Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Bill [Lords]

[Dame Eleanor Laing in the Chair]

I should explain that in these exceptional circumstances, although the Chair of the Committee would normally sit in the Clerk’s Chair during the Committee stage, in order to comply with social distancing requirements I will remain in the Speaker’s Chair although I will be carrying out the role not of Deputy Speaker but of Chairman of the Committee. If Members obey the rules to the letter, the occupant of the Chair at this time should be addressed not as Deputy Speaker but as Chairman of the Committee. Just before we commence, I should inform the Committee that there has been a production error on the amendment paper. The names of Bob Blackman and Nick Fletcher should not have been published in support of new clause 4 and new clause 5.

Clause 1

Divorce: removal of requirement to establish facts etc

I beg to move amendment 1, page 2, line 8, leave out “20” and insert “46”

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 2, page 2, line 9, at end insert—

‘(5A) For the purposes of subsection (5), “the start of the proceedings” means—

(a) in the case of an application that is to proceed as an application by both parties to the marriage, the date on which both parties apply for an order under subsection (1), or

(b) in the case of an application that is to proceed as an application by one party to the marriage only, the date when the notice of an application for a divorce order has been received by the other party to the marriage.’

Amendment 3, page 2, line 19, at end insert—

‘(8A) In the case of an application that is to proceed as an application by one party to the marriage only, there shall be no commencement of financial provision proceedings until the end of the period of 20 weeks from the start of the proceedings for the divorce order unless—

(a) the other party to the marriage agrees to the commencement of financial provision proceedings, or

(b) there is an application under section 22 for the court to make an order for maintenance pending suit.’

Clause stand part.

Clauses 2 and 3 stand part.

This Bill is a bad Bill. It sends out the wrong message at the wrong time. No-fault divorce is really state-approved unilateral divorce. Ministers like to say that it is all about the divorce process and not about marriage. They are wrong. The removal of fault sends out the signal that marriage can be unilaterally exited with no available recourse for the party who has been left. The public get it, even if Ministers do not. In the “Finding fault?” national opinion survey, 71% thought that fault should remain in law. That is a survey on which, in other respects, the Government have relied in bringing forward this legislation. Even in the Government’s own consultation, 80% opposed the proposals, and the Bill was not even in our manifesto.

Making divorce easier and quicker will inevitably change the nature of the commitment that is made when marrying, because those doing so will recognise that it is something that can be exited easily and quickly, without having to prove that the relationship has broken down. Commitment within marriage will become unreliable. People will marry less due to the low expectation of permanence in marriage, and they will cohabit more as the distinction between the two is eroded and what marriage really means becomes confused: no longer “till death us do part”, but “until I give you six months’ notice to quit, with no reason given.”

Asymmetric relationships will increase—that is, people entering marriage with different expectations. That is a recipe for misunderstandings, instability and heartache. I accept that in some cases—though by no means all, or even a majority—faults cited on a petition may bear little resemblance to the actual reasons for a marriage faltering. This appears to be the root of the Government’s reasoning for this Bill—namely, that exaggerated allegations may increase conflict. But herein lies the problem. In seeking to address this issue by removing any requirement to give a reason and by speeding up the process to just six months, the Bill will, in my opinion, create far greater problems. It will fundamentally alter the whole meaning of marriage, with far-reaching consequences. Legislation affects behaviour and culture. That is why we are here. Whether Ministers agree or not, the signal the Bill will send out is that relationships, including marriage, can be transient. Instead of supporting parties when difficulties arise, as we should, the Bill offers an easy way out. That is why I so strongly oppose it.

Stable relationships are good for society as a whole: instability in relationships is the opposite. Unstable relationships are costly for society as a whole. I accept that not all marriages are saveable, but the Bill will accelerate divorce rates, not only with an immediate spike but potentially long term, too. Make something easier and there will be more of it. The Bill will result in fewer marriages. Why bother if marriage does not mean that much? Fewer stable relationships will result. It is likely to foster a preponderance of short, even serial relationships in early and mid-life for those who can obtain them, with a sad parallel in the proliferation of loneliness in old age. It will result in less trust in marriage, more insecurity and, critically, more children experiencing fractured families—particularly more children experiencing shocks at the sudden fracturing of a marriage. It will result in quick splits, with some children left grieving potentially for years afterwards. For some, their health, educational and employment life chances will be gravely affected.

Generations to come will pay a high price for the Bill, in terms of emotional and physical health and wellbeing, a loss of wider family relationships—not least between grandparents and grandchildren—and the support and security they bring, and a further weakening of community life, because stable marriages promote stronger communities. When we are unhappy, we are very often less efficient in our studies and at work, and so there will be lower productivity and hence a less prosperous nation with the state—all of us—picking up the financial and other costs involved. In sum, there will be less human flourishing.

So many others, apart from the parties, suffer when marriages break up. There is an epidemic of loneliness in this country today. Why? In many cases, it is fractured families. There is an epidemic of mental health problems in children. Why? In many cases, it is fractured families. Those promoting the Bill should recognise its wider implications, not just provide a quick and easy exit for one or both parties. That is why amendment 1 is so important, and I am minded to test the will of the House on it. It would extend the minimum legal period for a divorce from six months to one year. The 20-week period in clause 1 is far too short. It needs extending, and I urge colleagues to support amendment 1, not least to help reduce the shock for a vulnerable woman with young children, like the one I described on Second Reading, who could be left in a potentially desperate position.

Here is a scenario anticipated by one experienced family lawyer as a result of the Bill. He describes how a man, if he wants to get out of a marriage, can railroad through his application in six months, leaving the woman at the end of that period without anything like adequate financial means. She could then be forced into a poor financial settlement simply to survive. We have talked a lot in this place in recent years about non-violent domestic abuse: would not that really be another form of that? In many cases, the stronger and more financially endowed partner will leave their partner—often a woman, occasionally a man—extremely vulnerable. It is a so-called petitioner’s charter.

Saying that the Bill will reduce conflict surely misses the point. If a man—or woman—can behave unreasonably by walking quickly away without being held to account, giving a reason or dialoguing rationally, why should he behave any more reasonably during negotiations relating to finances or children, which is when the real conflict occurs, as experienced family lawyers tell us time and again? The Bill does nothing to address that. That would have been a better place to focus on in the Bill rather than removing fault.

Amendment 1 would at least give more time for discussion, a longer breathing space an opportunity to take counsel, or at least help to bring a better end to the most important, legally binding and emotional commitment any two people can make to each other, to help them plan for life after divorce and, critically, more time to help prepare any children of the marriage for the impact on them and on wider family relationships. Of course, as I say, not all marriages can or should be saved, particularly where there is abuse, but a great deal more may be salvageable than is commonly assumed. Interestingly, research from the Marriage Foundation has found that

“high conflict warring couples are a rarity among couples who split. The vast majority of family breakdown involves low conflict couples, who are largely indistinguishable”—

a year—

“before they split from couples that remain together. Most”—