HL Deb 09 July 1971 vol 321 cc1208-25

11.15 a.m.

BARONESS SUMMERSKILL

My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. For some years many people have been aware of the social problems in our country which must be associated with the immigration of people with different religious and cultural backgrounds. Now it would seem that the law relating to polygamous marriages is a field where reform is needed. I should have been reluctant to venture into this specialised field of law without the support of the Law Commission, and the Law Commission have made an exhaustive examination over a number of years into this matter. They have further assisted me by drafting a Bill which is the basis of the measure now before the House.

It is over a century ago since the case of Hyde v. Hyde and Woodmansey established the basic principle of English law concerning polygamous marriages; namely, that neither party to such a marriage is entitled to matrimonial relief. The husband in that case had been a party to a Mormon marriage and in his summing up, the Judge, Lord Penzance, said this: This Court does not profess to decide upon the right of succession or legitimacy which it might be proper to accord to the issue of the polygamous unions nor upon the rules or obligations in relation to third persons which people living under the sanction of such unions may have created for themselves. All that is intended to be here decided is that as between each other they are not entitled to the remedies, the adjudication or the relief of the matrimonial law of England. Over the years a body of law concerning polygamous marriages has developed, and it is now established that a marriage is monogamous or polygamous according to the law of the place of celebration and not the law of either party's domicile. In effect, this means that if an Englishman or woman goes through a polygamous marriage ceremony in a country where polygamy is lawful, he or she contracts a polygamous marriage though the marriage is not valid in England. On the other hand, if a Moslem domiciled in India or Pakistan contracts a marriage in an English register office, that is treated as a monogamous marriage.

Some monogamous countries may recognise the first marriage of a polygamous union for purposes of matrimonial relief, whereas the later ones are not so recognised. But in England there is no such distinction. Neither a potentially polygamous marriage nor an actually polygamous marriage is recognised for the purpose of matrimonial relief. However, a potentially polygamous marriage where there is only one wife may become monogamous and English matrimonial relief may become available. For instance, the parties in an Eastern country may change their religion from one which permits polygamy to one which does not, or, if the husband changes his domicile from a country which permits polygamy to one whose law does not, then of course the matrimonial relief will be available. If a husband's personal law does not permit him to take more than one wife but does permit him to take concubines with a recognised status in law, then a marriage celebrated under such a law is polygamous.

On the other hand, a marriage may be monogamous although neither party is a Christian. The crucial question is whether the law under which the marriage is celebrated permits polygamy; if it does not the marriage is monogamous. A fundamental change was made in the case of Ali v. Ali in 1968 when it was established that a potentally polygamous marriage may become a monogamous marriage in English law if the parties acquire an English domicile. The rule in Hyde v. Hyde which denies matrimonial relief to either party to a polygamous marriage applies to the proceedings set out in subsection (2) of Clause 1 of the Bill and includes a decree of divorce, nullity of marriage, judicial separation, presumption of death, dissolution of marriage and wilful neglect to maintain.

Now although English courts refuse to exercise nullity jurisdiction in respect of a polygamous marriage entered into abroad by persons who are now domiciled in England, the parties are regarded as not married and are therefore free under English law to remarry. The hardship lies in the impossibility of obtaining any financial provision. If a couple have married abroad in polygamous form, and revert to an English domicile, then provided that there is only one wife the marriage is converted into a monogamous marriage when the full range of matrimonial relief will he available. If they do not acquire English domicile the marriage remains polygamous, and even if there is only one wife no matrimonial relief is available to either Party. If there is more than one wife, then whether or not the parties acquire an English domicle the marriage remains polygamous and no matrimonial relief is available to either party.

It seems to me that the party to a polygamous marriage in this country who suffers the greatest hardship is the wife and the children who are denied mainteance. Of course in these circumstances we in this country do not allow a woman and her children to starve. They are supported by the taxpayer, through social security. The case of Iman Din v. National Assistance Board established the right of the authority to take action against this man who, in 1961, came to England with his second wife, and subsequently abandoned her and her four children leaving them destitute.

The curious result is that a wife is denied direct maintenance from her husband, even if the marriage is only potentially polygamous, but he can be made liable if the circuitous and administratively expensive route of supplementary benefits is used. Perhaps the case of Sawa v. Sawa illustrates the gross injustice of the present position. The parties were domiciled in Ghana and contracted a polygamous marriage. The husband never took a second wife and promised on the Bible to convert the marriage into a Christian one, which is permitted under the law of Ghana, but failed to do so. The parties came to England in search of employment. The wife had a baby. Her application to a magistrates' court for an affiliation order was adjourned when the defence was put forward that she was not a single woman. Her subsequent application for maintenance was granted, but the decision of the magistrates was reversed by the Divisional Court, and the Court of Appeal, because the marriage was potentially polygamous. The judges in the Divisional Court said that they reached their decision with deep regret. In the Appeal Court Lord Justice Pearce said: The husband has behaved so badly that I fully share the regrets expressed by the Divisional Court at finding itself unable to uphold the magistrates' order. My Lords, should we continue to permit the law to hamper humane judges from administering what they in their learned opinion consider elementary justice? That is what is happening in our law courts today.

I should also remind your Lordships that the Islamic law, as well as permitting polygamy, allows the husband to divorce his wife unilaterally, and extra-judicially, by a declaration known as Talak, and it is now established, despite an earlier decision to the contrary, that English courts will recognise Talak provided it can be proved that the divorce is effective in the country of domicile. Despite reforms in some Moslem countries which restrict the husband's right to divorce by Talak, and which enable the wife to obtain a judicial divorce, there remain countries where the husband's right to unilateral divorce by Talak is not matched by an equivalent right on the part of the wife. It seems grossly unjust for parties who reside in England that a husband can obtain a divorce here, while the wife is debarred from seeking a divorce, and from any other matrimonial relief before the English courts. Various interested organisations seek to encourage immigrants to conform to English standards of behaviour, and it would seem to me that parties to polygamous marriages are more likely to conform if English law imposes on them, so far as is practicable, the same family rights and obligations as are imposed on other married people.

The denial of matrimonial relief not only permits parties to escape from their obligations, lawfully entered into under another legal system, but tends to perpetuate the polygamous situation because the marriage cannot be ended. The Law Commission examined the position regarding divorce, and the majority concluded that the parties to polygamous marriages should be entitled to petition for divorce and that the rule in Hyde v. Hyde should be abolished. On the question of the presumption of death, the Law Commission recommended unanimously that this right should be given to a party to a polygamous marriage. The majority also made the same recommendation for judicial separation as for divorce, and for the right to petition for a decree of nullity. And, furthermore, to apply for maintenance in the High Court, or county court, or for a maintenance, separation or custody order in the magistrates' court on any ground set out in the Matrimonial Proceedings (Magistrates' Court) Act 1960, Section 1.

Again it should be recognised that a person who is polygamously married is not capable of contracting a valid marriage in England, and while this is independent of the question of matrimonial relief, it is advisable that the children of a potentially, or actually polygamous marriage, will be regarded as legitimate, and that the widow and children will be entitled to rights of succession. At present, no application can be made under Section 39 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1965 for a declaration that a polygamous marriage is valid. In order that such questions can be resolved, the Law Commission recommend that the fact that the marriage is polygamous should not be a bar to proceedings under Section 39 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1965, or under the Rules of the Supreme Court, Order 15, Rule 16.

My Lords, that is the case. No doubt some of you have been asking yourselves what has been happening in other countries. Of course this problem has been faced by other countries which have a number of immigrants. They have found it necessary to find a solution to the social problems stemming from the practice of polygamy. In Australia either party to a polygamous marriage may apply for maintenance in the magistrates' court. Other matrimonial relief, including divorce, is available in respect of a polygamous marriage if neither party was married to another person at the time of the marriage in question. New Zealand allows spouses to apply for maintenance in circumstances similar to those in which matrimonial relief is obtainable in Australia.

Of course, the word "polygamy" in this country attracts attention not only of legal organisations but of the women's organisations. I fully realise that many people must wonder whether a measure of this kind will increase the number of polygamous marriages. I hope I have convinced your Lordships that, on the contrary, the reverse will be the case. I am very glad that many women's organisations are considering this question, and a number have already expressed their sympathy. The Married Women's Association and the Six-Point Group both had special meetings on this subject. Both of these organisations have already written in saying they unanimously approve.

So may I commend this Bill to your Lordships as a worthwhile social reform which applies to England and Wales. It extends the protection of English matrimonial law to all married persons within the jurisdiction of the English courts regardless of their national origin or personal law. Its principal effect will probably be to enable the wife of a polygamous union to obtain maintenance from her husband instead of becoming dependent on the Supplementary Benefits Commission. I hope that your Lordships will support the Second Reading. My Lords, I beg to move.

Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Baroness Summers-kill.)

11.32 a.m.

LORD GARDINER

My Lords, I am sure that the whole House will be grateful to my noble friend Lady Summerskill for the clear way in which she has explained to us this Bill on this rather recondite subject. I know that we have a lot of important public business to get through today and it is not my intention therefore to detain your Lordships for more than a few minutes, particularly as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, who is such a great authority in this branch of our law, is far better able than I shall be to answer any questions which may arise.

I want therefore to emphasise only two points. The first is this. I hope that the House will give a welcome to this Bill. It is a Bill which arose after the Law Commission had been asked to consider this subject. They sent out, as usual, a very large working paper to everybody who it was felt had anything relevant to contribute to this subject. It was only after considering all the views which had been expressed that they then published this long and interesting Report with a draft Bill attached. Apart from one Commissioner who dissented on one point, on which point I respectfully agree with the majority, and which has been embodied in the Bill, it is otherwise a unanimous Report and it is not therefore, of course, in any way whatever Party political.

The other point which I should like to emphasise is this—and I raise it, frankly, largely because, as all those who have had anything to do with the Press know, it not infrequently happens that a reporter makes a good report of some matter and then a sub-editor who determines the headlines adds a headline which serves only to misrepresent rather than to represent what is in the body of the report. This is the kind of subject in which one might be likely to get a headline which was less than accurate. Therefore, I should like to emphasise, as my noble friend has, that there is certainly nothing in the Bill to encourage polygamous marriages. The position, if I have understood it rightly, is this. For a long time all our courts, except one, have decided, whenever it was necessary to decide it, whether a polygamous marriage is valid under our law or not. It may be that if two nationals of a country domiciled in that country which admits of polygamous marriages go through a proper ceremony of marriage, we recognise its validity. On the other hand, if an Englishman goes to a country which admits of polygamy and enters into a polygamous marriage while he is domiciled here, that in our law would be invalid, just as any marriage which is celebrated in this country can only be a monogamous marriage.

So in whatever kind of court, except one, it has arisen, if the question in a criminal case arises, as it may, "Is this woman in the witness box the lawful wife of the accused?", we decide it. If a husband dies leaving property in this country we may have to decide who is his lawful wife or wives, who are his legitimate children. But in consequence of a decision in 1866, there is one court and one court only whose doors are closed in this field altogether, and that is the matrimonial court. That is really the result of Hyde v. Hyde: that the doors of our matrimonial courts are closed. It is only our matrimonial courts which are prevented from deciding whether such a marriage is valid, whether it is invalid—they cannot grant a decree of nullity; they cannot make declaration; they cannot grant maintenance. The result of that, now that we have a certain number of people in this country who have gone through an actually polygamous or a potentially polygamous marriage, is that the hardship is caused to the women and children. If the husband deserts the woman she cannot get maintenance; the taxpayer has to provide. If a question arises as to what in the best interests of the children ought to happen to the children, our matrimonial courts are again powerless to say or do anything.

This is not in one sense a large problem from the point of view of numbers. The Law Commission say in paragraph 4 of their Report: The law relating to polygamous marriages is a field where reform is clearly needed, for the present position regarding financial provision is particularly disturbing. It should be emphasised, however, that this need for reform is not caused by the presence in this country of any significant number of husbands with several wives here. Such cases are rare. There are, however, a number of cases where, because the marriage was celebrated abroad in Islamic or customary law form, it is potentially polygamous though the husband has in fact only one wife. There are also cases of actual polygamy where the husband has one wife in England and one or more wives in his country of origin. So what I should like to emphasise is that this Bill gives no encouragement to polygamous marriages at all, and, as the Law Commission say in the penultimate paragraph of their Report: We would again emphasise that the main effect of these recommendations is merely to overcome the present anomalies resulting from the fact that polygamous marriages celebrated abroad between persons domiciled abroad are recognised here for those purposes but are at present treated as creating an indissoluble union without enforceable obligations of mutual support ". And as they say in their explanatory notes to Clause 1: There is nothing in the Bill which affects the validity or invalidity of any particular polygamous marriage. This question would, as now, fall to be determined in accordance with the ordinary rules of law concerning the recognition and validity of foreign marriages. A marriage celebrated in England can never be a valid polygamous marriage, nor can a person domiciled in England enter into a polygamous marriage which would be recognised as valid in England. The Bill does not confer on parties to polygamous marriages any greater right to matrimonial relief than that enjoyed by parties to monogamous marriages, whether celebrated in England or abroad. A party applying for relief will have to satisfy all the other conditions which apply for example, requirements as to domicile or residence. But, it will mean that for the first time in a hundred years the doors of the matrimonial courts will be open, as the doors of our other courts are open, to do what is right and according to the law: that is to say, in the field of divorce, judicial separation, presumption of death, dissolution of marriage and nullity. If the marriage is invalid, there is no reason why either party should not obtain a decree of nullity and, of course, in particular, as to maintenance and custody of the children. I have said that only because I thought there might be some misconception arising from the nature of the subject matter, and that someone reporting our proceedings might think that there was something in this Bill which either altered the basis on which we recognise as valid or do not recognise as invalid polygamous marriages. It leaves that exactly the same. All it does is to open to such parties the doors of our matrimonial courts.

11.42 a.m.

THE LORD BISHOP OF LICHFIELD

Lords, it is with some trepidation that I speak briefly to-day, because this is a matter for those with expert legal knowledge which I do not possess; but, as I have the privilege of sitting on this Bench, I felt that I should say a word about it in support of the Bill, although I hasten to add that I speak in a private personal capacity and I am in no sense able to commit my fellow Members on this Bench. I am particularly grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, for what he said just now about a possible headline in the Press, because such a headline as, "Bishop says Polygamy is a Good Thing" would be one which might add considerably to my postbag in the next week or two. I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, for bringing the Bill forward, because I am sure that this is a subject which needs dealing with. It is a problem which is going to grow. I myself have had several dealings, trying to help them pastorally, with girls who were proposing to enter into marriages which were potentially polygamous. Sometimes I do not think either they or their parents realised the full implications of the step they were taking. In many of these cases, as we know, matters work out happily and all is well, but sometimes things can go wrong. Those are the times when I think the law ought to be altered in order that we may give the assistance of which the noble Baroness has been speaking.

I must emphasise again that I speak only because I am certain that this Bill is not meant in any way to open the door to polygamy in England. It explicitly limits the matter to marriages entered into under a law which permits polygamy. We should all agree that if the law is altered it must not be done in such a way as to encourage the practice of polygamy in this country. We should all, I am sure, want to maintain marriage in this country as understood in Christendom, namely, as a voluntary union between one man and one woman. Having said that, I feel that this Bill will be helpful, because it seems to me that, so far as is consistent with English public policy, family relationships validly created under a foreign system of law should be recognised here. Secondly, it is undesirable that people should be regarded for some purposes as married and for other purposes as not married. It seems to me that this is the situation in regard to polygamous and potentially polygamous marriages in England today. As the noble Baroness stressed, the interests of the taxpayer in England should not be lost sight of. At present, as she explained, a man cannot be compelled by the courts to maintain his wife of a polygamous or potentially polygamous union but can leave her as a charge on the social security provisions.

My Lords, it is my humble opinion that on general grounds, mainly affecting the welfare of the woman concerned and in common justice, the intention of the Bill is surely acceptable to the Christian conscience. One of our Bishops who worked overseas for many years and has great experience in these very difficult matters because of cases with which he has had to deal, is of the opinion that a change in the law in order to allow divorce from polygamous marriage should be encouraged but that any such concessions should apply only to those who have married polygamously in a country where this is according to the law. The contracting of a polygamous marriage here should always be opposed. Also, no financial benefits should be allowed for or on behalf of more than one wife. This restriction already applies in certain countries overseas where polygamy is lawful.

That being the case, I feel that the time has now come for this Bill to be brought forward, and I am grateful to the noble Baroness for so doing. I believe it strikes at a real social injustice. As I have said, it is an injustice which is likely to increase. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, said, at the moment the numbers are comparatively small, but I do not think we can rest content with that, for they may well grow. Therefore I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her action in bringing forward this Bill to-day and I am glad to be able to give it my support.

11.48 a.m.

LORD SIMON or GLAISDALE

My Lords, I should like to join in the congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, on introducing this Bill and on her speech of introduction. Indeed, my only feeling of regret was that a natural lawyer has been lost to medicine. The noble Baroness brings a unique social experience—personal, professional, Parliamentary and Ministerial, to this subject. It seems to me that that social instinct has brought her absolutely to the correct conclusion in introducing the Bill and in emphasising, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, did, that it is a Bill which in no way encourages polygamy. No polygamous marriage could be entered into in this country under the provisions of this Bill. All that the Bill does is to say that those who are already, by their own laws, polygamously married shall not be denied the reliefs of the English law. That seems to me entirely just.

The origin, as the noble Baroness pointed out, was the decision about a hundred years ago in the case of Hyde v. Hyde. That was almost certainly an incorrect decision, even at the time, on its facts. That was a time when the Lord Chancellor in lolanthe could say: The Law is the true embodiment Of everything that's excellent. It has no kind of fault or flaw, And I, my lords, embody the Law. Of course, the Lord Chancellor still embodies the law, and is personally the embodiment of everything that is excellent, but we are no longer so starry-eyed about the law itself; and the law as laid down in Hyde v. Hyde has proved increasingly unsatisfactory. It did not matter so very much at the time; it matters a great deal today, when one gets widespread inter-penetration of ethnic groups, some of whose social customs recognise polygamy. It means that nowadays one can get, as in one case mentioned by the noble Baroness, persons married under a system which admits polygamy, coming to this country, no further wife being taken, the wife being abandoned or treated with cruelty and yet the English court precluded from giving any relief. That seems to me to be a thoroughly unsatisfactory situation. It is particularly unjust in the case of the maintenance of wives in comparatively humble circumstances who are denied the relief of the courts of summary matrimonial jurisdiction.

The judges, as so often, have tried to mitigate the hardship and injustice in various ways. For example, they have recognised a second ceremony in this country w giving them jurisdiction. As the noble Baroness pointed out, they have held that where a domicile is acquired in this country it automatically converts a marriage potentially polygamous into a monogamous marriage. Some of those expedients, although they have mitigated hardship, are not entirely satisfactory juridically; and to adopt again an expression of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that I have quoted before, anything that erodes the comprehensive rationality of the law is to be deprecated.

I am convinced that the proposal put forward by the noble Baroness is a far better and more comprehensive way of dealing with what is now a real social problem. I do not personally believe that there is any difficulty in the working of the Bill. I am convinced that the courts can make it work. We ought to recognise that English matrimonial courts already deal with many of the problems of polygamous marriages, in the sense that by our law of divorce there may be a succession of wives, or former wives, whose rights have to be considered by the courts. I cannot therefore agree, although I have the highest respect for him, with the dissent of Mr. Justice Lawson, as he now is. I think this Bill really makes no inroad on any matter of principle of English law: it merely provides better machinery. Therefore I personally welcome the Bill.

11.54 a.m.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, at the risk of detaining your Lordships a little, I think it is probably appropriate that I should speak, as shortly as I can, about this Bill. Some time ago I suggested in this House that it would be helpful if someone were to air this subject, and for that reason I am extremely grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, for taking me at my word; and I should like to add my own congratulations to her on the lucid and accurate exposition of the problem which she gave to the House in her opening speech.

The introduction of this measure is all the more valuable because it takes place against the background of the positive recommendations of the Law Commission and not simply in the abstract. We have an actual Bill to discuss. There is of course no chance of this Bill getting through this Session, and I think the noble Baroness realises that. But I think the debate which we have had, short as it has been, opens the way to a Private Member's Bill, either in this House or another place, having a reasonable chance of success next Session. Although I cannot bind my colleagues on this, I personally would welcome such a step. On questions such as these, of course, Governments are more than usually dependent on Parliamentary and public opinion; Party Whips have virtually no meaning. Yet we are faced here with a social question, and the total impact on the sum of human happiness can be quite considerable if the questions are not honestly faced in Parliament; and a Private Member's Bill is one of the easiest and most valuable ways whereby this can happen.

As the noble Baroness said, and as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, reminded us, the Law Commission itself was divided on at least one of the issues. Mr. Justice Lawson (as he now is) dissented on the question of marriages actually polygamous, although on the question of ancillary relief the Report was unanimous and also, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, pointed out, on certain other questions of substantive jurisdiction.

I thought that it might be useful—although as I so largely agree with what has been said it has become rather less useful than it would otherwise have been—if I indicated my own train of thought about this question. I confess quite honestly that I began with a strong antipathy to meddling with marriages, either actually or potentially polygamous. Partly this was a result of my conviction (which I have not altered) that such marriages are basically inconsistent with a free and civilised society, and my observation of the fact—and it is a fact—that even societies in which polygamy is accepted in theory are quite perceptibly moving in practice towards a system of monogamy; and even in such societies polygamy, where it continues to exist at all, is often regarded as being exceptional and not wholly respectable.

But I had another and more sophisticated reason for my starting point. I doubted, and it seems to me that in his dissenting view Mr. Justice Lawson still doubts, whether it was possible in real life to take a graft, as it were, from institutions of monogamous society and then make them live as a graft on marriages which were naturally polygamous in fact. In some respects at the time when I held this view I think I was clearly right. For instance, the question of adultery must differ in its impact where there are, or can be, two wives, or indeed more. The status of children must clearly differ when a little girl of three and a little girl of three-and-a-half have different mothers both living with the same husband. Maintenance and alimony are clearly matter; which are different when the law allows two or more wives at the same time. So I began by thinking that the common law had something to be said for it, and the common law, if it was rightly decided, allowed no jurisdiction in the English courts to handle polygamous marriages in their matrimonial jurisdiction.

But I am quite clear, my Lords, that my original viewpoint was wrong, and wrong for a number of reasons. In the first place, with the passage of the legislation of 1969 our civil law of marriage has undergone a change much more fundamental and much more organic than we have yet recognised, and I think the change has radically altered our approach to' this particular subject. We may welcome that legislation of 1969 or we may not, but the change has to be recognised.

But whether I am right about that or not, it must be that we have to deal with actual concrete situations when men and women live in this country who have in fact contracted unions under a system of matrimonial law that differs in various ways from our own. When the "wife" of such a union is deserted or treated cruelly, is she to be denied an order for maintenance or an order for custody? Where the children of such a marriage are left behind, are we not to allow the same access to the courts as we do to the children of any other marriage? Is a cruelly treated "wife" to be denied the opportunity to make a second marriage? If so, she has all the disadvantages but not all the rights of an unmarried mother.

My Lords, these are questions that we have to answer, because the situations actually occur. If we give no answer, our very silence means that we are giving an unfavourable answer. And even if we regard our interests as taxpayers it does seem odd, as the right reverend Prelate has pointed out, to leave a polygamous husband free, while the wife and his children are on supplementary benefit—although the taxpayer can then proceed to condemn a monogamous husband to contribute directly to his children's support. For a long time I thought it would be enough if we dealt with marriages potentially polygamous but left actually polygamous marriages alone, or if we dealt only with ancillary relief in such cases—maintenance and custody, for instance—but refused to touch the status of such a marriage. This was virtually the view expressed in the Law Commission Report by the dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Lawson. But on reflection I have abandoned this view, too. It certainly would be an odd thing if only polygamous marriages remained indissoluble in English law, however cruelly or badly the wife was treated. It would be, I would think, an odd thing if the only "wife" who could not get her so-called freedom was the wife who by Christian standards had never been a wife at all.

But, I ask, can the English system of divorce be adapted to meeet this new, and unwished, addition? This was the point at which Mr. Justice Lawson stuck. Since the 1969 law, I reply, why not? If the test of dissolution be irreparable breakdown, why should not this, mutatis mutandis, be the test also for potentially or actually polygamous marriages? Like the noble and learned Lord, whose speech I was glad to have in confirmation, I do not believe that these problems are impossible in principle. They may be difficult, but they are not insoluble, and I believe they are soluble on the basis of the present law.

There are things, as several speakers have pointed out, which a law of this kind both could not and should not attempt to do. I, like others, would hope that no one would believe it possible that a law of this kind could make possible, or likely, the introduction of polygamous marriage here. As I say, I consider, and I have no doubt that all noble Lords consider, such unions inconsistent with the maintenance of a free society. Nor do I believe that the acceptance of a duty to deal with the factors arising out of the status quo will do anything to encourage the formation of polygamous unions abroad.

One point of a rather pedantic character must be emphasised. The law of England is not the same as the law of Scotland. I understand that the Scottish Law Commission are now considering the question. It is obviously better, though not so obviously essential, that we await their deliberations before legislating in England. As I say, the Government have not adopted a concluded position on this. Nor, I must emphasise, have I, except in a purely personal capacity. I personally hope that a law of this kind and in these terms will find its way to the Statute Book fairly soon, and I certainly should like to see it on the Statute Book before the end of next Session.

12.17 p.m.

BARONESS SUMMERSKILL

My Lords, it is customary at this stage of the proceedings for the promoter of a Private Member's Bill to endeavour to answer the questions. I am in the very happy position of realising that only one question was put to me, and it has already been answered by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. It was put by the right reverend Prelate, who asked whether this Bill could in any way increase polygamous marriages. The fact is, and I would repeat it again, that it is quite impossible in this country to have a polygamous marriage which is a valid marriage.

I should now like to thank, in the first place, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for having changed his mind. All big men, he knows, and women, I hope, are big enough to be able to confess when they have changed their mind, and it was delightful to hear him this morning. He, of course, encouraged me in the first place, in a rather oblique way, to introduce this Bill, and in his peroration just now he hoped that the Bill would get on to the Statute Book very soon. I take that also as encouragement from a very high place, and I thank him. May I also thank my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner, who of course has a very warm spot for this kind of law, and for women. Knowing that he was going to be here today, I felt confident that there would be somebody there who would give me a hand.

May I turn now to my old friend, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, who until very recently was President of the Divorce Division and is therefore an acknowledged authority on this subject. He and I have fought before on different sides of the House, but we have a kind of union of minds and when he said just now that he wished I might have gone in for the law it occurred to me that I have to confess that I have done so much reading and research on this question that I am really ready to sit an examination in this field any moment. May I again thank him for coming here this morning, instead of going up to Yorkshire very early, and for giving me that support which I have already experienced in the past and to which I look forward in the future? My Lords, I thank you very much for your reception of this Bill.

On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.