HL Deb 13 December 1932 vol 86 cc357-9

Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT SANKEY)

My Lords, I really can claim for this Bill at any rate that it applies to technical and legal matters. I do not think there is any controversy about it and I need only detain you for a very few minutes. The objects of the Bill are three: (1) To save costs where certain official documents, such as certificates of births, deaths and marriages are required for use in legal proceedings or for other legal purposes in this country; (2) to carry out the reciprocal agreement already made with Belgium to dispense with the "legalisation" of such documents, the effect of which is to save time and expense to officials and other persons in this country when English documents of this kind are required for use in Belgium; and (3) to enable reciprocal agreements to be concluded for similar purposes with other suitable foreign countries and with parts of the Empire outside Great Britain. In asking your Lordships to give the Bill a Second Reading let me say at the outset that it does something to diminish the cost of litigation and that it will enable this country to fulfil an agreement already made with Belgium. Your Lordships would hardly wish me to explain the technicalities of the Bill at any great length, but I will try to state its effect as shortly as possible.

Clause I relates to the proof of such documents as certificates of births, deaths and marriages. These documents, as your Lordships know, are issued officially in this country and are often required for the purpose of proof, not only in this country but in foreign countries and in the Dominions. Such documents are also issued officially in the Dominions and most foreign countries, and they are often required for the purpose of legal and other proceedings in this country. As we happen to have made an agreement with Belgium, I will take Belgium as an example. Before the agreement English documents of that kind required for use in Belgium had to go through a process known as legalisation. This meant obtaining the signatures of a number of official personages, which involved time, trouble and expense to those concerned.

Permit me to give an example. Such a document is "legalised" in practice by the signature of the President of the Court of First Instance who legalises the signature of the Officier d'Etat Civil or the Registrar of the Court as the case may be; the signature of the Belgian Minister of Foreign Affairs who legalises the signature of the Minister of Justice; and the signature of a diplomatic or consular officer in Belgium of the country in which the copy is to be used, who legalises the signature of the Minister of Foreign Affairs. The legalisation by the Minister of Justice is sometimes omitted in practice. In some cases where there is no Court of First Instance the signature of the officier d'Etat Civil is legalised by the jute de paix instead of the President of the Court. The practice has been subjected to criticism on the grounds that it imposes great trouble on a number of busy persons holding official positions and considerable trouble, expense and delay on the person requiring the certificate. Similarly, when Belgian documents of that kind were required for use in England, signatures and so on were required in Belgium. These signatures have been felt to be of little practical value, and in pursuance of the agreement they may now be dispensed with, both on the English documents required in Belgium and on the Belgian documents required in England, except in English Courts of Law. But, as the English law of evidence is concerned, the agreement cannot be effective in English Courts of Law without the authority of an Act of Parliament. One object of the Bill is to give such authority.

But that is not all about Clause 1. The English law of evidence requires certain matters relating to the Belgian registers to be proved in Court before the Belgian certificates can be accepted in evidence. An expert witness must prove that the Belgian register is a public register, kept under the authority of Belgian law, and recognised by Belgian Courts as an authentic record. But these very facts have been established by the Foreign Office for the purpose of making the agreement, and it seems unnecessary to put the parties to the expense of calling experts in Belgian law whenever a certificate has to be proved in Court. Under Clause 1 an Order-in-Council can be made relating to Belgium, the effect of which will be that Belgian certificates of this kind can be proved in evidence in our Courts of Law as simply as English certificates. Clause 2 relates to a different but kindred matter and is also very technical. The births and deaths of British subjects born or dying abroad are registered in British consular offices, but there is at present no authority under which banks and similar bodies can safely act upon the birth and death certificates issued by those registries, and evidence of such births and deaths has to be obtained by other means, sometimes at considerable expense. The object of Clause 2 is to enable these certificates to be recognised. I beg to move.

Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.