Welfare Reform Bill

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, for putting forward his amendments. I understand their probing nature. They seek to restrict the range of circumstances in which a sole registration would be permitted under the new system. There are a number of circumstances where the mother will be exempt from the requirement to provide information relating to the father; for example, if she has reason to fear for her safety or the safety of the child. The first three amendments would remove some of these exemption conditions, including this example. The amendments would also remove the power to prescribe further exemptions. The final two amendments would have the effect that a man’s details could be included in the register even though both parents had not acknowledged that he was the father. The main aim of all these amendments seems to be to further increase the number of births that are jointly registered. I fully sympathise with the aim of the noble Lord. Indeed, we also want to ensure that more children have both parents named on their birth certificates. We believe that it is important that as many children as possible know the identity of both their parents and that both parents acknowledge them and take responsibility for them. That is the point of this part of the Bill. That is why we have drafted provisions which require joint registration in all cases where this is possible and appropriate. The new system will certainly not be a voluntary one. I shall now explain why, in the situations with which these amendments are concerned, joint registration would be simply either impossible or inappropriate. Amendments 178ZBA, 178ZBB and 178ZBC would remove some of the conditions which exempt the mother from providing information about the father. The exemption conditions in the Bill are few and purposeful. They are all necessary because they relate to situations in which joint registration is just not possible or appropriate. Amendment 178ZBC would remove the power for the Minister to prescribe further exemption conditions in regulations. I hope that I will be able to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, that this power will be used only if new circumstances emerge which would make sole registration necessary. We are not aware of any at present but we recognise that some may come to light as a result of consultation or when the provisions are implemented. This power merely ensures that the legislation is sufficiently flexible to deal with such circumstances swiftly and effectively. Amendment 178ZBB would remove the exemption for a mother who would fear for her safety or that of her child if the father were contacted in relation to the registration. In this legislation we have tried to strike a balance between a child’s right to know their father’s identity and the protection of vulnerable women and children. This is a difficult balance to strike and I know that a number of noble Lords have concerns. As we will have the opportunity to debate these issues further in relation to a later group of amendments, as the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, said, I shall keep my comments brief. As I have said, it is a difficult balance, but I believe that our provisions strike the right balance. As was explained in another place, the critical point is the role of the state. We cannot permit a situation where the state knowingly acts in a way which puts the safety of a mother or her child at risk. It would be wholly inappropriate to require a registrar to contact a man if the mother had stated that she had reason to fear for her or her child’s safety. In such cases, the birth does not have to remain sole-registered for ever. The father can still come forward independently and request that his details are included in the register, subject to the mother’s acknowledgement that he is the father. Amendment 178ZBA would require the mother to provide information about the father in cases where she did not know his whereabouts. This, too, was debated at length in another place. I hope that I can reassure noble Lords that this exemption will not be an easy get-out, as the noble Lord said, for mothers who wish to sole-register. A mother will be able to claim this exemption only if she cannot provide useful information about the father’s whereabouts. Indeed, the information that a mother will be required to provide under proposed new Section 2B(1) will cover a range of details about the father. The precise details, on which the noble Lord pressed me, will be decided in consultation with the General Register Office, practising registrars and other stakeholders. However, we do not anticipate that a mother will be able to claim an exemption because, for example, she cannot provide the father’s full current address. If the mother does not know the father’s whereabouts and so cannot provide information that enables him to be contacted, joint registration is impossible. The alleged father cannot be contacted and asked to acknowledge paternity. Therefore, requiring the mother to provide the limited information that she does know would serve no purpose. I turn to Amendments 178ZCA and 178AA. These amendments would make it possible for the father’s details to be included in the register in cases where only one parent had alleged that he was the father. I appreciate the noble Lords’ intention behind these amendments, which I understand is to make sure that as many children as possible know their father’s identity. However, I should like to explain why the amendments would not achieve that. For information about the father to be included in the register, it is crucial that both parents acknowledge that the man is the father of the child; otherwise, information that is unverified and so not meaningful will be included in the register. The birth register is a public, legal record and the information included on it needs to be accurate. These amendments would lead to situations that were at best misleading and at worst very damaging to those involved. It is not helpful for a child to have a man named as their father on their birth certificate if this information cannot be confirmed by that person. We need to ensure that both parents acknowledge paternity before a man’s details are included in the register. Because of this, the exemptions relating to the father’s whereabouts and the mother’s fear for her or her child’s safety remain necessary. I was asked a number of questions by the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale. He talked about the possibility of these exemptions providing an easy get-out for mothers who want to sole-register. The exemption conditions are few, as I said, and purposeful. They all cover situations in which joint registration would be impossible or inappropriate. If a mother’s circumstances meet one of the exemption conditions, she will be required to make a declaration to that effect. That declaration is subject to the Perjury Act and the mother is under a duty to be truthful. Under that Act, it is an offence to give deliberately false or misleading information to a registrar. As we implement our provisions, we will reinforce the current message of the registration service to ensure that both mothers and fathers are aware that doing so would be a criminal offence. The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, also asked whether the list of exemptions was exhaustive. At this stage, we consider that the list is exhaustive but we want to keep flexibility in case further situations emerge, especially during consultation or implementation. The noble Lord asked what happens if the mother disappears or is ill. In such cases, another qualified informant may give details to allow registration to take place. Other qualified informants might include the midwife who delivered the child or anyone present at the birth or resident in the house where the child was born. He asked what the registrar would do if the father did not respond. In that situation, registrars will register the birth without the father’s details. It would not be appropriate for the registrar to take substantial further steps to contact the father, and he or she cannot enter unverified information on the register. Therefore, we do not see the role of the registrar changing in that we would not want to expand the registrar’s role to a seek-and-find job as well as ensuring that registration was legal. We will look at what additional steps it may be appropriate for the registrar to take through training and guidance. I hope that I have covered the points that the noble Lord raised.