PERIOD OF VALIDITY OF LICENCE (Hansard, 24 April 1970)

§ Mr. S. C. Silkin
I beg to move Amendment No. 11, in page 3, line 21, leave out ' notice of marriage was entered in the marriage notice book ' and insert: ' Registrar-General's licence was granted '. Clause 8 provides the very important matter of the period of validity of a Registrar General's licence. I have emphasised more than once the need for speed for this procedure to be of value. The Clause gives effect to the desired speed by providing that a marriage may be solemnised on the authority of the Registrar General's licence at any time within one month from the day which the notice of marriage is entered in the marriage notice book.
If a month is allowed to go by without the marriage taking place, the whole procedure has to be started again. No doubt that is perfectly right and proper, but the difficulty I see in the Clause is that the period of a month runs from the day on which a notice is entered in the marriage notice book.
If I have correctly understood the procedure under the principal Act, that notice is entered in the book when notice is duly given by the person concerned and it would be only after that that the Registrar General would put in motion, if he felt it necessary to do so, procedure provided for under Clause 4 whereby the evidence is given to the superintendent registrar for submission to the Registrar General to show that the provisions of Clause 1 have been satisfied. The Registrar General is then enabled by Clause 4 to give directions for the purpose of verifying the evidence and the superintendent registrar is required to comply with those directions.
813 I can well understand that a case might arise where the evidence produced to the Registrar General would not, in his view, be satisfactory, notwithstanding the Amendment we made tightening up the procedure. Consequently, he would give directions to the superintendent registrar to verify the evidence. It would not be for perhaps some little time before that evidence had been satisfactorily verified and the Registrar General would be in a position to grant the licence.
Then, as I understand the scheme of the Bill, the month would have already started to run because the notice would have been already entered in the marriage notice book. More and more of that month would be consumed while the procedure for verification took place. Eventually, there might be little time left within the month during which the marriage could be arranged and take place.
If I have correctly understood the procedure upon which this rather complicated matter is based, I think that it would be much more logical and helpful to those concerned if the period of a month ran, not from the date when the notice was entered in the book, but from the date when the Registrar General granted his licence after he had had the opportunity of verifying the matters which he thought necessary to verify. The parties would not then be penalised by steps taken by the Registrar General rather than steps for which they themselves were responsible. They would not be placed in the position that the time was inadequate and the whole procedure had to be started again.
Again, I hope that the hon. Member for St. Albans (Mr. Goodhew) and the Under-Secretary will feel that this would be an important improvement of the Bill and would make it substantially more effective in the kind of case which is contemplated. I hope that the hon. Member will feel able to accept the Amendment.

§ Mr. O'Malley
I listened with interest and with some sympathy for at least some of the points made by my hon. and learned Friend. I am in some difficulty in advising the House on this Amendment. I think that I should give a balance of advantages and disadvantages and then suggest the way in which I think the balance should tip.
814 I was impressed by some of the comments made by my hon. and learned Friend about the timing and the period of the licence. He suggested that if we extended the period of the validity of the licence it would be helpful in some circumstances—and I take that point. I understand, however, that the Amendment would extend the validity of the licence by only a day or two and certainly not for a long period, since the period of validity of a certificate or licence of the superintendent registrar runs from the date of the entry of the notice in the marriage notice book.
We are, therefore, not talking about a long extension in the period of validity. Nevertheless, I take the point that there might be cases in which an argument could be made that the period of validity of the licence ought to be somewhat longer.
The time during which a licence is valid is in some ways a general question which might well be under consideration by the working party on the marriage laws. I listened with some sympathy to the situation which could conceivably arise in some cases, but the difficulty is that the Bill is closely tied in with, and needs to be tied in with, the existing principal legislation on the subject. Consistency suggests that we should retain the present form of the Clause in order to tie it in with present legislation.
On balance, therefore, my advice to the House is that we should retain this consistency. The Bill is not making a major revision of the law—simply an accretion concerning a very small aspect of the Marriage Acts. My advice, therefore, is that we should ask my hon. and learned Friend to withdraw the Amendment because of the need for consistency, while nevertheless assuring him that I recognise that some of the points which he made could conceivably have validity in certain cases. I wish to look more closely at what he said by reading the report in the OFFICIAL REPORT. If there were a case for an extension of the validity of certificates, it might well be a subject for consideration once the report has been received from Mr. Justice Scarman's working party. That would be preferable to amending the principal Act at present.
815 I therefore hope that my hon. and learned Friend will withdraw the Amendment.

§ Mr. Goodhew
I endorse the words of the Joint Under-Secretary of State. One reason why this apparently simple Bill, setting out to achieve a very limited objective, occupies 20 Clauses is that we have been required to tie it in carefully with the principal Act. That being so, I hope that the hon. and learned Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin) will withdraw the Amendment.

§ Mr. S. C. Silkin
I confess that I am a little disappointed by the reaction of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary. I appreciate the difficulties which arise in relation to other parts of the Bill, in that it is undoubtedly desirable to tie in the provisions of the Bill, which to a limited degree adds to the principal Act, with the provisions of the principal Act. But my hon. Friend recognises, I am sure, that the point with which we are dealing is one precisely at which the Bill differs in principle from the principal Act.
I would point out that the principal Act deals with marriage in the ordinary way, where there is no necessity for the speed with which we are dealing here, whereas the whole purpose of the provisions of the Bill is to deal with the situation in which speed is of the essence, because one of the parties who may wish to get married is possibly on his deathbed or very near it. The criteria which very properly govern the provisions of the principal Act are, therefore, not at one with the kind of provision which we ought to take into account in this Clause.

§ Mr. O'Malley
No doubt my hon. and learned Friend recognises that the effect of his Amendment would be limited. It would extend the validity of the licence for only a day or two.

§ Mr. Silkin
I heard my hon. Friend say that in his reply. I understood the point which he made, although I do not necessarily accept it. Where a medical practitioner's certificate has been granted, this point would not arise as that would be conclusive evidence. But where we are dealing with a situation in which other forms of evidence are put forward, different circumstances might arise. 816 Possibly it might be evidence from a very remote place—not a remote island off the coast of Scotland, because the Bill does not deal with Scotland, but a remote island; and to be satisfied about the situation, the Registrar General might feel that he needed verification and he might have to send someone to see what was the position.
Accordingly, in certain circumstances it could be a matter not only of a couple of days but possibly of two or three weeks. There might be only a week or less during which the provisions of the Bill could operate. That is the kind of situation which I had in mind.
I hope that what I have said will make it possible for further consideration to be given to what I submit is a very important provision of the Bill. I hope that further consideration to the point will be given in another place. If my hon. Friend is willing to give me that undertaking, as I hope he is, on that basis I am prepared to seek leave to withdraw the Amendment.

§ Mr. O'Malley
Of course, the Government will consider very carefully what my hon. and learned Friend said in the last few minutes about the basis of and reason for the Amendment. I can give that assurance.

§ Mr. S. C. Silkin
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. In those circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.