Welfare Reform Bill

It is with some regret that I have to issue a small warning to the Minister: if I do not like her responses to my questions on this bloc of government amendments, I reserve the right to say no when the Question is put. In that event, as I am sure she knows, the amendments will have to be carried forward—if the Government still want to move them—to the next stage of the Bill, because we have to reach general agreement in Grand Committee. That is why I have spent days and days withdrawing a whole series of amendments. I knew perfectly well that no agreement would be forthcoming. Amendment 178ZC refers to the "Minister" making regulations. This I find confusing for two reasons. First, I would have expected the Secretary of State rather than the Minister to lay regulations, as that is what happens in all other parts of this Bill on welfare reform. I note that subsection (6) of proposed new Section 2B, which is to be replaced by Amendment 178ZC, also refers to the Minister. This government amendment has prompted me to look again at Schedule 6 to ensure that it is at least consistent, but that does not answer my question. Why is the word "Minister", who is given the power in the regulations, littered throughout Schedule 6 rather than the "Secretary of State"? Either I or my noble friend should have put down an amendment to leave out "Minister" wherever it occurs and insert "Secretary of State". I regret that I did not do so. The second reason I am confused is that, so far as I can see, Section 39 of the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953, which gives order-making powers to the Registrar General, remains on the statute book. I learnt only this morning that, among other things, the Registrar General has previously provided for the situation where a birth occurs on a hovercraft, which rather surprised me. Surely Section 39 should be excised either in Schedule 6 or Schedule 7, which covers repeals and revocations of the 1953 Act. I also find Amendment 178ZE rather curious. The Minister’s regulations are to cover inter alia the position where the alleged father is not required to sign the register and it is to be taken as if he had. I did not hear an explanation from the noble Baroness about this, but it would be helpful if she could expand on the matter. The same applies to Amendment 178BB, which appears to be a repetition of the same proposal, although for the different purpose of covering the confirmation of parentage information given by the mother. Ideally, as the noble Baroness said, this information will be confirmed by the father, but the whole point of great chunks of this schedule is to provide for where this is impossible under new Sections 2A and 2B.