| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Rowe: I could not have more sympathy with my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston
(Dame J. Knight) and the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) in their attempt to strengthen the institution of marriage. I must say, however, that if a wedding in church means anything--I accept that some families still regard a church wedding as a social photo opportunity, although they are few and far between--it means a young couple seriously entering into what they hope will be a lifelong marriage, bolstered by the Church's historical vows for that purpose and strengthened, they hope, by the many people who have come to take part in the ceremony. One hopes that they will also be prepared for marriage, and all Church denominations are taking increasingly seriously their responsibility to prepare couples for marriage. I fail to see, therefore, how the registration of an additional deed would strengthen their marriage.
A young couple making their vows to each other in the presence of the God in whom they believe cannot make a more solemn undertaking. If, unhappily, the marriage goes wrong and they decide to divorce, they experience huge anxiety as they try to salve their consciences.
Mr. Alton:
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that that might be so if both partners freely agree to end their relationship, but in the circumstances that we are debating one or other partner will be divorced against his or her will? How will that leave them if they conscientiously object to the concept of divorce? Some people conscientiously believe that marriage is for life and that marital breakdown excludes the possibility of remarriage. The new clause seeks to cover merely that point and neither the hon. Gentleman nor I should impute what we want on others; let them decide for themselves.
Mr. Rowe:
I have no qualms whatever about young couples signing such an agreement, but it is extraordinary to include such a provision in a Bill. We must remember that we are debating an institution to which a growing number of young people do not subscribe. Many young people who decide to live together enter into such a solemn undertaking and sign agreements. Some of them even register the agreements with lawyers or others. The majority of people who enter into any form of marriage do so with the intention of making it last.
Dame Jill Knight:
I did not follow the line that my hon. Friend took when he seemed to suggest that what we are seeking already exists. If people can already make an extra commitment, what is wrong with allowing them to continue to do so?
Mr. Rowe:
I am not clear how the Bill, as drafted, would prevent them from doing so. That is my difficulty. There is no reason why they should not sign such a document.
Mr. Leigh:
Under English law, the courts will rule that statute must take precedence over private covenants or deeds. Therefore, without the new clause, a deed made by a couple at the time of their marriage is not only unenforceable but uniquely unenforceable, and the courts will deliberately overturn it. That is why the new clause must be passed.
Mr. Rowe:
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his explanation because I was not aware of that, but to ask
There is the serious risk of the House giving the impression that marriage should be made as difficult to sustain as possible--that penalties and difficulties should be laid in the way of those who want to marry and to try to make their marriage work--whereas it should be a joyful and sustaining partnership in which the state's interest is manifest. If the new clause is agreed, all that will happen is what is happening with increasing speed--more couples will refuse to take the risk of getting married to avoid the obstacle that the House is in danger of laying before them.
Mr. Donald Anderson (Swansea, East):
I have some difficulty in framing my response to the new clause because I have enormous respect for the hon. Members for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight, and for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton). I wish to speak along the broad lines of the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe).
I well understand the background that motivates the new clause: the decline of marriage as an institution, the casualties--especially children, who are often the innocent victims--and the wish as far as possible to buttress the institution of marriage. I am not sure, however, that this instrument will have any effect.
The new clause has been sold by the hon. Member for Edgbaston as allowing couples, if they wish, to make a firmer commitment at the time of marriage. She and I, at different times, went through a church marriage. We made our solemn vows and they are binding on us. As the hon. Member for Mid-Kent said, there can be nothing more solemn than a couple's joint declaration in a church before God.
I do not know what more the hon. Member for Edgbaston wants. If, in addition to the church declaration before God, any couple wish to make a covenant between themselves, they are entitled to do so. The real question is whether that covenant, declaration or whatever should be underpinned by statute or by the state. I doubt whether such an underpinning would have any real effect.
It implies some lack of trust if one partner, having gone through the church ceremony of marriage and having made a most solemn undertaking, insists on some further measure to prove undying commitment. One knows from personal experience that those who are ready to make the most grand declarations and to enter into the most serious covenants may not be those who are most serious about marriage.
My first unhappiness about the new clause is that it implies a lack of trust among people who enter into marriage and my second is that it would have no practical effect. Yes, I am as unhappy as the hon. Member for Edgbaston about the decline in respect for marriage and all the other matters that have been mentioned, but how will the problems described by the hon. Member for Mossley Hill--feckless fathers and the neglect of children--be affected one jot if the new clause is passed?
It would not tackle social ills. If partners want to enter such an agreement, so be it. The hon. Lady said that it was a matter of conscience. Conscience is for individuals, and we are devising--however inadequately--ways in
which the state can deal with the institution of marriage and with marriages that do not last. Although I respect the motives behind the new clause, it would not work.
Mr. Leigh:
I rise to support the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) and to speak to my amendment No. 119. My hon. Friend and I support the verdict of the House, which wants no-fault divorces. We are not seeking to reverse the vote in favour of them but is there any reason, in a free society, for not allowing people to state at the time of marriage their conscientious belief in the Christian concept of marriage? Such a deed would be drawn up according to the teachings of the various Christian Churches. I am not familiar with the teachings of other religions but no doubt they could do the same.
We are not trying to put fault back into the Bill. There is no question of including words such as "adultery", "desertion" or "conduct". The contract would be a matter of free choice but solemnly entered into--and it would not create two classes of marriage. There are already many different sorts of marriage ceremonies. No vows are made in the register office but solemn vows are exchanged in church.
As I told my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe), the problem with any solemn vows made in church at present is that the courts view them as uniquely unenforceable.
Mr. Peter Bottomley:
Is adultery a ground for annulment? If so, what would be the effect of the commitment in the new clause?
Mr. Leigh:
I must be careful not to speak on behalf of the Holy Father or to enter into protracted ecclesiastical discussion with my hon. Friend as to what are or are not grounds for divorce under the teachings of Christian Churches. The Catholic Church allows annulment and even permits divorce. It holds that if one is divorced and wants to remain a practising member of the Catholic Church, one cannot remarry. There is little use delving deeper into theological matters--the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) explained them well.
Amendment No. 119 is separate from my hon. Friend's new clause. which I hope the House will be minded to accept. If it does, the House can also accept my amendment. If the House does not adopt new clause 9, my amendment would still stand alone. Some hon. Members may feel unable to support my hon. Friend's new clause but I hope that they will support my amendment.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |