8/7/01
2:36 am GMT
26 April 1996 Divorced from Reality Sara Hinchliffe looks behind the furore over the government's defeat on divorce reform. John Major is said to be 'stunned' after four of his cabinet colleagues stabbed the government's Family Law Bill in the back in the commons debate over divorce. Poor John. You can get a certain amount of gratification from the government's discomfort over its defeat, and the increasing lack of consensus within the Tory Party over everything from Europe to the family. However, there's a lot more at stake here than Tory infighting. Because of the excitement about the government defeat, the disagreements between the two sides of the debate have been blown out of all proportion. Despite Tony Blair's glee, the amendments are entirely in keeping with the spirit of the bill; which helps to explain why the government allowed a free vote in the first place, and why Lord Mackay has already taken the amendments on board. Everyone in the commons vote on divorce agreed that the need to protect children from the damaging consequences of divorce was paramount; disagreements centred on how best to achieve this. In the end the Tory right won the argument and their amendments on the need to lengthen the 'cooling off' period before divorce can be granted will become law. Couples with children under 16 will normally only be able to get divorced after 18 months of 'reflection'; the childless will be able to get their decrees after a year. But why should discussion of divorce centre on children? No one would argue that children have a great time when their parents split up. But surely the people who should be able to make decisions about whether, when and how to divorce are the adults involved? But on the pretext of concern about children, the right to make these decisions is being taken away from parents. The Family Law Bill's most negative effects centre on the presumed interests of children. On the basis of protecting children from the 'damaging' consequences of their parents' behaviour, divorce will be more tightly regulated and family life scrutinised in an unprecedented way. Parents will be prevented from divorcing if they have not made what the courts consider to be 'appropriate' arrangements for their kids. Children will be able to have a say (in reality their interests will be interpreted for them by courts and social workers) in the divorce proceedings. People with children will be made to wait longer for a divorce than those without. Divorcing couples will be required to undergo conciliation and mediation. This, in practice, is what 'no-fault' divorce means; and that's why only those Tories who didn't die out with the dinosaurs oppose its introduction. The unpalatable idea of tightening the regulation of divorce is given credence by the focus on children. Pushing the need for parents to put their children is a handy way of regulating the way parents behave, and new ways of regulating family life are desperately needed in a climate where even those who do get married don't think it's for life. The furore over the Tories' defeat shouldn't blind us to what the divorce reforms mean - more state control, in a more modern and acceptable form - over our lives.
Join a discussion on this commentary |
|
http://www.informinc.co.uk/LM/discuss/commentary/04-26-96-DIVORCE.html |
Mail: webmaster@mail.informinc.co.uk