---

Welfare Reform Bill

My Lords, I wish to make it clear from the outset that I do not intend to press the amendment. I move it only as a means of completing the discussions that we had last week. The House will remember that, following a lively debate, the Minister kindly offered a meeting to see whether a way forward could be found on the issue of joint birth registrations, and for that we were most grateful. First, I reiterate our agreement with the Government that we want unmarried fathers to take as active a role as possible in bringing up their children, starting with having their name on the child’s birth certificate. Even if the father is known to be violent or abusive, we still think that it is right that his name should nevertheless be registered on his child’s birth certificate. The only point at issue is that if he makes a declaration to the registrar independently of the mother and before her, and if the mother confirms his paternity, then he will automatically gain parental responsibility, however much she might fear for her safety or for that of her child. We know that this is likely to be a danger only in a very few cases—perhaps where the father is manipulative and devious—but we need to acknowledge that it may happen more often if more unmarried fathers are not just encouraged to sign the birth register but that it will be compulsory under this Bill. The Government are keen to say that registrars should not be expected to police and screen individuals to guess which fathers might be violent or abusive and which will not. We do not expect registrars to fulfil this role either. We want them to have appropriate guidance so that they can inform mothers of the course of action that they can take if they fear for their, or their child’s, safety. Will registrars, for example, be able to say to the mother that if the purported father of her child has already made a declaration, she may wish to take advice before confirming paternity? In the vast majority of cases, parental responsibility is a thoroughly good thing. However, as the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, pointed out, occasionally the courts deny it to a parent, usually a father, because it can in certain circumstances be a danger to the mother and child. I look forward to the Minister’s reply. I beg to move.