. It was

supported by members to do. Widely

supported across the House, but it's

run out of time. I did take the

issue further with the then health

minister who hosted a Round Table

and we were in the middle of coming

up for the solution with the Royal

College of Midwives and charities,

amongst others. As has been the bane

of my experience, the minister was

moved on and the initiative was

lost. This bill would resurrect that

initiative by committing the

Government to holding a review of

how we could come up with a scheme

whereby the state would recognise a

child such as Samuel existed. For

the many parents who have written to

me, I know it would help bring some

closure after a dramatic ordeal.

Some of the experiences are

unimaginable to those lucky enough

not to have gone through it.

He is making a very powerful speech

that is difficult to listen to, but

I would like to ask whether he would

like to go into detail about the

effects of registration of a baby's

body on the burial of the body, for

example, what happens to the remains

of the baby and on the legal

position of maternity and paternity

leave that are briefed.

My

honourable friend who has campaigned

on this a long time and has her own

personal experiences, there are

implications in law and employment

and others for recognising that

somebody has gone through these

experiences, has gone through the

experiences of being pregnant for

which they are entitled to various

things, but just because the

pregnancy came to a traumatic end

before 24 weeks, all the support and

recognition completely falls away.

There are far thinking employees who

take it into account, they are not

obliged to. This is more than just

giving closure to the parents that

have had a traumatic experience,

there are lots of things that can

help them get through the experience

as well and I will come to a quart

the lack of close shortly. I want to

give one brief example because one

stark example was a woman who had

given birth to stillborn twins

delayed either side of the 24 week

threshold. One was registered as

stillborn, recognised in the eyes of

the state, the other born just

before 24 weeks I did not exist.

That cannot be right, and we must

and we can do better. I know the

Secretary of State shares the

ambition and is to be commended by

the comprehension measures to bring

down the level and deal more

synthetically when this happens.

Other countries such as Holland and

Norway have reduced the mortality

rate is much more. We see wide

variations geographically here. The

stillbirth rate in the south-west of

England is just over... A 23%

difference. Therapy differences

between age groups and mums from

different ethnic backgrounds. There

are many babies stillborn in England

and Wales in 2016. Those that

officially stillborn over 24 weeks,

not including those before the

threshold. It is 15 times more

common than cot death and equates to

around nine babies every single day.

That is nine mothers and fathers

that have lost a father after

completing more than half the term

of the pregnancy. They then have to

go through childbirth to see a baby

that will not grow up. We need to

see how we can do better and come up

with a simple scheme that can have a

huge impact on many grieving

parents. It is to not to do with

changing the law on abortion. I have

deliberately not been prescriptive

about what form the review should

take. I trust the Government do the

right thing and I think we are

pushing at an open door. I know we

are pushing at an open door with my

last measure, as the Health

Secretary signalled support for it,

jarring a statement, on stillbirth

is back in November. There appears

to be an anomaly where coroners and

England have the power to

investigate any unexplained death of

humans unless they are stillbirths.

This is because a baby who dies

jarring delivery is not legally

considered to have live. If it has

not lived, it has not died, as

coroners can only investigate deaths

where there is a body of the

deceased person, they have no legal

jurisdiction to investigate the

deaths. Yet one in three stillbirths

occur in healthy babies that die at

term and sometimes occur due to

mismanaged delivers and there have

been high profile cases where

clusters of such deaths have

occurred well above the national

average. According to the charity

Sands, an estimated 500 babies die

or are left disabled because in the

event jarring their bird that was

not anticipated or not well managed.

-- jarring at their birth. -- during

their birth. It has been shown that

the hospital reviews can be

inadequate and failed to inform

parents of findings. There is no

jurisdiction to investigate, Barat

's examples of good practice where

hospitals allow that. At its worst,

some baby deaths are considered

stillbirths when there were signs of

life poster delivery in order to

close down on further investigation.

I'm sure the cases are rare, but it

would be to the benefit of all who

have suffered the loss of a baby

want to be sure to back the hospital

does everything possible to keep

babies sake that there is more

transparency and evidence lessons

are being learned from the tragic

cases. I am grateful to my local

coroner who has championed the issue

and approached me to include these

objects in my bill. She introduced

me to Michelle Hammington and Nicky

Lion of the campaign for save the

births -- safer births. I pay

tribute to their bravery along with

others at the campaign. My bill

proposes an enabling clause to give

the Secretary of State powers to

amend this act, to give them the

investigation rights for

stillbirths. Discretion arranged is

-- discretion can remain with

coroners. However I appreciate the

complexities of bringing such a

change. I do not seek to be

prescriptive about enabling power at

this stage, but I'm sure secretaries

of state will wish to get on with it

sooner rather than later given the

imperative that the Health Secretary

has put on the issue. Importantly,

it has been said that coroners can

take on the initial investigations

and it is likely it will cut down on

subsequent litigation as it will

thought certainty on what happened.

It will lead to reduced care costs

on the back of fuh damaged babies

and give greater comfort to parents

who are struggling to come to terms

with such a loss. It should not be

seen as a standard measure, but

towards other improvements that the

Government is bringing in, for which

it is to be congratulated. I

apologise for the length of my

comments, but the complex nature of

the multiple measures in my bill and

the stressful routes to get here has

meant that greater explanation is

necessary. Much work remains to be

done. I hope all honourable members

that are here today appreciate the

measures are important, that they

welcome amendments to the anomalies

in the law, all of which have the

potential to impact on the life for

good of a great many of our

constituents and those yet to be

born, and I commend my bill to the

house.

The question now is that the

Billies read a second time. There

are 16 members wishing to speak and

I think we want to hear from

everybody. If we can use brevity.

Thank you, I will attempt to keep my

contribution concise. Can I

congratulate the honourable member

for east with them -- East Worthing

for bringing forward the

comprehensive bill and I know he has

been wanting to act on the matters

for a long time so it is a tribute

to his persistence and

determination. I speak in support of

the bill, but I will confine my

comments to the issues addressed in

clause four which is around

extending the power of coroners to

enable them to be able to

investigate stillbirths. This will

make a difference to many families

who needs to know why their baby

died, but even more importantly, it

will ensure that lessons are learned

and improvements made so other

parents are spared the horror of

losing a child. I will acknowledge

the work of Secretary of State for

Health through his maternity safety

strategy and I recognise and

welcomed his comments and support

for this bill when he made a

statement to the House last year

where he said I will work with the

Ministry of Justice to that about to

be covered by colonial law. I

thought that was an important and

welcome development. I am here today

on a Friday to speak for Harriet

Harkins because she will never be

able to speak for herself. Indeed,

she never got to draw a breath, and

as the honourable member has

explained, back is very significant.

I am here to support my incredible

courageous but heartbroken

constituent Jack and Sarah,

Harriet's parents. Their fight for

the truth has been so dreadful, so

unnecessarily painful back we in

this House must act to ensure that

others do not have to go through the

same thing. What happened to Harriet

and Jack and Sarah and how it could

have been so different - Harriet was

Jack and Sarah's first baby, there

were no problems in pregnancy and

Sarah Wilkes was considered low

risk. She experienced contractions

one day after her due date on the

11th April 2016. Sarah was in labour

for five days before Harriet was

eventually delivered. In that time,

Jack and Sarah made ten phone calls

and two visits to the hospital,

Queens medical Centre. Each time,

Sarah was assessed, reassured and

sent home. When Sarah finally

admitted, to Nottingham City

Hospital, because the medical centre

was full, and ultrasound revealed

that Harriet had died. You might

think that things could get no

worse. Sadly, you would be wrong.

Sarah was left struggling with an

overly long labour and Harriet was

only delivered over nine hours

later. In the following days, the

only contact Sarah and Jack had with

Nottingham University hospitals was

with the bereavement midwife. Each

time they explained that Harriet's

death was Jude two areas, they

expected to be contacted as part of

an investigation, but that did not

happen. Both Jack and Sarah work for

Nottingham University hospitals,

Jack is a hospital consultant,

clinical director in NHS

improvement, and Sarah is a senior

physiotherapist. They had an

understanding of what they should

expect, they knew that something had

gone horribly wrong, and when they

were told that a postmortem revealed

the death was caused by an infection

and told to try to move on, they

refused to have their concerns

dismissed. Following repeated

requests, they met with their...

They said that the trust carried out

an investigation without Jack and

Sarah's involvement and concluded

there were no errors and that

Harriet's death was down to an

infection. As an expert in

infections, Jack challenged the

conclusion and they demanded an

external review. The hospital

conceded and Jack and Sarah met the

external review team in August 2016.

Following that meeting, Harriet's

death was upgraded to a series on

toward incident, 159 days after she

died. It should have been within 72

hours. In December, Jack and Sarah

were sent a draft report to check

for factual accuracy. It stated that

Harriet's death was directly

contributed to by five things. That

conclusion meant a great deal to the

parents. But when the final SUI

report was circulated, the

conclusion had been watered down to

the death had been avoided if... To

Jack and Sarah, the significant

change smacked of a cover-up and a

refusal to learn from the handling

of Harriet's berth. The trust would

not explain why the investigation

team had changed the conclusions and

dissatisfied with the handling of

the investigation, Jack and Sarah

informed the clinical commissioning

group. They organised a new external

review team to conduct a second

series untoward incident

investigation. That report was

published in December 2017 stop it

said there were multiple missed

opportunities for intervention and

appropriate monitoring early in the

labour. Had one of the opportunities

been taken, it is likely the labour

would have been substantially

shortened, any faecal combo Mize

recognised on CTG and likely that

faecal death would not have

occurred. The overall conclusion of

the investigation was that the deep

death of baby age was preventable.

I do not know how many babies have

died or been harmed since Harriet's

death and whether they could have

been avoided if the lessons have

been identified earlier. I also do

not know how many babies died before

Harriet, due to feelings of care.

Opportunities where are very clearly

lost. Without Sarah and Jack's

incredible fight, they would have

been no learning from Harriet's

death. They wrote to me earlier this

week to say, we have always said

that had we not been clinicians, we

would not be here today fighting, we

would have believed the flawed

internal report and the external

report. It has taken us almost two

years to get an independent review.

This should not be the

responsibility of grieving parents

to push for. An external review

cannot deemed to be independent and

it was sure not to be an example and

it will not provide the honesty and

openness of the coroner court. It

will not provide the follow through

in learning to prevent other baby

deaths.

Will my honourable friend

give way? I am grateful to my friend

and the testimony she gives. Does

that not so clearly highlight the

unique nature of the coroner court

is to provide the facility to

investigate these matters,

supportively and with an ability to

get to the truth?

My honourable

friend is entirely right. I think

the role of coroners is incredibly

important and there are a number of

reasons why coroners are the right

people to investigate. Why should a

baby's death be treated differently

to any other death? The coroner is

an independent office holder and the

inquest will be truly independent

and transparent. They can address

local issues at a hospital or a

unit, they can refer to other

statutory bodies, including the Care

Quality Commission. If a coroner

makes a future death report, it can

be monitored closely and the family

will be able to dissipate freely in

the process and not merely

consulted. They are able to have

legal representation. They will be

able to attend the inquest to ask

questions and they will receive full

disclosure of all policies and

documents in advance. An inquest is

heard in public and it ensures

transparency of process and decision

making. Of course, they can

recognise trends and if necessary

imposed improvement orders an

organisation. Jack and Sarah are

concerned that the bill commits to

review and not to a definite change

in the laugh. I say to the Minister,

I hope you will listen carefully,

acknowledge what the Secretary of

State for Health has already said

and you will not let down my

constituents. Speaking on the media,

as Jack and Sarah have, they say

they want to make their daughter

proud. They surely make us all

proud. We bought it to them to make

this change in the law. Please

support this bill.

I would like to

congratulate the honourable member

for introducing this bill. He has a

long and proud record of supporting

families and supporting progressive

policies in this house and it is a

genuine honour to follow his lead. I

would like to congratulate the

member for Nottingham southpaw her

emotional and heartfelt, one of many

we are about to hear today. This

bill covers for important areas and

many colleagues wish to speak. I

will top about two of them. I have

great sympathy and support all

elements of this bill. I firmly

support the call for the name of

mothers to be registered on marriage

certificates. I am glad this is an

issue that is supported by the

Government and many in this house,

and for a long period of time. There

are currently about 2 million single

parents in the country, 90% of those

are women, and as it stands, if any

of their children married, they are

not able to be registered. What a

bizarre situation in this day and

age. Both parents names are recorded

on civil partnership certificates. I

also agree with the argument that we

should use this opportunity to

introduce further reforms to the

overall process of how marriages are

registered, rather than simply

changing the content of the marriage

entry itself. Amending the registers

may be the quickest court of action,

but it is little to improve the

efficiency of the system and would

mean that if any further amendments

were required, all of the registers,

84,000 in the country, would need to

be replaced again, at a cost.

Britain is proud at its technology

innovation and in this digital age

we are leaders, surely it should not

be too difficult to think of a way

for marriages to be held in a single

register. I will turn to the issue

of extending civil partnerships to

opposite sex couples, on which I

have received correspondence from

constituents, on both sides of the

argument. I have a very clear view

on this. Although civil partnerships

were introduced to extend the rights

available to same-sex couples,

rather than as an alternative to

marriage, it has had the unintended

consequence of creating and

inequality on the basis of sexual

orientation. By trying to eliminate

one form of discrimination, we have

unintentionally created another one.

I will sure my colleagues are aware

of the sadistic of the increasing

number of children in the UK...

# Aware of the statistics. The

children did not have the

Protections. Some of these couples

may not wish to enter into a form of

a union, I know this is not the case

for many of couples in my

constituency. They do want their

relationship to be recognised but do

not wish to marry, for many reasons.

My honourable friend gave the

example of divorced Catholics. Why I

myself am happily married and I

would like to believe my wife would

say the same thing, I do accept that

marriage is not for everybody and I

am sympathetic to those who dislike

the symbolism of marriage or the

implications of ownership, inherent

in a legally defining couple as man

and wife. Not man and woman, but man

and wife. It includes this element

of possession which I know many

people find very uncomfortable.

Expanding civil partnerships could

have a look and affects on other

policy areas, including pensions. It

is right we take time to understand

the implications. I implore the

Government to not take too much

time. I hope the Government listens

carefully to the arguments made

today and acts accordingly because

Britain has changed, attitudes have

changed and it is time the law

catches up. Thank you.

The shadow

minister.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I want to congratulate the member

for bringing such an important bill.

I am so very proud that civil

partnerships were a landmark policy

introduced by Labour. We took a

stand long before it was considered

fashionable or acceptable. We took a

stand to allow lesbian, gay and

bisexual people to allow their

relationships acknowledged by all.

This proud moment all on our history

of fighting for the equal rights for

people and the civil partnership act

is paved the way. Following the

hassling of same-sex marriage

legislation, it is an anomaly that

will partnerships are not available

to all. An anomaly that the

Government could have easily

rectified and would have received

support from all sides of the House.

Although I was not a member at the

time, it is clear that the only

reason Labour did not push further

during the passage of the bill was

for fear of losing the bill

altogether. We were met with much

hostility but we were on a mission

to ensure some level of equality as

quickly as possible and be achieved

just that. Times have now moved on

but it appears some attitudes have

not, allowing some couples to choose

whether they marry or enter into

civil partnerships or not is no

equality at all. This anomaly is not

in the spirit of the civil

partnership act is an same-sex

marriage act, which were based

firmly in parity and not this

semantics that are used to hide

victory and registers. -- hide

bigotry. Having joined us, it is

disappointing this Government has

made excuses to expanding civil

partnerships. The argued that result

of their consultation were

inconclusive. They have been voices

suggesting we abolish civil

partnerships altogether. This would

be a step backwards for the millions

of couples cohabiting who want

recognition of their relationship

under the law. Surely it is our job

to give further protection to our

constituents and not to strip them

away. On the other measures of this

bill, allowing mother's names to

being on civil partnership

certificates, brings us into line

with Scotland and it should not take

a Private Members' Bill to make such

obvious change and they might

consider that such a measure should

have been opposed by them through

legislation. I am going to make

progress. On the legislation of

stillbirths, I would point out in

the UK we still have a woefully high

number of stillbirths for a western

country. I know this because I used

to work in an outpatient clinic and

I remember it happening. It can be

truly dramatic and we need to do

more to support mothers. We agreed

that still bursts that occurred

before 24 weeks should be formally

acknowledged and registered. --

still births. We do not want to

undermine abortion rights. We fully

support this bill and only wish the

rest of the Government were as

forward thinking as the member will

stop.

It is an honour to take part

in this debate. I must confess, I am

confused by the remarks of the

Honourable lady for a Lincoln. As I

see it, this is not a matter to

politicise. These are complicated

moral issues that we are finding our

way through together, consensually

and some of the best things that I

have done since I have been in this

house have been on a cross-party

basis and on these very, very

difficult issues. I am thoroughly in

support of my honourable friend in

the entirety. I am going to confide

my remarks to the three areas of the

bill that I have personal experience

of. I will leave civil partnerships

to others. The inequality of

marriage certificate is one of the

first issues I came across as a

constituent MP when I entered the

House in 2015. We have an excellent

debate and many members were present

in Westminster Hall. I spoke about a

terrible story of my own constituent

whose father subjected her and her

siblings to sexual abuse over a

number of years. She had not seen

her father since she was ten. Where

she to get married now, and I

believe one of the reasons she has

not got married is because of the

law in its current state, she would

very much want to leave the father

field blank. Well, as her mother,

who is a heroine and brought them up

to court with his full abuse, would

get no mention. That is simply

wrong. I accept the need to look for

efficiencies and find ways to create

a more secure system for the

maintenance of marriage records. We

must also consider what terminology

we use. Inevitably, this will take

time. As a former church warden, I

am familiar with the register

system. I see no reason why we

cannot give celebrants the reason to

cross out father and amend or to add

to it, at least until the review has

concluded. Next week we marked the

centenary of women suffrage and I

think it feels archaic standing here

discussing such a glaring

inequality. While we have been slow,

I accept, on all sides to deal with

marriage certificates. In the three

years I have been here, the

Government has been ambitious in the

approach to still births. I am

pleased with the progress we have

made, although it does not go far

enough, to having the number of

stillbirths and 2025. The all party

Parliamentary group on baby loss is

a force of nature. I would like to

pay great tribute to the members for

Colchester, Sunderland west and the

former member for Ipswich. When we

were all there in the middle of the

night determined to make things

better and we were soon joined by

the passion of the honourable lady

for North Ayrshire and Arran, who

joins us, and that fabulous speech

from the member of Lewisham, who did

so much to help our cause. We must

take some credit that the way we

talk about miscarriages, stillbirths

is changing. As a group, we know

there are strong views on the way

stillbirths are registered and

investigated. For me, much should

depend on the wishes of the parents.

For fear of touching on painful

subjects. My honourable friend made

it clear earlier, there is no need

to upset the abortion laws, but fear

of talking about it must not render

us and capable of reflecting a

situation where babies born at

younger and younger are now living.

Real people are suffering by our

failure to address these difficult

issues.

A mother who has been through labour

and going through lactation often

for a significant number of weeks of

a baby who was still born before 24

weeks of course we'll feel that his

or her life should be properly

recognised and reported. I'm hopeful

we as a group will have a great deal

of input into the report for the

Secretary of State will undertake

should do is progress today. I was

in the house in November for the

statement on the government new

strategy to improve safety in NHS

maternity services. Worrying about

maternal safety particularly of

course those who use the Horton

General Hospital in my own

constituency keeps me awake at night

will stop unfortunately we know that

things do go wrong. Bereaved

families deserve answers and are

often motivated by a burning desire

that such a thing never happen to

another family. At the moment

coroners in England don't have the

power to investigate a stillbirth

yet in Northern Ireland in 2013 the

Court of Appeal held that coroners

do have such a jurisdiction. I know

from talking to members of embrace

that the vast majority of cases will

not be appropriate for a coroner to

investigate a stillbirth however in

the cases where relations with the

hospital have broken down, where

there is no faith in internal

investigations or whether a wider

learning point exists from a death

is made in a small number of cases

be appropriate. Previously I used to

represent the government in military

inquests and it strikes me that

there is considerable potential for

us to provide specialist training to

a cadre of coroners brought in to

deal with this extremely sensitive

area in much the way that we did

having learned from the introduction

of inquests in military situations.

I hope we can rely on my friends on

the front bench to join upper crust

across the bow until thinking is the

work progresses. The member for his

Worthing and Shoreham has met with

me in advance of the day to scope

out views and if this Bill

progresses I look forward to the

review. In conclusion I think this

is a sensible and humane bill which

as a cross-party group of members we

should all be unite behind, if not

merely to address long-standing

problems with the law.

Thank you

very much Madam Deputy Speaker and

it is an absolute pleasure to follow

the honourable member who I am proud

to call my friend and I think the

work that we have done an the

all-party group for baby loss really

is an exemplar of cross-party

working at its best. I welcome this

Bill presented by the honourable

member for ease Worthing and

Shoreham and I support all four

parts of the Bill wholeheartedly

that I will speak this morning on

just two parts. One briefly and

another which is of great personal

significance to me. Firstly I

welcome the measures of the bill

which would legislate to equalise

civil partnerships and open them to

heterosexual couples and have had

many constituents as we all have

contact me about this in recent

weeks and I am happy to support the

measures he proposes. To the main

topic, I remember when the

honourable member sent an e-mail

rounds notifying us all of his

intentions with this Bill, and being

hopeful when I saw the provision to

register stillbirths on under 24

weeks gestation. In the e-mail he

went on to say and I hope he doesn't

mind me quoting his e-mail here but

I quote currently a child born to a

mother still born after 23 weeks is

treated no differently to a

miscarriage. Both or traumatic and

we need to do more to support

families in this way but the failure

of the state to acknowledge these

children effectively surely adds

insult to injury.". When I received

the e-mail it floored me because it

was me he was describing. Me. This

was exactly my experience when with

Lucy my third child, I'm sure I used

similar words to describe how I felt

in the intervention, during the baby

loss debate in 2016. Lucy was born

at 23 and a half weeks sadly still

born. I mention her for the first

time in that debate in Parliament

during the powerful baby loss

debate, baby loss awareness week in

2016 and that was 11 years after. I

said at the time and still do how

much I admired my fellow officers at

the eighth PPG on baby loss. The

honourable member for Colchester and

Enders break spoke about their

losses in detail during the

ground-breaking German debate the

year before. I watched this from the

safety of my office because I was

too scared to be in the chamber for

how emotional I would guess just

listening in the chamber. The fact

they were talking about it on their

feet standard me. -- astounded me. I

had never felt brave or strong

enough to do what they did and I

still find it very difficult... Even

now, all these years later to even

talk about it will stop I thank my

friend for giving way, she is making

a very brave and powerful speech.

I

would like to put on record by huge

thanks and appreciation for all her

work in the setting up of the

all-party Parliamentary group and

its continued work. I would also

like to say that bereaved parents

all of us wants to ensure that our

child's life however assured has

meaning. -- however short. She is

doing that, and if you doesn't mind

me saying, Lucy would be very proud

of her mummy today.

Thank you very

much. If he was trying to calm me

down, he's probably made me worse!

As I say, I'm feeling very strongly

about this issue. Even though I end

up in tears I had to take part in

this debate and express how strongly

and why I want to support this sets

of legislative changes. Lucy had

been born alive, she would have

immediately been incubated, 23.5

weeks, rushed in an ambulance that

was waiting with flashing blue

lights to the RVI in Newcastle where

we have the regional centre of

excellence for special care baby

unit 's. She would have had the best

world-class care and would have been

celebrated with a birth certificate

and would have celebrated her 20th

birthday this year. But sadly she

was... Stillborn. So no flashing

blue lights, no intimate and no

birthday parties ever. And as I

found to my horror, no birth or

death certificate. As I held her in

my arms and had to come to terms

with what had just happened I also

then had to come to terms with the

fact that she officially did not

exist. And I would not be getting

any certificate of her arrival or

death. She was three or four days

short of the required 24 week legal

age.

It's very clear that Lucy does

exist. Lizzie does exist or she

exists in your memories and it is

very important I think for so many

constituents that the group on baby

loss and the member for ease

Worthing and Shoreham are raising

this today and I want to say to my

honourable friend I think she is

very brave to be able to talk to

this experience and as ever with the

many issues these days we can cover

in these debates, I think it is

important for people outside to

understand that MPs shared these

experiences as we share mental

health issues and other forms of

loss and our families so I

congratulate my honourable friend

and just to say that I think that

the group is doing a fantastic job

of campaigning and if we can hear a

little bit more, it is really

valuable what she has to say.

Thank

you so much, I do appreciate all the

support, everyone, that you are

giving me to help me through this

moment. She was three or four days

short of the 24 week legal age to be

considered eligible for a death

certificate. I was then horrified

and further traumatised when then I

saw it entered in my records as a

miscarriage. Because she was 324

weeks she didn't even get the

dignity of being classed as a

stillbirth. Although that was hard I

always say if and when I do talk

about this tragedy, which isn't

often, we went on to have a lovely

blessing by the amazing hospital

chaplain in the private room I was

moved to after she was born. We

named her Lucy during the blessing

and spent a number of hours with her

before she was taken to the chapel

of rest 20 years ago the Queen

Elizabeth Hospital in Gateshead

didn't have cold carts, I hope they

do now, so we couldn't spend the

night with her even though I was

kept in overnight heavily sedated.

We had a very small family service,

I children were two and three and a

half at that time so they weren't

even there, it was just parents, our

parents, and that was organised by

the chaplain and the Co-op refunded

everything, organised and funded

everything and that was just... Such

a touching thing to do and as is

almost always the case when my

honourable friend for member whose

constituency is gaze me dart white

Swansea East! White flag I support

her for that

She was buried in a tiny white

cotton in the same grave as my Nanna

and grandad and I tell you this to

highlight from all people involved,

she existed, she was a baby who was

sadly born dead. Her heartbeat is

throughout my labour just up until

minutes before she was born. She

just couldn't... Make the final push

into this world. And because of that

and because of the matter of a few

days she doesn't officially exist in

any records other than in our

memories and our own family records.

Even the entry on the deeds for the

grave is in my name as if I or in

this case a bit of me, is buried

there. Her name isn't on the burial

plots because although buried there

she doesn't exist. I hope honourable

members can appreciate and

understand how are the sort to deal

with and how hard I was at the time

to deal with what was and still is

the worst thing I have ever

experienced in my life. There must

be a way to square this circle in

such cases as this. With the whole

24 weeks of viability argument.

Babies born too soon before the 24

weeks survive in much greater

numbers than ever before. I have met

some of them to my great delight at

events in parliament and it is

amazing, each one is a miracle.

Surely if there a way to recognise

22 or 23 week babies who didn't

quite make it to their first breath?

This is why I welcome wholeheartedly

what the honourable member is trying

to do with this bill and I hope the

government will look favourably upon

it.

Victoria Atkin. Thank you Madam

Deputy Speaker, and I would like to

thank my honourable friend, the

member for ease Worthing and sure

for bringing these incredibly

important issues before the house in

his private members bill.

The has

managed to squeeze into one private

members bill the work I think of for

government departments, maybe more,

but one can see from the box how

many officials, and believe me they

are many more who have been working

on it, I commend the government for

what is hard to make sure we see

justice on these four important

issues. I would also like to thank

members across the house for

contributing to this debate. I must

say it is difficult to follow the

very, very moving speech of the

honourable member for Washington and

Sunderland West to bring Lucy into

this chamber and to speak about her

in the way the honourable lady has

done was incredibly moving and I

hope today will be a step for not

just my honourable friend but for

other mothers and fathers across the

country who have suffered terrible,

terrible loss. And I'm grateful also

to the member for Nottingham self, a

moving speech and of course my

honourable friend for Mid

Worcestershire and Banbury. Both of

whom has spoken on these issues at

great length and with great, sadly,

with some personal experience. So,

it has been a pleasure to work with

my honourable friend, his reputation

precedes him and as I say as a

tenacious backbencher, a tenacious

minister where he was Minister for

children and I am delighted that we

have reached a place where we can

agree on the progression of this

bill. The government cannot support

the version of the long title that

is currently before the house but we

have made amendments that will be

added at committee stage will be

able to support and I hope will