| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Streeter: I start where I should start--with a fulsome tribute to my immediate predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans),
whose stewardship of the Bill was exemplary and who was largely responsible for its strengthening in Committee.
The amendments respond to concern that couples should be encouraged to access marriage counselling and other marriage support services that may help a couple to save their marriage. There has been cross-party support for such amendments, but I particularly thank my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle(Mr. Leigh) for seeking to ensure that those amendments are based on voluntary access to services rather than compulsion--which we and the marriage support services believe is likely to generate more effective referrals and a better chance of counselling proving successful.
I pay tribute to the various organisations that comprise the marriage support services not only for their advice during consultation and in preparing the legislation, but for all that they do in supporting couples in crisis. Marriage support services make a major contribution to the well-being of society, for which the House thanks them.
The Government are committed to providing a system that gives couples information, access to services and time to consider whether their marriage can be saved--and to ensuring the best possible use of available resources. The amendments go further than any previous Government have in providing support for marriage.
Amendment No. 18 seeks to give explicit force to that commitment, by stating that the parties to a marriage that has broken down will be encouraged to take all practicable steps to save it by counselling or otherwise. The importance of counselling is thus given explicit emphasis, but is not to be regarded as exclusive. The Government are endeavouring to provide the basis for a continuum of information and services for couples at all stages in their relationship. That provision will cover not only couples who may, sadly, be considering divorce, but couples who are deciding to marry, as well as assistance early during a problem in a marriage--before the difficulty becomes a crisis.
Considerable concern has been expressed in debate about adequate attention being given to the funding of measures that seek to prevent a couple's relationship difficulties reaching the stage at which they consider divorce. Amendment No. 52 requires the Lord Chancellor to have particular regard to such services when making grant-in-aid payments for marriage support services and research.
Mr. Tony Marlow (Northampton, North):
There is an implication that such services will cost money. How much will they cost, and where will that money come from?
Mr. Streeter:
My hon. Friend is right to make the point that the Government do not believe that a problem will go away by throwing money at it. I am sure that he agrees that investing in healthy marriages will save the country money in the long term. Bearing it in mind that the legislation will not come into force for two years, we do not yet know precisely what the take-up will be, but it is important to invest in strong and stable marriages.
Such services could include marriage preparation initiatives, work at major turning points in a couple's relationship, such as the birth of a first child,
and information about services provided at places where people might otherwise go for information, so that take-up of marriage support services can be encouraged. That provision will support the work of the interdepartmental working party--not a glamorous title, but an important project that has highlighted early intervention as a priority. The working party has today issued a consultation paper on how best to deliver those services. The results of that consultation will inform the funding of pilot projects that have particular potential for reducing the incidence and costs of marriage breakdown. We have also announced that research will be undertaken into the problems faced by couples at different stages in their relationship, so that we can match services to need more effectively--which will involve funding additional to existing grant-in-aid provision.
Clause 8, which concerns the information meeting, already specifies that information must be given to couples about counselling and support services. It provides for couples eligible for non-contributory legal aid to be encouraged to take up an explanatory meeting with a marriage counsellor. The amendment seeks to ensure that such meetings will be held with suitably qualified staff and that standards can be set and maintained. The amendment enables the circumstances in which such meetings are held to be prescribed, to ensure that the funding for such meetings is used appropriately--that there is value for money.
New clause 13 is designed to encourage the take-up of marriage counselling during the period of reflection and consideration. Such a service would be voluntarily entered into. The information meeting will ensure that couples are aware of such services and will be encouraged to access them where they may be of assistance, but the Government do not believe that such a service will be effective if it is compulsory. That view is shared by marriage counselling services.
The amendments ensure that service standards can be set and maintained, by giving the Lord Chancellor, or a person appointed by him, the power to attach conditions to the funding of marriage counselling. That may include standards of training or other qualifications. I should emphasise that such services will be focused on marriage counselling and not on any other form of counselling that does not have the couple's possible reconciliation as a primary objective. That service will be supported by additional funding. Before the arrangements are finalised, such arrangements will be piloted extensively, to ensure that the service is effective and that standards can be assured.
The amendments provide a structure that is designed to support strong and stable marriages. In this country, there has never been such a framework to support marriage and I urge the House to support the amendments.
Mr. Paul Boateng (Brent, South):
Labour Members welcome the Government's conversion, albeit relatively late in the day, to the view that marriage guidance and counselling, and establishing a framework within which that might take place, are important. When I look at Conservative Members and my hon. Friends around me, I recall the Second Reading debate, when some of us expressed regret that the Government had, at that time, missed an opportunity to set the Bill and the debate on it within the context of what the Archbishop of Westminster, Cardinal Basil Hume, has described as the
The framework has been established. A place has been found for marriage guidance, counselling and a specific focus on reconciliation. Concern remains, and with good cause. One sees whence that cause emanates when one bears in mind the intervention of the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow). Concern remains about the commitments on resources in this sector. Without clear, adequate funding guarantees, there is no way in which it will be possible for organisations such as Marriage Care, Relate and others, to which I pay tribute and which are doing valuable work in this sector, to contribute to the success of any such framework. We want the Minister to give, in no uncertain terms, that guarantee to establish the initial infrastructure, without which information meetings encouraging people to move towards reconciliation, where it is appropriate, will be of little avail. We want a clear commitment that that infrastructure will be established, but, more than that, at this stage of our deliberations, we want the Government to come clean about the cost.
At the outset of the consideration of the Bill--both here and in the other place--the claim was made that it was cost neutral. Some of us have made it crystal clear that that simply cannot be the case. There is no way in which the Bill, either as it was originally constituted or as it is now--it has improved in some respects, and the Government amendments show one particular area of improvement--can be funded within the existing budget.
We shall shortly be required to make a decision not simply on this new clause, but on the future of the Bill. There is no way that we can do that on Third Reading without at least some guidance on costs from the Minister and a clear sign that the Government no longer hold to the absurd proposition that the Bill is cost neutral. We want to hear from the Minister--indeed, we are entitled to hear--in quite unequivocal terms how much he thinks this measure will cost and whether he has moved away from the position taken by his predecessor and the Lord Chancellor, that the Bill is cost neutral.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |