| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
8.45 pm
Mr. Llwyd: I do not propose to speak to amendment No. 105 as it was discussed at length in Committee. The hour is late and there is much work to get through, so I shall not address the issue at this point.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments made: No. 26, in page 3, line 30, after 'the' insert 'specified'.
No. 27, in page 3, line 30, at end insert--
No. 28, in page 3, leave out line 32 and insert 'the specified period'.--[Mr. Streeter.]
Sir Jim Lester:
I beg to move amendment No. 11, in page 4, line 26, leave out 'one year' and insert 'nine months'.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendment No. 29.
Amendment No. 103, in page 5, line 21, leave out subsection (11).
Government amendments Nos. 30 to 35.
Amendment No. 8, in page 5 line 34, at end insert--
Sir Jim Lester:
I am delighted to move the amendment. It is perhaps the shortest amendment on the amendment paper, but that does not reflect its importance. It is the only way in which we can keep faith with all those who have worked to produce the Bill over 10 years, with all the consultation and procedures, and with the way in which hon. Members voted during the Committee stage on the Floor of the House.
The amendment deals with the period of reflection and consideration, which was thoroughly debated in Committee on the Floor of the House. I speak against the background to the drafting of the legislation, over a long time, of 75 per cent. of divorces going through in seven months, of 20 per cent. going through by agreement within two years and of 5 per cent. going through within five years.
My experience is that, when confronted with a variety of choices on a free vote, hon. Members make a clear and understandable decision. When the House voted on the two-year period, it decisively rejected it. I was a Teller for the other two votes, and as such was able to see how hon. Members voted in the Lobby. In expressing their feelings that there should be a difference between marriages where there is agreement on ending it and those where one of the parties disagrees, hon. Members voted for an additional six months. Despite that, the measure was carried by only four votes. None the less, it was a free vote and those who sought to make more of it, particularly the newspapers, did the House a great disservice. A free vote is a free vote: there is no such thing as a Conservative vote, a Labour vote or a Cabinet Ministers' vote. In a free vote, there is only one vote--that of the individual casting it. The earlier debate was genuine and the House decided on that differentiation.
In Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) and other Committee members made the argument, which I accept, that if one is to try to save a marriage, the right time is the beginning of the process, not the end. My hon. Friend succeeded in persuading the Committee that after the information session, three months should be allowed--some people call it a cooling-off or waiting period--for the couple to absorb the information that they have been given and to make arrangements for counselling, with a view to reconciliation. Again, the Government have introduced a forward-looking new clause on the value of counselling. The emphasis was wholly changed by offering an early opportunity to couples who could achieve reconciliation.
All that happened in the knowledge that most marriages do not suddenly come to an end, but instead die over a considerable period. The act of seeking information to obtain a divorce is not an instant decision. People do not wake up in the morning and say, "Good gracious me. I think I will go and get divorced." In the majority of cases,
that action comes at the end of a protracted and difficult time. We took the view that if there was the hope of saving any marriages through reconciliation, it was worth taking the chance.
The effect of the three-month extension, which was not known to hon. Members in Committee on the Floor of the House, was to extend the 12-month period agreed by the House to 15 months and the 18-month allowance to 22 months. National Family Mediation made it clear that, after the information meeting, couples will have three months to consider. After two weeks, the other party will be notified--then follows the statement and the period for reflection and consideration, which is currently 12 months and 18 months. Securing the divorce order takes one month, which makes 22 and a half months. The NFM pointed out that such delay will do nothing to benefit mediation or reconciliation. In many cases, it could make matters infinitely more difficult because it appears to be a case of marking time.
Mr. Tipping:
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will comment on the effect of a 22-month delay, which in many cases cannot be good for the welfare of the children involved or helpful in planning for their future.
Sir Jim Lester:
I accept that point, which was made by many organisations that deal with children and divorce. I make no bones about being opposed to the original extension. I was happy with 12 months, and was a Teller in the Division to try to maintain that period. However, I am also a democrat and totally accept the will of the House. It voted for 12 months and 18 months. I only emphasise that the House did not know at that stage that it was intended to extend the period, with all the consequential problems to which reference has been made.
My amendment will maintain the original overall period that the House found acceptable when the matter was debated in Committee on the Floor of the House. More important, the original time allowed continues to receive the support of many hon. Members who opposed the extension.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman:
My hon. Friend is really saying that we should not bother with a Committee stage because we will just shove the whole lot back afterwards.
Sir Jim Lester:
I regard this legislation as critically important. I do not know how many times my hon. Friend has taken part in a debate on the Floor of the House involving a free vote on particular information. When a Bill is altered in Committee, it is surely right to think again.
The original documents, Green Papers and endless consultations that contributed to the Bill took 10 years. They all supported the 12-month period, but most of the people involved have accepted the will of the House to provide an extension to 18 months in certain cases. If my amendment is not accepted, the two-year period that the House emphatically refused to endorse will get in through the back door. We must keep faith with court welfare officers, mediators, conciliators and the legal profession, who know much more about the effect of time spent on processing divorces than many hon. Members.
Mr. Julian Brazier (Canterbury):
My hon. Friend, who played a distinguished role in Committee, mentioned a
Sir Jim Lester:
Those experts, who are deeply concerned about existing divorce law, have fully participated in the discussions augmented by the Government to secure approval for the Bill. The experts accepted the Lord Chancellor's original proposal that 12 months was adequate but, following the vote on the Floor of the House, they accepted the six-month extension. They did not have a chance to be consulted or to consider the extension to 15 and to 22 and a half months.
I understand that my amendment is the subject of a free vote for Conservative Members. The guide to this evening's voting produced by the Whips Office makes it clear that there is a free vote, but it refers to an amendment that
'(4A) Subsection (4B) applies if, before the end of the specified period, the parties jointly give notice to the court that they are attempting reconciliation but require additional time.
(4B) The specified period--
(a) stops running on the day on which the notice is received by the court; but
(b) resumes running on the day on which either of the parties gives notice to the court that the attempted reconciliation has been unsuccessful.
(4C) If the specified period is interrupted by a continuous period of more than 18 months, any application by either of the parties for a divorce order or for a separation order must be by reference to a new statement received by the court at any time after the end of the 18 months.'.
'(14) The Lord Chancellor may make rules prescribing the circumstances in which the court may order the abridgement of the period for reflection and consideration.'.
"seeks to reduce the 18/12-month period to 15/9 months by incorporating the three-month waiting period."
Any hon. Member who has not followed the Bill or served on the Committee might not appreciate that those are three extra months added in Committee. It is neither my intention nor that of the amendment to reduce the original period for reconciliation for which the House voted. My intention is to maintain that period and to keep faith with the House in the way that it voted when it had all the information available.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |