§ 42 and 43. Sir FRANCIS FREMANTLEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) whether he is aware that, in a recent case of disputed paternity, both parties agreed to accept a blood-test as evidence, and that the magistrates decided the case without such evidence; and whether he will consider the advisability of securing the admission of such evidence on the requisition of either party with retrospective effect;
(2) whether he is aware that blood-tests are accepted in several countries as normal evidence of non-paternity; that this evidence is found to be conclusive in one out of three cases of actual non-paternity; and whether he will take the necessary steps to make such proof admissible in the English courts?
§ The Secretary of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Gilmour)I am advised that, if evidence with regard to a blood-test is available, such evidence is admissible under the existing law in this country. Such difficulties as exist appear to be rather of a practical than of a legal character, and to arise from the fact that the cost of arranging for such a test would fall on
§ the man concerned, and that he would have to secure the co-operation of the woman. I am giving my careful consideration to the whole matter, but, if there were any question of compelling persons to submit to a blood-test, legislation would be required for this purpose.
§ Sir F. FREMANTLEWould it not be possible for the right hon. Gentleman to make known to the magistrates in the country the fact that they may accept this evidence, which at present they are refusing?
§ Sir J. GILMOURI think there is no question that the magistrates are fully aware of that point.
§ Sir F. FREMANTLEIf, in a particular case, the magistrates refuse to accept this evidence, is it possible for the case to be re-opened?
§ Sir J. GILMOURNo, Sir; it would be for the magistrates to sum up what was the value of such evidence.
§ Mr. MACQUISTENDid not the magistrates refuse to accept it as con-elusive?