Mark Simmonds (Shadow Minister, Health; Boston & Skegness, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 175, in clause 52, page 44, line 34, leave out subsection (2).

This is a probing amendment, which is intended to elicit from the Minister the compelling reason behind the provisions on late registration. First, will she clarify whether it is common for people to take more than 42 days to register a birth? Secondly, is the defence applicable only where there has been non-partner IVF treatment, or can it be used by everyone and in other circumstances? Finally, will the Minister explain the circumstances in which more than 42 days would be required to register a birth and why that might be necessary? It would make sense if there were medical reasons—the mother might, for example, be in a coma. If there are other circumstances, however, it would be helpful to establish what they are, and the reasons for them.

Dawn Primarolo (Minister of State (Public Health), Department of Health; Bristol South, Labour)

The clause extends further the 2003 Act. As the hon. Gentleman mentioned, the provisions allow for the extension of the period during which the mother may elect that her deceased partner should be treated as her child’s father or parent for the purpose of birth registration, with the consent of the relevant Registrar General. That is unchanged from the 2003 Act, apart from the incorporation of references to same-sex couples; the provision operates in the same way as it would for an application for delay of registration under the 2003 Act, but is extended to same-sex couples.

The period of time could be extended only if the registrar was satisfied that there were compelling reasons. For the purpose of the clause, in the event that after giving birth the mother was unable to register the birth within the statutory period—an example would be that her ill health prevented it—she could be granted an extension of the period in which to register. That is based on the fact that it would clearly be more appropriate for the mother to register the birth than for someone else to do it on her behalf, in that fewer mistakes would be likely to be made. That is the basis for the registration requirement with respect to the mother; the provision maintains that link.

The registrar must, however, be satisfied, and the ill health in question must be something that would absolutely prevent the mother from registering the birth. I recall reading, and will check the figures, because I do not have them with me, that thus far, for married couples—obviously we cannot say what happens with same-sex couples, because they will not get the relevant right until the Bill receives Royal Assent—there have been very few late applications. I have a figure in mind of fewer than 20.

The reason why we know the figures is that the registrar has referred such matters upwards, because they are exceptional, and has requested advice. Such instances are rare; it is expected that they will arise only in exceptional circumstances. It will not be a matter of inconvenience, or something like a cold, preventing registration; it will be the same rules for everyone, in exceptional circumstances.

Mark Simmonds (Shadow Minister, Health; Boston & Skegness, Conservative)

To be absolutely certain, will the Minister confirm that a compelling reason would not be the mother’s indecision, for more than 42 days, about who should be named on the birth certificate?

Dawn Primarolo (Minister of State (Public Health), Department of Health; Bristol South, Labour)

It is my understanding that that would not be a compelling reason, but perhaps I may enter a caveat. If we are back to scenarios that might arise, there might be a complication of reasons, such as  a combination of extreme distress that one’s partner had died, a difficult birth and, as a consequence, mental or physical health matters impinging on the mother’s ability to start her life again and register her child. However, one must be absolutely precise. Whether to put the father on the birth certificate might be part of that situation, but the case that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, of thinking, “I am not quite sure; I need a few more days to think about it,” would not be enough. That would not be acceptable. To my knowledge, that is not how it has operated until now and there is no reason to believe that it should change.

Mark Simmonds (Shadow Minister, Health; Boston & Skegness, Conservative)

The Minister has clarified the points that I wanted raised and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.