| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
3.46 pm
Mr. Donald Anderson (Swansea, East): When I entered the Chamber and read the notice of motion for the first time, I thought to myself, "Who could possibly be against it?" It read like apple pie and motherhood. One would think that there would be a unanimous House in favour of it. Then I began to notice one or two hints in what the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant) was saying. There was a certain sub-text and a certain linkage with yesterday's ten-minute Bill. I began to understand that perhaps the Bill before the House is not all that it appears to be.
The hon. Gentleman says that we must adjust to today's reality. We are not, I hope, against that. He argued that we should keep our options open. I suppose that no one could be wholly against that. He quoted Mr. Turnbull, who is not his ally on other matters. He quoted also Wittgenstein, and who can be against Wittgenstein?
In my judgment, the real sub-text and motive was an essay in nostalgia. Essentially, it was an essay in escapism. The key theme was that there is an alternative to our linkage with our natural allies within the European Union, involving Australia, Canada, the United States and New Zealand. There is, of course, a basic substratum of co-operation and of marriage of the heart with all those countries. Most of us have family in most, if not all of them. There is the binding of common law and of language, which in most instances brings us together.
The essential problem in looking to Australia, Canada, the United States and New Zealand as an alternative to
the EU is clearly that they are not options, in spite of important emotional and practical areas of co-operation. The key fallacy in the hon. Gentleman's approach is that it takes two to tango. History tells us, as the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) knows only too well, that our country has been littered with attempts to escape from its destiny.
During the late 1950s, there was the attempt by the then Mr. Maudling to find an alternative to the treaty of Rome. We were labouring under the illusion created by Sir Anthony Eden in about 1956, that there were the three circles of America, the Commonwealth and the wider world, and that Britain was at the centre of those three concentric circles. We had the Maudling essay in escapism and the European Free Trade Association, which was built up as an alternative. Various other schemes were peddled in the 1960s, notably the North American Free Trade Agreement, associated with Senator Jacob Javits.
The basic problem with all those options was not only that the proposed partners were not terribly interested in the project, but that, basically, it ran against the facts and, notably, the pattern of trade. I invite the hon. Gentleman to consider the way in which our trade pattern has moved from when 40 per cent. of our external trade was with Commonwealth countries to now, when more than 50 per cent. of it is with members of the European Union, a dynamic organisation, at whose door other countries are knocking hard. Countries are trying not to leave the EU or to find an alternative, but to join because they know that, despite all its problems, it is a dynamic organisation.
When we confirmed our membership of the European Union in 1975 after the referendum, we joined not a static Europe, but a Europe that was developing. However much Conservative Members seek to avoid that, the dynamism remains, so, effectively, the apparently anodyne motion must be seen in the context of the agonies of the Conservative party--the escapism that we saw in respect of the European Court of Justice.
That is why we in Britain are not punching our weight in Europe and why, in a Europe that needs alliance-building that is based on partnership, we are increasingly pushed to the side, to the detriment of our interests. Such essays in nostalgia and escapism, however felicitously phrased, are not only contrary to our interests, but avoid the real choices facing the country.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 19 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business), and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Michael Fabricant, Sir Ivan Lawrence, Sir John Hannam, Sir Michael Spicer, Mr. Norman Lamont, Mr. Jonathan Aitken, Mr. David Alton, Mr. John Butcher, Mr. Patrick Nicholls, Mr. David Martin, Mr. James Pawsey and Mr. John Wilkinson.
Mr. Michael Fabricant accordingly presented a Bill to strengthen institutions to promote economic, cultural, and political ties between the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, the United States and New Zealand: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 12 July and to be printed. [Bill 113.]
(Clauses Nos. 5 and 7 and any new Clauses or new Schedules appearing on the Order Paper not later than Monday 1st April and relating to the circumstances in which a marriage may be taken to have broken down irretrievably or in which a divorce order or a separation order may be made by the Court, or to the period for reflection and consideration.)
Considered in Committee.
Mr. Edward Leigh (Gainsborough and Horncastle):
I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 3, line 2, after '(1)', insert
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Morris):
With this, it will be convenient to discuss also the following: No. 6, in page 3, line 22, at end insert--
No. 20, in page 3, line 27, after 'year', insert
Clause 5 stand part.
New clause 1--Grounds for divorce--
Mr. Leigh:
I am grateful to the Lord Chancellor's Department for the considerable help that it has given us in drafting the amendments, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will confirm, when he sums up, that the amendments' effect is simply to leave the present law
The amendments may look fairly complex to hon. Members who seek to understand them, but, as I have said, we took considerable advice. Consequential amendments may be necessary on Report if the Committee votes for these amendments in principle at 7 pm.
The backdrop for this important debate is the marital breakdown crisis. Each year, 158,000 marriages--41 per cent.--end in divorce. Moreover, there is huge and mounting evidence, which I am sure would convince anyone, that children are suffering as a result of the divorce epidemic: children of divorced parents tend to be worse educated, more likely to become unemployed and less likely to be able to sustain stable marriages themselves.
Many of us feel that what is needed is not a Bill to allow easier or slicker divorces, but a campaign in favour of marriage; but we can debate that on another occasion. This afternoon, we are simply debating whether we should retain the requirement either to give a reason for wanting a divorce or to allege fault.
Those who support the Bill and oppose my amendments say that the present law simply does not work--that it does not stop divorces, but makes matters far worse. We claim that quickie divorces are to blame for much of the problem, but the supporters of the Bill argue that the present law breeds acrimony, and that, if there is conflict in a marriage, it is better for the partners to obtain a quick and easy divorce than to stay together. They say that they want to "humanise" the whole process.
All those arguments are very beguiling; that is why many hon. Members support the concept of no-fault divorce. However, many of the same arguments were adduced back in 1969 in California, where, for the first time in American history--until then, American law had been very similar to our law--the concept of no-fault divorce was introduced by Governor Reagan. At that time, there was a "happy divorce" movement in California. All the arguments that I have just mentioned about the present law were used then to persuade Governor Reagan and his colleagues to introduce no-fault divorce, and his example was followed in all 50 states of the Union.
Interestingly, just when we are thinking of copying Governor Reagan's legislation, there is enormous controversy in the United States about no-fault divorce. Many states are examining the position, and at least six have produced Bills seeking to repeal the no-fault divorce legislation. I shall not quote from obvious sources, although I could: there has been considerable criticism of no-fault divorce by America's right wing.
A Democrat-based foundation, the Council on Families in America, has submitted a report entitled "Marriage in America". The report, headed "The Failed Revolution", states:
3.53 pm
'For the purposes of an application for a separation order'.
'.--(2A) If the parties have entered into an agreement, following counselling by a body approved for the purposes of this section by the Lord Chancellor, not to make a statement unless each of them has sought further counselling (either from that body or from any other such body), any statement made by either of the parties, or by both of them, is to be disregarded unless the agreement has been complied with within the period of three months ending with the date on which the statement is made.'.
'(or such further period as shall appear to the Court in all circumstances to be just)'.
'.--(1) The court hearing an application for a divorce order shall hold the marriage to have broken down irretrievably if, but only if, the applicant has made a statement that he believes that the marriage has broken down and has satisfied the court of one or more of the following facts--
(a) that the other party has committed adultery and the parties have lived apart for a continuous period of at least one year;
(b) that the other party has behaved in an intolerable way and the parties have lived apart for a continuous period of at least one year;
(c) that the parties have lived apart for a continuous period of at least two years and the other party consents to a divorce order being made;
(d) that the parties have lived apart for a continuous period of at least five years.
(2) In relation to an application for a divorce order "continuous period", in subsection (1), means a continuous period ending immediately before the application is made.'.
"The evidence of failure is overwhelming. The divorce revolution--by which we mean the steady displacement of a marriage culture by a culture of divorce and unwed parenthood--has created terrible hardships for children. It has generated poverty within families. It has burdened us with unsupportable social costs. It has failed to deliver on its promise of greater adult happiness and better relationships between men and women."
24 Apr 1996 : Column 445
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |