HL Deb 09 May 1961 vol 231 cc84-116

2.19 p.m.

Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Amulree).

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[The LORD MERTHYR in the Chair.]

Clause 1: [Power of the court to require blood tests]:

LORD AMULREE moved, in subsection (1) to omit all words after "the court may" down to "blood", and to insert: at the request of the mother, if site is the complainant, and shall at the request of the alleged father, give a direction for the use of". The noble Lord said: Before I attempt to move the first Amendment standing in my name, I should like to explain to the Committee that the Bill as your Lordships see it now does not bear a great deal of resemblance to the Bill to which you were good enough to give a Second Reading. I should like to record my gratitude for the very great help which has been given to me by the Home Office, who have spent considerable time talking with me about this matter, to get the Bill transformed into its present, more satisfactory shape.

The purpose of this Amendment is not to do anything very definite to the Bill, but is merely to change round some of the powers which the Bill will confer. The present Amendment removes the power of the court to order blood tests otherwise than at the request of one or other party. This power is re-inserted in the new clause which I shall move after Clause 1. The second point of the Amendment is that it changes the phrase, "the court may, … by order require" to the phrase, "the court may, … give a direction for the use of". It was thought preferable to use that particular expression. It was thought that the requirement for a blood test is not a suitable matter for a formal order of the court, which would automatically attract the penalty provisions of Section 54 of the Magistrates' Courts Act, 1952; and those, as your Lordships will remember, are quite substantial.

The third point is that we haw, retained the mother's right to seek a blood test herself, although I am afraid that, in a way, it would be better if she could not, because the blood tests, as I tried to explain to your Lordships on Second Reading, can do the mother no good at all; it can merely do her harm. However, for the sake of sex equality, I thought it was better if that power were kept in. But it will depend upon the mother herself applying for the affiliation order. Where the order is applied for by the National Assistance Board or the local authority, in particular, the right will not apply. I hope that I have given sufficient explanation of the reasons for this Amendment, and I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 7, leave out from beginning to ("blood") in line 9, and insert ("at the request of the mother, if she is the complainant, and shall at the request of the alleged father, give a direction for the use of")—(Lord Amulree.)

THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES

I should, perhaps, explain to the Committee that Amendment No. 2 is an Amendment to Amendment No. 1. It is therefore proper to call the mover of No. 2 first, and there can then be a general debate on the two together.

THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (EARL BATHURST)

First of all, I want to thank the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, for his generous compliment to the staff of the Home Office. As your Lordships will see, we have a completely new Bill in front of us. In fact, those noble Lords who "did their homework" over the week-end brought it to my attention that we would not even be dealing with the Amendments as they were written down. That, I am glad to say, has been sorted out this morning in the new Marshalled List. I must make it clear that I can accept the Amendment the noble Lord has put before the Committee provided he can accept my Amendment to his Amendment.

I think it would be best if I first give an outline of the position as it originally was in the noble Lord's Bill. Subsection (1) stated that the court may, and at the request of the mother or the alleged father shall, make an order for a blood test. In other words, the court "may" of their own free will cause a test to be taken; but if the alleged father or the mother asks for it then the court "shall" order the test. Now the noble Lord's Amendment changes that situation slightly. He will have it that the court "may" at the request of the mother and "shall" at the request of the alleged father order a test; and later on, in another clause, we get the case that the court "may" order a test of its own choosing. The effect of my Amendment will be that we take the mother right out of the clause. As the noble Lord has explained, in fact, the appearance of the mother in the clause at all may be a trap for an unwary person. I think the noble Lord will agree with my Amendment, that the mother should be taken out, as it cannot in any way affect her case at all. It seems a sad thing to have to say, but such is logic and such is medical science that these blood tests cannot do anything but disprove a possible father. It cannot in any way help the mother.

Coming back again to my Amendment to the Amendment, the mother is out, and the result is that the court may, at the request of the alleged father, order a test. We believe (this is jumping the gun a little, but this will be the effect if my Amendment to the noble Lord's Amendment is accepted) that the court should have the option. If, because new evidence is produced, or for any reason whatever, the court should see fit to use its discretion, it "may ", (instead of an obligatory "shall") give a direction for there to be a blood test. So, if the noble Lord can see his way to accepting my Amendment to his Amendment, I would advise your Lordships to accept the amended Amendment of the noble Lord. I beg to move.

Amendment to Amendment moved— In the words proposed to be inserted, leave out from the second ("the") to ("alleged")—(Earl Bathurst.)

BARONESS SUMMERSKILL

The noble Lord, Lord Amulree, has mentioned the fact that this appears to be a different Bill. I also should like to thank the noble Earl, Lord Bathurst, and his advisers, for redrafting the Bill. In fact, if your Lordships will forgive me for being so immodest, he has incorporated in it every point that I raised on Second Reading. Indeed, your Lordships will recall that I was put in a rather curious position as a newcomer to this House, because I am a responsible person: I have been a Minister on two occasions. In no circumstances should I have divided this House unless I had felt very strongly about certain principles which were embodied in the old Bill; and it is a little unhappy to realise that the unmarried mother, in this House, certainly had no "pressure group" except in the form of the noble Earl, Lord Longford, and myself. He and I went into the Lobby alone on the part of the unmarried mother, because we felt so strongly that certain principles embodied in the Bill were of such a character that, in fact, if they were implemented, they would deny her justice.

I realise that Bills of this kind are a little technical; and, no doubt, because the Bill deals with blood tests, many people thought, "This really is something that I cannot understand". But this new Bill is entirely different, and, so far as I am concerned, it completely reflects what I think all people of compassion in the middle of the 20th century would ask to be the treatment of the unmarried mother and her child. I entirely support what the noble Earl, Lord Bathurst, has just said. The Amendment which he is moving does, of course, provide for the approach which I outlined on Second Reading. May I just say this to the noble Lord, Lord Amulree? I cannot understand why he comes to this House and puts an Amendment in this form. The fact is that he has forgotten the elementary fact that, in these blood tests, there can be no positive result; it is in fact a negative result, because the man can only be adjudged not to be the father. If the result of a blood test could be only to show that a man was not the father, would an unmarried mother ask for a blood test? Of course it is not in her interests to do so.

As we heard on Second Reading, this is a man's Bill and not a woman's. The Amendment which has been proposed by the Government is quite right. It would be grossly unfair to trap a woman into asking for this test when her evidence has already been corroborated, when the court has already said that a certain man is the father. I would remind the noble Lord of what the Lord Chancellor said in 1938 when this Bill was introduced into the House. He turned to the House and said: "I am a little uncertain about this. I am advised by eminent pathologists in this country that these tests may be inaccurate". The noble Lord is saying to an unmarried mother, who has already provided evidence that has convinced the court, that she has the opportunity to ask for this test; and there is the one chance in a million that it may be inaccurate, and all the evidence is then null and void. And the noble Lord turns to this House and says that he is doing this because of sex equality. The truth is precisely the opposite, my Lords. It is not sex equality; it is sex inequality which the noble Lord is emphasising here and is trying to uphold in this House. I say that because he has introduced something in this Bill—and I use the noble Lord's own expression, which, in my opinion, is an understatement—"to trap the woman". Is that equality? I suggest to the noble Lord that he should examine his conscience and decide whether he will protect this woman, who is surely in need of our protection.

The other point is this. The noble Lord says that whereas the court may test the blood at the request of the woman, if the alleged father asks the court to test the blood the court shall do it. I apologise to the House for repeating that part of my speech which dealt with this question on Second Reading, but the position is this. If the evidence proves without doubt that a man is the father of the child, there are men who become stubborn, who have already quarrelled with the girl, her mother and family, and who say: "In no circumstances will I pay the affiliation allowance". But they say: "Ah! there is such a thing known as a blood test. If I ask for that, the court is compelled to direct a blood test". In other words, it is possible for a man to ask for a blood test on frivolous grounds in order to delay the court's decision, and any delay at this time will, of course, beat harshly on the unmarried mother and her child. Therefore the Government, who have thought about this and who have considered it behind the scenes very carefully, are of the opinon that, not only to do justice to the woman but also to protect public funds, the court should not be compelled but should have an option to decide whether it shall order a test or not. I ask the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, to consider this very fair point, which I am certain any large audience will agree, on reflection, is the right approach.

2.35 p.m.

BARONESS HORSBRUGH

I am glad that this Bill has been, as most of us have realised, practically rewritten. The principle is the same, and it is for that that many of us voted at the end of the Second Reading debate. The noble Lady opposite must be very glad, as she approves it now, that we were able to carry it in spite of her opposition. I agree with the point that has been brought out by Lord Bathurst's Amendment, and I agree with the noble Lady; it is quite ridiculous to think that the mother would be asking for a blood test. If she knew what it meant, she certainly would not. I think it is an extraordinary suggestion that she should be brought in. I can see absolutely no reason whatsoever why she should.

I was a little surprised at the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, when she talked about the unmarried mother having no "pressure group", as if the rest of us in this House were not in any way anxious to help the unmarried mother and did not know anything about her case. I realise that on the Second Reading debate the noble Lady, when addressing your Lordships, said, in the form of a question, that it was women, in the majority, who should always decide these questions; and when I disagreed with her she said that I probably knew nothing about the subject whatsoever and had no ideas about it. I did not interrupt the noble Lady because I knew perfectly well that she was not meaning to be rude; it was simply ignorance of the work I had been doing and of the amount I had learned over a number of years.

As many of your Lordships know, a Committee on the Adoption of Children was set up in December, 1938. I had the honour of being appointed Chairman. This very subject concerning the father was gone through very carefully, because, as your Lordships will now understand, we were anxious, with all these adoption cases, that we should know who the father of the child was. Then, our report having been made, about a year later I had the luck of the ballot in another place and was able to bring in a Bill dealing with this subject. I am glad to say that that Bill, when it came to your Lordships' House, was in charge of the noble Lord, Lord Kinnaird, and it received the Royal Assent in July, 1939. During the time my Bill was going through the House of Commons, the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, was in this House. There was, therefore, a great deal of interest in the two Bills, and I was frequently asked what was my opinion, and my opinion was strongly in opposition to the Bill, in 1939, of the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr.

It has been explained that the National Council for the Unmarried Mother and Her Child were opposed then but are now in favour. And so am I, for this reason: we are far further on now with the subject and in our knowledge of blood tests than we were then. Having a blood test is now not a terribly frighten- ing operation for anybody. As we heard during the Second Reading debate from those who are best able to tell us, this is practically a routine experience now for every woman in pregnancy. So these mothers, in all probability, would have had a blood test during the time of pregnancy; it will not be something alarming or dangerous for them; and, in addition, the result will be much more accurate than we could ever have thought in the year 1939.

I hope, as we continue with this Bill, that we shall see that we are doing something to make for justice, and I am perfectly certain that it should not be looked upon simply as a Bill for men as against women, as I do not think it is anything of the sort. I found in my Committee, and those who gave evidence before my Committee, that men were just as eager and keen to see that justice was done to the woman as were the women themselves; and women have not always been tremendously sympathetic with the unmarried mother and her child. But, in doing so, I think we have to get justice, and if we can get justice, the work we are doing on this Bill will be worth while. For it is not only that a man may be wrongly accused of being the father of a child, but—a point which has always struck me—it means that the real father has got off scot-free. That we want to change. But I do think that the Bill as it now stands, and if these Amendments are accepted, has been improved. I feel that, after being against the scheme in 1939, I can now support it, but I would urge the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, not to press the idea of putting in this right for the woman, because I think that there is no good in it and that it might lead to a great deal of harm.

2.40 p.m.

LORD REA

Leaving aside for the moment the reference of the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, to unmarried mothers in this House, as she put it, having no support, may I ask the noble Earl whether he is not asking the House to deal with two matters at the same time—first of all, to consider taking out "mother" altogether, and secondly to decide whether, with respect to the father, the word is to be "shall" or "may"? I cannot speak for my noble friend Lord Amulree, but on the hypothesis that we are prepared to take "mother" out of the Bill, can we be put in a position to support or oppose "shall" or "may" with respect to the father? Perhaps that is a point for the Lord Chairman, but it seems to me that we have to vote for both or neither.

EARL BATHURST

What the noble Lord says is true. Possibly, I was running on a little too far, but I wanted to make clear what the effects of the two Amendments would be to the original clause. First of all, we are considering only the mother, and my Amendment to the Amendment will remove from the Bill the mother's right to apply, as the noble Lord has already said.

LORD REA

But it will still read "may" in respect of the father, instead of "shall"?

EARL BATHURST

The full result of the Government's Amendment will be to bring in "may".

LORD AMULREE

I have listened to what your Lordships have said about the Amendment, and personally I shall be quite willing to remove the mother from Clause 1 of the Bill, because I have always had great doubts whether it was right to keep in the mother and because, as the noble Lady said, it is really a trap for her. However, I felt constrained to keep the mother in until we could debate the matter in your Lordships' House. I was told by certain women's organisations that they thought the mother should have an equal chance. I tried to convince them that they were wrong, and I am pleased indeed to-day to have support on this. I shall be pleased in future to drop the mother from the Bill.

When I come to the question of the words "may" or shall", I am in some difficulty. If I may take your Lordships back a little, when the Bill was first introduced, in February, 1939, it contained the word "shall" in Clause 1, and was given an unopposed Second Reading. It was then referred to a Select Committee, which sat quite a long time and discussed the question at great length. When the Bill came back from the Select Committee the word "shall" was still there. It was given a Second Reading in your Lordships' House a month or two back and the word "shall" was approved by a majority, which, I may say without undue pride, was a big majority. Therefore, I feel reluctant to drop the word "shall".

Another reason for keeping it in is that it may be of great help in aiding justice. I have been informed by people who know more about the courts than I do (practically, I know very little about them) that some courts may not agree with the test at all, and that, no matter what the position was, if the alleged father were to ask for a test, if the power were only permissive, they might say, "No" That is why I am anxious to retain the word "shall" rather than replace it with the word "may". It may be possible to compromise on this point to get us out of the difficulty, and I wonder whether the noble Earl could give us any assistance in this.

EARL BATHURST

I should like to give the noble Lord assistance, but I do not think that I can. When we get down to Amendment No. 7, which I shall ask your Lordships not to accept, we shall see that the noble Lord sets out the conditions for the compulsory power to take a blood test. The arguments against are much the same, and I wonder whether I can use one of them now which may convince the noble Lord. In view of the new rules that have only just come to be applied to such cases, whereby legal aid can be obtained by the parties in an action, I think that one, or even both, of the parties may almost certainly be aided legally, or may qualify for such aid. That being so, it will no longer be necessary for the court to have to make an order for a blood test, and for that reason I should like to see the court with only the power of "may". I would ask the noble Lord to think on these lines.

BARONESS SUMMER SKILL

May I put this point to the noble Lord to try to persuade him? He will be quite logical if he gives way on this point. I would remind him that, in a later Amendment, he is asking us to provide that the courts may at any time revoke any such direction previously given". In other words, the noble Lord has not shut the door. He feels that he should not move away from the position that the courts "shall" do something, but later on he says that the court may change its mind. Therefore, he is being quite logical if he gives way now.

LORD AMULREE

That being so, I think it is possibly more important to get "mother" taken out of the Bill than to have "shall" in. But I say that with great reluctance, because it takes away a little of the sharp edge of the Bill, which may be important in the case of a recalcitrant bench of magistrates. I want the Amendment to be put, though I shall not divide the Committee.

EARL BATHURST

I think that the court would use this power only in the case of the stupidest of stupid men. But with legal aid the stupidest of stupid men should be able to get properly qualified advice. If, having done that, he still refuses, I wonder whether we need bother too much in such a case—though far be it from me to say so. In view of the Legal Aid Scheme I am sure that the necessity which the noble Lord would like to see provided for will have disappeared.

BARONESS HORSBRUGH

I should prefer to keep in the word "shall". I would say to the noble Earl that there are lots of stupid men and stupid women. While we think that they could all be led to seek justice and rightness and the sense of things, they are not always first led. If the majority of your Lordships wish to take out "shall" and put in "may", I shall not oppose it, but I think it would be better if the word "shall" were left in.

EARL BATHURST

With great respect to the noble Lady, I think she knows that the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, has an Amendment on the Marshalled List, which I think would go a long way to look after the point she has raised, and I would ask your Lordships to bear this Amendment in mind.

LORD AMULREE

What I had in mind was not a stupid plaintiff, but a stupid bench of magistrates.

EARL BATHURST

I do not think that the noble Lord would wish me to comment on that.

On Question, Amendment to Amendment agreed to.

Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

2.50 p.m.

LORD AMULREE moved, in subsection (1) to omit "if the mother refuses the court shall dismiss the application", and to insert: may at any time revoke any such direction previously given.

(2) Where a direction is given under this section at the request of the mother or of the alleged father, she or he (as the case may be) shall pay the cost of taking and testing blood samples for the purpose of giving effect to the direction (including any expenses reasonably incurred by the mother or by any person having the custody, charge or care of the child in taking any steps required of her or him for the purpose), but the amount paid shall be treated as costs incurred by the mother or alleged father, as the case may be, in the proceedings.

(3) The results of blood tests taken for the purpose of giving effect to such a direction shall (in such form and manner as may be prescribed by rules made under section fifteen of the Justices of the Peace Act, 1949) be certified to the court by the person carrying out the tests, together with his opinion on the question whether the alleged father is thereby excluded from being the father of the child, and the court shall take the certificate into account as evidence in the proceedings of the matters certified; but the results of blood tests so taken shall not in any event be treated in those proceedings or in any other proceedings for an affiliation order under the Affiliation Proceedings Act, 1957 (including proceedings on appeal) as satisfying the provision of that Act requiring the mother's evidence to be corroborated.

(4) In any proceedings for an affiliation order under the Affiliation Proceedings Act, 1957 (including proceedings on appeal) things done for the purpose of giving effect to a direction under this section, whether given in those proceedings or not, may be proved by documentary evidence in such cases, and in such manner, and subject to such conditions as may be provided by rules made under section fifteen of the Justices of the Peace Act, 1949.

(5) A court of quarter sessions on the hearing of an appeal against an affiliation order under the Affiliation Proceedings Act, 1957, or against the dismissal of an application for such an affiliation order, shall have the like power to give a direction under subsection (1) above as a magistrates' court has on the hearing of such an application, and subsections (2) and (3) shall apply accordingly.

(6) A court shall not give a direction under this section where a previous direction has been so given by any court in respect of the same persons and the results of blood tests taken to give effect to the previous direction have been duly certified to the court giving that direction"

The noble Lord said: This Amendment replaces a number of provisions as they were originally drafted, and also contains a certain amount of new material. The opening words of the Amendment give the power to revoke a direction for the use of blood tests. This is inserted to give the court a power to dispose of the direction if blood tests are not to be used. For example, it is a formal consequence of the provision which gives the court a dis- cretion whether to dismiss an application for an affiliation order where a direction for a blood test is not complied with. It would also be used if the mother, after a direction had been given, produced a good reason for not undergoing a test.

Subsection (2) provides that the party who asks for the blood test shall initially meet the costs, and that the court shall have the usual power to order the other party to repay all or part of the costs, as costs incurred in the proceedings. Where the party to the blood test is entitled to legal aid, these costs will be supplied from the legal aid fund. Subsection (3) replaces, in a more generous form, some of the provisions of the original Clause 3. There the details of the certification procedure are left to the rules of court, as is appropriate to cases of this kind. The new subsection simply requires the court to take account of the certificate, which meets the criticism made during Second Reading that the clause had an air of mystery and that the certificate whether it was positive or negative might be concealed from the court. It provides, however, that the results of these blood tests shall not be regarded as corroborative of the mother's evidence. This is in accordance with the expert advice I received, as in the present state of medical knowledge tests cannot show that a particular man was the father.

Subsection (4) replaces another provision in the original Clause 3 by making provision for evidence of a blood sample to be given in the form of a certificate. This means that it will not be necessary for a witness to attend the court. It is intended to make provision in the rule which will come under this clause for oral evidence to be given if either of the two parties so desires. This corresponds to the original Clause 3. Subsection (5) corresponds with the original Clause 5, except that the power of quarter sessions to order a blood test to be carried out in a case where blood tests have already been carried out for the purpose of the original proceedings disappears. There is no point in having this duplicated. Subsection (6) prevents the court from giving two directions for a blood test in one case. There is no advantage in giving the court power to try a second time to see if the result is the same. Such a course would merely cause delay and expense, probably leading to great hardship on the parties, and might cast doubt on the reliability of the scientific nature of blood tests. If something is known to have gone wrong with the original test—for example, where there had been personation, or where a wrong sample had been tested—a test which suffered from such a defect could not be regarded as compliance with the court's direction. I hope that this explains this somewhat long Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 1, leave out from ("and") to end of line 13 and insert the said new words.—(Lord Amulree.)

EARL BATHURST moved, as an Amendment to the Amendment, in the proposed new subsection (2) to leave out from "section" down to the first "shall" and insert "the alleged father".

The noble Earl said: I can accept the noble Lord's Amendment if he will accept my two Amendments to it—Nos. 4 and 5—which are really consequential on my last Amendment. Having taken out "mother" in his first Amendment, we want now to modify subsection (2) of his Amendment No. 3 so that the mother is no longer referred to. We have deleted her from his first Amendment, and therefore there is no need to refer again to her case in Amendment No. 3. If the noble Lord will accept Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 as Amendments to his Amendment, I can accept all that he has just said. I beg to move.

Amendment to Amendment moved— In line 1 of subsection (2), leave out from ("section") to ("shall") in line 3 and insert ("the alleged father")—(Earl Bathurst.)

EARL BATHURST

This is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment to Amendment moved— In line 8 of subsection (2), leave out ("the mother or alleged father, as the case may be") and insert ("him")—(Earl Bathurst.)

BARONESS SUMMERSKILL

I should like to take this opportunity of thanking the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, for the most generous way in which he has responded to all the suggestions and points we made on Second Reading. The new Clause 1 is hardly recognisable, particularly when we think of the words as they were: if the mother refuses the court shall dismiss the application. The noble Lord has now deleted all that, and I think he will agree with me that it was a harsh and inhuman provision. Indeed I said on Second Reading that I thought it would be establishing a precedent if we denied justice to a woman who refused to have a blood test. I must point out that when blood tests were being discussed on a recent traffic Bill there was a great storm when it was suggested that people should be compelled to have blood tests; but we did not have much support when it was a question of the unmarried mother being subjected to a blood test. I thank the noble Lord.

He then said that he will insert, in place of that provision: may at any time revoke any such direction previously given". I reminded him just now that it is quite logical that he should have withdrawn the first point, because he is still holding the fort and the order can be revoked by the court. I am sorry that my noble friend Lord Longford has gone, because he was anxious that a "conscience clause" should be included. As I said on Second Reading, there are some young women who would object on religious grounds to a blood test. Here is what I consider an opportunity for a woman to be able to give a good reason (it is mentioned later on) for not having the blood test. I feel that in this matter the noble Lord has exercised mercy while justice is still being done.

The other point I want to congratulate him on is this. I am pleased that he saw the point about the certificates. I felt that that was a harsh provision: that only the certificates which were of benefit to men should be submitted, and if the woman wanted any other evidence she had to ask for it—and, indeed, probably pay for it; which might be very expensive, if it was professional evidence. Now the whole position is changed; and not only will the certificates he submitted, but the person responsible for the test will be able to go to the court and explain precisely what it means. Therefore, I feel that the noble Lord has very generously met all the points we raised; and I am sure the other Amendment, which the noble Earl, Lord Bathurst, said is purely consequential, will be accepted.

LORD AMULREE

I should like to thank the noble Lady for her kind words. I am pleased that this Bill has now become a more reasonable, humanitarian and, at the same time, just measure. I can tell the noble Earl, Lord Bathurst, that I have much pleasure in accepting the Amendments that he has moved.

On Question, Amendments to Amendment agreed to.

Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

3.0 p.m.

BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER moved, after subsection (1) to insert: () Before giving a direction under this section, the court shall take such steps as seem practicable to ensure that the mother and the alleged father understand the nature and possible results of blood tests.

The noble Baroness said: The purpose of this Amendment is very simple. It is to honour the principle that not only should justice be done, but that it should manifestly be seen to be done. That principle is always important, but it is perhaps particularly important in a case of this kind where a complicated scientific operation is to be carried out by means of what, in other circumstances, would rank as a physical assault upon an individual. It is not suggested by this Amendment that any elaborate, high-powered lecture on the laws of Mendelian inheritance need be given to unfortunate women in this position, or to men who are defending actions of this kind.

I think the only points that need to be made clear are, first of all, the nature of the operation itself. To women that will probably need hardly any explanation, because, as has been pointed out, a blood test is usually a matter of routine during pregnancy, and she will therefore have experienced what a trivial thing it is. But, further, I think it must be pointed out that the test may produce no result affecting the case and leave everything exactly as it was before; secondly, that it can in no circumstances establish that a particular man is the father of a particular child, and, thirdly, that in certain cases it can establish that a man is not and cannot be the father of the child. I think it should also be explained that the reason for this is that a child gets its blood grouping from its two parents and from nowhere else, and that therefore a man cannot be the father of a child in whose blood is a factor which is not in either his or its mother's. That, I am sure, is as much as need be explained. Perhaps the duty to explain this will have one valuable side effect, if I may so put it. It has been suggested that there may be courts who are not apprised of the principles of Mendelian inheritance, and if the court has a duty to explain this to the parties it follows that the court will have to appreciate the essentials of the procedure itself.

Just one word as to the method by which the explanation might be given. I think it could be done by the chairman of the court. It could be done by an officer of the court or by the clerk of the court, or possibly, preferably, it could be done by a probation officer acting under the instructions of the court, because probation officers are perhaps more experienced than anybody else in this field in giving simple explanations of complicated matters to people who are not well versed in them. Or we could follow the precedent in the Act to which the noble Lady opposite referred, and which she herself sponsored in another place. Under that Act, before a child is handed to an adoption society for the purposes of adoption the mother or the parent is required to be given a document in ordinary language explaining what the effect of such an action will be. He or she is required actually to sign a statement that they have read and understood this document.

There are many alternative ways by which the necessary explanation can be given. I myself think it is best to leave this in the hands of the courts so that they may make such provision for carrying out this requirement, if it is written into the Bill, as they think fit, because the courts will have the parties before them and will be able to judge the degree of understanding. They will proceed better in that way than if some standardised procedure is imposed upon them. That would not preclude the Home Office from producing a model leaflet or formula showing what kind of information it is essential to give to the parties. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 11, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Baroness Wootton of Abinger.)

BARONESS HORSBRUGH

My Lords, I rise to support what the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, has said, and I support it strongly. In my experience over a certain number of years, to which I have already referred, I am absolutely convinced that there are many people who do not understand what is taking place unless it is explained to them in very clear language—as I put it in that Act, "ordinary language". It may be the case that the person is somewhat frightened and is in new surroundings. When a new scheme is put to her I believe she simply does not understand it. I agree with the noble Lady that perhaps it should be left to be decided what particular way is to be found, as long as we are assred that the case is made plain by those who are dealing with it, and made plain in the simplest possible language with the outline of the scheme so that they understand it. The longer I went on interviewing many unmarried mothers and working on my Report, the more convinced I became of the enormous number of cases where there was not real understanding, although perhaps on some occasion somebody when asked, "Do you really understand it?" would say, "Yes", although she did not. So I think it is of the greatest possible importance.

LORD AMULREE

This is an Amendment which I look upon with great sympathy, but I am not at all sure whether the wording is the best wording for the future. If the noble Baroness would allow me to take up her point and discuss it with Her Majesty's Government and the officials of the Home Office, I should like to see whether we can draft a better formula for this procedure, which I am sure is right and with which I have great sympathy. If the noble Lady would withdraw her Amendment, I promise to get something done before the next stage of the Bill.

EARL BATHURST

Perhaps it would be for your Lordships' convenience if I said that I am completely in agreement with what the noble Lord has said. If the noble Lady will withdraw her Amendment we shall be most pleased to look into all that she has said this afternoon. We will try to find the best method of carrying out what she would like, and I will be in touch with the noble Lord, if he will allow me.

BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER

I am very appreciative of what the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, and the noble Earl, Lord Bathurst, have said. So long as some formula is put forward which requires a simple explanation of the essence of this procedure to be given to ordinary people, I feel extremely happy to accept it; and in the circumstances I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.

3.9 p.m.

LORD AMULREE moved, after Clause 1 to insert the following new clause:

Power of court to require blood tests without request of party

"—(1) A magistrates' court on the hearing of an application for an affiliation order under the Affiliation Proceedings Act, 19:57, or a court of quarter sessions on the hearing of an appeal against such an affiliation order or against the dismissal of an application for such an order, may of its own motion give any such direction under subsection (1) of section one of the Act as it could give at the request of the alleged father.

(2) Where a court gives a direction by virtue of this section, then—

  1. (a) unless the application for the order was not made by the mother, the mother shall pay the cost of taking and testing blood samples from the child (including any expenses reasonably incurred by any other person having the custody, charge or care of the child in taking the steps required of him for the purpose);
  2. (b) if the application for the order was not made by the mother, the applicant shall pay the cost of taking and testing blood samples from the mother and the child (including any expenses reasonably incurred by the mother or by any other person having the custody, charge or care of the child in taking the steps required of her or him for the purpose);
but, subject to subsection (3) below, the amount paid by the mother or other applicant shall be treated as costs incurred by her or him in the proceedings.

(3) Where a court gives a direction by virtue of this section, the court may by order direct that the amount of the costs incurred by the mother or other applicant for the affiliation order or by the alleged father (or both) in respect of the taking and testing of blood samples shall he wholly or partly repaid to her or him out of local funds.

(4) Any amount directed under subsection (3) above to be paid out of local funds shall he paid out of the county fund of the administrative county or general rate fund of the county borough comprising the area for which the court making the order was acting; and sections eight, nine, eleven and twelve of the Costs in Criminal Cases Act, 1952, shall (so far as they are applicable) apply in relation to orders under subsection (3) above as they apply in relation to orders under that Act."

The noble Lord said: This clause contains certain provisions which were originally in Clause 1 of the Bill, and the purpose of the new clause is to enable the court to order blood tests of its own motion: if the alleged father, the defendant, does not ask for a blood test himself, the court can do it instead. Subsection (1) gives this power, and subsection (2) deals with the payment of costs. The general principle is, I gather, that each party to proceedings in a magistrates' court meets his own costs initially, and this subsection deals only with costs which have not been covered by the general rule. Subsection (2) (a) says that unless the application is not made by the mother—I do not know whether that still stands, in view of the Amendment we have already moved; that is where the mother applies for the affiliation order—she shall pay the costs of taking and testing blood samples from the child. Most of these cases will be under the legal aid scheme, so I presume the costs would be paid by them.

The next paragraph, paragraph (b), provides that when the mother is not the applicant for the affiliation order but when the application is made by the National Assistance Board or the local authority, the applicant shall pay the costs of taking tests. I think this is only fair, because if the mother has not been a party to the proceedings she cannot be ordered to pay the costs or have costs awarded to her. Subsection (3), which is the original Clause 4 (2), provides for repayment from local funds of costs incurred in taking blood samples where the court's direction was not at the request of either party. Subsection (4) explains the meaning of "local funds" in the previous subsection, taking up and altering the definition of the original Clause 9. "Local funds" cannot, in this context, be defined simply by reference to the Costs In Criminal Cases Act, 1952, because that Act deals only with criminal proceedings and places the burden of costs on the local authority in whose area the offence was committed. In affiliation cases there is, of course, no offence, and the principle adopted is that the responsibility falls on the funds of the local authority for whom the court is acting. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— After Clause 1, insert the said new clause."—(Lord Amulree.)

BARONESS SUMMERSKILL

I think this new clause of the noble Lord should be accepted. I would only remind him that if he looks at his paragraph his emphasis is on the "may" and not on the "shall".

EARL BATHURST

We really have had a considerable discussion already upon the principle of the noble Lord's Amendment. Given that the noble Lord accepts the principle that it is "may" and not "shall", I have given one good reason which the noble Lord was courteous enough to agree with: that the legal aid position has made a new circumstance. But there is also another question that we should consider. A court, who ought to judge evidence which is put before it by the two parties in these civil proceedings cases, should not have the power to order a special kind of evidence of its own motion. Furthermore, that evidence can be of use to only one of those parties—in other words, the father. It would seem a wrong principle that the court should be able of its own free will to order parties to produce evidence which will not in fact benefit either of those parties fairly; it can benefit only, as I have said, the alleged father.

Then there is the question of the costs of the case. That, again, is a question of new principle. Who is to pay the costs of evidence which the court has ordered and which neither of those two parties may possibly desire? Finally there is the question of sanctions. We had a little discussion about the stupidest of stupid men. Supposing he refused to undergo the test, then the only sanction that is left to the court is to send him to prison, and it seems rather ridiculous to send a man to prison for refusing to undergo a test which could have been helpful only to the case he was putting over. For all those reasons—though possibly the new provision of legal aid is the most compelling reason—I ask your Lordships not to accept the noble Lord's Amendment.

LORD AMULREE

I am bound to say the noble Earl tries very hard to convince me of the justice and truth of what he says, but I am afraid he does not succeed very well. I can see no objection; if the court wishes to have certain information before it, it seems to me only proper that the court should be able to obtain that information, even though the parties do not supply it themselves. The court might find it difficult to decide, on the evidence already given, whether the alleged father was the father of the child, and they might therefore wish a test, if the father did not ask for it himself. I agree that legal aid will make a very big difference. I think it is improbable that this power will be called in, but there is no reason why it should not be there in case there is difficulty. I wonder whether the noble Earl would look at it from that point of view, as something in the background which might be used.

EARL BATHURST

What the noble Lord is asking for is for a serious precedent to be given to the courts. We doubt that the reasons which the noble Lord has advanced for having this precedent are really essential enough or compelling enough in this particular case. Her Majesty's Government, and the Home Office in particular, have always to bear in mind what may happen as a result of precedent, and it is really a most revolutionary precedent the noble Lord is asking for. For the reasons I have given already, we do not believe such revolutionary precedents are warranted in this case.

BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER

Is not the noble Lord really asking for an inquisitorial to be substituted for an accusatorial procedure in an English court—which is indeed, as the noble Earl said, a very revolutionary departure?

On Question, Amendment negatived.

LORD AMULREE moved, after Clause 1, to insert the following new clause

Power to prescribe nature and conditions of blood tests, etc.

"—(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision as to the administration of this Act and the manner of giving effect to directions under section one, and in particular may make provision—

  1. (a) for regulating the taking, identification and transport of blood samples;
  2. (b) for prescribing the blood tests to be carried out, and the person by whom and the manner in which they may be carried out;
  3. (c) for regulating the charges that may be made for the taking or testing of blood samples;
    4. 106
  4. (d) for securing that in all cases the blood samples of the mother, child and alleged father are tested by the same person.

(2) The power of the Secretary of State to make regulations under this section shall be exercisable by statutory instrument, and on any proposal to make regulations for a purpose mentioned in paragraph (b) of subsection (1) above he shall consult such persons or bodies of persons as appears to him to be requisite."

The noble Lord said: This is a new clause which takes the place of part of the original Clause 6. It is thought that some of the matters to be dealt with by rule which were listed in the original Clause 6 are within the scope of the Lord Chancellor's existing powers (as expanded in subsections (3) and (4) of the amended Clause 1) to prescribe procedural rules for magistrates' courts. I think that makes for simplification there. It is thought appropriate to have two separate powers to fill in the necessary working arrangements of the Bill because the objects of those powers are slightly different. There is first the Lord Chancellor's power to make rules for procedure in and by the court, and secondly there is the power of the Secretary of State—that is the Home Secretary—to make regulations about the actual carrying out of these tests, which will be somewhat unusual in Rules of Court. Subsection (2) requires the Secretary of State, before making regulations for prescribing the blood tests to be carried out, to consult such persons or bodies as appear to him to be requisite. This provision replaces, in a much simpler form, the more complicated proposals for the blood test in the original 13ill. There was a good deal of doubt whether a blood test board was necessary, and I think this is a simpler way of carrying out our intentions. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— After Clause 1, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Amulree.)

BARONESS SUMMERSKILL

I welcome this Amendment because it removes the chance of impersonation. Your Lordships will recall that under the original Bill the unmarried mother was given the opportunity of going to her general practitioner because it was thought that she might be rather nervous if she went to a strange doctor. On the other hand, the man involved could go to his practitioner, and perhaps on one dark night he could take his brother with him and offer his brother's or some other person's blood instead of his own. I felt then that that was most dangerous and that a new clause should be inserted which would give the power to somebody—happily, the Secretary of State has been chosen—to make regulations. I think this is highly desirable. I am most impressed with paragraph (d) which says that the blood samples of the mother, child and alleged father are to be tested by the same person. I think that is most important.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 2 [Conditions under which tests must be carried out]:

3.24 p.m.

LORD AMULREE

This is an Amendment to omit Clause 2, because the Bill, as amended, leaves the matters dealt with in this clause to be prescribed by rule. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Leave out Clause 2—(Lord Amulree.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 3 [Admission of certificates in evidence]:

LORD AMULREE

This is an Amendment to leave out Clause 3, because the provisions of this clause have been taken up in subsections (3) and (4) of the amended Clause 1, or are left to be prescribed by rule. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Leave out Clause 3.—(Lord Amulree.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 4 [Costs]:

LORD AMULREE

This is an Amendment to leave out Clause 4. The provisions of this clause are replaced by the provisions in the amended Clause 1. No separate provisions on the lines of subsection (3) are required; the general provisions in the Bill and in the Magistrates' Courts Act, 1952, about costs are sufficient. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Leave out Clause 4.—(Lord Amulree.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 5 [Appeals]:

LORD AMULREE

This is to leave out Clause 5. This clause has been re- placed by subsection (5) of the amended Clause 1. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Leave out Clause 5.—(Lord Amulree.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 6 [Power of Lord Chancellor to make rules]:

LORD AMULREE

This is an Amendment to leave out Clause 6. The provisions of this clause are replaced in part by the second new clause after Clause 1, which gives the Secretary of State power to make regulations. The rest are covered by the existing power of the Lord Chancellor (as expanded by subsections (3) and (4) of the amended Clause 1), to make rules governing magistrates' court procedure. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Leave out Clause 6.—(Lord Amulree.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 7 [Constitution and powers of the Board]:

LORD AMULREE

This Amendment is to omit Clause 7, and this clause is omitted because it is no longer necessary. On procedural matters the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor already has the assistance of the Rule Committee. On other matters the Secretary of State will take expert advice without the need for the somewhat cumbersome apparatus of a blood tests board. Subsection (2) of the second new clause after Clause 1 requires him to do so in certain cases. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Leave out Clause 7.—(Lord Amulree.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

3.31 p.m.

LORD AMULREE moved, after Clause 7, to insert the following new clause:

Enforcement of directions

".—(1) Where a court gives a direction under this Act, and the mother or any person having the custody, charge or care of the child fails without reasonable cause to take any steps required of her or him for the purpose of giving effect to the direction, the court may dismiss the application for the affiliation order or, in the case of quarter sessions, allow the appeal of the alleged father or, if he is not the appellant, dismiss the appeal.

(2) Where a court gives a direction under this Act at the request of the mother or of its own motion, and the alleged father fails without reasonable cause to take any steps required of him for the purpose of giving effect to the direction, the count may by order require him to take those steps; and as regards orders made under this subsection, subsections (1) to (3) of section fifty-four of the Magistrates' Courts Act, 1952, shall apply to a court of quarter sessions as they apply to a magistrates' court.

(3) If for the purpose of providing a blood sample for a test required to give effect to a direction under this Act any person wilfully and fraudulently personates another, or wilfully and fraudulently proffers a child other than the child named in the direction, he shall be liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term riot exceeding two years, or on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months, or to both."

The noble Lord said: This new clause contains certain provisions for enforcing the directions and orders of the court and for punishing offences. Subsection (1) empowers the court to dismiss an application for an affiliation order if the mother, or any person having custody of the child, fails without reasonable cause to comply with the direction of the court. This corresponds to the closing words of the original Clause 1 (1); but, at the same time, it incorporates a "conscience clause", so that, supposing a mother has reasonable and genuine grounds for objecting, she should not be penalised. It seems best that this should be left in general terms, rathet than that it should refer specifically to seasonable grounds that may exist for non-compliance. I feel sure that it will give the mother applying for the order full protection if there is reasonable ground.

Subsection (2) deals with the case as at present written down, where the court gives a direction other than at the request of the alleged father; but as that power has been taken away from the court I do not think one need proceed with that particular subsection. We shall be dealing with the Amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Bathurst, which is to come after, and I think we should accept that. The third subsection provides something to take the place of the original Clause 8 (2) and provides penalties for impersonation or any fraudulent depositing of the wrong child for the test. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— After Clause 7 insert the said new clause.—(Lord Amulree.)

EARL BATHURST

As the noble Lord has quite rightly indicated, since we have moved the mother out of the Bill subsection (2) is not required; and if the noble Lord will accept that, I advise your Lordships to accept his Amendment.

Amendment to Amendment moved— In the new clause, leave out subsection (2).—(Earl Bathurst.)

LORD AMULREE

I accept that.

LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH

I should like a little more explanation about this new clause. I should like to know whether, if subsection (1) were not inserted in the Bill, the court would not still have power to dismiss an application for an affiliation order. It seems to me that the effect of this subsection may very well be to create in the minds of courts of summary jurisdiction a presumption that some evidence has been given which has not in fact been given. All that the court knows is that there has been a refusal, but it does not necessarily follow from that that the application is not a genuine one. Nor does it follow that it has not been amply proved without any blood test being taken. If that is so, then it seems to me that subsection (1) is entirely superfluous. I wonder whether the noble Earl who speaks for the Government has given consideration to that.

EARL BATHURST

We certainly will consider what the noble Lord has said. But as the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, has explained, subsection (1) gives effect to the "conscience clause", about which we had so much discussion. Also, should there be specific evidence which the court has already heard and which makes the position clear, then that court need not order the blood test. That is the point of the noble Lord's Amendment. But if there should be something in what the noble Lord opposite has said, we certainly will look into it. However, to the best of my knowledge I do not think he need have any fears.

BARONESS SUMMERSKILL

I am not quite clear whether the noble Lord. Lord Amulree, said he would accept the whole of the Amendment. Certainly he should accept that part dealing with the mother. Of course, we have already argued that the mother would not request a test of this kind, but it seems to me here that the noble Lord once more has fallen from grace. I have to admit that before I came here to-day I harboured all sorts of uncharitable ideas, but he has acted on so many of our requests that I am rather surprised he should include this paragraph, which, after all, again gives support to a man who is undeserving. Here, the court may ask the man to have a blood test in order to enable him to prove he is not the father. The man fails to do this. What can we deduce from that? If it is explained to the man that the result of the blood test can only be beneficial to him, because it can only be negative and say he is not the father, he must be a very curious man if he says, "I will not have this test". A man who says he will not have a test and help to prove he is not the father must be guilty or extremely careless. The presumption is that he is guilty.

Then the noble Lord says, "If he refuses the court must come along and make him have it." I feel that this is really leaning over backwards to help the man who has almost declared his own guilt. I would remind the noble Lord that there is one case in a million or perhaps less when the test can be inaccurate. Where a man has shown that he is guilty by not doing what he is asked to, it is proposed that he be compelled to have a test; but if the test were to be inaccurate that would reverse the whole position. Therefore, I certainly support the Amendment of the noble Earl. I am not quite sure whether the noble Earl's approach was the same as mine, but I certainly support his Amendment.

LORD AMULREE

I am afraid that, quite frankly, I cannot quite follow what the noble Baroness is getting at at this moment. I thought that subsection (2) of the new clause, which I have agreed with the noble Earl should be dropped—

BARONESS SUMMERSKILL

You are dropping the whole thing?

LORD AMULREE

Not the complete clause. But the noble Earl has moved that subsection (2) be dropped from the clause; and the removal of subsection (2) is, I think, consequential on an Amendment moved some time ago. If the father fails to comply, we have taken away the power of the court to order a test, and if he fails to comply the court order would be enforceable under the provisions of Section 24 of the Magistrates' Court Act, 1952. That was the provision I was agreeing with the noble Earl should be deleted from the clause, and by that I am prepared to stand.

EARL BATHURST

I want both provisions removed from the clause. I think I did explain, did I not, that, as a result, both the independent power of the court has been taken away to a "may"—

LORD AMULREE

Yes.

EARL BATHURST

—and, as the noble Lord has already said, the mother is out of the Bill. It is the whole of that subsection (2).

LORD AMULREE

Yes.

BARONESS SUMMERSKILL

The whole of it?

LORD AMULREE

Yes.

On Question, Amendment to Amendment agreed to.

On Question, Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 8 [Penalties]:

LORD AMULREE

This Amendment is to omit Clause 8. Subsection (1) of the clause disappears because it is not usual to make the infringement of procedural rules a criminal offence or to prescribe penalties, and there does not seem to be any necessity for such a provision. Subsection (2) is replaced by what was subsection (3) but which now presumably becomes subsection (2) of the new clause which was agreed to after Clause 7. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Leave out Clause 8.—(Lord Amulree.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 9 [Interpretation]:

3.43 p.m.

LORD AMULREE

May I take all these Amendments together? These are Amendments to the definitions, most of which are consequential. The first Amendment inserts a definition of "affiliation order", which is necessary because the term is given other definitions in other Statutes. The second Amendment is really a drafting Amendment, to cover those cases where an application for an affiliation order is made not under the 1957 Act but under other Statutes—for instance, the National Assistance Act, 1948. The third Amendment leaves out the definitions of "approved person" and "approved testing centre", because these terms are not now in the Bill. The fourth Amendment is a drafting Amendment to remove words which, again, are no longer necessary. The fifth Amendment removes the definitions of the words "payment out of local funds" and "undergo blood tests", which are not now necessary in view of the revised drafting of Clause 1. I beg to move.

Amendments moved—

Page 3, line 32, at end insert ("the expression affiliation order' means an order adjudging a man to be the putative father of a child")

Page 3,line 34, leave out ("made")

Page 3,line 34, leave out lines 36 to 43.

Page 4, line 4, leave out ("and under the rules")

Page 4, line 4,leave out lines 9 to 14.—(Lord Amulree.)

LORD SILKIN

I do not propose to oppose these Amendments. I do not know enough about them, and I am prepared to accept the noble Lord's view that they are right; but I do want to draw the attention of the House to what looks to me like a considerable abuse of procedure. We gave this Bill a Second Reading on the assumption that this was the Bill we were going to deal with. I now find that, with the exception of Clause 9, every single clause has been withdrawn and that an entirely new set of clauses has been substituted. Clause 9 is the one which has not been withdrawn, and that is dealing merely with definitions and interpretations; but every other one has been withdrawn and we have had something else put in its place. I feel that that is going far beyond the proper procedure of this House. If one had known that the Bill to which we were going to give a Second Reading was going to be withdrawn and something else put in its place, I wonder whether we should really have given the noble Lord carte blanche to introduce something completely different. I do not know what we can do about it, but there ought to be some remedy, and I appeal to the Lord Chairman to tell us whether this kind of thing is quite proper and in is with our procedure. If it not—or in any case—I think it is a matter which ought to go to the Procedure Committee for us to consider.

BARONESS SUMMERSKILL

Could I just say a word on that point? This is a very small Bill which is highly technical, and it was taken, I think, late at night. Surely, this indicates that the noble Lord who introduced it is a man of high intelligence and of generous impulse. After having read Hansard and examined all the arguments which were put forward—arguments which were logical and cogent—he came to the conclusion that it should be amended in this way. We have not taken much time on this Bill, and it is one which affects a large number of very helpless women in this country. I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, to be a little patient, to exercise his compassion and to allow it to go through.

LORD SILIKIN

As I said at the outset, I am not opposing it, and I am sure the Committee would not wish to oppose this Bill; but I wanted to point out that it is an entirely different Bill from the one to which we gave a Second Reading.

LORD AMULREE

When I first began the Committee stage of this Bill I explained that the Bill had been changed enormously, but I think that, apart from a few points which have come in by way of these Amendments, little has been changed in the substance of the Bill. A great deal of the previous Bill has been put into a different form; but, broadly speaking, the Bill remains the same in substance, if not the same in shape, as when I introduced it on Second Reading. The only Amendments which have come in are quite proper Amendments, I think, not dealing with the fundamentals of the Bill. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, will accept that: that is was a change made in order to make it a tidier Bill, and not a change made to alter the whole structure.

EARL BATHURST

I wonder whether, from this side of the House, I might say that I very much sympathise with what the noble Lord opposite has said, but I assure him that as the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, has said in no way at all has the Bill been changed from the ideas which were expressed in your Lordships' House during Second Reading. It was to take note of those ideas that it has been necessary to re-write the Bill. In fact, what is now embodied in the Bill which is before your Lordships' Committee was spoken about at some length when we were considering the Bill during Second Reading. So I assure the noble Lord that in fact, I think, no great damage has been done by this method, but I do sympathise with him. Of course, had there been any revolutionary change which your Lordships had not had a chance to discuss, I am certain that such a procedure would not have been used. However, I appreciate his point of view.

LORD SILKIN

In conclusion, may I say that I raised this point, not because it was a matter of supreme importance but because I felt that we ought to be quite certain where we were going. It should not be open to any noble Lord to get a Bill approved here, and then, when it comes to Committee, to withdraw every single clause, one by one, and to put something else in their place. It may not always be as innocent as it might be in this particular case. I feel that perhaps, even in this case, if that were the intention it might have been better to have withdrawn the Bill and to have substituted a new Bill with a new face on it, with perhaps the same ideas which have been put forward by way of Amendment. I think it is a matter which ought to be looked at by the Procedure Committee. Perhaps I can arrange to give notice that that should be considered.

THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD MERTHYR)

Since my name has been mentioned, may I just say that I am satisfied that the procedure adopted this afternoon is in order. As to whether it is the best procedure or otherwise, I do not think it would be proper for me to express an opinion to-day, but I am satisfied that it is in order. I would remind the Committee that, of course, there is a Third Reading stage when the matter might be considered.

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 10 [Extent]:

LORD AMULREE

This Amendment is to enable the Secretary of State to say when the Bill shall come into operation. Although I am rather sorry about this, I think there is quite a sound reason for it, because there is a good deal of procedure to be set up under the Bill, where the tests can be carried out, and so forth. Therefore, it is not quite fair to put down a certain day, when it may not in fact be possible to implement the Bill on that day. Therefore I beg to move this Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 18, leave out from ("on") to end of line 19 and insert ("such day as the Secretary of State may appoint by order made by statutory instrument.")—(Lord Amulree.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.

House resumed.