Schedule 6
Welfare Reform Bill
11:00 am
Mark Harper (Shadow Minister, Work & Pensions; Forest of Dean, Conservative)
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.
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.