Nuptial Agreements
Baroness Shackleton of Belgravia Excerpts(1 year, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Shackleton of Belgravia
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to introduce the draft Nuptial Agreements Bill, as drafted and recommended by the Law Commission in its Matrimonial Property, Needs and Agreements report, published on 26 February 2014 (HC 1089).
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Bellamy) (Con)
My Lords, it was announced on 4 April that the Law Commission will be conducting a review of the law on financial provision on divorce. While this review is taking place, the Government do not consider it the right time to legislate in respect of nuptial agreements. The Government favour a holistic rather than a piecemeal approach to any future legislative reform in this area.
Baroness Shackleton of Belgravia (Con)
My Lords, I am disappointed but not surprised by that response. I declare my interest as practising in this field. It is well known that this is stand-alone legislation which came about as a consequence of a House of Lords decision in Radmacher in 2010. During the coalition, the Law Commission set up a paper and, as a consequence, in 2014 there was a response which is oven-ready for putting on the statute book.
Instead of that happening, with almost indecent haste and despite the warnings, the no-fault divorce law has proceeded through these Houses. We have more people with pre-nuptial agreements and more people getting divorced, and there is no direction for the judges as to how the law has changed as a consequence of these agreements being enforceable. Please can the Minister explain why it is acceptable to delay this legislation, which would be quite simple to push through, in circumstances where the courts are over-burdened, the judges have no direction and lawyers practising in this field have lucrative groundhog days ahead?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Shackleton for her question. The answer is twofold: first, the Government consider that the present root-and-branch review of financial provision is better than looking at a particular outcrop within that landscape. Secondly, any Government have to prioritise. In recent years, priority has been given, for example, to the Domestic Abuse Act 2021; the Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Act 2022, which introduced no-fault divorce; and the Marriage and Civil Partnership (Minimum Age) Act 2022, which made it illegal to marry under the age of 18. These are all fundamental reforms and I make no apology for prioritising those measures.
Divorce: Financial Provision
Baroness Shackleton of Belgravia Excerpts(1 year, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, I pay warm tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, my noble friend Lady Shackleton and many others for their work in this area. Respectfully, I do not accept the characterisation that the Government have misled everybody; we have had our hands somewhat full in recent times. The Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 reaches its 50th anniversary this year and a review of financial provision is indeed opportune. The Government are in close consultation with the Law Commission, which we consider the most appropriate body to carry out that review.
Baroness Shackleton of Belgravia (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a practitioner in this field for 40 years. The law is hopelessly out of date: it relies entirely on finance and the discretion of judges. The judges have a fiefdom now in that, since 3 October 2017 you cannot go to the Court of Appeal if leave is refused, so their discretion is absolute. It is normally commercial judges who change the law, and arbitrators, mediators and judges need guidance. There is no use in having a divorce if the money is not sorted out; the house has to be sold and the children are caught in the conflict. Divorce practitioners like me make a fortune in arguing, because the guidelines are 50 years out of date. I know that this is not a vote winner and does not appeal to the masses, but many people in this country are touched by this and I would like an assurance that it will be included in the King’s Speech as vital business on the agenda, because responsible Governments do service to this.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, these matters will be considered fully in a forthcoming review, hopefully by the Law Commission. That commission is completing important work on surrogacy at this moment. Subject to final agreement, I hope to make a further announcement very soon indeed.
Her Late Majesty Queen Elizabeth II
Baroness Shackleton of Belgravia Excerpts(1 year, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Robertson of Port Ellen (Lab)
My Lords, ordinarily on such occasions the repetition of words and sentiments can be tedious and unproductive. Too often we hear, “Everything’s been said, but not yet by everyone”, or the House of Lords equivalent, which is, “Everything’s been said, but not yet by me.” However, in the last 48 hours the repetition of such words as duty, service, honour, decency, commitment and dedication does not jar at all; it seems both appropriate and fitting when they apply to the 70 year-long reign of the late Queen Elizabeth. She set a standard and a vector against which all who serve in public life can and indeed should be measured, and we should be profoundly grateful for that example, as well as for so many other things. Indeed, she was the gold standard—the glue that kept a fractious country together when multiple pressures of populism and extremism were tearing, but never destroying, our communal fabric. With our latest Prime Minister and the nation facing serious crises in energy, the cost of living, health and a foreign war, her example of cool, clear thinking is more necessary than ever it was.
As these two days of debate have shown, we all have memories of Her Majesty the Queen, especially those of us who had the opportunity to meet her. My latest one was of returning last year the insignia of the Chancellor of the Order of St Michael and St George by Zoom. I have to say that she was a lot more comfortable with the situation then I was. “Come forward”, she demanded, “I can’t see you”, as I nervously walked towards the screen at the end of the long room.
However, I have another vivid memory, of her visit in 1996 with the Princess Royal to Dunblane after the ghastly murders in the primary school. The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, was the Scottish Secretary at the time and the local MP. I was his shadow and both a local resident and a parent. We were, at that time anyway, tough political adversaries, but we had been welded together by the tragedy in that small community. We witnessed that day the monarch, with just her presence and simple words, speak to and for a grieving town and indeed a shell-shocked nation. It helped immeasurably to bind some of the gaping wounds of that time, and that was her powerful effect.
Another, more pleasant memory I have is of when, as Defence Secretary, I brought the then Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, Crown Prince Mohammed, to Balmoral to meet the Queen. After our lunch, he accepted an offer from her to see the estate but, boy, was he astounded, coming from a country which banned women from driving, to find the Queen behind the wheel of the Land Rover and rolling off without the rest of the party. I was at the castle entrance when they all came back. She looked at me and said, “I think he thought I was driving too fast.” I said nothing at all. Then she said, “I also think he thought I was lost.” I bravely said, “Well, you can’t get lost. You’re the Queen, and where you are is where you’re supposed to be.” She frowned at me and then said emphatically, “Quite right”, and marched away. Soon after that, the Crown Prince became King of Saudi Arabia, and belaboured every visiting Brit with stories of the Queen’s mad driving.
My final point is to talk about the Queen’s deep loyalty to the Commonwealth; my noble friend Lord Boateng also mentioned that. When she made that famous pledge to preserve and protect the Commonwealth at the point when she took the Throne, it was not some nominal pledge or promise, it was to her a sacred commitment. That passionate commitment to the unique and precious club of like-thinking nations that is the Commonwealth was to matter to her over all her years, especially those years when not a few irritated politicians would quite happily have strangled the organisation. Getting past the Queen, dispassionate and non-partisan as she might well have been, would have required a lot more tenacity and political force than is possessed by any mere politician yet to be born. The Commonwealth survives and thrives because of Her Majesty and her promise.
Last night, as so many have said, the new King spoke to the nation with raw personal feeling about the loss caused by the Queen’s death and what it meant to the Royal Family. It was a moving and incredibly significant address. The fact is, however, that we are all her family, and he spoke for us in our loss as well. He becomes King at a momentous time and we must, with memories of his mother fresh in our minds, wish him the very best in his demanding new role. The family that is his nation is with him.
Baroness Shackleton of Belgravia (Con)
My Lords, having read and listened to the many and various tributes to our beloved Queen and her exemplary life and selfless service to this country, the Commonwealth and the realms, it is impossible to do her justice. I should like, with humility, to pay a small tribute to her private family life. As any working parent knows, striking the work/life balance is almost impossible, but despite performing the most demanding job in the whole world for seven decades as a working mother, a working grandmother and a working great-grandmother, she juggled until the day she died. I am in no doubt that her family and the line of succession was of paramount importance to her.
I should like to share three vignettes of her humanity. This is the first. My brothers, three years younger than me, attended the same gym class as Prince Andrew and, as a consequence, were invited to Buckingham Palace to his birthday parties. On returning home, my mother, cross-examining the boys, said, “What was Andrew’s mummy like?”, to which one of them responded, “Mummy, she was just like any other mummy”, and then, referring to her brooch, “but she wears a much bigger badge.”
Secondly, sitting next to one of her nephews at a dinner, he told me that during his parents’ separation and divorce, the Queen and her family had been like a port in a storm when life had been very difficult for them. This sentiment was echoed by many of her grandchildren, who, over the Jubilee, spoke movingly of her extreme kindness to them.
Thirdly and lastly, I had the privilege on two occasions to meet the Queen on my own, save for the presence of a private secretary. The meetings concerned family matters, and I was left in absolutely no doubt that she loved and cared passionately about all concerned. She was totally fair and non-judgmental, and did all in her power to ameliorate and solve the very difficult problems they were suffering from. She was loyal to her family to the end, and I can think of no better way of showing our immense gratitude to her than supporting her children, her grandchildren and great-grandchildren at this sad time and in future.
She passed the baton on, and for her, there was no question of changing any rules mid-term. To make sense of her sacrifices and her passing, and to reward her unstinting service to all of us, we can do no better than to wholeheartedly support our monarch, His Majesty King Charles III, and his family, as she would have wished and prayed for.
The Lord Bishop of London
My Lords, I share with this House, our country and many across the world the profound sadness at the death of the late Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth. In June this year, we gathered at St Paul’s Cathedral for the national service to celebrate her Platinum Jubilee. In that service, words were read from the letter to the Philippians:
“Let your gentleness be known to everyone”.
The writer goes on to say that
“whatever is true, whatever is honourable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is pleasing, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things … and the God of peace will be with you.”
We have heard from many that Her Majesty the Queen, in the 70 years of her reign, lived a life of integrity and service to others, but she also lived a life as a model of gentleness. In Her Majesty, we found someone who carried lightly her own importance, a genuine humility and gentleness, while fully knowing what her role in the Church and the state was. We have heard from my most reverend friend the Archbishop about how, as Bishops, we pay homage. As the Bishop of London, I paid it not virtually but in person. There, kneeling, with your hands enfolded by Her Majesty the Queen’s hands, you pray. My memory of that occasion was of gentleness: not of the power of state or of her role, but of gentleness. That is the image and feeling that remains with me. Having prayed with the Queen, I often reflected that there was no need for an oath of obedience.
Many of us simply have not known life without Her Majesty the Queen. She has been our nation’s unerring heartbeat. I give thanks that she is now with the God of all peace. My prayers are with the Royal Family and His Majesty King Charles. God save the King.
No-fault Divorce
Baroness Shackleton of Belgravia Excerpts(2 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, I have not had representations from those entities, but I dare say that the department might have done. We get representations, frankly, from all areas of the legal profession, and indeed more broadly, all the time. We will look at this issue on its merits. We have set out that we want to make sure that financial matters are dealt with as amicably as possible. The divorce Act will be a very good start and, as I say, we are encouraging it through family hubs, mediation vouchers and many other ways too.
Baroness Shackleton of Belgravia (Con)
My Lords, I speak as a foot soldier operating under the current system. I would like to explore with the Minister the redundancy of the current legislation, which is now 40 years old. Society has changed, as has the way we operate, and the rules are so left to the judge’s discretion that there is an industry—I am almost ashamed to practise in it—which fine-tunes, for money, applications for ancillary relief because no one can predict the outcome of such an application accurately. We talk about the mythical mediator, but the mediator has to know what the rules are, because how can they mediate without the rules being clear and explicit? The noble Baroness, Lady Deech, and I—
Noble Lords
Baroness Shackleton of Belgravia (Con)
I would like my noble friend the Minister to be nailed down to a timetable, and I would like to know what that is because—I was going to build up to the question—we are fully welcoming the Act that Parliament has passed facilitating divorce without the end of the financial remedies being sorted. We need a timetable.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, I am not sure whether my noble friend is a foot solider or somewhere between a major-general and a field marshal in this area of the law. May I gently suggest that perhaps not all lawyers charge by the word? I respectfully say that in this area of law, as in many areas of law, there is a balance to be struck between discretion on the one hand and certainty on the other. You need clear rules, but you also need a judge to have discretion to do the right thing in the individual case. That is what we will be striving for when we look at this area of the law about financial provision on divorce.