| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Leigh: My hon. Friend asked me a question and I shall try to answer it. The whole essence of my amendment is, that if someone goes to the court to ask for a hardship bar, he will not argue that his divorce should be based on fault or desertion--that is irrelevant. The hardship bar already exists.
All that that person will do is say, "Can I have some more time"--the court may well reject his request--"because I have a deeply held religious view about marriage, and I believe that it is only fair that I be given more time before the divorce takes place?" That person
will not go into the nature of the divorce; there will be no argument about adultery, desertion or anything else. I assure my hon. Friend that I am not trying to get anything like that into the Bill.
Mr. Bottomley:
I accept that. Some of the issues relating to delay now come under clause 7, which we will consider during our discussions on later amendments.
I have deep sympathy with people who believe that their marriage could have continued, but, because one partner to the marriage decided that it could not, the marriage came to an end. Perhaps a longer delay would have made that more acceptable. I cannot judge that. However, having watched people who have been through that process, my sympathies go in a number of directions, because a number of issues matter.
I want to bring to the attention of the House what has been said by a number of ecclesiastical authorities. The first is:
It is worth noting a letter to the Prime Minister from the Family Law Bill Coalition, which said that the Bill
I have shown how a number of Church authorities are not arguing the option of a two-tier marriage. There is the marriage ceremony, which a number of us have been through--whether civil or religious--where we say that it is our intention that the marriage should last until death. The option is being put before the House today of a separate commitment, which people could opt into, to strike out a number of reasons for the marriage ending if either or both parties want a divorce.
Mr. Alton:
I do not quarrel with the quotations that the hon. Gentleman has cited. However, does he accept that none of them addresses the new clause, because it had not been tabled when those letters were written?
Mr. Bottomley:
I accept that. The question that I earlier put to the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members was whether any of the reasons why people could go to the ecclesiastical authorities and say, "Please tell me in
Until one of those hon. Members who voted against Second Reading but support either the new clause or the amendment can give me the answer to that question, people will still be able to change their minds, either about what they want to do for the rest of their lives, if they believe their marriage has come to an end--which is sad--or that they want in arrears to go back to the ecclesiastical authorities and say, "Can you please be convinced that I was not capable of making a commitment in the first place, either to the deed or to the marriage?"
Mr. Alton:
The hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) earlier made the point about annulment and what is done in accordance with a person's denomination or Church. That is the answer to the hon. Gentleman's question. If, in the covenant at the time of drawing up the deed, someone writes in the proviso that he will be able to avail himself of annulment procedures, that is not a retrospective action--that person is saying in advance that he may seek, through the ecclesiastical authority of his Church, to annul the marriage if it does not succeed.
For someone from the Catholic tradition, that would undoubtedly mean that that person would disavow the right to be married again. That would be a decision entered into freely and fairly at the time of the marriage. That is why it is a matter of conscience--and one that should not trouble the hon. Gentleman too much, because it is something that will be decided by the two people getting married.
Mr. Bottomley:
If I understand the hon. Gentleman correctly, I do not think that he can be right. Is it possible for me to say at the time of my marriage in, let us say, the Roman Catholic Church, that the marriage is going to be for life, but then later on to go to the ecclesiastical authorities and try to convince them that I was not capable of making that commitment at the time, as I did not understand the nature of marriage or there was some other bar?
Mr. Alton:
There may be a reason.
Mr. Bottomley:
There may be a reason. If the hon. Gentleman confirms that it is possible to make a commitment and then later say that I was not capable of making that commitment, would the same thing apply to the deed that is the subject of the new clause?
Mr. Bottomley:
If so, what happens to those who have not made that commitment in the Roman Catholic Church, but, perhaps, in a register office? They would not be able to go to an ecclesiastical authority some years later and ask it to judge their state of mind some years earlier at the time they made the commitment. It shows that the new clause--not the amendment, which approaches the issues in a different way--is not helpful in trying to introduce a two-tier marriage.
What is worse, the new clause basically says to people that, when they are considering marriage, whether civil or religious, they should go through a list of reasons that are
traditionally used as justifications for ending a marriage, and knock them out in advance. It is rather like saying, "Do you intend your marriage to be short-term?" I do not think that people know in advance how they will feel later.
Even if we could manage to halve the number of divorces from 160,000 a year to 80,000, which would be highly desirable, we should do it by convincing people that they want their marriages to continue, rather than saying that, when they believe they have come to an end, they are not in a position to remarry.
I want to cite one or two further quotations because they are important for those who follow our debates.
The last quotation I want to share with the House--there could be more--is:
"The Bill has been strengthened during its difficult passage through Parliament to date in at least three key areas: there is now a longer waiting period in some circumstances"--
in a way, that meets some of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle--
"which more clearly signals the seriousness of marriage; a greater emphasis on reconciliation, offering a better prospect of saving savable marriages; and a statutory provision for marriage support services."
That was said by His Eminence the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster in a letter to The Times on 28 May.
"offers the best chance for a generation of scrapping a system which is widely misused and frequently harmful to the interests of children adults and families as a whole, and of achieving reforms which have a broad basis of support. This approach has been tried in other jurisdictions and is long overdue here. It would be a lost opportunity if the Bill were to be abandoned or rejected now."
That letter includes among its signatories Christine Eames, worldwide president, Mothers Union; James Richards, the director of the Catholic Children's Society; Rabbi Dr. Julian Jacobs, adviser to the Chief Rabbi on inter-faith matters; and Geoffrey Blumenfeld, the director of the Jewish Marriage Council. I shall not give all the names from the Anglican Church.
"It would be quite wrong if Catholic MPs were to be swayed in their view of the Lord Chancellor's proposals by incorrect information about the Catholic bishops' view . . . We can point out to legislators the bishops' positive response to the proposals made in the White Paper."
That was said by Monseigneur Kieran Conry of the Catholic Media Office on 20 October 1995. Again, that was before the new clause was tabled, but it gives the Church's view on trying to move forward to a happier way of allowing people to apply for divorce if they so choose.
"should Christians, and Catholics in particular, shun all attempts to reform the present divorce laws on the basis that divorce goes against the explicit statement of Christ: 'What God has joined together, let no man put asunder'."
That was a reference to Matthew 19, verse 6. The quotation continues:
"I think not, because any attempt to lessen the harm done by divorce should be supported. That does not entail approving divorce but rather tolerating it as a lesser evil if it is the only way of ensuring the rights of the parties and the care and protection of children."
That was said by the Right Rev. Peter Smith, the Roman Catholic Bishop of East Anglia, in a letter toThe Times on 5 November 1995.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |