| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Edward Leigh (Gainsborough and Horncastle): I welcome this group of amendments, not least because they are the result of a commitment given to me in Committee by the previous Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans). Therefore, I would be extremely churlish if I did not welcome them. They are extremely important amendments that will
markedly improve the Bill. All along, one of our objections to the Bill has been that it seemed simply to oil the wheels of divorce. We thought it terribly important to ensure that in the new divorce process--which will be based not on fault, but on a period of time elapsing--there was some encouragement towards marriage counselling. We have achieved that aim, and the necessary important provision will be included in the preamble to the Bill.
We achieved that concession early during the Committee's proceedings. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) for what he said in Committee, because, without his support, it would have been impossible to achieve a majority and so encourage the previous Minister to accede to the amendments. It was rather more of a struggle to achieve funding for marriage guidance. I understand that, because the Lord Chancellor's Department had to clear it with the Treasury.
We have already achieved agreement that, after the initial information meeting, it will be possible for the parties to have a free meeting with a marriage counsellor. My hon. Friend the Minister rightly stated that there were some arguments about whether that requirement to see a marriage counsellor should be compulsory or voluntary. Originally, the hon. Member for Brent, South and I tabled amendments to make it compulsory. However, I accepted what the previous Minister told us--that marriage guidance counsellors did not want to be part of a compulsory mechanism, but wanted the entire process to be voluntary. What we have achieved is that when people go along to the information meeting--which will be a proper, one-to-one meeting--they will be at least encouraged to see a marriage counsellor, and that meeting will be free.
These latest Government amendments are significant achievements, because when the whole process starts and someone makes a statement of marital breakdown, the funding for marriage reconciliation will be on exactly the same basis as the funding for mediation.
Our concern has always been that some excellent organisations, such as Relate, which traditionally have been marriage guidance organisations, will ride in behind the Bill, because a huge new pot of gold will be poured into mediation, and that they will be encouraged to shift resources from marriage counselling--which we all support, but which has received a paltry £3 million a year--to mediation. There is nothing wrong with mediation if the divorce will definitely happen. It is better to have mediation than to have lawyers arguing about costs.
It would be wholly wrong if we had a market-driven approach that encouraged those organisations to put their resources into mediation rather than into marriage counselling. The amendments are terribly important, and I very much hope that they will be welcomed by marriage counselling organisations.
I welcome what the Minister said. Having heard the Minister and the hon. Member for Brent, South in this--so far--short debate, I think that, in future, there may be cross-party support not only for a divorce Bill but for a marriage Bill. People in the Republic of Ireland must wait for a time before they are allowed to marry. Perhaps we should, as Cardinal Hume said, put as many resources into marriage and into encouraging marriage counselling at the beginning of the process as we are now putting into the end of the process, when it may be too late. That is for
the future. Perhaps the Government will consider introducing a marriage Bill in the next Session. It would be a very popular Bill.
It would be wrong to be churlish. It is a pity that we could not have achieved this extra money for marriage counselling before we had to consider the Bill--but this is the Bill that we have. I very much welcome what the Minister said today.
Mrs. Diana Maddock (Christchurch):
These amendments represent a huge step forward by the Government. People who have worked in marriage counselling in the past know its value only too well. Like many other hon. Members, I have met local Relate groups and have heard how important they think counselling is. When I was first elected as a Member of Parliament, I took part with other hon. Members in a series of hearings about the family for the United Nations Year of the Family. We heard clearly how important it is to get in there and to give support at the early stages when things go wrong.
Therefore, like many of my Liberal Democrat colleagues, I welcome the Government's recognition of counselling. As has been said, that recognition is not before time. There have been many discussions and much pushing over this matter, and it is good to see cross-party support pushing the Government forward into a sensible position.
I share the concerns of the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) about costs. It is good to hear the Government talking about putting money towards the Bill, but I am worried that they have not considered the matter carefully. I shall listen carefully to the Minister's comments.
The Minister's earlier clarification that counselling will be voluntary is important, and it has been vital in achieving cross-party support. Certainly, the view of all those who work in this area is that we cannot force people into counselling, but that we must ensure that they have access to it and that they can afford it.
The hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) talked about the importance of preparation for marriage. I should like us to give much more emphasis to marriage preparation in schools. Marriage preparation should be in the national curriculum, and I look forward to when that happens.
I welcome the provision, as do many of my hon. Friends on the Liberal Democrat Benches.
Dame Jill Knight (Birmingham, Edgbaston):
I have one or two questions about this matter. I am quite worried about where counsellors will come from. To my certain knowledge, in some areas, it is impossible to make an appointment with a marriage guidance counsellor in under a year. How will we find all these extra marriage guidance counsellors? Unless we know that they can be found, perhaps we are being a bit hypocritical in passing a law that says counsellors shall be there, as if one could spirit them out of the ether. I do not think that that is possible.
I have been worried about Relate ever since it decided that it was not so much interested in marriage, and dropped the term "marriage guidance" from its name. I have yet to be persuaded--I should very much like to be--that Relate
counsellors really are interested in ensuring that careful thought is given to the end of a marriage. I am not at all sure that Relate is so concerned, as are some hon. Members, about the institution of marriage.
I strongly support the idea that we must do more in preparation for marriage. The hon. Member for Christchurch (Mrs. Maddock) was quite right that attention should be paid to that in schools. I should like it if we could have talks with the BBC, ITV and other parts of the media, which daily send the message that marriage no longer matters and that living with people is the acceptable thing to do. Youngsters watch television so carefully, and they take their pattern of life from it.
Before youngsters ever get to the point of marrying, there should be much more careful thought about how to show them that marriage is an aim of enormous importance to our country and to our society, and that it is not something that they can take on lightly. As has been said in another context, I would much rather have a fence at the top of a cliff than an ambulance at the bottom. I hope that attention will be paid to that most important fact.
Dr. Jeremy Bray (Motherwell, South):
Dealing with marriage counselling services is not quite as simple a matter as merely passing a few amendments in the House or even finding some money for it. The underlying problem lies in the great muddle and confusion in our society about the nature of marriage. I should have thought that the only way to make coherent proposals in legislation would have been for the genesis of the Bill to be a commission on marriage rather than a Law Commission report dealing with the processes of divorce.
Many questions are outstanding, such as how these counselling services will be provided, how the organisation will be developed and what concept of marriage--as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) said--will be presented. What about the undertakings in the register office ceremony? What will be the nature of those undertakings? Will counselling play any role in the preparation of such marriages? For marriages that take place in church, what will be the role of the Churches in preparing for marriage and in subsequent counselling services?
Having spoken to Church leaders, I do not think that Churches have thought out those questions, and I do not think that counselling services have thought them through at all--because they have not been asked the questions by the Government. They have not been asked, "Why are marriages breaking down, and what can be done about it?"
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |