HL Deb 17 March 1927 vol 66 cc567-76

Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.

VISCOUNT ASTOR

My Lords, I beg to move the Second Reading of the Bill which stands in my name on the Order Paper. I wish that it had been possible to give a different title to this Bill. It is really a Bill to protect the lives of children of unmarried women. I have had, however, to take notice of the wording of existing Statutes in order that this Bill should fit in with it. Most of the clauses in this Bill were originally part of a large measure which was introduced into another place by the present Minister of Health, Mr. Neville Chamberlain. The object of the Bill is twofold: first of all, to reduce the very heavy mortality of illegitimate children and, naturally and consequently, to improve the health of those who do not die; and, secondly, to relieve the rates.

When Parliament first began dealing with illegitimate children the object of Parliament was to compel the father to pay for the maintenance of his illegitimate child. The original legislation was not intended to punish the father, but to relieve the rates, because these children often come to the guardians and have to be supported out of the rates and the sum involved may be very considerable. The guardians may be responsible for an illegitimate child up to the age of sixteen; that is to say, the ratepayers may actually have to pay something like £800 for the maintenance of the child until they are relieved of its responsibility. This Bill is intended to remedy that particular difficulty.

There is another aspect which I feel sure will appeal much more to your Lordships, and that is that it will reduce enormously, I hope, the very excessive mortality of illegitimate children. The infant mortality of illegitimate children is double that of legitimate children. It is true that the mothers of some of these children may not be in a condition, owing to venereal disease and for other reasons that I need not go into, to produce healthy babies, but, making allowances for them, the number of illegitimate children who die is absolutely appalling. We have to remember that for every one that dies there are a large number who live and who embark upon life with insufficient vitality, vigour and health, so that they are a permanent burden upon the community. They never have full health and vigour. If we can do anything to give them a better chance of supporting themselves we shall relieve a great deal of misery and unhappiness and we shall also produce a very much better type of citizen.

There are two classes of women that are mainly concerned with illegitimate children. First of all you have the inexperienced girl. Her case is very hard. Very often she loses her job, she may be turned out by her family and, just at the very time when she most needs food, care and attention, she has no chance whatever of getting any money or support for herself and, through herself, for her unborn child. There is the other type, the woman who may be slightly deficient mentally and who goes to the guardians' infirmary. The principal Medical Officer of the Ministry of Health, in his Report for 1925, dealt with the causes of infantile mortality. The question was put to him why it was that there was this very high and excessive death rate among illegitimate children by comparison with other children, and he states in his Report that— .… biologically speaking, there is reason to expect that the offspring of the healthy unmarried mother would compare not unfavourably, in most cases, with the child born in wedlock. That is to say there is no reason, biologically speaking, why there should be this heavy mortality. He says that the reasons for this high death rate are insufficient ante-natal care, inattention at birth, lack of breast feeding, lack of knowledge of mothercraft. In another paragraph he goes on to say:— There can only be one way in which to safeguard the interest and health of the illegitimately born child—namely, the careful, continuous and individual supervision—ante-natal, natal, post-natal—of mother and child. This Bill proposes that the ante-natal help, which Sir George Newman considers essential in order to save life, should be provided for these unfortunate children.

After all, that is entirely consistent with the trend of modern thought. Parliament has recently passed laws dealing with maternity and infant welfare, and ante-natal clinics are being set up all over the country. We are developing organisations of health visitors to provide for mothers, and as a result of this provision which the State has made and is making, the mortality of legitimate children has dropped enormously. Those of us who are responsible for the introduction of this Bill are convinced that it will relieve the ratepayers, that it will save the lives of a large number of children that are now lost and in many cases it will give children a far greater chance of being healthy and self-supporting as they grow up. It may be that at the Committee stage your Lordships may feel it desirable to introduce certain Amendments tightening up some of the clauses, but I suggest that at this stage your Lordships should express yourselves as being in favour of the Bill because it does provide a reasonable line of advance, consistent with modern thought and recent developments.

Let me take the clauses one by one. The second clause is probably the most important. It makes it possible for an affiliation order to be made before the birth of the child. At the present moment a pregnant mother can apply to the Courts for an order before the child is born. A summons may be issued before the child is born, but at the present moment the case cannot actually be heard until after the birth. This clause provides that it should be possible to hear the case and to issue an affiliation order before the birth of the child in order that maintenance should be provided for the unborn child, in order that pre-natal help should be given to the unborn child. Your Lordships will notice that there is a proviso enabling the Court, if they decide it to be necessary in any specific case, to adjourn the hearing of the case until after the child is born. The clause, as I said just now, makes it possible for the Court to make an order for pre-natal support for the unborn child. I hope I have made it clear that this is not help for the mother, but help for the unborn child.

I think it is very important that we should try to establish paternity as soon as possible. Experience shows that a father, if he is approached at an early date, is more anxious to help. He may have feelings of remorse or, it may be, of affection for the girl, whereas if you wait for any lengthy period he is much more likely to be callous and much less likely to do what is right. This clause is based on a recommendation in the Report of the Royal Commission on the Poor Law. May I read the recommendation? It is as follows:— We recommend that the putative father be chargeable for the maintenance of the mother of his child from the date of the mother's admission to relief"— That is to say, before the child is born. The recommendation goes on:— and for the child after birth; and that, immediately on the mother's admission, inquiry on behalf of the local authority be made in regard to the paternity of the child. Then, a Select Committee, in the year 1909, made a similar recommendation. That Committee recommended that the justices shall have power— to order reimbursement of expenses incidental to birth, including expenses due to illness or loss of work, within a period not exceeding one month previous to confinement.… The Select Committee recommended that the justices should have the power not only to make an affiliation order, but to order the payment of money before the child was born. That is the substance of the second clause of this Bill. The clause proposes that such an order should be made four months before the anticipated birth. If you think four months an excessive period I should be quite willing on the Committee stage to agree to a lesser period.

There are very important precedents supporting and justifying legislation on these lines. The Dominions—Canada, Australia and New Zealand—have already passed very similar proposals; that is to say, laws compelling the putative father to pay pre-natal expenses. I will take Australia first. South Australia passed an Act dating from the year 1900. In New South Wales an Act was passed in 1904 and in Tasmania an Act was passed in 1920. New Zealand has also passed a law on the subject, but I have not the date of that. Then in Canada, Ontario passed a law to this effect in 1921, British Columbia in 1922, Nova Scotia and Alberta in 1923, Prince Edward's Island and Manitoba in 1924 and New Brunswick in 1926. I have given the dates of the passing of these laws in various Provinces in Canada to indicate that they have been passed at different times. I have given those dates because I think it entitles me to say that experience of the law passed originally in Ontario has been satisfactory, and that, because it was satisfactory in Ontario and British Columbia, it has been adopted and copied to an ever increasing extent in the other Provinces.

When dealing with this type of legislation one always has to consider the possibility of blackmail. We have to see that reasonable safeguards are provided. I believe, as do others with whom I have discussed this matter, that this Bill will actually reduce the chances of blackmail and that the sooner the case comes before the Court the easier will it be for the father either to bring evidence rebutting the allegation of the mother or to bring other evidence. I believe that the sooner this type of case can be heard in Court the more likely are we to get justice and to prevent injustice and blackmail. It is easier then for the Court to sift evidence, it is easier for witnesses and it is easier to produce corroborative evidence on behalf either of the mother or the father.

I quite realise that the putative father may himself make a mistake. It is possible in certain cases that the woman might have associated with more than one man, and the question whether the man was actually the father could only be settled when one knew the date on which the child was born. Accordingly, I propose to bring forward an Amendment in Committee which I think will deal with that danger. I propose to move an Amendment enabling the Court itself to hold the money, or to nominate a person to receive the money which the Court has ordered the putative father to pay before the birth of the child, until after the child is born. If then the man came to the conclusion that the birth showed that he could not have been the father he could come to the Court and have the case gone into and the money repaid. If he did not do so the money would be paid either to the woman herself or to the institution in which she was being attended. I believe that this will safeguard the rights of the father entirely, and it will be of enormous help to the mother to know that this money is coming to her. It will help her to get assistance if she goes to a voluntary maternity home, because, obviously, in the majority of cases, the money that the Court has awarded would be paid at the birth of the child. As I said just now, I believe the earlier hearing of the case by the Court would reduce the chances of blackmail.

I do not know that I need say very much about Clause 3, which merely provides that if the child is born dead the money should be paid. That, also, is one of the recommendations of the Select Committee and I do not think that I need take up your Lordships' time because the justice of it is obvious. There is no reason why the money should not be paid to a mother merely because the child happens to be born dead instead of alive.

Clause 4 carries out one of the recommendations of the Select Committee of 1909, which stated that the justices should have power to dispense with the mother's evidence in the case of the mother's death or insanity, when the paternity is admitted by the father. There may be cases where the mother has issued a summons and, before the case has come before the Court and the order made, she has died. In that case there is now no power whatever to make the father contribute to the maintenance of the child. There is another type of case that I think should be dealt with. I was told the other day of a woman who had had an illegitimate child and the father had voluntarily made a weekly contribution to the maintenance of that child. The case never came before the Court. Then the woman found that she was going to have a second child and she committed suicide. The man then stopped the payments that he had been making voluntarily for the maintenance of the first child. As the law now stands there was no power, although he had admitted paternity, to make him contribute further towards the maintenance of the child.

These proposals are supported by a large number of boards of guardians and by the London Magistrates' Clerks' Association; that is to say, by bodies that have experience of this type of case. There are precedents for this Bill in the Dominions and, as I have said, it formed part of the recommendations of the Select Committee. I hope your Lordships will agree that the objects of this Bill are worthy of your support. It does not contain untried proposals, for its provisions have been tried in our Dominions. It is supported by bodies and persons of experience such as the Magistrates' Clerks and the guardians. It has been recommended by a Select Committee of the House of Commons and one of its clauses is based on the recommendation of the Royal Commission on the Poor Law. If your Lordships feel that safeguards are required additional to those that I have indicated my willingness to move in Committee, I naturally shall be only too pleased to accept them, but I hope that you will be sympathetic to this Bill because you will realise that it deals with a class of the community that comes into the world with a permanent handicap that nothing can ever remove. What we can do is to see that these unfortunate children are given better chances of health and vitality and vigour so that, in spite of the handicap for which they have no responsibility, they may have better hopes of maintaining themselves. I beg to move.

Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Viscount Astor.)

LORD DESBOROUGH

My Lords, I am very sorry to say that I cannot accept this Bill of which the Second Reading has been moved with so much enthusiasm by my noble friend. I am afraid that the Home Office do not approve of the Bill and they have instructed me to give certain reasons why your Lordships should not give it a Second Reading. The Bill has three objects: (1), before the birth of the child the man who is adjudged the putative father may be ordered to contribute to the support of the woman, provided that he admits paternity; (2), the man is to pay the expenses of the birth of a stillborn child; and (3), the guardian is to obtain an order if the mother is insane or dead.

Clause 2, as my noble friend said, is the important clause. It introduces two entirely new factors into English law. The law as it stands is that, though a woman may obtain a summons before or after the birth of the child, an order can be made only after the birth, and such an order may (1), adjudge the man to be the putative father and (2), order him to pay a sum not exceeding 20s. a week for the maintenance and education of the child, the expenses incidental to birth, the funeral expenses if the child is dead, and the costs. Clause 2 proposes that, if the man admits paternity, the Court may at any time within four months—which is a long period—before the expected date of birth adjudge him to be the putative father and order him to pay— such weekly sum towards her support and for the expenses of her confinement as may seem reasonably necessary. As I said just now, this introduces two new principles into the law, the first being the issue of an order before birth and the second the payments by the father for the support of the woman.

The Home Office tell me that this clause should be opposed on the ground that the man will be able to be brought before the Court on the allegation that he was the father, and this will open the way to blackmail in a great many cases, for it may well happen that, when the child is born, it is manifest from the date of the birth that he could not have been the father at all. It is, of course, true that, though a summons may be issued, no order will be made unless he admits paternity; but this is little satisfaction for an innocent man's character being besmirched by a woman, as it might be, and the clause will, in the hands of an unscrupulous woman, tend to encourage false and blackmailing accusations. The man may admit having been intimate with the woman on a given date, but the actual date of birth may show that that intimacy had nothing to do with the birth of the child. Further, when the woman applies for a summons she may not be with child at all, and four months in advance of the date when the woman says she expects the child to be born is much too early for a date of birth to be specified which would be a safe guide as to the approximate date of conception. The principle that a woman who is with child by a man to whom she is not married is entitled to look to him for support is entirely new to the law. The basis of the present law is the obligation of the father to contribute to the maintenance of the child, firstly, in its own interest and, secondly, in order that it may not become an expense to the community. Those are the chief objections to Clause 2.

As to Clause 3 the existing law does not allow an order to be made if the child is born dead. Clause 3 proposes to alter this. There is no definition, however, of a still-born child in the Bill. A woman may very likely say she has had a miscarriage in order to be able to obtain money from a man, but there is no definition in the Bill of what a still-born child is. This clause also, therefore, is objectionable. Clause 4 is also objected to by the Home Office. Under the existing law an order can be made only on the examination of the mother in Court. Thus, if she is dead or insane no order can be made. As to this a Select Committee of the House of Commons, in 1909, reported that they were unanimously of opinion that such a proposal should not be entertained unless it were in the case of admission by the male parent either made orally in Court or by written document properly proved. This requirement should be insisted upon. The principal clause of this Bill is Clause 2, which is open to very grave objection. Clauses 3 and 4 provide for somewhat exceptional cases and by themselves do not justify a Bill. Clause 3 is objectionable in itself and Clause 4 in its present form. In these circumstances, as the principle of Clause 2 should be entirely opposed, it follows that the Bill should be rejected on Second Reading. Those are, in a very brief form, the reasons which have led the Home Office to come to the conclusion that it would not be in the interests of the community that this Bill should be read a second time.

On Question, Motion for Second Reading disagreed to.