Kitty
Ussher: I am delighted to be able to reassure the hon.
Gentleman. We absolutely want to be able to define precisely the types
of change of circumstance that people will be required to notify to the
commission. If I give some history of the journey of the policy, it may
help to explain why this is in the legislation.
During the
passage of the 2008 Act, the Government rejected an Opposition
amendment that would have made it a requirement for non-resident
parents to inform us of any change to their circumstances that would
affect their liability; the onus would be on them to decide whether a
particular change would affect their liability. The amendment was
rejected because we felt that it would create precisely the problems
that the hon. Gentleman now says he wishes to avoid. Individuals might
not know, or they might be so cautious that they would overburden the
commission with lots of minutiae of changes that did not affect their
liability. Subsequently,
we introduced an amendment to make it an offence for non-resident
parents not to inform the commission of changes to their address. The
reason for that is practical: it should be an offence if someone moves
house and does not notify the commission, to avoid paying the liability
that they owe to their children.
After some
reflection, we would like now to explore with stakeholders whether
there are other clearly defined circumstances under which we would like
to make it an offence for people not to notify the commission of
changes of circumstances. The primary power is not drafted widely so as
to have a wide responsibility, as with the amendment we rejected last
year. It is drafted widely to give us the opportunity tightly to define
in regulations following consultation precisely what would be included
in the power—I cannot be precise about what that will be because
we want to consult to work that out. However, I am happy to reassure
the hon. Gentleman that it will be simple to understand and designed
not to overburden either the commission or the non-resident
parent.
The type of
avenues that we may wish to explore with anyone who has an interest
are, perhaps, significant changes to employment, significant changes in
earnings in either direction, a change of job, or losing one’s
job and leaving the work force for a while. I do not want to say
definitely that those will be the avenues because we want to explore
the issue.
I am aware of
the concerns that Families Need Fathers has rightly raised, I
understand, in a conversation last week with the chief executive of
CMEC. We will continue to work with it and other groups and we will not
propose regulations until we are sure that we have a simple, workable
way to ensure that children are more likely to receive what they are
owed. I hope that reassures the hon.
Gentleman.
Mr.
Harper: I am grateful to the Minister. Although the
amendment to which she referred was not as brilliantly drafted as this
one—not having had the benefit of parliamentary
counsel—it clearly had some merit, as Ministers have thought
about it again. It was tabled on the basis of making sure that parents
would have to disclose relevant information and that the burden was not
put on the parent with care or CMEC, who might have to go on a hunting
expedition.
I am pleased
that the Minister confirmed that it is intended that regulations be
tightly drawn. Clearly, as has been acknowledged, it would not be in
the interests of the commission to have widely drawn regulations
because it would simply be overburdened by information. She has clearly
indicated that the changes likely to be consulted upon are to do with
employment status, earnings and income. I am pleased that she wants to
ensure that the commission engages with all the stakeholder groups to
have a proper conversation about those. We will obviously scrutinise
the secondary legislation when those regulations are brought before the
House, but in these circumstances and with those reassurances, I beg to
ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment,
by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 43
ordered to stand part of the
Bill. Clause
44 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Schedule
6Registration
of
births
Mr.
Harper: I beg to move amendment 36, in
schedule 6, page 91, line 42, leave
out paragraph
(d).
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following: Amendment 37, in schedule 6, page 91, line 46, leave out
‘reason’ and insert ‘reasonable
grounds’. Amendment
105, in
schedule 6, page 91, line 47, after
‘child’, insert ‘or other children living with
her’. Amendment
103, in
schedule 6, page 94, line 2, at
end insert— ‘(c) where the
mother acknowledges the person as the father of the child, but has
reason to fear for her safety or that of the child if the father were
to acquire responsibility by virtue of section 4(1)(a) of the Children
Act
1989’. Amendment
104, in
schedule 6, page 98, line 19, at
end insert— ‘(8) This
section does not apply where the mother acknowledges the person as the
father of the child, but has reason to fear for her safety or that of
the child if the father were to acquire parental responsibility by
virtue of section 4(1)(a) of the Children Act
1989’.
Mr.
Harper: It is worth saying at the beginning that the
amendments standing in my name and those of my
colleagues—amendments 36 and 37—are probing amendments.
They attempt to understand the intentions that underlie this
schedule.
The lead
amendment leaves out paragraph (d) of proposed new section 2B of the
Amendments of Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953. That paragraph
is within a set of conditions where it would not be required for the
mother to provide the registrar with information relating to the
father—she would be able to declare that certain conditions were
in place. The particular condition I am suggesting should be left out
is,
“that the mother
does not know the father’s
whereabouts.” It
seems to me that not knowing the whereabouts of the father should not
affect whether the mother is required to declare that the person is the
father of the child. I completely agree with paragraph (c),
“that if the
mother does not know the father’s identity”
she clearly is not able
to notify the registrar who the father is. However, not knowing his
whereabouts does not seem a very good reason for not notifying the
registrar who the father is. She does not have to know his whereabouts
to know who he
is. I
bring the matter up because with the inclusion of paragraph (d), the
requirement effectively becomes completely voluntary. It places no
particular burden on the mother at all and there is a very clear
get-out clause. I want to understand what purpose the Government have
in introducing the paragraph. There is clearly a signal about the
importance of fatherhood and getting both parents registered, which is
welcome and significant. The other aspect—brought up in the
early stages of this Committee’s proceedings in an
evidence-taking session by the hon. Member for Sheffield,
Heeley—was about the importance to the child of knowing who both
their parents are, and knowing who the father
is. During
the question and answer session it seemed to me that the Minister did
not really grasp to the fullest extent the point that the hon. Member
for Sheffield, Heeley was making. If it is important to the child to
know who both the parents are, allowing the mother not to disclose, or
not putting an obligation on disclosing who the father is just because
the mother does not know his whereabouts, does not seem a terribly
powerful reason. It would be helpful if the Minister set out the
purpose of this part of the Bill and stated what the Government are
trying to achieve. Are they looking at the child’s right to know
who its parents are, and/or are they looking at sending a clear message
that fatherhood is important and fathers should take responsibility? In
that case it is linked partly to the child maintenance provisions. If
it is important for the child to know who its parents are and important
to send out this message, there seem to be far too many reasons why the
mother can avoid disclosing who the father
is.
11.15
am
Amendment 37,
which is in the same vein as amendment 36, refers to paragraph (f), the
condition
that “the
mother has reason to fear for her safety or that of the child if the
father is contacted in relation to the registration of the
birth”. The
amendment replaces “reason” with “reasonable
grounds”. The motivation for probing on that is twofold. First,
in an evidence-taking session the hon. Member
for Sheffield, Heeley made the point that if the Minister included this
provision because of the importance of the child’s knowing who
its parents are, any danger posed by the parent is not in itself
relevant to identifying who they are. Clearly, steps may need to be
taken as to whether that parent has legal access to the child; but
purely knowing who they are is not really relevant. The other
concern about having paragraph (f) as an exclusion clause is that,
given the way human relationships sometimes work, I would not want to
see a situation where a mother was able to avoid naming the father,
giving as a reason an unjustified fear for her safety or that of her
child, and effectively use that as an allegation against the father.
Those are the grounds for removing the word “reason” and
inserting “reasonable grounds”. A court would have to
judge what “reasonable grounds” meant, which is the usual
test of what a reasonable person might think in those
circumstances.
The purpose
of the amendment is to probe the Minister on those two concerns. If she
would set out the Government’s objective in bringing forward
this clause and schedule, and what it is trying to achieve, we shall be
able to move somewhat further forward.
Paul
Rowen: The Liberal Democrats support the principle of
joint registration. We know that only one parent is named in about 7
per cent. of all births registered at the moment, and we believe that
we should encourage and seek as far as possible for both parents to be
registered on the birth certificate.
However, we
have some concerns about the phraseology of the schedule and the
clause, which is very much based on there being a violent relationship
and the registration of the birth being used by the father to get at
the mother or the child. Amendment 105 seeks to extend the provisions
in the Bill to not just the child who has been registered, but any
other children who may be living with the mother, where the mother can
give a reason for not registering their birth. There are instances
where fathers have used the ability to get contact with a child to get
at the mother. I am asking the Minister what safeguards she will put in
place against that.
To remind the
Minister, she said on 12 February
that “if
it is reasonably thought that the father is of such character that the
very act of contacting him would lead to aggression towards the mother
or the child, it is right that the state should not do something that
would probably have such an unfortunate
outcome.”——[Official Report, Welfare
Reform Public Bill Committee, 12 February 2009; c. 85,
Q154.] I
totally agree with those sentiments. With amendment 105 we are seeking
to broaden the exemptions within the Bill so that the father is not
enabled to get to another child. We believe that we should not just be
concerned about the safety of the child whose birth is
registered.
Mr.
Harper: Will the hon. Gentleman clear up what he thinks
about the question that I brought up about his amendment, which refers
to section 4(1)(a) of the Children Act 1989, and about his concerns
about a father requiring parental responsibility? That section of the
1989 Act simply says that, on the application of the father, the court
may order that he shall have parental responsibility for the child.
Given that the court has to do that, there seem to be perfectly
adequate safeguards. If the mother
has legitimate concerns about the safety of the child in question, or
that of her other children, or indeed her own safety, all that evidence
can be put before the court, and the court can take all that into
account when it is making orders about the relationship and the legal
rights that the father will have over that child. That is perfectly
adequate without the hon. Gentleman’s
amendment.
Paul
Rowen: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but his
comments actually relate to amendments 103 and 104, which I was just
about to come to. I am seeking assurances from the Minister about how
this will operate. I am sure hon. Members will be aware that, in the
week just prior to a birth and immediately after a birth, a
mother—particularly one who is subject to domestic
violence—might be very vulnerable. Given that the Bill proposes
that registration has to take place within 42 days, we are
seeking with amendments 103 and 104 to apply an exemption.
Again, it is
the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children,
Gingerbread and Family Action that are concerned about how the clause
will operate. The father could use that registration to seek parental
responsibilities and use that as a threat to the mother. I appreciate
that, at the end of the day, the father will have to go through the
courts, or the mother will have to go through the courts to prevent
that access, but the concern here is that, at this stage, if the mother
has already been subject to domestic violence, she would be very
vulnerable. We
support the principle of joint registration but we do not feel that, at
the moment, the exemptions in the schedule go wide enough. We would
like to be reassured about cases involving a vulnerable woman on her
own who may have been subjected to domestic violence, and a father who
exercises his right to be registered on the birth certificate and uses
that as a lever to get to her and her family. That is the situation we
are concerned about, and we are aiming to ensure that, without the full
recourse through the courts—I am sure that the hon. Member for
Forest of Dean would appreciate that going through the courts is often
a difficult and traumatic business, particularly for a young mother on
her
own—
Mr.
Harper: The hon. Gentleman has not read section 4(1)(a) of
the 1989 Act clearly enough. It is the father who has to apply to the
court to get parental responsibility for the child, not the mother. It
is the father who has to kick off this process, and the mother will
then be able to put relevant information before the court to inform the
court’s decision. But it is not the mother who has to go to the
court and start the process off.
Paul
Rowen: I appreciate that, but my concern is about young
mums who have recently given birth being put through that process. It
could be used as a lever, as a stick with which to get at those
mothers, who might have been subjected to domestic violence in the
past. While the hon. Gentleman or I—in a very stable mental
condition, hopefully—would not have a problem with defending
ourselves through the courts, it would be more difficult for someone
who has been subject to domestic violence. We are seeking safeguards to
ensure that the application of this joint registration will not be used
as a lever to get at the mother. We would like to be
reassured that this clause and schedule have been thought through.
Certainly, a number of charities—Gingerbread, the NSPCC and
Family Action—have concerns about how they are
worded.
Meg
Munn (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab/Co-op): I do not want to
discuss the issues in as much detail as we did in the evidence session,
but it is important that we are clear that we are talking about two
separate things. I have a great deal of sympathy with the comments of
the hon. Member for Forest of Dean, but not with those of the hon.
Member for Rochdale. The Government need to be fundamentally clear
whether they accept that in principle, wherever practicable, a child
has the right to know, through its being recorded on their birth
certificate, who their birth parents
are. We
are very clear in adoption legislation that at the age of 18 a child
may go back and find out who their birth parents are. What is different
in this situation? The practicalities of doing this are important. I
agree that knowing where a person is may pose a problem, but should
that be a reason not to seek to register the name of the father on a
birth
certificate? I
have campaigned for many years and spoken a great deal on the issues of
domestic violence, but it is enormously important to separate birth
registration from the mechanisms by which we protect mothers and
children from violent fathers. We have processes through the court
which allow people to take out injunctions. Over the last few years we
have dramatically improved the processes to protect families and
children. This should not prevent registration of a father’s
name on a birth
certificate. Unlike
the hon. Member for Rochdale, I am concerned that the exemptions are
too widely drawn. Our view needs to be that, wherever possible, the
father’s name should be on the birth certificate; where there is
a need to protect a family, because there may be a threat of violence,
that should be pursued through other legislation, not this
legislation.
| 
