Peers plot to sink divorce Bill

Rebels want to reintroduce adultery clause in attempt to wreck Mackay's `no fault' reforms

PATRICIA WYNN DAVIES

Political Correspondent

The Government is facing a barrage of wrecking amendments - including one which would restore adultery as grounds for divorce - to the controversial Family Law Bill when it enters its Lords committee stage early next month.

The moves will revive fears that up to 50 religious peers, mostly Conservatives, could be mobilised in a campaign to swing public and political opinion against key aspects of the measure.

If the amendments carry the day, they are likely to form the basis of an onslaught on the Bill by dissident Tory MPs when it reaches the Commons later in the year, and could expose serious divisions on the Conservative benches.

The fervently anti-divorce Tory peer Baroness Young, a former minister and former Conservative Party vice- chairwoman, has tabled amendments which would reintroduce the grounds of adultery and unreasonable behaviour that the Bill seeks to remove from the present law.

Another amendment seeks to sweep away a second significant plank of the Bill by doubling from one year to two the period of "reflection and consideration" during which couples, using mediation procedures if possible, would be expected to resolve differences over finances or children.

A further amendment by Lady Young aims to retain the five-year bar on divorce where one spouse withholds their consent.

Amendments put down by the crossbencher Lord Simon of Glaisdale, the former law lord, are, if anything, even more restrictive. One seeks to bar divorce where there is a child under 16, or where a court considers that it would not be in the interests of children under 16.

Despite the determined revolt expected among some Tory MPs as well as peers, the measure still stands a reasonable chance of becoming law. The Government indicated that it will be taken on a free vote but most Opposition MPs and peers are likely to support it.

It is likely, nevertheless, to cause fierce controversy within the Conservative Party, which will be especially unwelcome to John Major in the last full session before the general election.

The Bill, salvaged by Lord Mackay of Clashfern, the Lord Chancellor, after efforts by some of his government colleagues to defer it because of its controversial nature, is bound to be high profile - not least because it could now coincide with the widely expected divorce between the Prince and Princess of Wales.

Under the present law, the royal couple could get a divorce within three months on the grounds that they have lived apart for more than two years. But once it is law, the Bill would require the couple to wait a year before finalising a divorce.

The law is, however, unlikely to be fully implemented for about two years.

Lord Simon, a former Tory minister who is vehemently against divorce, has also suggested "affirmation of marriage" clauses to allow spouses to enter into legally binding agreements declaring their marriages indissoluble except by death, or except by death so long as there are children under the age of 16.

Although not all the amendments will be pressed to a vote during the committee stage, scheduled for 11, 18 and 23 January, opponents plan vociferous opposition in an attempt to influence opinion before the Bill transfers to the Commons later next year.

The Liberal Democrat peer Earl Russell has tabled an amendment to delete one of Lord Mackay's concessions to Tory backbenchers, whose protests stopped the earlier Family Homes and Domestic Violence Bill from reaching the statute book in the last session.

The clause would insist that when considering making occupation orders in favour of a cohabitant or former cohabitants, it must take into account the fact that the parties have "not given each other the commitment involved in marriage".

Lord Russell opposes also a clause in the Bill giving the Lord Chancellor the power to require divorcing couples' lawyers to urge the possibility of reconciliation and give advice on mediation and counselling services, and a clause giving courts the power to direct warring couples to attend mediation sessions.