| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Leigh: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, and also for what Cardinal Hume said at the end of last week--that, as a society, we must put far more emphasis on preparation for marriage. I do not know whether hon. Members know that, at a civil marriage ceremony in a register office, there is no requirement to make any promises whatever about the long-term stability of a marriage.
Every society and every culture, throughout history, has recognised that the best way to bring up children is in a secure and stable marriage. That is why every society and every religion in the world envelops the marriage ceremony with solemn vows. It is recognised that human nature is weak; that is why we are required to make those vows, to buttress our determination to stay together. Is the message that we want to give to the nation as a whole the idea that those vows mean nothing, and that, on the demand of just one partner, they can be broken?
Dr. Robert Spink (Castle Point)
rose--
Mr. Leigh:
I give way to my hon. Friend.
Dr. Spink:
My hon. Friend may remember that, in a previous debate, I called for marriage to be made harder, with the Churches leading the way in preparing people for marriage, rather than for divorce to be made easier. As for public opinion, is my hon. Friend aware that a MORI poll in 1993 showed that 56 per cent. of people who wanted a change in that area of the law wanted to see divorce made harder?
Mr. Leigh:
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point, and now I shall give way to the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey).
Mr. Chidgey:
May I draw the hon. Gentleman back to a comment made a few moments ago and supported by several of his hon. Friends, concerning the case of injured parties who have suffered considerably through divorce through no fault of their own and who, as the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) explained, are left bereft? That is a real problem, and it is important to realise that either partner may be in that situation, when a divorce of which he or she had no foreknowledge nor any wish to be part of, is forced upon him or her. However, I would be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would explain to the House how his amendment would overcome that problem.
Mr. Leigh:
If someone is not at fault, the present law makes adequate provision. People simply have to wait two
Mr. Phil Gallie (Ayr):
Much has been said about the situation in Scotland, and it is time that a Scottish voice was heard. I will be in the Lobby tonight with my hon. Friend. However, if there were a Scottish Assembly, I would be able to go into the Lobby with him to judge English law, but if there were a change of heart in Scotland, I would not be able to take part in the debate.
Mr. Leigh:
That is interesting, but I had better not be beguiled down that path.
Mr. David Alton (Liverpool, Mossley Hill):
I support the hon. Gentleman's argument, and I welcome his amendments. Is he heartened not only by the shift in public opinion that has been alluded to but by the fact that commentators such as Ruth Deech and Melanie Phillips, who come from a very different part of the political spectrum to him, have argued strongly against the abolition of fault? They recognise, as many of us do, that it is absurd to pretend that we can remove fault by Act of Parliament. There will continue to be fault; surely redress is the issue.
If people feel that they cannot get redress in law and can be divorced on demand against their wishes, the Bill will have brought an unacceptable principle into British law. Does he accept that the children who are littered throughout our broken-hearted communities are the casualties of divorce? There are 750,000 children who no longer have access to their fathers. The collapse of family life is one of the major causes of our social problems.
Mr. Leigh:
The hon. Gentleman presses his point well. Ruth Deech has written penetrating articles and made speeches on that subject.
I was advising the Committee about what we can do. First, we can get rid of quickie divorces. Secondly--this is built into the amendments--we should replace the subjective test of unreasonable behaviour with the more objective test of intolerable behaviour. We were advised to put that in by the Lord Chancellor's Department. Thirdly, we should consider changes to court procedures. We cannot, of course, resurrect divorce trials, but at least judges should be allowed under judges' and court rules to question affidavits. If there is an open-and-shut case of fault, it is absurd that the judge should not be allowed to consider it at all.
Above all, we should not abolish the right of people to demand reasons for their marriages being terminated. Clause 1 states that the objective is
Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent):
I am slightly at a loss to know what the benefit of fault is, except in the relatively small number of cases in which one party is manifestly not at fault. That is difficult to establish. If the
Mr. Leigh:
I can give my hon. Friend a good reason. It is not because we want to say, "You're guilty, you should admit it." We do not want to build up bitterness in marriages. It sometimes serves a purpose to say, "I'm sorry, I was wrong." We all know that from our personal relationships. If I broke the rules of the House and the Chairman of Ways and Means called me to order, he would expect me to apologise, and we could then move on.
If we try to solve problems on the basis of no pain, no shame and no apology, it can make it even harder to start again and rebuild a relationship. If our present fault or reason-based divorce legislation is so bad and is creating all this acrimony, why, every year, do 20,000 to 30,000 couples who have embarked on the process change their minds? Perhaps our present process helps many people to resolve their difficulties to some extent, and decide that they must try to make their marriages work.
Mr. Patrick Nicholls (Teignbridge):
My hon. Friend said that everyone is entitled to know, in a legal context, why their marriage has failed. Does he accept that marriages do not fail because of an act of adultery, desertion or unreasonable behaviour, but because, for a variety of reasons, they simply will not work any longer? The law as an instrument is capable of recognising that fact, but is incapable of carrying out the sort of moral audit which we might want in an ideal world but which, in the reality of a law court, is completely impossible.
Mr. Leigh:
That is my hon. Friend's view and the view of people who want to promote no-fault divorce--they all say that it is six of one and half a dozen of the other.
Mr. Leigh:
It is to a certain extent. In fact, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, a former president of the family law division, who opposes no-fault divorce and spoke eloquently in the other place, pointed out that in his experience--he is a practitioner in the field--most divorces result mainly from the fault of one party. My hon. Friend is right: there may be circumstances that lead up to that fault, but that former president of the family law division recognises that fault should be acknowledged in divorce proceedings.
Mr. Tim Devlin (Stockton, South):
There seems to be a fundamental fallacy in my hon. Friend's proposal. Present law is not based on fault--one is granted a divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage. That is evidenced in one of five ways, but none of those is grounds for divorce. At the moment, we have no-fault divorce.
Mr. Leigh:
That is a semantic point, if I may say so. Under existing legislation, of course irretrievable
Sir Michael Neubert (Romford):
Is not the problem the fact that the Bill, this debate and even my hon. Friend's speech in moving his amendment, concentrate on the point of marriage breakdown, whereas, if we are to avoid the terrible crisis of divorce in such high numbers that he has described, we must go back to the original commitment? Is not the removal of fault the equivalent to saying that there is no contract, and therefore that there can be no breach of contract? Is not my hon. Friend trying to establish once again the commitment that comes at the start of a marriage and which will be so much more important later in the event of difficulties?
"to promote as good a continuing relationship between the parties and any children affected as is possible in the circumstances".
4.30 pm
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |