Family Law Bill

HC Deb 04 March 1996 vol 273 cc16-8

28. Lady Olga Maitland

To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what further representations he has received in relation to the Family Law Bill. [16443]

Mr. Jonathan Evans

I have received a number of further representations in relation to the Government's divorce reform proposals.

Lady Olga Maitland

In the light of the overwhelming vote in the House of Lords last week, will my hon. Friend consider reviewing the fair and just division of pension assets for divorced women? Does not he accept that the subject is causing great concern because it is unfair that women who have devoted their lives to bringing up children should be beggared in later life because they have not been able to take full advantage of the family assets?

Mr. Evans

I note my hon. Friend's observations about pension splitting and, of course, the Government will give close attention to the views that were expressed in the other place. My noble Friend Lord Mackay made it clear in that debate that there were a number of practical difficulties in the proposals. Those practical difficulties were not removed by the vote that took place.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for clarifying which vote she meant, because there was another vote on Thursday that supported, by two to one, the Government's proposals for removing fault from divorce.

Ms Lynne

Will the Minister make a commitment today that the vote on splitting pension rights on divorce will not be reversed on the Floor of this House?

Mr. Evans

I said in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) that there are a number of practical difficulties in the proposition that has been made. I do not think that I could have been clearer. It is appropriate for the Government to consider the views that were expressed in the other place and that is what the Government will do.

Sir Ivan Lawrence

Is not the assertion that the Family Law Bill would make divorce easier a total misunderstanding? Is not the situation that anybody can get a quickie divorce today, on demand, by making allegations of fault and causing bitterness which, most importantly, distresses the children? The Bill would not allow quickie divorces and everyone would have to wait a year, during which the matter could be reconsidered, and there would be no obligation to make any allegation of fault that would cause bitterness between the parties and the children.

Mr. Evans

My hon. and learned Friend is right about the proposals in the Bill. A wide range of concerns have been expressed about the arrangements to which he refers. I should like to mention some of the observations that have been made by those who have the greatest practical experience of couples who are, sadly, involved in marital breakdown. For example, the chairman of the national trustees of Relate, the former Marriage Guidance Council, said on 23 February: The Family Law Bill is the best piece of social legislation for the last 20 years".

Mr. Boateng

Does the Parliamentary Secretary recognise and accept that women and children are all too often the financial victims of divorce and the domestic victims of violence? Does he also accept that there is no majority in the House for a Bill that does not address effectively both those concerns? Will he indicate clearly and categorically from the Dispatch Box this afternoon that the Government support pension splitting in principle and that they support—in principle—giving more powers to the police to deal effectively with domestic violence?

Does the Parliamentary Secretary understand that, unless he is able to give those assurances, he will not find a majority in the House for his Bill? It is time that the Government started putting families and their protection first.

Mr. Evans

Of course I accept that the interests of the parties—the wife and the children—are of great importance. That is why certain measures have been introduced by the Government.

The hon. Gentleman knows that, during the divorce process, there is an obligation on the legal practitioners acting for the parties to take whatever the pension fund may be into account. I recognise that that was not considered sufficient. Pensions earmarking was, therefore, incorporated in the Pensions Act 1995.

Mr. Boateng

Not enough.

Mr. Evans

I have spelt out some of the practical consequences of pension splitting, but I have also made it clear that the Government will take account of the vote in the other place.

The hon. Gentleman seemed to suggest that the Law Commission's recommendation that there should be additional power in the hands of the police should be made a part of the Bill that is now in another place. That matter was considered by the Select Committee on Home Affairs and by the Special Standing Committee that considered the Family Homes and Domestic Violence Bill last year. Those Committees concluded that the recommendation should not be included in legislation.