Cohabitation Bill [HL]

In that case, I will speak on Amendment 1, which I strongly support. I notice that, although the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, said that it would be preferable if it was 10 years, no one has put that proposal forward. We are dealing with five years and, so far, as the Committee will see, there is unanimity about five years. That is clearly right, because it demonstrates a couple’s commitment to a genuinely serious relationship. Two to five years was supported by the Law Commission. There are people who need help, even though they choose not to marry or are unable to. From my perspective, the Bill is intended to meet a narrow but crucial problem. Since the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, has already spoken rather more broadly, I will speak on a matter principally relating to those who would not need five years. Children are obviously born to those who cohabit as well as to those who marry and they generally suffer when parents part. There is a group of women—and, occasionally, men—who are left, usually by the man, with children and no maintenance or other support. These women find that they have no right to the house, because it is in the man’s name. There is a major problem for the state as well as for the children and their carer, because the state picks up the bill where the man should. He should pick up the bill not only for the children, which certainly comes under the Children Act 1989 and subsequent legislation, but also for the mother—or, occasionally, father—of the children who is left to look after them; he should pick up the bill not only for maintenance but, at least, for a roof over their heads while the children are young. The noble Baroness, Lady Deech, has made the point that Schedule 1 to the Children Act 1989 appears to provide for the carer of children as well as the children. However, that must be read subject to Section 8 of the Child Support Act 1991, which does not permit a court to deal with maintenance for the benefit of children where the respondent to the application earns less than £104,000. That is not the group of families with which the Bill is concerned. There has been the occasional case where money has been paid. A Sudanese woman wanted to see her child in the Sudan and got her air fare. However, actual maintenance for the woman for the benefit of the children where the man has only modest means is not met by Schedule 1 to the 1989 Act. I respectfully disagree with the distinguished and learned academic the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, but my experience as a former judge and, much more important, that of family barristers and solicitors is that this schedule is scarcely used and has scarcely been of any effect. The Bill would cover that problem. It would take the children off the state, which is one of the most important things. The noble Baroness, Lady Deech, spoke of the importance of there not being litigation and said that the Bill would promote it. A later group of amendments to the Bill deals with alternative dispute resolution. The noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, as the promoter of the Bill, supported by me and those behind us—the Resolution Foundation and the Family Law Bar Association—think that ADR is extremely important. The draft rules for family proceedings have family dispute resolution. You would not be able to take advantage of that unless we had ADR in the Bill. The suggestion that being in open court will cause a flood of the public is, if I may say so, pitching it a bit high. The public are not entitled to be in the court, only the press. I cannot believe that the press will attend every county court case, which is where those cases will be heard before circuit or district judges. There will be no publicity, because the rules put forward by the president of the Family Division in his recent practice direction say that the press can say nothing that is not approved by the judge; one of the most important points that you cannot have will be the names of the family. If the Bill goes through, it will get the benefit of that practice direction and, whatever blackmail there might be behind the scenes, it will not be on publicity. I must ask the noble Baroness: what sort of blackmail goes on by the men? Women suffer from blackmail as much as men. I do not see these as the floodgates. Another point in Clause 8, to which we will come and which is not in dispute, shows that the woman will only get enough money for her "reasonable needs", not a footballer’s girlfriend’s bonanza. It will be for a limited period, because she should be expected to get back to work as soon as possible. Consequently, I do not see that the points made by the noble Baroness should trouble the Committee, while I am particularly happy that we are, so far, all in agreement on five years instead of two—an entirely sensible amendment.