HL Deb 17 February 1926 vol 63 cc176-80

LORD RAGLAN rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether their attention has been drawn to certain criticisms passed by a Metropolitan Magistrate upon the Guardianship of Infants Act, 1925, and whether they consider that this Act requires amendment. The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Magistrate referred to in my Question is Mr. Bingley, and, as his remarks upon the guardianship of infants were widely reported in the Press, I do not think I need apologise for drawing your Lordships' attention to them. I have here a cutting from the Daily Mirror, a portion of which I will read to your Lordships. The report states that Mr. Bingley said: The sole preliminary point he had to decide was whether or not the new Act had given the father the right to apply to a court of summary jurisdiction with regard to his child.…If he (the Magistrate) was right, so far from establishing the equality of the sexes, the mother had been put in a much more favourable position than the father. By merely taking out a 2s. summons she could get the case decided, while the father was left to expensive remedies in the High Court. Mr. Bingley did not think that could have been intended, but it was what the Act said. He hoped that the matter would be settled at the earliest possible moment. Mr. Bingley added that the discussion of the Bill in Parliament was very perfunctory, because it was an agreed Bill between the Home Office and the women's societies. Any number of societies existed to look after the rights of women and mothers, but he had yet to hear of a society that looked after the rights of fathers. It might be that the rights of fathers in this case were somehow overlooked in the desire to amplify title rights of mothers. The Stipendiaries of London are distinguished for their knowledge of the law and for their administration of the law. have no reason to think that Mr. Bingley is less distinguished than his colleagues, and I think therefore that his remarks are worthy of notice. Not being an expert in legal procedure I shall not venture to follow his example.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT CAVE)

My Lords, the attention of the Government has been called to the remarks of the learned Magistrate, who used, I think, somewhat exaggerated language, which he would not have used if he had borne in mind the history of this legislation. The facts are very simple. The law was that the father, as the guardian of the child, had the custody of the child. In the year 1886 an Act was passed giving certain rights to the mother, and as a consequence of that legislation the mother was given the right of applying to the County Courts to enforce or assert those rights. No similar procedure was then set up for the benefit of the father, because he had his very effective rights at common law. That distinction has existed for the last forty years, and I do not think it has given rise to any difficulty.

Last year Parliament passed an Act which laid it down that a mother might apply not to the County Court but to a court of summary jurisdiction, and so it is true that she has the right to apply to that court to enforce her special statutory right. As I understand the Act, and as the Magistrate said, the father has not at present any similar right to apply to a court of petty sessions. Whether that is an inconvenience or not does not yet appear. We have had only a very short experience of the Act. I have not myself heard of any practical difficulty which has arisen; indeed, in the case which was before the learned Magistrate he found no difficulty in disposing of the father's application.

I am disposed to think that, if it turns out that there is a real practical difficulty, it would be wise to legislate on the matter and to give to the father a similar summary right. Of course the purpose of the Act of last year was not to extend the father's rights; it dealt with the mother's rights. That is why I think the provision in the new Act only extended to the power of the mother. I can only say to the noble Lord that the Home Office, who were responsible for this Act, will no doubt keep an eye on the proceedings in the Courts, and if real difficulty arises they will not hesitate to take the necessary action.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

My Lords, I understand from the Lord Chancellor that there is, as the Magistrate says, a difference between the way in which the father is treated and the way in which the mother is treated. That may or may not be a very important difference, but it does show that these Bills which are brought forward in order to establish equality between the sexes do not establish that equality, but, in this particular case, have given a privilege to the mother which the father does not possess. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, that the Stipendiary Magistrates in the Metropolis are not only learned in the law but are also well known to possess common sense, which is, in my humble opinion, a very great asset.

The Magistrate in question pointed out that this Bill was an agreed Bill between the Home Office and certain women's associations. I am sorry to say that during the last few years that I had the honour of sitting in the House of Commons this system of Government Departments making agreements with various associations and then presenting a Bill to Parliament, and saying, "This cannot be criticised because it is an agreed Bill," was an extremely bad system. Nothing is agreed until it has been passed both by your Lordships' House and the House of Commons, and no Bill ought to come forward which has been agreed beforehand between certain representatives of various associations and any of His Majesty's Ministers. It only shows how foolish we are to pay any attention to statements made by members of the House of Commons or noble Lords in this House that there is a desire on the part of an association to do certain things. The associations represent nobody but themselves. They are always interfering and trying to do something to advertise themselves, with the result that Acts are passed which lead only to trouble and which we should have been much better without. If any more so-called social reform Bills or Bills for the equalisation of women's rights are brought forward, I hope noble Lords will remember that it is our duty to reject them.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

My Lords, lest any member of your Lordships' House should suppose, from the two speeches which have been made from this side of the House, that this Act has led to nothing but trouble, might I point out that while one magistrate has made remarks which indicate not any fault in, equity but a slight blemish in drafting the Act, other magistrates have expressed the opinion that it was something which was badly wanted Quite a number of cases have occurred in which advantage has been taken of the Act to make application to a court of summary jurisdiction, and in every case but one, I believe, the custody of the infant has been given to the mother. That shows that there was a very real need for the Act and, as I have said, various magistrates, the equals no doubt of Mr. Bingley who has been referred to, both in learning and in common sense, have expressed their approval of it.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

Might I ask the noble Lord whether they were Stipendiary Magistrates?

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

I cannot vouch for the precise brand, but they were magistrates, and I have reason to suppose that none of them was inferior to the other. I only wished to make the point that the Act is not one which has led to nothing but trouble, but that it has led to a great deal of good.

[From Minutes of February 16.]

The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:

The same were ordered to lie on the Table.