§ Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, I beg to move that this Bill will be read a third time.
§ Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
187§ LORD MERRIVALEMy Lords, there are one or two matters that I should be glad to have an opportunity of mentioning with regard to Clause 3 of the Bill. There is one practical matter which will need to be considered at some time, which is: Under what conditions and what restrictions, and subject to what, regulations, this whole matter is going to be dealt, with, not only in the High Court but in the county court? As the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack knows, there are various provisions of one kind and another for the making of rules, but there are different provisions with regard to rules of the High Court and of the county court. One advantage that we have in respect to this matter is that ultimately the Lord Chancellor has very much of a controlling voice as to what rules shall be adopted. At any rate, his power is very great in that matter.
What I wanted to ask my noble friend was whether, before this Bill is brought effectually into operation, he himself will take the responsibility—I know it involves some additional labour, but my own impression is That it is worth while—of seeing to the framing of a set of rules which will introduce a uniform procedure in the High Court and the county court and obviate some of the risk which some of my noble friends and I thought would probably arise from the introduction of a jurisdiction of this kind in the county court. It is a short matter and one which is very familiar to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, and I should be very glad if he would deal with it now, or later on.
§ TETE LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, I will answer my noble and learned friend's question at once. I do not propose to take the sole responsibility either for the rules made for the High Court or for those to be made for the county court. Those rules are made by Committees of which I am a member, and of one of which I think my noble and learned friend is himself a member. I can assure my noble and learned friend that we shall do our best in those Committees to consider the points which has brought before us.
§ On Question, Bill read 3a.
188§ Clause 2:
§ Re-registration of birth of legitimated persons.
§ 2.—(1) The Registrar-General may, on production of such evidence as appears to him to be satisfactory, authorise at any time the re-registration of the birth of a legitimated person, and such re-registration shall be effected in such manner and at such place as the Registrar-General may by regulations prescribe:
§ Provided that the Registrar-General shall not authorise the re-registration of the birth of any such person in any case where information with a view to obtaining such re-registration is not furnished to him by both parents, unless—
- (a) the name of a person acknowledging himself to be the father of the legitimated person has been entered in the register in pursuance of Section seven of the Births and Deaths Registration Act, 1874: or
- (b) the paternity of the legitimated person has been established by an affiliation order or otherwise by a decree of a court of competent jurisdiction; or
- (c) a declaration of the legitimacy of the legitimated person has been made under the Legitimacy Declaration Act, 1858, as amended by this Act.
§
LORD RAGLAN moved to leave out subsection (1), and insert the following new subsection:—
(1) In cases in which—
the Registrar-General shall authorise the re-registration of the birth of such person, and such re-registration shall be effected in such manner and at such place as the Registrar-General may by regulations prescribe.
§ The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name on the Paper. It is intended to make the position clearer.
189
§
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 24 to page 2, line 21, leave out subsection (1) and insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Raglan.)
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, I am afraid I could not advise the House to accept the noble Lord's Amendment. Its effect, if adopted, would be to substitute "may", in place of the expression "shall" and to impose an absolute obligation upon the Registrar-General if certain conditions are fulfilled. I do not know whether my noble friend is aware how often a registrar to-day, in registering ordinary births, has to exercise this discretion. He has to see that all the facts are brought before him, to test them if need be and to prevent any entry being made upon a register with a view, perhaps, to future litigation or to making evidence for future years. I am sure he has to use great discretion already in the exercise of his functions. If this Amendment was passed he would have no discretion and if people came to him and said: "This is the father of this child," or if certain other conditions were fulfilled, he would have to enter the child as definitely the child of his father. He would have to be satisfied of the identity of the mother and to see that those were the persons who were married. He must see that they were not married when the child was born, and other things, too. I can assure my noble friend that his Amendment would not only lead to confusion but might possibly have worse results.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, I beg to move a privilege Amendment.
§ Moved accordingly, and on Question, privilege Amendment made.
§ Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.