SCHEDULE.—(Matters with respect to which particulars may be required.) (Hansard, 1 February 1938)

§ Sir K. Wood
I beg to move, in page 6, line 5, to leave out from the beginning, to the end of line 14, and to insert: 138

"(a) the age of the mother;

(b) the date of the marriage;

(c) the number of children of the mother by her present husband and how many of them are living;

(d) the number of children of the mother by any former husband and how many of them are living."

§ Mr. Pethick-Lawrence
The proposed changes in the Schedule are in the main along the lines put forward by myself and others on the Second Reading of the Bill. They were subsequently embodied in Amendments which are actually on the Order Paper; but there is one quite important difference between the Amendments which I put down and the Amendment which the Minister has introduced, and I think it is only right that I should say a word on the point. I proposed that the answers to the questions relating to marriage should be voluntary, whereas the Minister has put them in the same class as other questions and made the answers to them compulsory. The Committee ought to face up to the facts, and the facts are that both in England and in Scotland questions are asked regarding the marriage of persons responsible for the birth of a child when the birth comes to be registered. In Scotland the question is asked in the form in which it is proposed by the Minister in his Schedule. In England, on the other hand, the question is asked in a different form, one which, in fact, enables a large number of people to pose as married couples when, in fact, they have not been married according to the laws of our country. During the War we accorded to couples of that kind the same privileges in many respects as were accorded to persons who were legitimately married. I mean that we gave separation allowances to the reputed wives of soldiers at the front just as if they had been married.
The effect of this form of question in England is that in a certain proportion of cases there is no disclosure of the fact that the parents of the child are not married, and the child passes through life quite happily as legitimate when, if the facts had been strictly disclosed, a different position would have appeared. Hon. Members may have varying views on the desirability of this state of things, 139 but they should not shut their eyes to the effect of this new proposal of the Minister, because asking the specific question as to the date of the marriage will undoubtedly mean that answers will be given with greater accuracy, unless a certain provision about "knowledge" is used as a loophole of escape. This will mean that a greater number of children in this country will in future be registered as illegitimate than has been the case in the past. I have carefully thought over the question of putting down Amendments to prevent that situation arising, but after full consideration I have decided that I could not very well take that course, for many reasons, in particular because in Scotland the law is what the Minister is proposing it should be in this country.
I have thought it right to make this statement, because I do not want hon. Members to shut their eyes to what is going to take place. I shall be agreeably surprised if, as the result of the passage of this Bill into law, there is not a substantial increase in the apparent number of illegitimate births in this country. If that takes place hon. Members must realise that it will not be due to any increase in irregular unions but to the operation of this Bill. I do not propose to oppose the Minister's proposals, which are a tremendous improvement on those of the original Bill, but I thought it right to give this word of warning to the Committee.

Sir A. Salter
There is one point on which I should like to put a question to the Minister. This Amendment leaves out any reference to occupation, such as was included in the Bill as first presented. The Minister gave us in his opening statement an explanation of why he thought that was a right and proper alteration, and if I understand his statement in the way in which I hope I may understand it it seems to be a perfectly sufficient explanation; but I should like to put these questions: (1) May I take it that he has power under the existing law to change the form of question which is now asked with regard to occupation in such a way as to make it I do not say identical with but fit in with the census classification? (2) Has he as much power under the existing law as he would have had had the Bill as it was first presented 140 become law? (3) Can we have an assurance that the Department will use the powers under the existing law in such a way as to make the new question with regard to occupation fit in with the census classification?

§ Sir K. Wood
I should like to answer now the questions which have been put to me. I have power under the Section of the earlier Act, which I quoted in my first observations, to change the form of question, but I have not as much power as I asked for in the original Bill. I sought to take power, when a mother came to register her child, to go to the husband if the mother did not have the required information, but objection was taken to that by some of my hon. Friends. In the circumstances, I am not asking for that power, but I can assure the hon. Member that I shall endeavour to get as near to the census classification as I can. In a very large number of cases the mother will not be able to give the information. In view of the state of Government business and of the very large number of Clauses in the Bill, the hon. Member will probably appreciate that I am taking what I think to be the practical course to secure the best result.
On the point raised by the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence), although I naturally do not object to the terms in which he put it to me, I can only say that it would be almost impossible to make a differentiation between compulsory or voluntary information. I do not know of any country in the world where this is done in order to arrive at population statistics. I note what the right hon. Gentleman said, and I did make inquiries from the Registrar-General in Scotland as to whether there was any objection of the kind be mentioned. I was assured by his colleague, the Registrar-General here in London, who gave me the information, that there was not.