Prenuptial Agreements

Baroness Featherstone Excerpts

Thursday 27th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Featherstone (LD)]

My Lords, what a very interesting debate. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, on securing it. I have no legal training. I am not sure if I am the only person speaking in this debate who is not a lawyer or a judge of some sort, but I am speaking here on human grounds and common sense, and as a bitter divorcee.

It is a bit sad—I agree with the right reverend Prelate—to think that marriage, which is, or was, a lifetime commitment to another until death do them part, has now to enable a division of chattels, should that marriage end in divorce, even before entering the said marriage, but we are where we are. In 2023, there were 76,089 divorces in the UK, which is about 38% of marriages ending in divorce. This is down from 113,505 divorces in 2021, when 46% of marriages ended in divorce. So we should welcome anything which makes this challenging process better, safer, fairer, easier and less traumatic.

Even though, currently, the courts almost always uphold prenups so long as they are fair, who knows what outcome you will get? Based on the rate of divorce and the contributions from noble Lords who have spoken in the debate today, it seems to me that the time has come for the legitimate status of prenups to be enacted. There are clear pros, as identified by many of your Lordships who have spoken so far, but I am concerned that the negatives have not been erased. What happens when a prenup—which now will have the rule of law on its side—is unfairly drawn but is now a legal contract agreed to by both parties? The noble Baroness referred to that. How will we know the status of the individual agreeing or signing, whether they were coerced, or whether they knew the consequence?

I am particularly concerned about women because, in general, it is still women who earn less, even if they work full-time; it is still women who give up work for the early years after having a baby; it is still women who lose their place in promotions due to absence; and it is still women who are not employed, despite employers theoretically not being allowed to ask a young woman if she intends to have children.

On the other hand, prenups do offer financial protection and ensure that a woman’s personal assets from inheritance or business ownership of investments remain protected in divorce. They can shield a woman from debt, including her husband’s debt, after divorce. They can clarify how finances will be handled in the marriage, and they can support career sacrifices where the woman gives up work to look after the children while the husband furthers his career. Legal battles can be reduced. I am definitely a bit “on the one hand, on the other hand”, but I do come to a conclusion in favour of prenups being legalised.

A fair prenup that takes everything into consideration might be a very good thing, but my concern is even more agitated by the formation of the prenup itself. They may be poorly negotiated, particularly if one partner is wealthy or more powerful. Some prenups waive or limit alimony, which is problematic when a woman has sacrificed her career for marriage. The current protection under default marital laws might protect her better than a prenup, which might restrict her rights. She might be pressurised into signing a prenup—again, if the partner is wealthy or legally savvy, as are many noble Lords who have spoken today. Women would have to be able to have independent legal representation and to afford it, and that might be a challenge as well.

Therefore, if prenups are to become legal, I would want a number of safeguards against those negatives, because it appeared to me from my research for this debate that a prenup may favour whoever negotiates it better or who can afford the better legal adviser. Of course, the key to the success of this is to have strong legal representation and not sign anything under pressure. In the Radmacher v Granatino case, which has been raised by many noble Lords in the House, and with which I am now familiar, the prenup was actually upheld, but it set the precedent for what courts consider fair or unfair.

Then there are the costs: the cost of obtaining legal advice for a prenuptial agreement in the UK obviously varies, based on the complexity of the assets involved, the reputation and location of the solicitor, and the specific needs of the couple.

For straightforward cases with minimal assets, there may be fixed fees starting from £500. Agreements of moderate complexity—those involving more detailed financial arrangements—may cost between £2,000 and £4,000. For high-complexity cases—those with intricate assets, business interests or international considerations—costs can start at £5,000, without a ceiling.

Then there is asset complexity; the more complex the financial situation, the more time and expertise will be required to draft the agreement. In my experience —forgive me for saying this—lawyers always find extra things to charge for. The other issues are legal representation, as both parties need independent legal advice, which doubles the costs; negotiation time, as extended negotiations or revisions can increase fees; and geographical location, as solicitor fees vary depending on where they are in the UK.

Thankfully, some platforms are coming along that offer prenuptial agreement services at a fixed fee of £1,500—the total for both parties—aiming to make it more affordable and accessible. Each member of the couple will have to consult with a qualified family law solicitor to obtain a precise quote tailored to specific circumstances. Costs are significant, but, obviously, if this is to become legal, a well-drafted prenuptial agreement providing clarity could save considerable expenses, as has been mentioned, where divorces can cost a fortune.

As it stands, prenups that would or should be thrown out are those that leave one party in financial hardship; those that were signed under duress, without legal advice or with hidden or misrepresented finances; and those where time has changed the circumstances in which the prenup was agreed. We have not discussed many of the soft challenges. They include the potential for a prenup to undermine trust in a marriage; the sense that the couple feels that it is a bit like planning for a divorce—which, in this day and age, in my view is quite wise; the potential to create a power imbalance; the fact that it can be emotionally hurtful; and the idea that it might look and feel like an insurance policy. On the other hand, prenups can strengthen trust, encourage open communication, prevent future conflict, strengthen a relationship by setting out clear expectations, protect both partners fairly and show maturity and responsibility.

In summation, if prenups are to become legal entities, which I believe they should, they must have some indispensable clauses: on full financial disclosure; on independent legal advice; on no coercion or duress; on asset protection and separation; on debt liability; on spousal maintenance; on inheritance and family assets; and on future children. There should also be a sunset clause ensuring a revisiting of a prenup after a certain number of years. As has been said, they should also be signed at least 28 days before a wedding.

In conclusion, if a prenup is written one-sidedly, the wealthier or more powerful partner will benefit. However, if it is fair and negotiated well, both parties can benefit by protecting personal assets while ensuring financial fairness. That is what we and the Government must aim for. I am much persuaded by the arguments of the noble Baroness, Lady Deech. It is time to make prenups legal.

Non-Consensual Sexually Explicit Images and Videos (Offences) Bill [HL]

Baroness Featherstone Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 13th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Featherstone (LD)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, and I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Owen of Alderley Edge, on this important Bill. It is such a well-thought-through Bill, and it fills all the gaps— hugely important gaps—left by other legislation. I hesitate to mention that this was a gap left by her own Government and pointed out by myself and many others when the Online Safety Bill was going through. We begged then for consent to be the legal bar on intimate image sharing, only to be told that intent was more than adequate. I am sure that, by now, her Conservative colleagues have learned the error of their ways.

I am also concerned that the Government will pray in aid their manifesto and say that a Bill is coming—next year, some time, never—but women cannot wait. As a party of change, it would be so welcome if the Government just accepted this opportunity and put women before party.

The noble Baroness, Lady Owen, brilliantly introduced the Bill in its detail and content. I particularly welcome that the new threat and abhorrent practice of deepfakes is tackled in law for the first time. Deepfakes circulate the world in moments. Although there is education and training to understand how we make sure we can critically challenge all that we see, particularly on social media, we are still easy prey to the truest of sayings: seeing is believing.

Sadly, we are never going to be able to prevent this practice, so we must criminalise it as soon as possible and, of course, try to prevent it. There is an exponential rise in the prevalence of sexually explicit deepfakes and the vast majority of deepfakes are, as we have heard, gendered. The harm that these deepfakes do is shattering to women and girls used in this way, and I thank those in the Gallery for coming today. This is an absolute violation. It is an assault; it is invasive and a threat. The individual cannot get justice or redress, and the harm—emotional, psychological, reputational, professional and economic—is real and hideous.

Deepfakes can be created in around eight seconds. The shock and upset of seeing your image manipulated into pornography and shared with your friends, relatives and the whole world is devastating. While you will explain that it is not you, many will not believe you. We are already in so much trouble with social media giving a distorted view of real life. For young people trying to understand and navigate to their maturity, this is a nightmare, particularly where anxiety and mental health issues are already heightened.

We know already that 51% of 13 to 17 year-olds have seen people circulating non-consensual intimate images and that more than 23% have witnessed people taking sexual pictures of someone and sharing them. Undoubtedly, deepfakes are already being used to hurt and damage, and the technology is already being misused. The reality of all of this will be that some young people will take their own lives as a result. There is no time to lose. The Government must act.

Domestic Abuse Bill

Baroness Featherstone Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 4th sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 4th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 3rd February 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]]

I join every speaker in this rather large group of speakers in offering my support for Amendments 137 and 138, with a preference for 137. I join all of the others in paying tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, for her very hard work on this issue. However, when the idea of a new offence was first put to me, I started from a position of scepticism. We all know that there are far too many cases in history where Governments who are wanting to be seen to be doing something say “Oh, we will have a new law and create a new offence”.

However, when I looked at the evidence and saw the extensive briefings and data assembled by campaigning groups and NGOs, I found that there is clearly a case. There is a specific set of behaviours that constitutes an offence. The case is made very clearly that non-fatal strangulation and suffocation is not generally a failed attempt to kill, but rather a deliberate attempt to control and exert power. The law currently has no real proper way of dealing with that. The fact that there is little visible injury in many cases means that at best it may appear as a charge of common assault, and many others have pointed out how inadequate that is. It is also worth pointing out that it means there is a six-month limit for charges being brought. We know that domestic abuse is very often disclosed only after a large number of incidents have occurred. It also means that, as a summary offence in a magistrates’ court, it does not get the level of attention and resources that this proposed new offence would attract with the charges.

The other point which has not been made but should be, is that I very much do not believe in reinventing the wheel in terms of law and government policy. We can look around the world to see other places that have been leading on this. Reference has been made by the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, to the 37 states in the US which already have comparable laws, and most Australian states do.

The real leader in this has been New Zealand. I note that this started with the Aotearoa—New Zealand—Law Commission 2016 report, which in December 2018 led to its introduction of a new law. I would imagine that the Minister is well aware of the recent report from the Chief Victims Advisor to the New Zealand Government to the Centre for Women’s Justice, which notes that in the first year after the offence was brought in, there were 2,000 charges—most occurring in a domestic violence context. A calculation has been made that, comparing our populations, that means in the first year we could see 26,400 charges in the UK. Of course, no two countries are exactly comparable, but I think that rough comparison tells you that if we delay introducing this charge, there will be thousands and thousands of women who will not have the protection of the law who should and could have the protection of the law if it is included in this Bill. It is very good to hear that the Government are listening on this issue, but the case for action now is overwhelming. I commend Amendment 137, in particular, to your Lordships’ House.

[Baroness Featherstone (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I greatly support Amendment 137 and thank the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, for such a powerful and comprehensive introduction, thus making it necessary for me to make only a few brief remarks. During my time at the Home Office, I remember a particular incident that demonstrates the attitudes at play in the issues before us.

In 2014 a so-called pick-up artist, Julien Blanc, was due to visit the United Kingdom giving lectures to men on how to successfully pick up women and get them into bed. On Twitter, the photo he used to advertise his tour showed Blanc with his hand around the throats of women. He then tweeted the photo with the hashtag #ChokingGirlsAroundTheWorld.

I spoke out, as my responsibility was for tackling violence against women and girls, to say how concerned I was by the sexist and abhorrent statements Julien Blanc had made about women and that if he was allowed to perform in the United Kingdom, I had no doubt cases of violence and intimidation of women would follow, because his thesis was that physical aggression made you more attractive as a man and would give you more success and more sex. Someone who, in my view, wishes to incite sexual assault should not be granted a visa.

I simply use this as an example of the mindset that is out there that illustrates how women are in jeopardy. In days gone by, that mindset echoed down the corridors of our judicial system; to an extent, it still does so, because we are debating it today. It is part of the history of women being blamed for their own rape. Not that long ago, a woman’s previous sexual history was used to exonerate a male rapist. There is a long tradition in matters sexual to blame the woman for her own downfall: she wore a short skirt or a low top; she was asking for it, and so on. It put the onus for male behaviour on to the woman.