• Accessibility
• Email alerts
• RSS feeds
• Contact us

5 pm

My right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Mr. Patten) asked about the time scale. We have two years before the implementation of the provisions. It is not my expectation that the Bill will reach the statute book without the marriage guidance provisions being firmly in place. We have two years to ensure that funding is available, and I can give the House an assurance to that effect. We shall be in government to make sure that our assurances are met.

Many hon. Members have mentioned the importance of marriage and the family. Let me stress that the interdepartmental working party on family and marriage is going out to consultation today, seeking ideas as to how exactly we can intervene earlier to support family and marriage. When I have put the Bill to bed this evening--I hope, tucked up safe and sound with the overwhelming support of the House--it will be my highest priority to make sure that the working party does an excellent job in the next 12 months, to elicit ideas as to exactly what we can and should do to support marriage and the family at an early and positive stage.

Mr. David Alton (Liverpool, Mossley Hill): I am grateful to the Minister for what he has just said, and I agree with him entirely. He will know that new clause 16, in my name, has not been selected for debate. It deals with family impact statements. Will he give the House an undertaking that he will refer that idea to the working party and review group? If civil servants and Ministers had to incorporate an impact statement when legislation was being drafted, we would have a better idea--just as we do in local government with environmental impact statements--as to the possible effect of everything, from cuts in child benefit to making divorce easier or more difficult. We would have an idea of the possible effects on the family, not least on the 750,000 children in Britain who no longer have access to their fathers.

Mr. Streeter: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Family impact statements are certainly worth consideration, so I can give him the assurance that he seeks. However, I am not sure that the working party is quite the right forum for his proposal.

Let me make it clear to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) that the working party will have to consider what more can be done to prepare young couples for marriage and to make marriage stronger--or at least to make them understand what they are taking on. I draw upon my experience of taking young couples through a pre-marriage counselling course organised by my local church. My wife and I were involved in that for a number of years and we found that, out of an average crop of six young couples, only four would opt for marriage and two would decide that it should be either not then or not at all. We considered it to be a success rather than a failure if a couple found out before marriage that perhaps they were not right for each other. I support that concept entirely.

My hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston asked where all the counsellors would come from. The system has two years to develop, and it is for the counselling industry--

17 Jun 1996 : Column 545

Ms Glenda Jackson (Hampstead and Highgate): Is the Minister saying that money is available now for the training of additional counsellors, so that they will be ready to take on all the new customers at the end of two years? Is there money for training, and where will it come from?

Mr. Streeter: I shall certainly consider that point and come back to the hon. Lady.

In my experience, Relate is committed to the concept of marriage, and I understand that it is part of the principles of that organisation to believe in marriage. I agree that marriage counsellors who do not believe in marriage are like ministers of religion who do not believe in God.

The hon. Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) raised some important matters that the working party will address, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon raised a number of important points about standards. Wherever the Lord Chancellor's Department, or any organisation empowered by it, enters into a contract with marriage counsellors, we shall ensure that standards are in place that will satisfy my right hon. Friend's concern.

Finally, my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham(Mr. Bottomley) raised an important point about the voluntary sector. I agree with him that many excellent voluntary organisations give counselling advice, and they are worthy of our support.

Mr. Boateng: I am afraid that the Minister's response to my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) gave the game away in respect of the Government's thinking--or the lack of it--in relation to funding. He has said on Report that he will take on board the additional expenditure that is necessary in order to fund the training and provision of counsellors during the two-year implementation period. He promised to give that some thought. My hon. Friends the Members for Hampstead and Highgate, for Barking (Ms Hodge) and for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche) have raised the subject time and again during our deliberations on the Bill. We have raised it on Second Reading and in Committee, and now we have been told that it deserves some thought.

The Government and the Department concerned must have given some thought to how much it will cost to get the bare framework in place for counselling. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) mentioned that in some parts of the country it takes a year to get an appointment with a counsellor. What is the Government's commitment, how much will it cost and where will the money come from? The Minister's notion that he is in a position to give a commitment in relation to some unspecified amount to be incurred by way of expenditure in the next two years--although he does not know how much it will be--demonstrates lack of thought and a lack of clarity in the Government's thinking on those matters. It really is not good enough, and it is clearly a matter that we shall have to take into account during our deliberations on the remaining stages of the Bill.

17 Jun 1996 : Column 546

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 6

Mr. Boateng: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 107, in schedule 9, page 83, line 15,at end insert--

'Transitional arrangements for those who have been living apart

Government amendments Nos. 93 to 95.

Mr. Boateng: New clause 6 is designed to ensure that no injustice is done to the petitioning spouse to a divorce under the old law, who has lived separate and apart from his or her spouse for two years and is seeking a divorce by consent at the expiry of that period--or for five years, where there is a refusal of consent on the part of the respondent--as a result of the Lord Chancellor's bringing into effect the relevant provision of the Bill.

One of the alarming aspects of the Government's approach to the Bill is that they seem to have been caught between two conflicting impulses--the technocratic impulse, which has been present throughout consideration and formulation of the Bill, and the impulse to be seen to be paying at least some lip service to the maintenance of marital bonds. That has led them into error.

At one stage, it was the Government's view that there should be no transitional provision. So, it was just one's bad luck if one happened to have been working on the basis of the old law and was one year and 11 months into separation, or, indeed, one's misfortune if one had a

17 Jun 1996 : Column 547

That was clearly grossly unjust and caused widespread concern among the general public. We tabled the new clause and an alternative in amendment No. 107 to deal with that injustice. During a five or two-year transition period, the Lord Chancellor would have power to make necessary regulations to avoid an ensuing injustice to the parties. Such power is particularly important where children are involved. Uncertainty and damage can be done in such circumstances to children whose parents are precluded from arriving at new arrangements for their welfare or to children whose parents are precluded from entering into new, more formal relationships--when, perhaps, a child has been born of a new relationship--in order to secure their children's legitimacy. Unnecessary and unjust delay in those circumstances is clearly undesirable. Such delay would certainly occur were the House not to agree the need for transitional provisions.

I hope that the Government will accept that there is a need for such transitional provisions and that, accordingly, the Bill will be improved by their inclusion. The Opposition look forward to the Minister's early and positive response, while recognising that, when a similar amendment was tabled in Committee, the then Minister would have none of it. I hope that, now, good sense prevails and the Minister will be able to satisfy the Opposition and the House on the point.

• A-Z index
• Glossary
• Contact us
• Freedom of Information
• Jobs
• Using this website
• Copyright