Divorce Reform Debate In U.K.

Press, Volume CVI, Issue 31234, 5 December 1966, Page 2

Divorce Reform Debate In U.K.

(N.Z.P. A.-Reuter—Copyright) LONDON. Proposals for divorce by consent, made by a Government-appointed Law Commission, are the subject of heated, nation-wide discussion in the press and on the radio and television in England.

With other recommendations which would permit divorce after five or seven years (even if one party disagrees) they will be debated soon by Parliament.

The Labour Government, like its predecessors, is chary of taking sides on such controversial moral issues. It prefers to leave legislation on them to sponsorship by private member and a free, or non-party vote in Parliament. This was how the last big changes in divorce law were made in 1937—by an Independent member, Mr A. P. Herbert. the author and playwright Then, the grounds for divorce were extended to adultery, desertion and cruelty. Ready To Test

Mr Leo Abse, a Labour member, is now ready to test Parliamentary opinion with a private bill to allow divorce after a separation of five years. He says that he will extend this to include divorce by consent. A long, sharp controversy is expected in Parliament as well as outside. The Roman Catholic Church, which does not recognise divorce, is automatically opposed to legislation making it easier. The Church of England recognises the State’s divorce laws, but officially refuses remarriage to divorced persons, whether the innocent party or not.

Although not doctrinally approving divorce, the Archbishop of Canterbury (Dr. Michael Ramsey) recently set up a committee under the Bishop of Exeter (Dr. Robert Mortimer) to study the question as part of the church’s interest in moral and social questions. Law Commission It was this committee’s re port recommending the abolition of all present matrimonial offences and their replacement by one new ground, “the irretrievable breakdown of marriage,” which led to the Law Commission being set up. The Church group sqgges-

ted that a marriage would not be deemed to have broken down unless a court had made a judicial inquiry into the alleged facts and causes. This would entail an investigation in depth to see whether the marriage was, in fact, beyond hope of repair. The Law Commission, headed by a High Court divorce judge (Mr Justice Scarman) believes that its own solution incorporates the break-down principle in the separation period. But it rejects the suggest ted investigation, on the ground that the courts are already overburdened and could not cope with the extra work.

An undefended divorce action, it stresses, now takes about 10 minutes—and 93 per cent of divorces, numbering about 40,000 a year, are undefended. It would be impracticable to find time for thousands of cases to be investigated thoroughly in court. In addition, the inquiries would stir up bitterness, and cause as much distress as defended cases. Restriction In considering divorce by consent, the Law Commission states that this could only be regarded as feasible if it were restricted to cases in which there are no dependent children, or no other grounds for divorce are available! The commissioners propose to retain all the present grounds for divorce, simply adding another one: break-down based on a period of separation. On this ground, either party could obtain a divorce after, say, two years’ separation, provided the other party has no objection. If one party does object, however, the other could still obtain a divorce after, say, five or seven years’ separation. Like the Archbishop’s group the commissioners insist on the importance of equitable financial arrangements before a wife can be divorced against her will. But they are also concerned with the hardship caused to some 180,000 children of stable, illicit unions, whc could be legitimatized if the union of their parents could be regularised.