§ 37. Mr. Lubbockasked the Attorney-General whether it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government to await the investigation by the Law Commission of Family Law before proposing any material changes in the present divorce law and jurisdiction on divorce.
§ The Attorney-General (Sir Elwyn Jones)No material change in the substantive divorce law is contemplated in 1262 advance of the preliminary examination which is being carried out by the Law Commission, but the Government intend to introduce legislation at the earliest opportunity to enable undefended divorce cases to be heard in the county courts.
§ Mr. LubbockIs the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that a Committee was set up by the Archbishop of Canterbury in 1964 to consider changes in divorce law and procedure, and that this Committee will be reporting early in the new year? Does he not think that it would have been better to have waited for the views of that Committee, and the views of all other bodies that have been consulted by Royal Commissions in the past, before making such a drastic change?
§ The Attorney-GeneralI am aware of the committees to which the hon. Member has referred, but the problem of jurisdiction is, in the view of my noble Friend—and, indeed, of myself—a severable and separate one, and we are satisfied that the public interest will be served by the proposed change in the arrangements as to the hearing of undefended divorce cases.
§ Mr. AbseWhile I welcome the news that it is intended, at long last, to have divorces within the county courts in order that public expense should be saved, would it not be wiser if the substantive law were tackled so that we could enhance the dignity of marriage and the dignity of the courts, and reduce the burden on the legal aid system by frankly recognising that many undefended divorces are, in fact, divorces by mutual consent, so enabling full recognition to be given to a law which includes mutual consent?
§ The Attorney-GeneralThese matters are already under consideration by the Law Commission, and a preliminary examination is being made with a view to considering, in the light of the social implications, an agency to which a full inquiry into the law relating to divorce should be referred.
§ Mr. Peter ThomasDoes not the Attorney-General agree that, in a matter as important as divorce, public expenditure is only one consideration, and probably a minor consideration? Does he 1263 not accept the fact that his announcement is very controversial, and is it not a premature decision? Would it not have been wiser to have awaited the result of the Bishop of Exeter's Committee, and to have taken soundings from other interested bodies?
§ The Attorney-GeneralPublic expense is certainly not the only consideration, but it is right that I should tell the House that it is estimated that about £400,000 of taxpayers' money will be saved by the proposals. But the main consideration is the greater convenience to those who are parties, to witnesses and lawyers, which will be occasioned by the availability of the greater number of places where these cases can be heard. Perhaps I should point out that of the 33,000 divorce cases heard last year, 30,000 were undefended, and the vast majority of those were heard, and heard most satisfactorily, by county court judges.