Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Bill (Second sitting)

Debate between Eddie Hughes and Yasmin Qureshi

Committee Debate: 2nd sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 2nd July 2019 Public Bill Committees

[Eddie Hughes]

I completely understand the hon. Lady’s point. That is why I am trying to set the context: my very personal view is that the system worked in my particular case, but I completely accept that it will be different for others, as we heard in our evidence session this morning.

My point is simply that we have all visited websites that have asked us to tick a box to agree to terms and conditions. It is highly doubtful whether any of us has ever read all the terms and conditions before ticking the box, because we know that we are entering into a contract that will be really easy to get out of. We have all done it—we have all pressed the button to enter into a contract really quickly, because we know that it is easy to get out of. I am scared about any move in that direction with regard to marriage, because my personal belief is that it is more important than that, as a contract and a spiritual union.

Anyway, I have some points and questions for the Minister about clause 1. The written and oral evidence submitted to the Committee by Mr Hodson raises several key points that really engage with the clause and that arguably highlight the need for amendments that I hope the Government will consider.

The 20-week reflection period is clearly of huge importance. The Bill is about removing fault from divorce, not about minimising the opportunity within the divorce process for couples to gain access to mediation and have a rethink. This may come as a surprise to some right hon. and hon. Members, but in some instances the first occasion on which a spouse finds out that their marriage is in difficulty is the commencement of divorce proceedings. That is the first opportunity they have, with that knowledge, to try to put things right. At a time when the annual cost of family breakdown to the Exchequer stands at £51 billion, according to the Relationships Foundation’s annual assessment, it is imperative that policy makers and legislators seize every opportunity provided by the 20-week reflection period to maximise the opportunities for mediation and reconciliation. Without any expression of commitment to the importance of marriage, the Bill will sound very hollow.

One key measure by which the success or failure of the removal of fault in the legislation will be judged will be the extent to which it creates a better environment within which couples can rethink and save their marriage. To this end, the 20-week reflection period defined in clause 1 is clearly of the utmost importance. At the moment, on the basis of the evidence submitted by Mr Hodson, it seems vulnerable on several points.

First, in a case in which one member of a couple initiates divorce proceedings, if the 20-week clock starts ticking from the moment that they initiate, as clause 1 currently proposes, the other spouse will on some occasions inevitably end up with less than a 20-week reflection period. That is clearly neither fair nor transparent. Will the Government amend the Bill so that it is clear that the 20-week clock will only start to tick from the moment it is clear that both members of the couple know about it?

Secondly, in order for the 20-week reflection period to work well, it is plainly important that a good part of the 20-week period, if not all of it, is made a litigation-free zone, so that the focus can be on mediation. That must extend to ancillary financial litigation. Will the Government amend the Bill so that at least most of the 20-week period, if not all of it, is made a litigation-free zone, including ancillary financial litigation?

Thirdly, will the Government consider changing the point in the process at which the partner seeking the divorce should lodge their statement of irretrievable breakdown? Having it at the start, as the Bill proposes, makes it extremely difficult for the other partner to respond constructively if the intention is for a period of reflection.

Finally, mindful of the importance of the 20-week period referred to in clause 1 for reconciliation and mediation, what new provisions will the Government make to ensure that all couples are offered effective reconciliation and mediation specifically during this period, in an effort to increase the numbers of divorce proceedings that are not concluded, thereby increasing the number of marriages saved?

[Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe. I put on the record the fact that the Opposition do not object to this legislation, which is one reason why no amendments or new clauses have been tabled. We welcome this piece of legislation, which has for many years been required and called for, and it is great that the Government have brought it to the House. This morning, Members heard from experts in this area who deal with these types of cases day in, day out, and it was quite clearly their unanimous opinion that this legislation is important, welcome and needed.

No one goes into a marriage expecting it to fail, but it is an unfortunate reality of life that couples may choose to go their separate ways. It is even more unfortunate that, when they pursue a divorce, they do so under archaic law. Among the five permissible grounds for divorce are adultery, desertion and unreasonable behaviour, which involve the allocation of blame to one party. That is unfair and could damage a couple’s children as well.

For decades, campaigners have been asking for this change to the law. This situation was crystallised recently in the case of Owens v. Owens, which ended up in the Supreme Court. Sir James Munby, then president of the family division of the High Court, said in 2017 that

“the law which the judges have to apply and the procedures which they have to follow are based on hypocrisy and lack of intellectual honesty. The simple fact is that we have, and have for many years had, divorce by consent, not merely in accordance with section 1(2)(d) of the 1969 Act but, for those unwilling or unable to wait for two years, by means of a consensual, collusive, manipulation of section 1(2)(b).”

We heard about that this morning. It is interesting that in Scotland, where the requirement for fault has been abolished, only 6% to 7% of divorce applications are based on fault, yet in England 60% are based on allocation of fault. That raises the interesting question, as Professor Trinder said this morning, of whether we are worse behaved than the Scots. It is not that. In Scotland, people do not have to go through the intellectual dishonesty, as Sir James Munby said, of creating issues of fault.

The Minister will set out the law as it stands, but I point out that if a couple want to divorce in less than two years, they need to start pointing the finger of blame, with one citing the other’s adultery, unreasonable behaviour or desertion. That in itself causes unnecessary strife. However, in most cases, neither party contests a divorce, so they can go their separate ways.

The need to apportion blame, and ratchet up the acrimony, is one of the main reasons why the Opposition want to see an end to fault-based divorce law, not least because of its impact on children. The ground of unreasonable behaviour, for example, requires allegations from one spouse against the other that are hardly ever challenged and can be exaggerated, which will inevitably exacerbate the relationship between the parties and make arrangements regarding children even more difficult. It is therefore unsurprising that most of the legal community supports the changes. About 1.7 million people have assigned blame in a divorce process. Many need not do so, so again legislation is very important.

The Law Commission has called for the current fault-based system to be scrapped. In fact, it recommended that in 1996. It has made several criticisms of the current law, of which many hon. Members are aware, but perhaps they are worth repeating because some believe, and indeed the hon. Member for Walsall North alluded to the fact, that somehow such reform will lead to more people filing for divorce. In a number of cultural and religious communities divorce is actually very easy but the divorce rate is tiny. I do not accept the suggestion of a correlation and that the divorce rate will spike because of a change in the law. It is about societal issues or particular challenges in people’s lives and communities. I do not think a correlation can be seen between changing the law and an increase in the rate of divorce from looking at other countries, cultures and societies where there is a more open or easier divorce system.

One of the problems with our current system is that the law is confusing and misleading. It says that the only ground for divorce is that a marriage has “irretrievably broken down,” but that can be proved only in one of five ways, three of which involve fault. Therefore, the fact used as the peg on which to hang a divorce petition may not in any way bear relation to what caused the breakdown in marriage. The law also pretends that the court is conducting an inquiry into whether and why the marriage has broken down when in fact it does no such thing. Even if a petition is defended, it requires only that the fact is proven.

The current system is discriminatory, favouring those who can afford to live apart for two years before seeking divorce, with the remedies that go with that. Many poorer parties, including many who are victims of domestic violence or abuse, cannot afford to separate unless and until they get orders, which are obtainable only on divorce. Matrimonial home orders under part IV of the Family Law Act 1996 were originally intended to provide a sensible interim housing solution, but the provisions of our current law exclude parties from being able to access it.

The current system is unjust. Adultery and unreasonable behaviour suggest that one party has to blame the other, but many of the technical bars under the old law were abolished. There is little or nothing to stop the more blameworthy one relying on the conduct of the less blameworthy one. It is difficult, expensive and may be counter-productive to defend or cross-petition to try to put matters right.