HC Deb 29 July 1965 vol 717 cc843-5
Mr. J. A. Stodart (Edinburgh, West)

I beg to move, in Clause 14, page 9, line 23, to leave out from "mother" to the end of line 25 and to insert:

  1. (i) any relative of either parent of the child, being a relative who has knowledge of the birth;
  2. (ii) the occupier of the premises in which the child was, to the knowledge of that occupier born;
  3. (iii) any person present at the birth;
  4. (iv) any person having charge of the child.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Dr. Horace King)

It is proposed that we take with this Amendment the other Amendment to Clause 14, in page 9, line 34, to leave out subsection (2).

10.30 p.m.

Mr. Stodart

The hon. Lady will recall that in Committee an Amendment not dissimilar from this was moved and discussed, and I think it fair to say that on that occasion, in our attempt to do what we genuinely thought, and still think, to be right for the improvement of the drafting, we took a step which went a little too far, altering paragraph (a) of subsection (2) by suggesting that the words "being a relative" should be left out.

This cast doubts, as the hon. Lady explained, on whether it was a relative who had knowledge of the birth or a parent which had knowledge of the birth. Accordingly, we have now stuck to the wording of the whole of paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) in subsection (2) and merely changed their position in the Clause, thereby making, we think, the Clause easier to read and understand.

We have, therefore, I think, gone at least halfway to meet the objections to the Amendment which were raised by the hon. Lady in Committee. So I hope that, following the example which both sides set with great success in Committee, she will be able to come towards us and accept the Amendment. Before she makes it clear, let me admit that we have not gone the whole way to meet the objections which she pointed out in Committee, because it is true that as a result of our Amendment "qualified" disappears from line 24 and so does the part of subsection (2) which states who, other than the parents, would be qualified.

However, although I am not a lawyer, and would not pretend to be well versed in the expertise of drafting, I should have thought that if it is laid down, as it is in the Clause, who has the duty to register a birth, be it a parent or, in the inability of the parent, any relative or the occupier of the premises or any person present at the birth or any person in charge of the child—it is upon these in turn that the duty is laid—it ought to go without saying that anyone who has this duty must automatically be qualified to do it.

On both sides, in Committee, on many occasions we have tried to make the Bill a more understandable one. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Hannan) uttered some words of praise and encouragement for this Amendment, and the hon. Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Buchan) certainly did not pour cold water on the idea. Accordingly, although we failed in Committee, I hope that the hon. Lady will feel able to put the seal on the harmony which has characterised the passage of the Bill and accept the Amendment.

Mrs. Hart

Nothing would have given me greater pleasure than to extend the spirit of harmony which has pervaded the proceedings on the Bill by accepting the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart). I am sorry that I cannot, but I will tell him why I cannot, and perhaps he will understand that it is in no spirit of discord whatever but merely because the Bill must be a perfect Bill.

On the one hand, this matter is, I freely admit, entirely one of taste and presentation. We think that the words in the Bill are, on the whole, slightly better, partly because they are more easily understood and more readable and partly because they place proper emphasis on the importance of the father and mother as primary informants. But this is not the main reason.

The main reason is that the Amendments could not stand on their own without two other Amendments which, unfortunately, the hon. Gentleman has not tabled. One of them would have been an Amendment in line 33 because the reference there to "those persons" is related back to subsection (1,b). We should have to modify that to enable his Amendments to carry through. Secondly, in Clause 56, we would have to amend the definition of "qualified informant".

Quite apart, therefore, from the question of balance of judgment as to which is the better way of doing it, unfortunately the hon. Gentleman has not put down the other two Amendments needed to make these two carry through the Bill. I am extremely sorry that I must resist his Amendments, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will see my motives in doing so.

Mr. Stodart

I think that I may say, as on many other occasions, that the hon. Lady's explanation, put forward extremely straightforwardly, seems to be perfectly adequate. I regret my lack of diligence in not noticing the other two cases where amendment would have been necessary. In view of this, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.