| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Leigh: Yes, I can. There is some dispute about Australia, because the rate went up considerably and then seemed to settle down, but it seemed to increase by about 11 per cent.
Opposition Members might think that they must pass the Bill unamended because acrimony is so bad. They should not be under any illusion that the Bill will not lead to more divorce--it will; it will make divorce easier. In considering how to vote at 7 o'clock, hon. Members should consider very carefully which is more damaging to society--the fact of divorce or supposed acrimony in the divorce process. The Bill's main purpose is to get rid of acrimony, but of course the truth is that it will not.
Last year, there were only five divorce trials in this country. Most divorces are based on petition, and one obtains one's divorce by post. There were, of course, a huge number of trials about very acrimonious disputes over division of property and children, and they will go on.
Whatever the Bill says, whatever its worthy arguments for mediation, one or other partner will be advised by their lawyer either of their rights or that the lawyer should be present at the mediation process, so such legal disputes will continue. The Bill is therefore addressing the wrong target. In Scotland, there is less acrimony, because assets accrued through marriage are divided 50-50. In our system in England, the courts are given almost complete discretion. That is what breeds so much acrimony. We are, first, not dealing with the acrimony issue, and, secondly, sending out the wrong message.
There is another point on acrimony. What about the bitterness of the injured party if no-fault divorces were introduced? Occasionally there are injured parties. We are not always equally to blame in life, although often we are partly to blame. What about the bitterness, the feelings of rejection and the denial of rights of the injured parties to have their day, even on a divorce petition? Those things are being swept away by the Bill, which is very dangerous.
It is therefore not surprising that the Bill is enormously controversial, right across the political parties. Not only Conservative Members feel strongly about it. Norman Dennis, a respected Labour party supporter and academic, said in his book "English Ethical Socialism":
Many ex-Labour Ministers in the House of Lords supported my noble Friend Baroness Young in the amendments she tabled.
There have been a number of academic studies on the matter. The Exeter study, for instance, says on page 55:
The academic world, politicians, and lawyers themselves are divided on the Bill.
If the Bill were so obviously needed, why has the Scottish Law Commission rejected it out of hand? A jurisdiction not so very different from our own has
rejected no-fault divorce. There is not even any overwhelming evidence of public support for the Bill. A MORI poll conducted by the Lord Chancellor's Department showed that 60 per cent. of the public reject divorce based on the unilateral demand of one party.
Mr. John Patten (Oxford, West and Abingdon):
Has my hon. Friend noticed that not one Scottish or Northern Irish Member has spoken in this place in favour of the legislation?
Mr. Leigh:
I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend for making that point. What he says is not surprising, because, in Scotland, 63 per cent. of divorces take between two and five years, and in Northern Ireland, 75 per cent. of divorces take between two and five years.This is largely an English problem.
Quickie divorce is not just the creation of Parliament. It was the creation of the Lord Chancellor's Department in 1977, when the period between decree nisi and decree absolute was cut from six months to six weeks. The Department, although not alone, has to a great extent created the problem of quickie divorces. My answer, therefore, to the hon. Member for Bristol, East (Ms Corston) and to others who have intervened is that we should get rid of quickie divorces.
Sir David Mitchell:
Surely, by the time a decree nisi has been granted, a person is effectively divorced, because the whole thing has broken up. The fact that one shortens the time between decree nisi and decree absolute does not affect the fact that the family has come to an end in terms of the operation of normal family life.
Mr. Leigh:
The point that my hon. Friend is missing is this--and the hon. Member for Bristol, East made this clear from her own experience. When one is contemplating divorce, one's lawyer will advise one, that if one wants to get divorced within three months and does not want to wait two years, the only way in which to do so is to make allegations. That is what is wrong with the present system.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman:
I too was a divorce lawyer. I often found that a middle-aged lady would come to our chambers who had loyally supported her husband for many years by helping him to get on in his industrial life and by bringing up his children. In fact, she had done everything she could. Her one crime was that she had become middle-aged, fat and possibly a little dull. Her husband, therefore, wanted a shiny new model. In what way has such a woman ever committed a fault? As my hon. Friend said, she would feel bitter if she were just discarded like an old glove with no good reason being given.
Mr. Leigh:
I understand that my hon. Friend has been very happily married for a long time. She is a beacon and an example to us all.
Another answer to my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir D. Mitchell), which may be more germane to the second debate, is that if, under the
Bill as unamended, we reduce the time to one year, people will have to settle everything within one year. Under present legislation, after the decree nisi, one can go on talking and arguing about ancillaries. Lawyers refer to disputes over children and property as ancillaries. However, that is another argument, which we can have after 7 o'clock.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Jonathan Evans):
I do not want to intervene at length during my hon. Friend's argument, because it is important that he should have the opportunity to develop it. However, it would be wrong if the Committee were of the view that 12 months is the period during which arrangements in relation to finance and property must be concluded. My hon. Friend will be aware that the Bill permits that period to be extended by up to two years.
Mr. Leigh:
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention, because he makes the point that I want to make, especially forcefully, in the second debate. Under the Bill, people will not be required to settle everything within 12 months but I suspect that that will become the expectation. Under schedule 1, if one goes to the court and argues that one party is being obstructive--one does not have to prove that--the court can override the objections of the other party. That is, of course, more substantially a matter for the second debate.
However, that point is why we say that, where there is a dispute, where children are involved or where there are difficulties, the period should certainly be extended beyond 12 months. There should be a difference between how quickly a person obtains a divorce if there is consent and no children, and how quickly a divorce is obtained if there is a dispute or if there are children. My hon. Friend the Minister is not being entirely fair.
Mr. Richard Tracey (Surbiton):
May I draw my hon. Friend out a little on the distinction between the view of the Scottish Law Commission and the advice of the English Law Commission? It is interesting that Scotland has not decided to go down the road that is proposed in the Bill. I believe that my hon. Friend said that public opinion in England was against the line taken in the Bill. Does that mean that the English law commissioners totally ignored the views of our people?
Mr. Leigh:
It is not one of the duties of the English Law Commission to consider public opinion. As my hon. Friends and I will argue, one of the problems with the Bill is summed up by the question: who has been calling for it? Have our constituents been writing to us in droves asking for it? Was it in the Conservative party manifesto? Or was it driven by lawyers sitting in the Law Commission--one of whom, who is now a High Court judge, has questioned the very institution of marriage?
Should we in this Parliament make laws based on what the Law Commission advises, or laws based on our own experience and on common sense, and on what our constituents tell us is necessary? Every opinion poll tells us that our constituents support the institution of marriage, and do not want divorce to be made easier.
Dame Angela Rumbold (Mitcham and Morden):
Will my hon. Friend continue along that line? Considering public opinion, and reading the letters that I have had
"The institution of marriage protects children. Generations of children will not welcome an Act which sends out the message that the sexual convenience of adults is of paramount importance."
"The most significant factor of those examined was the reordering of the family--the loss of a parent on one or more occasions--rather than the presence of serious conflict or violence. That was most closely associated with children's poorer outcomes as measured".
4.15 pm
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |