CLAUSE 1.—(Increase of Maximum Payment under Affiliation Orders.) (Hansard, 15 November 1918)

§ Sir R. NEWMAN
I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (2), to insert the words Any Order made under the Bastardy Laws Amendment Act, 1872, or this Act may be varied at any time either by the Court of Summary Jurisdiction which made the order or by a Court of Summary Jurisdiction for the place where the person who is entitled under the order to receive the payment resides. I move this Amendment because the late Home Secretary said he would consider it. Possibly the hon. Gentleman in charge 3153 of the Bill will deal with it now. It really means giving applicants an opportunity of having the case heard in the district in which he resides. It is an important matter, because sometimes a mother may change her place of abode, and if she happens to go some distance away she gets out of touch with the local bench, and there is a difficulty also sometimes in procuring witnesses who may be necessary perhaps to prove the financial position. It seems to be more reasonable that the question of the variation of the Order should be decided entirely by the bench where the applicant lives. You can hardly place before this Amendment the objection that the matter will not come before the same bench again, because very rarely have you the same bench dealing with the fresh applications. As the law stands at present, it will come before a bench in the same neighbourhood, but the magistrates who decided the case in the first instance probably will not be sitting when it is brought forward for review. Therefore, as there is a change of magistrates in any event there is no objection to the application being made to magistrates in the district where the applicant lives.

§ Mr. KING
I second the Amendment with very great pleasure. It covers ground familiar to all who are acquainted with this subject. I only hope that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Brace) whom we are very glad to see here, in place of his recent chief who introduced the Bill, will accept the Amendment.

§ The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Brace)
The Amendment means very much more than what my hon. Friends says it does. He proposes also to amend the Bastardy Acts, which is a very much more important matter than the small Bill now before the House. This Bill is a simple proposition to give an opportunity for advancing the money from a maximum of 5s. to a maximum of 10s. if the Court so desire. There is the power which my hon. Friend has in his mind existing under the present law, and therefore there is no necessity to put into the present Bill a repetition of the law as it at present stands. For that reason I must resist the Amendment which is quite unnecessary.

§ Sir R. NEWMAN
I understand that by the law at present those applications must now be made before the same Bench. My 3154 proposal was that they should be made before the bench where the applicant resides.

§ Mr. BRACE
That would be quite unfair. This Amendment stands in two Departments. The one proposes that the woman should have the same right which she has now. The second is that she should have the right to make the application before a Court in the neighbourhood in which she resides. That would be quite unfair, because many circumstances have to be taken into consideration in reference to the increase of payments from 5s. to Vs. 6d. or 10s. That is a very narrow issue and could be done. But if there is an alteration in the payment, say, of 2s. 6d. or 3s. a week, to 5s., 6s., or 7s. a week, it would be quite unfair to allow another Court in a different neighbourhood, who would have no knowledge of the facts or circumstances of the case, when the order was made to make the inquiry. We, therefore, think it right that cases of the kind should be settled by the same Court, or a Court in the same petty sessional division. Those are the reasons why, after careful consideration with my advisers, we feel ourselves unable to accept the Amendment.

§ Mr. BRACE
I beg to move, at the end, to add (3) The collecting officer to whom payment under any existing order is to be made shall give to the person who is entitled under the order to receive the payment notice in writing of his or her right to apply under this Act to have the amount of the payment increased, and on the request in writing of that person may make in his name as such officer on behalf of that person an application under this Act for the variation of the order. Where an application is so made by a collecting officer, the liability of the person on whose behalf the application is made for all costs properly incurred in or about the application shall be the same as if the application had been made by that person.

§ Mr. KING
This is an excellent Amendment. It grows out of the Amendment, which I moved in Committee, which the Home Secretary promised to consider. He has not only considered it, but he has greatly improved it. As I have complained of the inaction, or the mistaken action, of his Department, it gives me all the more pleasure to compliment it upon an excellent Amendment, which makes this Bill far more useful than I expected it would be. I am rather tired with myself for not having seen the point which is here 3155 introduced, namely, that every person who might benefit out of this is going to be informed, and that this Act is not going to be, and cannot be, a dead letter. I am surprised at myself that I did not realise this point, and I am very glad to have had the part which I have had in calling attention to the possibilities of the collecting officer under the Act and in bringing the matter before the Home Office in such a way that it makes sure that the Act is not going to be a dead letter in any individual case. On behalf of a great number of people who will never be able to thank anyone for the benefits arising out of this Act, I desire to express my gratitude to the Home Office, and especially to my right hon. Friend. The addition to the Bill makes it three or four times as valuable as it would otherwise be.

§ Mr. KING
I beg to move, after the words last inserted, to add the words, (3) Nothing in the last foregoing Sub-section shall take away or diminish any power to amend an order which might have been exercised if that Sub-section had not been enacted. This is a legal point. If proceedings were taken, say, on 20th December of this year and adjourned and the order not made until next year, I take it that such a case would not have the benefit of the Act, as the order was actually applied for before it became operative. I think the words are necessary, and they can certainly do no harm.

§ Sir R. NEWMAN
I beg to second the Amendment.

§ Mr. BRACE
I am advised these words are wholly unnecessary and that it is not a good practice to insert unnecessary language in a Bill.

§ Mr. KING
In withdrawing may I say I do not take responsibility, and if the words should be found to be necessary, it is not my fault.

§ Mr. KING
This is a really excellent Bill, and I hope it will not be the last which the right hon. Gentleman now responsible will have in connection with 3156 the question of illegitimacy. The Bill, while it does a great deal, only touches the fringe of the very great question which has been too long neglected, and I hope the Home Office will still remember there are many important questions in connection with the status of the illegitimate child and who is responsible.