Mr. John Patten (Oxford, West and Abingdon): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on tabling the new clause and related amendments. He has certainly hit the ground running since he assumed his new responsibilities.

I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng), who asked where the resources are to come from, which is a proper question to ask. I also listened carefully to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight), who asked where the counsellors are to come from. I should like to probe a little further and ask: who is to counsel the counsellors? Who is to safeguard the standards of counselling available under the Bill?

First, I should like to hear from my hon. Friend the Minister what mechanisms the Lord Chancellor's Department, under the guidance of my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor, intends to set up within the Department to screen the counselling organisations and counsellors, whether paid or voluntary. Of course, I pay tribute to the many voluntary counsellors, especially those from Church organisations, through to those from professional organisations and back again, who so selflessly give of their time. Some people might think, however, that the rot set in at some organisations when they adopted more politically correct titles such as Relate or Marriage Care. I stood at the Bar of another place and heard the phrase "couple counselling" falling from the lips of a noble prelate.

We must be extremely cautious if we are to provide large sums in the search for a small band of counsellors, some of whom might not be wholly committed to the sustaining of marriage and might be more concerned with couple counselling, or whatever it is fashionably called.

Secondly, I also urge my hon. Friend the Minister--I hope that he finds time to deal with this point when he winds up the debate--to give an idea of when the proposals that we are now debating, should they be accepted, will be brought into effect. There is not much point in the Government tabling amendments, which, although welcome, still give rise to unanswered questions such as, "Where are the resources coming from?" and, "Where are the counsellors coming from?" and which contain the suggestion that all will be well, if they may not come into effect for many years. In other words, I suggest that none of the Bill's provisions should be put into effect until those relating to marriage counselling have been introduced, because the first will fail without adequate and proper provision for the second.

I shall look forward to hearing what my hon. Friend has to say, while I congratulate him on the excellent amendments.

Mr. Peter Bottomley (Eltham): I think that my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Mr. Patten) is advocating something that would be harmful. It is perfectly plain to everyone who has been following the Bill's progress in another place and in this House that at present 75 per cent. of divorces go through in about six months after the application has been lodged. If we delay implementation of the Bill, we shall not get the benefit, which will have a significant impact on the number of divorces, of requiring people to wait for at least a year, if not longer, from the moment of application.

17 Jun 1996 : Column 542

I have quoted elsewhere the evidence from Canada, where a minimum provision of a year has led to one divorce application in five being withdrawn by the person who made the application. To throw away that benefit--the time for reflection and possibly for reconciliation, although not necessarily by counselling--will lead to more divorces and potentially to more unhappiness in people's future marriages, should they commit themselves to a further marriage.

Counselling is an important issue. It would be taking an un-Conservative view to say that all marriage counsellors have to be either state funded or state approved. There are many areas of independence in which Parliament and Government should have a limited role. If we--rightly--make provision for marriage counselling, we ought to allow a good deal of freedom. Many marriage guidance organisations are Church based, but do not provide services only for members of their own faith.

Hon. Members are perhaps divided, although not along party lines, on what the Bill actually does. I take my lead from His Grace the Duke of Norfolk, who spoke wisely in another place, saying that he was glad that the Bill was called not the Divorce Bill but the Family Law Bill.

It is worth reminding the House of words written 30 years ago, before political correctness could be accused of infecting any of our Churches. The report entitled "Putting Asunder" states:

"We were persuaded that a divorce law founded on the doctrine of breakdown would not only accord better with social realities than the present law does, but would have the merit of showing up divorce for what in essence it is--not a reward for marital virtue on the one side and a penalty for marital delinquency on the other; not a victory for one spouse and a reverse for the other; but a defeat for both, a failure of the marital 'two-in-oneship' in which both members, however unequal their responsibility, are involved together. So we arrived at our primary and fundamental recommendation: that the doctrine of the breakdown of marriage should be comprehensively substituted for the doctrine of the matrimonial offence as the basis of all divorce".

The suggestion that people involved in marriage guidance support the idea of extra counselling because it means extra work for them is to undervalue the commitment, which is often voluntary, of people who, through Church or secular organisations and whether because of some sense of humanity or faith, give of themselves and their time to try to help save the marriages of others and help reduce the avoidable disadvantage, distress and handicap that often occur when a relationship turns out to be less than perfect and when the commitment of marriage, which may have been entered into wholeheartedly, is fractured.

We should not make too much of marriage guidance organisations changing their names; instead, we should be concerned about the continuity of those involved in them. Members of my family have been involved in marriage guidance for the past 50 or 60 years and, on their behalf, I would take it as a gross insult to hear it said that they are the victims of political correctness. They want to increase people's happiness and help their marriages if possible.

17 Jun 1996 : Column 543

Dame Jill Knight: It is not easy or cheap for an organisation to change its name; indeed, it is very complicated. Does not my hon. Friend think that there must have been a reason for an organisation to drop the word "marriage" from its title? Is not that significant; or have I and others got it all wrong?

Mr. Bottomley: I would not want to accuse my hon. Friend of getting anything all wrong, but there are different perspectives. I do not want to go into too much detail on that point, because I want to get more deeply involved in other matters later.

I think that I was the first hon. Member to introduce a debate on family policy and strengthening the family. That was in 1978. I think that I also introduced the second debate in 1982. The aim of helping families and establishing a family policy is shared by hon. Members on both sides of the House, but it is wrong to read too much into a change of name. Many voluntary organisations have changed their name over the years, but we should remember that the vast majority of people involved in counselling want to help marriages last and understand the distress of people who come along for counselling. Perhaps it would be useful if more people went to counselling even before they began to consider divorce.

Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): I understood that one of the principal reasons why the Marriage Guidance Council changed its name to Relate was that so much of its work consisted of teaching in schools and helping people to create relationships other than within marriage--not household relationships, but helping people to overcome bereavement or to get used to retirement, for example--and it thought that its original title was far too narrow.

Mr. Bottomley: We can agree that most of the work undertaken by organisations such as the Jewish Marriage Council or what were the Catholic Marriage Advisory Council and the Marriage Guidance Council is to help people who want their marriages to have a chance of lasting.

Mr. Streeter: We have had an interesting and helpful debate, and I am grateful to all those who have spoken in support of the new clause. I should like briefly to respond to a number of points that have been raised, as we have a long way to go.

Once again, the hon. Member for Brent, South(Mr. Boateng) raised the important issue of costs. I am tempted to say that we believe that the Bill is cost neutral, although it is not as cost neutral as it used to be. However, that would be daft.

First, it must be obvious that if there is mediation--and one person is representing two people--instead of legal proceedings where each party has a lawyer, only one person is being funded and there is clearly a saving to be made. Secondly, we believe that the Bill will achieve a reduction in conflict and litigation generally in the divorce

17 Jun 1996 : Column 544