| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Alison: I am sorry, but I shall not give way to interventions; I do not want to hold up the House for long.
My hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe is misinterpreting the significance of the three-month period. The three months are not an extension of divorce proceedings, but an attempt--through the use of professional counsellors, on a one-to-one basis--to examine with a couple, singly or together, whether they really want to go forward with the proceedings. It is not a part of the mediation process, which is a part of the divorce proceedings; it is to discover whether proceedings should be started at all.
I very much hope that the distinction will be borne in mind and that my hon. Friend the Minister will accept that we are not trying to slip in an extension to the divorce proceedings. We are trying to ascertain whether it might be possible to scratch some of the parties running in this horrific race.
For the reasons that I have outlined, I cannot support the amendment.
Mr. Peter Bottomley:
I take a different view from that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby(Mr. Alison) and support my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Sir J. Lester), who proposed that the reflection period should not be added on to the 12 or 18 months. I have to tell the hon. Member for Barking (Ms Hodge) that this does not apply only to marriages where children are involved--it applies whether or not there are children involved. I agree with Lord Habgood that we should not have different laws for marriage, depending on whether or not children are involved. We should ensure that children's interests are fully taken into account before parents can separate and be free to marry again.
I shall speak briefly to amendment No. 103. In Committee of the whole House, we debated whether there should be an extension of six or 12 months on top of the 12 months set out in the Bill by the Lord Chancellor. In reviewing the debates on what is now subsection (11) of clause 7, I found very few references to children. In that debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) said:
Reference has been made to the Children Act 1989. It is worth recalling the success of that Act, which has contributed to a dramatic reduction in the number of children taken into care. Those of us who believe that children should be with their parents wherever possible will regard that fact as a significant success, and one that shows that it ought to be possible by law to remove incentives for families to break up unnecessarily. People who criticise the Act cannot have studied its impact. One of the principles of the 1989 Act is that uncertainty should not remain in children's lives. I agree.
Clause 7(13) states:
The second is where the children come in. Amendment No. 103 would omit subsection (11), which states:
That argument did not take place in Committee of the whole House, but I do not think that, after 9 pm, after a fairly full day on Report, it is right to think that, in two or three minutes, probably under pressure from the business managers even though there might be a free vote, we can rehearse all the arguments.
I simply ask that we put this idea to the other place when it considers the amendment we have made and ask whether it might reverse the impact of subsection (12)(b) combined with subsection (11) and make it an option for either party to a marriage to apply for the extra six months if it would be beneficial for any child involved. We should not assume that, whatever the circumstances, it would be in the child's interests to add on six months.
Mr. Llwyd:
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that that part of the Bill does not allow adequate consideration for the rights and welfare of children. Let me say for the record that I agree with him entirely.
Mr. Bottomley:
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. For those who have not read our Committee proceedings, I recommend the contributions by the hon. Gentleman, who brought his expertise to the way in which the law works in the interests of children.
We can improve on the changes that were made by the House. Although I did not support the addition of six months, I am perfectly willing to accept it, as I have no strong views on the matter. However, we should not automatically assume that, because of the presence of a child under 16, an extra six months on the time in which a divorce can be granted would necessarily be in the interests of that child.
If the House of Lords takes the opportunity to decide whether that presumption should be reversed, when the Bill returns to the House, we should consider that decision with open minds and not look on it as one of the battles
over whether divorce law should be reformed. We should put the interests of the child first and make the change accordingly.
Mrs. Maddock:
I entirely agree with the arguments adduced by the hon. Member for Broadstone in moving the amendment.
Mrs. Maddock:
I should have stuck to Nottingham, as I probably would have been right.
Joking apart, the hon. Member for Broxtowe(Sir J. Lester) is absolutely right. Hon. Members are concerned about what will happen to children. Whatever we support in the Bill, we all agree that the welfare of children and families is paramount. However, we disagree as to the best way of legislating with that in mind.
The hon. Member for Broxtowe was absolutely right to say that it is wrong to draw out divorce proceedings. I take a different point of view from that of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight). My parents divorced, and I could not wait to get away from the endless arguments. It depends on the family how quickly the children may want their parents' marriage to end.
The evidence from a wide range of bodies, and all the research carried out when the Bill originally went to the House of Lords, shows that, on balance, it is better for children if the process is not drawn out. That applies particularly to young children, as 22 months is a long time in the life of a one-year-old.
I made the same point when we discussed the Housing Bill. We are bad at tying up all the different legislation that applies to children. As two hon. Members have already pointed out, what we are doing tonight may not be consistent with the Children Act. The same applies to other legislation. I support the amendment. It is right that the House should have the opportunity to vote on it again. It is in the interests of children and of co-ordinating our legislation.
Mr. Bill Michie (Sheffield, Heeley):
I shall be brief, as we debated the matter at considerable length in Committee.
The right hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) likened the measure to a horse race, and said that we should find out whether the horse is fit enough before the race starts. Frankly, that is not a good analogy.
9.15 pm
"Children want their parents to stay together. We would wholly reject any amendment that would reduce the waiting time to less than 12 months."--[Official Report, 24 April 1996; Vol. 276, c. 505.]
There was no significant debate on whether what is now subsection (11), in association with subsection (13), has it right.
"If this subsection applies, the period for reflection and consideration is extended by a period of six months, but without invalidating the application for a divorce order."
There are two sets of circumstances in which subsection (13) comes into play. The first, which I think was the main point that we considered in Committee of
the whole House, is when one of the parties involved in an application for a divorce applies to the court within the prescribed period for time for further reflection. That was the House's decision, and I think that we should accept it. When it goes back to another place, I think that it should also be accepted there. It is a way of getting agreement that most of us would go for.
"Where any application for a divorce order is made, subsection (13) also applies if there is any child of the family under the age of sixteen when the statement is received via the court."
Subsection (12) states:
"Subsection (13) does not apply if"--
I leave out paragraph (a) as it is not relevant to my argument--
"(b) the court is satisfied that delaying the making of the divorce order would be significantly detrimental to the welfare of any child of the family."
I think that we should reverse that, and say that there should be a six-month extension if the court is satisfied that it would be beneficial to the welfare of a child.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |