Welfare Reform Bill

Schedule 6, introduced by Clause 46, proposes compulsory joint birth registration for unmarried parents. At present, the vast majority of all births outside marriage—I understand, approximately 84 per cent—are already jointly registered. Just 7 per cent of all births, which works out at around 45,000, are solely registered, and this proportion has been on a downward trend. For unmarried fathers, birth registration has two significant consequences: it gives the father parental responsibility in relation to the child; it also serves as a record, so the child knows the identity of the father. In the vast majority of cases, these are positive outcomes, and we support the proposals. However, there are details in the schedule which I wish at this stage to probe. First, there are certain circumstances where the mother will not have to give information about the father, which are spelled out in the new Section 2B (4) of the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953, inserted by Schedule 6. My first amendment, Amendment 178ZBA, would leave out new paragraph (d), which states that the mother need not give information if she does not know the father's whereabouts. I find that curious. I can understand that if the mother does not know who the father is, that presents an insurmountable, if regrettable, barrier to her providing the relevant information, but simply not knowing where he is should not prevent her giving information about who he is. Let us remember that if the objection that not knowing where the father is means he cannot be contacted to verify his paternity, then new subsection (7), to which I will come shortly, provides that no information has to be entered on the register simply because the mother has supplied it. However, unless she gives a name, at the very least, there is absolutely no chance of ever tracking him down. I therefore find the exemption in paragraph (d) puzzling and unnecessary. It simply provides a get-out clause to mothers reluctant to name the father for no good reason, and I do not think that that is in the child's best interests. It is on that note that Amendment 178ZCA, which leaves out subsection (7), comes into play. If no information has to be entered on the register simply because the mother has provided it, what will be needed to verify the information and therefore qualify it for entry? Presumably the father will need to verify it, and if the registrar cannot find the father, then what? Does the registrar exercise his discretion and enter the information if the mother seems believable or does he need to conduct his own investigations? How much work will he have to do under subsection (7)? Rather a lot, I imagine, if he does not even have the father's name to go on. The fifth amendment in this group, if noble Lords will forgive me for jumping about a little, is designed to provoke debate on what should happen if the reverse situation were to occur, by which I mean if the mother disappears without a trace before her baby is registered and therefore cannot give her confirmation. I realise that we are beginning to get into unlikely, but by no means impossible, scenarios, but I would like to hear an assurance from the Minister that all contingencies have been considered. The second amendment in the group, Amendment 178ZBB, removes paragraph (f) from the list of exemptions. This is where a mother need not provide information on the father if she fears for her or her child's safety. I re-emphasise that this is a probing amendment at this stage, as I merely want to unravel the Government's thinking. I spy a group of amendments on the horizon in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, which will encourage a debate on domestic violence per se, so I will restrict my observations at this stage to suggesting that merely knowing there is a parental relationship will not, of itself, lead to violence against the mother or child. While it goes without saying that I abhor and condemn violence, given the importance that I think all noble Lords agree there is for children to know who their parents are, is this—the birth registration—the correct place to combat domestic violence? Amendment 178ZBC leaves out paragraph (g) from the list of exemptions. That paragraph simply gives carte blanche to the Minister to dream up any other exemptions that she sees fit. I cannot imagine that she thought that I would allow that one to slip away unnoticed. Is this an exhaustive list of exemptions or not? If it is not, why not? What other exemption does the noble Baroness sniff in the wind, perhaps with or without the advice of the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie? I would prefer to debate other possible exemptions to the duty here, rather than have them squirreled away in regulations at a later date. I beg to move.