Prenuptial Agreements

Lord Bishop of Southwell and Nottingham Excerpts

Thursday 27th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Bishop of Southwell and Nottingham]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, for bringing the debate on this Motion and for raising such fundamentally important issues, which she set out so clearly. I also acknowledge with respect the considerable wisdom and insight of the noble Baroness, Lady Shackleton, on these matters.

It has been my personal privilege to prepare many couples for marriage over the years. It is a hopeful time, where couples seek to express unconditional love and trust, and commit to share all aspects of their life, both at the time and looking to the future, whatever it may hold. I believe it would be detrimental for all parties if prenuptial agreements were to become a normal part of preparing for marriage, whether religious or not—although I entirely acknowledge the arguments in favour of these agreements, particularly the clarity they provide in financial matters, especially where there are pre-existing children, and their role in reducing litigation upon divorce.

However, I urge the House to reflect on prenuptial agreements’ broader implications for the institution of marriage, its gift to wider society and the potential consequences for the financially weaker parties. Historically, marriage has been regarded as more than just a contractual arrangement between two individuals. If we are to put matrimonial nuptial agreements into statute, it may appear as if we are saying to couples who come to marry that, to save themselves legal costs and uncertainty, they should include in their preparations a plan also for their divorce.

Furthermore, although advocates argue that prenuptial agreements encourage fairness and discourage litigation, we must be mindful of the power imbalances that may arise, which can be emotional, psychological and, of course, financial. The reality is that such agreements often favour the wealthier party, leaving the financially weaker spouse—often women—at a disadvantage.

When there is some sort of pressure to marry, individuals may agree to terms that are significantly unfair or that fail to consider future circumstances, such as career sacrifices, child-rearing responsibilities, unexpected financial hardships or even unexpected windfalls. Therefore, I believe the courts should retain a measure of discretion to ensure that any final financial agreement is equitable, rather than being bound by contracts that may no longer reflect the realities of the marriage or divorce. For this reason, of the models set out by the Law Commission in December 2024, I would favour that which codifies the current case law while retaining wider judicial discretion.

Although it is true that courts currently have the authority to assess and override prenuptial agreements in cases of significant inequality, there remains a risk that their increasing normalisation may lead to undue pressure on prospective spouses to sign away their rights without fully comprehending the longer-term, more serious consequences. For example, many prenuptial agreements incorporate acknowledgements that each party is content with the financial information that has been provided and does not wish to ask further questions before signing. Yet I am sure it is likely, at times, that one partner may be anxious about asking further questions in a way that may imply a lack of trust and so risk undermining the relationship at a time when the focus, in preparing for marriage, is very much orientated towards joyful expectation.

Marriage is not merely an economic transaction. It is, above all a covenant: something good and beautiful. We must ensure that our legal framework continues to foster the values of partnership and protection for the vulnerable. Whatever our views across this House, I hope we can acknowledge the value of good preparation for marriage, drawing on the very large range of excellent resources and support that is available. That includes support offered by organisations such as Care for the Family, one of a number of charities that have dedicated themselves in recent years to supporting churches in particular across the country as they offer support to those preparing for marriage, whether they are part of the church or not. In addition, they go on offering resources to support relationships at later stages of family life and in parenting—especially when challenges inevitably arise and the strain on the relationship increases. Let us, as a House, in the midst of this debate, value the work that is done by many individuals, organisations and faith-based communities to support preparing for marriage.

Therefore, in conclusion, I urge the House to approach the matter of nuptial agreements with some caution, ensuring that any legal recognition that they receive does not come at the cost of transparent fairness and justice and the true spirit of marriage, as a most ancient and sacred institution given by God that, at its best, benefits the whole of society.

Victims and Prisoners Bill

Lord Bishop of Southwell and Nottingham Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 21st May 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)]

My Lords, I added my name to Amendments 138A, 143 and 144 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett. These amendments are concerned with DPPs—with people who have been detained, as opposed to imprisoned, for public protection. I listened very carefully to the Minister when he explained Amendments 139A, 139B and 139C and the very sympathetic way he has addressed the issues that we raised in Committee.

All I wanted to say at this advanced stage of the Bill is that we need to remember that DPP prisoners were, when they were first detained—“detained” sounds very straightforward; when they were first convicted—under 18. We need to think very carefully about that. They are people who have had—it is almost certain—the most appalling life chances. Members of your Lordships’ House who have worked in this area will have appalling stories about how these people have been unable to get their lives together. We surely have a special responsibility to people who have started out like that, and, in thanking the Minister for the changes he plans to make in procedure for this terrible situation, I hope that the fact that they were children at the outset will not be overlooked.

[The Lord Bishop of Southwell and Nottingham]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow noble Lords—and noble and learned Lords—and to benefit from their considerable wisdom on the matter at hand. I do not wish to repeat all that has already been said, but my right reverend friend the Bishop of Gloucester has added her name to several amendments in this group. She is sadly unable to be here today, but I know that, like many other noble Lords, she is dedicated to seeing the reform of the criminal justice system, particularly in respect of our prisons, for which she is the lead bishop for the Church of England.

I will reflect briefly on Amendment 140. As has already been said, we know that many IPP prisoners are stuck in the system, and appropriate psychiatric care in the community is not in place to manage their high-support needs. It is clear to anyone who visits prisons and meets IPP prisoners that they suffer great mental distress, reportedly more so than the wider prison population. This sentence—arguably more than any other— disrupts relationships and leads to hopelessness, anxiety and alienation, as we have heard so much about. In many cases, it can be said that the sentence itself is the very cause of that mental distress, as is reported by many chaplains in our prisons.

The changes proposed through this Bill are welcome and, as we have heard, much progress has been made; but, for the sake of both the prisoners in question and the wider community, I submit that the extended aftercare arrangements proposed in Amendment 140 are needed. Like other noble Lords, I ask the Minister to think again on this important matter.

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)]

My Lords, it has long seemed strange that, having abolished IPP sentences during the coalition in the LASPO Act, we still have nearly 3,000 prisoners, many of whom had relatively short-term tariffs, in custody or recalled to custody many years after their tariffs have expired.

In this House and elsewhere, there is unanimity that IPPs have been and remain a stain on our justice system, and that they are an inhumane mechanism, unjustly withholding from prisoners a date of release, routinely depriving them of any hope of freedom and causing them serious mental health problems. This is a fact highlighted by the noble and learned Lords, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, Lord Hope of Craighead and Lord Garnier. The IPPs were frequently in the wake of offences that were not of themselves the most serious.

This is all against a background of a Government taking strange measures, almost impossible to justify, to keep down the prison population. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, pointed out, we have prisoners on determinate sentences being released up to 93 days early, for no good reason apart from that there is no space for them. With Operation Early Dawn, we have hearings of criminal cases being delayed to avoid using up prison space by convicting and sentencing offenders expeditiously. We have a prison building programme that even on the most sanguine projections for planning and construction cannot possibly keep pace with predicted increases in prisoner numbers.

Yet we have a Government who have already been the cause of increasing prisoner numbers—with longer prescribed sentences and legislation increasing times in custody—setting their face against doing more to relieve a significant part of the pressure by releasing IPP prisoners faster and more humanely. Certainly, they have moved some way, and I join my noble friend Lady Burt in welcoming the Government’s movement and in her call in Amendment 140, supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, and the right reverend Prelate, for much more and far better aftercare and support for these damaged prisoners who have suffered so much from IPPs. The action plan, so far as it goes, is welcome, as are the other government amendments, in which the Government have accepted the spirit of amendments moved by others throughout the passage of this Bill. I join those others, notably the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, who has been mentioned and who has spoken, in appreciating the discussion and co-operation that we have all had with the Minister. However, one suspects that it has been despite the Minister’s best efforts that the Government have not moved far enough.

Amendment 149A, tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, and noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, and powerfully supported today by the noble Lords, Lord Moylan, Lord Carter, and others, with its requirement for an approach that embodies proportionality, is a modest amendment. Why the Government cannot accept it I cannot imagine. The noble and learned Lord’s amendment is designed to give IPP prisoners the hope that they need. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, expressed powerfully the effects of the loss of hope for IPP prisoners in the context of this amendment. If the noble and learned Lord does test the opinion of the House, we will support his amendment. I hope only that a good number of Labour Peers and Conservative Peers, in the cross-party spirit shown by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, will do the same. It would be very welcome if the Government would heed his plea to have one more think.