Clause 11.—(REPORTS AS TO ARRANGEMENTS FOR FUTURE CARE AND UP- BRINGING OF CHILDREN.) (Hansard, 2 May 1958)

§ Mr. Moyle
I beg to move, in page 8, line 4, at the end to insert: if the council consents to their being so designated". In the Scottish courts, the judge has a discretion to assign the duties in regard to the future welfare of the child either to a children's officer—who in Scotland is referred to as a local authority officer—or to a probation officer. The Bill at present limits the obligation of the court simply to consulting the local authority. As the local authority officer is a full-time employee of the county authority, it is only reasonable that the Amendment should be made, substituting the consent of the county authority for the obligation merely to consult the county council.

§ Mr. Doughty
I beg to second the Amendment.

§ Mr. Moyle
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
In view of the time, and the fact that another Bill in which we are all interested is on the Order Paper, I do not propose to speak for very long. I had better content myself with saying that the Bill is now a better Bill than it was when I introduced it. That is due to the cooperation of hon. Members on both sides of the House, and I want to express my appreciation to the Lord Chancellor and his staff, and particularly to Mr. Dobson, who has been my counsel and guiding hand during the whole of these vexatious and litigious proceedings. The Bill has a much more menacing and legal look about it than had my previous two Bills, and I am glad that it has been able to reach the safe harbour of the Third Reading stage without disaster.
We are grateful to the Solicitor-General for being here this afternoon, and I want to express to him my appreciation for the great help he has rendered to me during the progress of the Bill.
I very much regret that we did not convince the highest legal authorities that it might have been a good thing to increase the age limit from 16 to 18—or at least 17. I did my best to honour the obligation that I accepted in Committee, particularly to my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White), to reconsider the question of increasing the age limit in relation to the jurisdiction of the court on the question of the future welfare of children affected by divorce, but the decision went against me.
I do not think that there is any need for me to say any more, except to depart from making individual distinctions and to express my warm thanks for the very real co-operation which I have received from hon. Members on both sides of the House. To put things right with my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl), I will say that, notwithstanding the contentious nature of his behaviour this afternoon, I am exceedingly grateful to him for the help he has given me during the course of the Bill.

§ Mr. MacColl
I beg to second the Motion.
When a Private Member's Bill reaches this stage, the wisest thing to do is to say 791 very little, but I should not like the Third Reading to pass without saying something. I have made it quite clear that I regard my hon. Friend the Member for Oldbury and Halesowen (Mr. Moyle) as extremely pig-headed—but he is a very kind and warm-hearted pig, and very many unhappy children will be profoundly grateful to him in the future. There can be very few recommendations of as contentious a Royal Commission as the Morton Commission which have been brought on to the Statute Book so quickly, and to those who think that Parliament is sometimes a little sluggish in taking up recommendations of Royal Commissions, this is an object lesson. With an hon. Member who has the qualities of luck, skill and toughness—all three of which are possessed by my hon. Friend—it is remarkable what can be done in a short time.
I want to express my great gratitude to him for having used his luck in such a very worthy way, and I am sure that in future many children will look back to his work during this Session and say that he has done a tremendous job to help the wretched and unfortunate victims of matrimonial disharmony.

§ Mr. Philip Bell (Bolton, East)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Oldbury and Halesowen (Mr. Moyle) on bringing the Bill forward. I regret that I did not volunteer to serve on the Committee. The first thing that strikes me is what an enormously important subject this is to be left to a private Member to bring forward. Most of us here realise that the consolidation of family life is rather more important even than the Purchase Tax on miners' helmets, and it is rather sad that it should be left to a private Member to bring it forward, with all the burden that it involves for him.
It is probably well known that for personal reasons I have very strong views about divorce. I do not believe that it is good, in the end, for the welfare of the State, because of the children concerned. Having once put the system into operation, however, it is necessary to defend the victims of divorce, namely, the children. The two Clauses which interest me most are the first two. Clause 1 deals with the extension of the jurisdiction of the divorce court to further 792 classes of children, and Clause 2 deals with the duty of the divorce courts to consider arrangements for children's welfare before a final degree decree is pronounced.
At this late stage it would be useless and tedious to bring up comments which have probably already been expanded in Committee and at other stages. Nevertheless, I cannot help feeling that there is considerable danger to what I call the solidarity of family life in a provision which allows an illegitimate child to get into the same position as a legitimate child, because his custodian—not his parent—has assumed responsibility. It occurred to me that a person might assume responsibility under some misapprehension as to who was the parent of the child. It seems a little dangerous to introduce into the family that equality between people who are not equal in law. I will, however, leave that.
The difficulty of making arrangements for the child's welfare before the final decree is manifest in Clause 2, which in the end leaves the whole matter rather vague, because if it is impracticable for the parties to do anything, apparently nothing can be done. It seems to be a pious hope more than a strict legal provision. I notice in the Report of the Commission that it is hoped that this would preach a sermon.
It seems odd that the Report on which the Bill is based should say that perhaps these provisions will bring home to people who are contemplating divorce their responsibilities to their children. It is a sad commentary when a Clause in a Bill brought forward by an hon. Member is required to bring home to parents their responsibility. The sad fact is that, after all the well-meaning reforms which have been introduced, it remains necessary to plug the gaping holes in the social system which are created by maintaining a system of divorce.

§ The Solicitor-General
Whatever may be sad about the present situation, it is not the Third Reading of the Bill.
We have had an opportunity of congratulating the hon. Member for Oldbury and Halesowen (Mr. Moyle), the promoter of the Bill, on his good fortune, but since he has said so many kind things about all of us, it is only fair that we 793 should take the opportunity to say something kind about him. I now do that on behalf, I hope, of both sides of the House in this context. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] That his Bill has had so smooth and swift a passage through the House has been due in no small measure to the personal affection which we all have for him and the charming and skilled way in which he has handled it throughout.