---

Welfare Reform Bill

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, for giving us the chance to conclude our discussion on this matter, following the meeting that we had last week. I respond for the Government with the agreement of my noble friend Lady Crawley, who has led for us on this issue. For understandable family reasons, she was not able to make that meeting. I say to the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, that I would hesitate not to accept her advice—that would be a slippery slope indeed. I start by addressing concerns around the fact that these provisions will result in more unmarried fathers having parental responsibility than is currently the case. That is our intention. It is important to recognise the positive role that the vast majority of fathers play in their child’s life and the value of their involvement in terms of outcomes for the child. The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, was very clear on that point as well. On Report, we debated a suggested link between parental responsibility obtained by a parent through birth registration and an increased risk of harm to mothers or children. It was argued that, notwithstanding the considerable benefits that we all think will flow from joint birth registration, there might be an extra risk arising in respect of a few manipulative individuals who could exploit parental responsibility. We accept that some fathers can be abusive. However, as we said on Report, we have seen no evidence that the fact of having parental responsibility leads to an increased risk of such abuse. This is despite having consulted with stakeholders on the issue, and having discussed detailed concerns—for example, relating to access to medical and other information—with relevant organisations including the Department of Health. However, we are keen to engage in an ongoing dialogue with stakeholders in order to understand better such concerns. If we were to accept that this could place either the mother or the child at risk of harm—I stress that we have not seen evidence supporting this—then the remedy would lie not in imposing on the registrar extra responsibilities to police and screen out relevant individuals. We believe that the remedies that are available in other situations should also apply here and that it should remain a matter for the courts. We acknowledge that there might be, as there are now, a small number of cases where the courts decide, based on evidence from both parties and in the best interests of the child, that a father’s parental responsibility should be restricted, or indeed that he should not have parental responsibility at all. However, merely because the courts considered the removal of parental control to be an appropriate sanction or part of the remedy, it does not follow necessarily that the existence of parental responsibility caused the abuse, manipulation or violent behaviour on the part of the father. Whether we agree or disagree on the matter, we travel the same path in agreeing that it should be for the courts and not registrars to determine what remedies should be applied. A range of safeguards is already in place to protect children and vulnerable adults. For example, local authorities have a general duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in their area who are in need. Some of these children will themselves be parents. There are also a range of services across the country to support and promote stable family relationships, to help parents whose relationships are breaking down and to support and protect victims of domestic violence, which has been a particular concern during debate on these provisions. It is very important that mothers are fully informed about their options if they have concerns about the father having parental responsibility or if they feel that either they or their child could be at risk of abusive behaviour or violence from their child’s father or another person. For that reason, I offer a commitment to noble Lords that we will work with relevant partners and stakeholders—including Gingerbread, the NSPCC, citizens advice bureaux and other experts in the field—to develop detailed guidance for parents, with the aim of ensuring that parents who fear domestic violence are given help and advice in accessing the protection that they may need. We shall work also with a range of professionals who interact with parents and prospective parents, with the aim of making sure that individuals are given appropriate advice where they have concerns about domestic violence. Registrars will be able to provide information about relevant services when the issue of domestic violence is raised with them, and we will work closely with the General Register Office and stakeholders to determine the most appropriate way to cover these issues in guidance for registrars. The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, asked whether the guidance would cover whether mothers should be advised not to recognise the father. I do not believe that that will feature particularly, but I do not want to pre-empt what should be in the guidance. That must be worked through in detail. It is sometimes the case that those who most need help are those who are least able to access it. For this reason, we will do all we can, in the context of the new birth registration provisions, to help parents navigate their way through the system of support and protection that already exists to help them. I turn briefly to Amendments 29 and 30, which aim to include a commitment in the Bill that we will review specific sections within three years. They relate to new Sections 2D and 10B of the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953, which enable a man to come forward either before or after the birth has been registered and provide his details to the registrar. Subject to confirmation from the child’s mother that he is the father, the man will be named on the register. We welcome the spirit of the amendments. It is already our intention to monitor the operation of the policy closely. Officials are working with the Office for National Statistics and others to develop new data sets, with the aim of assessing both how the policy is being used and its impact. For example, we shall look closely at the reasons for sole registrations and, where a birth is jointly registered, the means by which joint registration took place. This will enable us to identify those cases where the father is registered by virtue of new Sections 2D or 10B. In that context, I also want to refer to the Law Commission’s report on post-legislative scrutiny and the Government’s response. The report sets out that three to five years after Royal Assent the responsible department should submit a memorandum to the Select Committee containing a preliminary assessment of how the Act has worked in practice. The Select Committee will then decide whether it wants to conduct a fuller post-legislative inquiry. We will be following this approach for these birth registration provisions. Although I understand the spirit behind the amendments, I am afraid that they are technically deficient. However, I think that they were tabled to provide an opportunity to have this debate, which I welcome. They would alter the 1953 Act, not the Welfare Reform Act 2009. Therefore, although the amendments were tabled with the best of intentions, I cannot accept them. However, I certainly give an undertaking that we will closely monitor the operation of the policy on the basis of detailed statistics in co-operation with the General Register Office, and that we will be conducting an assessment of how the provisions are working, in line with agreed arrangements for post-legislative scrutiny. On the basis of those commitments, I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment. As this may be the last time I am on my feet before we conclude Third Reading, perhaps I may say a few words of my own. I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to the Bill from every side of the House. We have heard a lot of knowledgeable and often powerful contributions. Although the Government have been pressed hard on some issues, I believe that the debate has always been constructive. I thank my noble friend Lady Crawley and, before her, my noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe for their excellent support. It can at times be lonely being a Minister on a Bill, and their help has been extremely welcome. I also thank the noble Lords, Lord Skelmersdale and Lord Taylor, for the role that they have played. Although it was a shame to lose the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, after the Committee stage—I have always enjoyed my exchanges with him during the passage of many, many Bills—it was a pleasure to welcome the noble Lord, Lord Freud, on Report. It is always tough to join a Bill half way through but, if I may say so, the noble Lord has done so with skill and very good humour. Thanks are also due to the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, and the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, for their challenge, support and usual good grace. As ever, they have championed the cause of some of the most disadvantaged people in our society. Thanks are due to noble Lords too numerous to name—although I should mention the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, on the Cross Benches—who have played an important part in our proceedings and have been responsible for many of the important changes that we have made in this House. The drugs provisions, which have already been mentioned, have been amended and improved largely due to the challenge and expertise of those noble Lords. This is the first Bill in which I have been involved where an entire clause—that on the right to control—has been largely conceived on the Cross Benches. That is indeed co-production at its very best. I also take the opportunity to thank the many individuals and organisations that have been so important in the development and passage of the Bill. I am grateful for the time that they have taken to make their representations and for their enthusiastic and knowledgeable engagement, which has ensured that the Bill has gone through a thorough examination. Finally, I thank the tremendous Bill team and all the officials who have worked so tirelessly on the Bill. We do not thank officials enough. They have shown dedication, patience and good humour in supporting us during the passage of the Bill, and I am sure that noble Lords agree that they deserve our thanks. We have done what this House does best and have improved the Bill. It is a good Bill and a much better one for noble Lords’ involvement.