STRENGTHENING OF MARRIAGE BILL [H.L.] (Hansard, 26 June 1967)

§ THE EARL OF BALFOUR

My Lords, I ask leave to withdraw the Strengthening of Marriage Bill standing in my name, which has now for some time headed the list of Bills awaiting a Second Reading in your Lordships' House. I should like to take up a few moments of your Lordships' time by explaining my reasons for wishing to withdraw the Bill. Since the First Reading of this Bill, six events of great significance on this subject have taken place. They are: the divorce debate in your Lordships' House on November 23, 1966; various statements by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, to which I shall make a short reference later; discussions between the Law Commission and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Exeter and members of his Committee; the publication of the Scottish Law Commission's Report, Divorce, the Grounds Considered; the issue of the Law Commission's working paper on Family Law, Matrimonial and Related Proceedings—Financial Relief, and the publication by the Sunday Times of an opinion poll purporting to show 72 per cent, in favour of divorce for breakdown of marriage.

Leaving out of account any distinction between divorce solely on the grounds of breakdown and divorce with breakdown as an additional reason, I think it is clear that divorce for breakdown is supported by the most reverend Primate's Committee; the Law Commission; the Scottish Law Commission (who, unlike their English counterpart, actually recommend it); an overwhelming proportion of the public, if opinion polls are worth anything, and by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, albeit not in his official capacity. May I make some short quotations from some of the 9 speeches made by the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor? In the debate on November 23 last, Hansard reports him as saying: I joined the Divorce Law Reform Association before I was married, over forty years ago, and I should not like it to be thought from anything that I have said, or anything I have not said, that I am in any way unsympathetic to this Committee's Report. The one thing that everybody seems to be agreed about is the universal condemnation of our existing law, and it is my hope that to-day's debate may prove to be a basis for some rational reform of our law upon which Parliament can agree."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, col. 262.] In the debate on the Second Reading of the Matrimonial Causes Bill, on February 14, 1967, the noble and learned Lord said: I have heard it said that this change might delay the rationalisation of our divorce law. If I thought that, I should not be putting this Bill before your Lordships' House. I am delighted to hear that the gap in views which separated the committee appointed by the most reverend Primate and the Law Commission is being narrowed, and I am as much in favour as any Member of your Lordships' House of a real rationalisation of our law. … But it is clear, I think, that we shall not see a Bill in that field this year. I see no real reason why we might not see it next year."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, col. 177.] This statement was picked out and welcomed by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, and repeated again by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in his reply, although he made is clear that such a Bill might be brought in as a Private Member's Bill. In his speech to the National Marriage Guidance Council, a copy of which he was kind enough to send me, he strongly advocated divorce for breakdown, but made it clear that he was speaking as an individual and not in his official capacity.

In view of all that I have said, I cannot doubt that more comprehensive legislation than is envisaged in my Bill will be introduced and passed into law in the comparatively near future—I sincerely hope next year. I also sincerely hope that there will be parallel and contemporary, or even earlier, legislation for Scotland. How splendid it would be if the Putting Asunder Committee and the Law Commission could reach agreement! I should not want to take any action which might conceivably make such agreement more difficult.