| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman (Lancaster): Does my hon. Friend accept that, every time people in this country have tried to "reform divorce", as they call it, they have always said that it will lead to fewer divorces, but that on every occasion it has led to more divorces?
Mr. Leigh: My hon. Friend is correct, which is why we should consider these matters very carefully--it is a very risky business.
The divorce rate doubled within two years after we passed the last divorce legislation, in 1969. I want to be fair to those who supported that legislation. Many of them argued that there was a backlog of cases, or that there may have been other reasons that contributed to the doubling of the number of divorces; but there was a doubling in the number of divorces. In America, since the introduction of no-fault divorces, there has been a 20 per cent. increase in the divorce rate.
Sir Anthony Grant (South-West Cambridgeshire):
That fact has been demonstrated by research not only in America but in this country--notably in Cambridge, by a very learned professor of criminology. He produced a report that showed very clearly that juvenile delinquency stems from causes at a very much earlier stage, and primarily in cases in which there has been a broken family.
Mr. Leigh:
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend. I think that both sides of the argument accept the catastrophic effect of divorce on children. Later in my speech, I might quote a study that demonstrates that there is mounting evidence that the catastrophic effect on children is not produced so much by acrimony in the marriage or even by the divorce proceedings, as by the divorce itself--because one parent is absent permanently from the matrimonial home.
Mr. Patrick Nicholls (Teignbridge):
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, because, although I shall not come to the same conclusion as he does, I accept what he has just said is the key to the issue. The fact is that divorce produces all the consequences he has just mentioned.
As a former divorce lawyer, I do not understand why my hon. Friend thinks that, if one approaches a marriage in crisis or a marriage that is effectively over and produces "a fault"--whether it is an act of adultery, an act of unreasonable behaviour or an act of desertion--it will reinforce marriage. How on earth will merely producing "a fault" and saying that it is the instrument of dissolution reinforce marriage? I do not understand that thinking, and it rebels completely against all the experience I gained when I was helping people to come to terms with the consequences of divorce.
Mr. Leigh:
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I shall deal with his points in some detail, because they are, of course, central to our arguments.
We do not claim that divorce legislation or Parliament can stop people getting divorced, but one answer to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) is that, to divorce under current legislation--as he well knows as a former divorce lawyer--one does not need to allege fault. There can be a separation, and one can achieve a divorce with no fault and no consent after five years, or with no fault and consent after two years.
The recent, much publicised divorce of the Duke and Duchess of York was based not on a quickie divorce but on a two-year separation. They remain, as we know, the best of friends after their divorce. I do not think that that divorce, which occurred under current legislation, has contributed to acrimony or bitterness or affected their children.
The answer to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge is that, while Parliament cannot stop people getting divorced, it can lay down a moral cornerstone or a moral foundation for the nation. It can provide some guidance. We believe that that is what the existing law does, and that is why we believe that it should be retained.
Mr. David Chidgey (Eastleigh):
I take the hon. Gentleman back to the figures he quoted about the doubling of the divorce rate after the relaxation of divorce law. Could he contrast that with any statistics on changes in the number of couples who separated, either legally or through some less formal arrangement, and tell us whether the number of separations decreased as the number of divorces increased? Separation and divorce cannot be the same thing.
Mr. Leigh:
If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I do not understand the point he is making, and I do not think that it is germane to the argument. I do not want to lengthen this debate over statistics, because we know that they can prove anything. As we all know, however, it is undeniable that divorce has dramatically increased in this country, and that we have more divorces than any other nation in Europe. I and those who share my views argue that there is a crisis. We may not be able to stop people getting divorced, but do we want to make divorce even easier, given the state we are in?
I was referring to the American experience. Why should we look into the crystal ball or examine statistics when we can read the book? The book is open in front of us--the American experience is there for us to see.
Ms Jean Corston (Bristol, East):
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Leigh:
I shall finish this point and then give way.
Six American states now have Bills before their legislatures that would repeal no-fault divorce. They are Oklahoma, Michigan, Iowa, Idaho, Alabama and Minnesota. The matter is also under discussion in New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois and Georgia.
Ms Corston:
The hon. Gentleman keeps saying that the purpose of the amendment is to make divorce harder, or at least not to make it easier than it is now. Those of us who have worked as family lawyers know that, under the present divorce law, often when clients ask how they can get divorced, they are told that they have to wait two years to show that they can no longer live together and that the
The answer is that they could allege adultery or unreasonable behaviour and be divorced within six months. The Bill is going to make divorce harder, and make people think about it more thoroughly than they do when they can allege fault.
Mr. Leigh:
The hon. Lady is making my point. That is the problem with the present divorce legislation. The fact that people can within three or four months obtain a divorce based on fault or allegations of unreasonable behaviour or adultery, means that divorce lawyers often advise them to make such allegations. That is what is wrong with the existing divorce law, and it is why we fully support Ministers who want to ban divorce being obtainable in under a year. The hon. Lady makes my point. I am not in favour of quickie divorces.
Sir David Mitchell (North-West Hampshire):
Does my hon. Friend agree that part of the problem with the existing system is that, as soon as a case gets into the hands of solicitors, clients get into a confrontational situation? It is that situation which poisons the atmosphere and makes it worse for the children and harder to reach a settlement. Would it not be much better to avoid confrontation and see where a reconciliation process leads, without the usual tension and crisis?
Mr. Leigh:
We all agree, and, although the Opposition spokesman seeks to amend it, the Bill as drafted unfortunately gives no time for reconciliation. It provides for a year's waiting period, but that is a period in which there can be mediation over the division of assets and issues affecting the children. The Bill does not provide time for reconciliation, which we want to build into it. Under the existing legislation, lawyers advise potential clients that the way to get a quick divorce is to allege fault. I agree with my hon. Friend that that breeds acrimony.
My argument is that it is wrong that someone who has been married for a considerable time should not have to be given any reason for the dissolution of the marriage, and that that person's partner is being granted a divorce on demand. Is that fair? That is the question that the Committee must consider very carefully.
Mr. Stephen Timms (Newham, North-East):
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the amendment does not remove the problem that there will still be an incentive to make an allegation of fault--possibly a fictitious one--because there will still be the possibility of obtaining divorce more quickly that way?
Mr. Leigh:
Not, of course, if the Committee accepted my subsequent amendment at 10 pm--that is the simple answer to the hon. Gentleman's question.
Why will the Bill not work? Why will it not achieve the objectives in which we all believe?
Mr. Win Griffiths (Bridgend):
I listened with interest to what the hon. Gentleman said about America. From all the briefing material that we have been sent, I understand that several other countries, such as Australia, New Zealand and Canada, have no-fault
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |